F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2011-2012) – controversie agenti di calciatori – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2011-2012) – players’ and match agents disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 16 February 2012, in the following composition: Theo Zwanziger (Germany), Chairman V. Manilal Fernando (Sri Lanka), Deputy Chairman Chuck Blazer (USA), member Geoff Thompson (England), member Tai Nicholas (New Zealand), member Luis H. Bedoya (Colombia), member Juan Padron Morales (Spain), member Said Al Masri (Syria), member Aibek Alybaev (Kyrgyzstan), member Norman Darmanin Demajo (Malta), member Makhdoom Syed Saleh Hayat (Pakistan), member Aminu Maigari (Nigeria), member Victor Cissé (Senegal), member on the claim presented by the Players’ Agent N, as “Claimant” against the club T, as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties.

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2011-2012) – controversie agenti di calciatori – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2011-2012) – players’ and match agents disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 16 February 2012, in the following composition: Theo Zwanziger (Germany), Chairman V. Manilal Fernando (Sri Lanka), Deputy Chairman Chuck Blazer (USA), member Geoff Thompson (England), member Tai Nicholas (New Zealand), member Luis H. Bedoya (Colombia), member Juan Padron Morales (Spain), member Said Al Masri (Syria), member Aibek Alybaev (Kyrgyzstan), member Norman Darmanin Demajo (Malta), member Makhdoom Syed Saleh Hayat (Pakistan), member Aminu Maigari (Nigeria), member Victor Cissé (Senegal), member on the claim presented by the Players’ Agent N, as “Claimant” against the club T, as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 June 2010, the players’ agent N (hereinafter: the Claimant) licensed by the Football Association S and the club T (hereinafter: the Respondent) signed a document entitled “Transfer Intermediation Contract” (hereinafter: the contract) under the terms of which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent a commission of EUR 30,000, in the event that the player D (hereinafter: the player) signed an employment contract with the Respondent, as follows: EUR 15,000 until 20 June 2010 and EUR 15,000 until 20 June 2011 (cf. art. 2 of the agreement). 2. On 23 August 2010, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded a new agreement (hereinafter: the appendix) which provided that “The parties have agreed to modify the Contract […] as follows: Article 2 point 1 will have the following content: ‘1. The Club agrees to pay the Agent for his services as in Art. 1, the amount of […] - 15,000 (fifteen thousand) Euro - 3 days after receiving the corresponding amounts for the participation in the UEFA Europa League”. 3. On 25 January 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent, arguing that he had not received any payment from the Respondent for his services. Consequently, the Claimant requested the amount of EUR 15,000 from the Respondent. 4. On 17 May 2011, and after the investigation had already been closed, the Respondent responded to the Claimant’s complaint and rejected it in its entirety. In this respect, the Respondent stressed that, according to article 19 par. 8 of the Players’ Agent Regulations, the Claimant had conflicting interests since he had allegedly represented both the Respondent and the player during the same transaction. Furthermore, the Respondent deemed that the player had not given his written consent for the Respondent to pay the Claimant on his behalf. Therefore, the Respondent deemed it had nothing to pay to the Claimant. 5. On 19 August 2011, by means of a written statement sent to FIFA, the player confirmed that he had never paid any monetary commission directly to the Claimant and had never concluded any representation agreement with him. II. Considerations of the Players’ Status Committee 1. First of all, the Players’ Status Committee analysed which procedural rules are applicable to the matter at hand. In this respect, and since the claim against the Respondent was lodged with FIFA on 25 January 2011, the Players’ Status Committee concluded that the current edition of the Rules Governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the Players’ Status Committee analysed which edition of the FIFA Players’ Agents Regulations should be applicable. In this respect, it 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 on 25 January 2011, the current edition of the Players’ Agents Regulations (edition 2008; hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at stake. 3. Furthermore, and with regard to its competence, the Players’ Status Committee pointed out that in accordance with art. 30 par. 2 of the Regulations, FIFA is competent to deal with international disputes in connection with the activities of licensed players’ agents, i.e. individuals who hold a valid player’s agent license issued by the relevant member Association. In this respect, the Players’ Status Committee underlined that the present matter concerned a dispute between a players’ agent licensed by the Football Association of S and a club, regarding an alleged outstanding commission. As a consequence, the Players’ Status Committee held that it was competent to decide on the present matter which had an international dimension. 4. As a preliminary remark, the Players’ Status Committee took note that the Respondent’s comments were submitted after the time limit set by the FIFA Administration had expired. 5. In this regard, the Players’ Status Committee pointed out that it is at its discretion to determine whether the Respondent’s position should be taken into account. Consequently, considering that the Respondent’s statement was not remitted to FIFA unreasonably late and in view of its content, the Players’ Status Committee decided to accept the statement of the Respondent. 6. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the present matter, the Players’ Status Committee started by acknowledging the abovementioned facts and the arguments of the parties as well as the documentation contained in the file. In particular, the Players’ Status Committee took note of the conflicting arguments submitted by both parties and noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant had argued that he had not been paid for his services in relation with the transfer of the player to the Respondent and should be entitled to a commission on the basis of the appendix dated 23 August 2010, while, on the other hand, the Respondent had deemed that the Claimant had in fact represented the interests of the player in the negotiations in contradiction with the Regulations and that his claim for commission should therefore be rejected. 7. In view of the above, the Players’ Status Committee held that it would have to be established what kind of relationship had existed between the parties at the time the player had signed the relevant employment contract with the Respondent, and whether such relationship contravenes any provisions of the Regulations. 8. In this context, the Players’ Status Committee recalled the content of art. 19 par. 8 of the Regulations, whereby a players’ agent is required to represent only one party when negotiating a transfer and shall avoid all conflicts of interest in the course of his activity. 9. Moreover, the Players’ Status Committee referred to the content of art. 19 par. 4 of the Regulations which stipulates that “[t]he representation contract shall explicitly state who is responsible for paying the players’ agent and in what manner […] Payment shall be made exclusively by the client of the players’ agent directly to the players’ agent”. 10. In continuation, the Players’ Status Committee was keen to stress that the purpose of such provisions is to ensure that an agent is remunerated by the party which he represents in the relevant negotiations and that any conflict of interest and possible double payments, i.e. the club and the player each paying a commission to the agent for the same transaction, are avoided. 11. With the aforementioned considerations in mind, the Players’ Status Committee went on to consider the relevant elements on file which could help to establish what kind of relationship the parties had entertained at the time the player had concluded his employment contract with the Respondent. In this respect, and after a thoroughly analysis of the documentation and, in particular, referring to the appendix as well as to the written statement provided by the player, the Players’ Status Committee was of the view that the Claimant had not concluded any representation contract and received any monetary commission directly from the player in relation to the negotiations leading to the signing of the player’s employment contract with the Respondent, and that therefore, it could be safely assumed that the Claimant had not infringed the provision on double representation contained in the Regulations. 12. Furthermore, the Players’ Status Committee was keen to emphasise that, according to 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 Respondent had not provided any documentary evidence which would have indicated that the Claimant was representing the player at the time the employment contract was signed with the Respondent. In addition, and for the sake of good order, the Players’ Status Committee stressed that in the present matter and in view of the above-mentioned considerations, the player’s written consent for the Respondent to pay the Claimant on his behalf was not relevant since it could be established that the latter had only represented the interests of the Respondent in the relevant transaction. 13. Therefore and in view of all of the above, as well as taking into account the clear wordings of the contract and the appendix concluded between the Claimant and the Respondent on 1 June 2010 and 23 August 2010 respectively, the Players’ Status Committee decided that the complaint of the Claimant should be accepted and that therefore, the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 15,000, as requested by the latter. 14. Lastly, the Players’ Status Committee referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players in combination with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in the proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee, 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 (cf. art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules). 15. On account of the above and considering that the claim of the Claimant has been fully accepted, the Players’ Status Committee concluded that the Respondent has to bear the entire costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 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. On that basis, the Players’ Status Committee held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 15,000. Consequently, the Players’ Status Committee concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 5,000. 16. In conclusion, and in view of the circumstances of the present matter and considering that the case at hand did not pose any particular factual difficulty or legal complexity, the Players’ Status Committee determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 5,000. Consequently, the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of CHF 3,000 has to be paid by the Respondent in order to cover the costs of the present proceedings. III. Decision of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, N, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, T, has to pay to the Claimant, N, the total amount of EUR 15,000, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. In case of non-payment of the abovementioned amount (cf. point 2) within the aforementioned deadline, an interest rate of 5% per year will apply as of the expiry of the fixed time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 3,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, T, within 30 days as from the notification of the present decision as follows: 4.1 The amount of CHF 2,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A 4.2 The amount of CHF 1,000 has to be paid to the Claimant, N. 5. The Claimant, N, is directed to inform the Respondent, T, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under points 2 and 4.2 above is to be made and to notify the Players’ Status Committee of every payment received. Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 63 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). The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following: Court of Arbitration for Sport Avenue de Beaumont 2 1012 Lausanne Switzerland Tel: +41 21 613 50 00 Fax: +41 21 613 50 01 e-mail: info@tas-cas.org www.tas-cas.org For the Players’ Status Committee Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives