F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee / Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori – players’ and match agents disputes / controversie agenti di calciatori – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 28 February 2017

Decision of the Single of the Players’ Status Committee

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 28 February 2017,

by

Mr Geoff Thompson (England)

Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee,

on the claim presented by the players´ agent

Players’ Agent A, Country B

as “Claimant”

against the club

Club C, Country D

as “Respondent”

regarding a contractual dispute between the parties.

I. Facts of the case

1. On 9 January 2013, the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: “the Respondent”) issued a mandate letter in favour of two players’ agents, 1) licensed by the Football Federation of Country D, Mr E (hereinafter: “the Agent of Country D”) and 2) licensed by the Football Federation of Country B, the Players’ Agent A (hereinafter: “the Claimant”) “to look for the professional football Player F” (hereinafter: “the player”) valid until 20 January 2013.

2. According to the mandate letter, the Respondent authorised the Agent of Country D and the Claimant to contact the player in order “to be engaged by our company [i.e. the Respondent] at the following conditions: -purchase not exceeding 4.500.00 of Euro. This mandate excludes any contractual powers on behalf of our company [i.e. the Respondent]”.

3. Third paragraph of the mandate stated: “You will be able to propose to us [i.e. the Respondent] the player also under economic conditions and Club C [i.e. the Respondent] reserves the rights to accept or refuse such proposals without any responsibility should the proposal is not accepted”.

4. Fourth paragraph of the mandate stated: “No fee shall be payable to you, nor any costs incurred by you shall reimbursed should your proposal is not accepted, for the activities carried out since this mandate is effective only in case of result and not of action”.

5. On 15 January 2014, the Agent of Country D and the Claimant signed a contract by means of which the Agent of Country D transferred his rights “free of charge” to the Claimant against the Respondent based on the mandate without any condition or limitation.

6. First clause of the contract stated: “The transferor [i.e. the Agent of Country D] is joint-owner together with the transferee [i.e. the Claimant] for an amount of EUR 500,000 owed by the clubs, Club C and Club G, in connection with the intermediation related to the transfer of the player between them”.

7. On 9 October 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA jointly against the Respondent and Club G requesting the payment of an alleged outstanding commission amounting to EUR 500,000, plus 5% interest p.a. from date of conclusion of the transfer agreement.

8. On 12 November 2014, FIFA informed the Claimant that in accordance with art. 30 par. 2 of the Players’ Agents Regulations, its deciding bodies only have jurisdiction over international disputes, i.e. players’ agents licensed by a different association in which the club is registered.

9. On 27 November 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent requesting the payment of an alleged outstanding commission amounting to EUR 500,000, plus 5% interest p.a. from date of conclusion of the transfer agreement.

10. In this respect, the Claimant alleged that he fulfilled his obligations in relation to the mandate letter and that, as a consequence of his intermediation, the Respondent finally concluded the transfer agreement in connection with the player with Club G.

11. On account of the above, the Claimant explained having made a proposal to Club G for the transfer of the player involving an amount of EUR 4,500,000 (as requested by the Respondent in the mandate) but that the latter rejected the proposal. The Claimant enclosed copy of a letter from Club G dated 18 January 2013.

12. In particular, the Claimant argued that after the negative answer from Club G and even though the terms stipulated in the mandate letter had expired, all the parties involved in the relevant transfer (i.e. the Agent of Country D, the Claimant, the Respondent and Club G) continued negotiating the transfer of the player from Club G to the Respondent which was finally concluded in June 2013.

13. The Claimant further argued that the Respondent consented his intermediation after 20 January 2013 and therefore the validity of the mandate was extended tacitly by the Respondent. The Claimant enclosed emails and media reports in this respect. In sum, the Claimant deemed that the Respondent excluded him from the signature of the transfer agreement with Club G and failed to pay his commission amounting to EUR 500,000.

14. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent rejected the Claimant´s request and alleged that the mandate lasted only the period of the winter market and thus it expired on 20 January 2013. The mandate had an expenditure cap which was not accepted by Club G. Therefore, the mandate ended with the expiration of the agreed term and since no agreement had been concluded between the relevant clubs.

15. The Respondent added that after the end of January 2013 it did not have any kind of communication with the Claimant. Moreover, the Respondent alleged that the transfer conditions finally agreed with Club G were different from the ones proposed by the Claimant and the Agent of Country D to Club G.

16. Furthermore, the Respondent claimed that the mandate was never extended either tacitly or in writing.

II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee

1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter also referred to as: “the Single Judge”) analysed which procedural rules are applicable to the matter in hand. In this respect, considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 27 November 2014, the Single Judge concluded that the 2014 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: “the Procedural Rules”) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules).

2. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which edition of the FIFA Players’ Agents Regulations should be applicable. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 39 par. 1 and 4 of the 2008 edition of the Players’ Agents Regulations, and considering that the present claim was lodged with FIFA on 27 November 2014, the edition 2008 of the Players’ Agents Regulations (hereinafter: “the Regulations”) is applicable to the matter at stake as to the substance.

3. With regard to his competence, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee pointed out that in accordance with the provisions set out by the Regulations, FIFA has jurisdiction on matters relating to licensed players’ agents, i.e. on individuals who hold a valid players’ agent licence issued by the relevant member Association.

4. In this respect, the Single Judge underlined that the present matter concerns a dispute between a players’ agent licensed by the Football Federation of Country B and a Club of Country D regarding an alleged outstanding commission.

5. As a consequence, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee is competent to decide on the present matter which has an international dimension (cf. art. 30 par. 2 of the Regulations).

6. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established and entering into the substance of the matter, the Single Judge started his analysis by acknowledging the facts of the case and the arguments of the parties as well as the documents contained in the file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.

7. In doing so and to start with, the Single Judge took note that it remained undisputed that, on 9 January 2013, the Respondent granted a mandate in favour of the Agent of Country D and the Claimant with the goal to hire the services of the player, which was valid until 20 January 2013.

8. Equally, the Single Judge noted that according to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 8 July 2013 the Respondent and Club G concluded a transfer agreement (hereinafter: “the transfer agreement”) for the transfer of the player.

9. In continuation, on the one hand, the Single Judge observed that the Claimant alleged that the mandate was tacitly extended by the Respondent and that the transfer agreement was finally concluded as a consequence to his negotiation. Therefore, the Claimant deemed that the Respondent owed him his commission.

10. On the other hand, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent argued not owing any commission to the Claimant alleging that the mandate was not in force at the time it signed the transfer agreement with Club G and that the conditions finally agreed with Club G were different than the ones negotiated by the Agent of Country D and the Claimant.

11. The Single Judge started by assessing the content of the mandate and emphasised that it clearly established a date of expiry of its validity, i.e. 20 January 2013.

12. Moreover, the Single Judge added that the Claimant, in support of his allegation that the mandate was tacitly extended by the Respondent, enclosed emails interchanged only with the Club G and media reports.

13. In this context, the Single Judge reiterated that according to the records contained in the TMS, on 8 July 2013 the Respondent and Club G concluded the transfer agreement for the transfer of the player without the assistance of any players´ agent.

14. In view of the foregoing and under the light of the art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules which states that any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant did not present conclusive documentary evidence to prove that the validity of the mandate was extended after its expiry on 20 January 2013.

15. In view of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Single Judge decided that the claim of the Claimant is rejected.

16. Finally, the Single Judge referred to art. 30 par. 5 of the Regulations in combination with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in the proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee, including the Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25,000 are levied. The relevant provision further states that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings.

17. Furthermore and according to Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 500,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000.

18. Considering the particular circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings in the amount of CHF 15,000 and held that such costs have to be borne by the Claimant.

III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee

1. The claim of the Claimant, Players’ Agent A, is rejected.

2. The final costs of the proceedings amounting to CHF 15,000 are to be paid by the Claimant, Players’ Agent A, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision. Taking into account that the latter has already paid the amount of CHF 5,000 as advance of costs at the beginning of the present procedure, the Claimant, Players’ Agent A, has pay the outstanding amount of CHF 10,000 to FIFA to the following bank account:

UBS Zurich

Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)

Clearing number 230

IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U

SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A

*****

Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):

According to art. 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives).

For the Single Judge of the

Players’ Status Committee

Omar Ongaro

Football Regulatory Director

Encl. CAS directives