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 Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 March 2012, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the agent Agent M, from country S as “Claimant” against the club Club A, from country C as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute 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 Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 March 2012, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the agent Agent M, from country S as “Claimant” against the club Club A, from country C as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 July 2008, the Players’ agent licensed by the Football Association of country S agent M (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the country C club Club A (hereinafter: the Respondent) signed an agreement (hereinafter: the agreement) according to which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent an amount as commission “for the inscription and integration” of the football player D (hereinafter: Player D) with the Respondent as follows: a. For the period 2008-2009: EUR 10,000 by signing the present agreement. b. For the period 2009-2010: EUR 11,000 if the football player D is part of the manpower of the Football Club”. 2. The labour contract between the Respondent and player D, as well as its respective supplementary agreements, were co-signed by the Claimant. 3. On 8 May 2009, the Claimant and the player L (hereinafter: Player L) concluded a “Standard agency contract” (hereinafter: the agency contract) valid from the date of signature until 8 May 2011, and according to which the Claimant was entitled to receive 10% of Player L’s total basic annual salary negotiated on his behalf by the Claimant. The labour agreement and its respective supplementary agreement concluded on 1 June 2009 between the Respondent and Player L provided for a total gross salary of EUR 50,000 for the 2009-2010 season. 4. On 10 November 2009, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent requesting the payment of EUR 16,000 as follows: a. EUR 11,000 in relation to Player L on the basis of the agreement signed between the Claimant and the Respondent on 1 July 2008; b. EUR 5,000 in relation with Player L on the basis of the agency contract concluded between the Claimant and Player L and representing 10% of the latter’s yearly salary for the 2009-2010 season (i.e. 10% of EUR 50,000). The Claimant also requested the reimbursement of the costs of a flight ticket he had to pay in connection with his activities as a players’ agent. 5. In its response dated 3 December 2010, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim in its entirety. 6. In this respect, and concerning the request in relation to Player L, the Respondent alleged that no amount was due to the Claimant since it had signed with Player D an agreement terminating their employment relationship on 20 May 2010 and since it had already paid the amount of EUR 10,000 to the Claimant in July 2008 (cf. point 1 (a) above). Alternatively, and in case FIFA should decide that a commission was due by the Respondent to the Claimant for the 2009-2010 season, the Respondent deemed that the said amount of commission should be reduced to EUR 8,000 as it had allegedly been agreed between the Respondent and the player to reduce the latter’s salary to EUR 80,000. 7. Regarding the request in relation to Player L, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim for the following reasons: a. The Respondent was never informed that Player L was represented by the Claimant when the employment contract was signed between the Respondent and Player L. b. The Claimant never contacted the Respondent before or during the signing of the employment contract between Player L and the Respondent. c. The Respondent never promised any kind of remuneration or commission regarding Player L. Therefore, the Claimant had no right to claim anything from the Respondent. d. Player L was released by the Respondent and was transferred and registered with another club in January 2010. 8. By correspondence dated 22 August and 1 November 2011, FIFA asked the player Player D to inform if he had concluded any representation agreement with the Claimant and whether he had paid any monetary compensation or commission directly to him. The player did not provide FIFA with any answer. II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter: the Single Judge) 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 10 November 2009, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge 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 10 November 2009, 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 his competence, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge underlined that the present matter concerned a dispute between a players’ agent licensed by the Football Association of country S and a country C club, regarding an alleged outstanding commission. As a consequence, the Single Judge held that he was competent to decide on the present matter which had an international dimension. 4. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Single Judge of 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 Single Judge started his analysis of the case by noting that, on 1 July 2008, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an agreement in connection with the transfer of the player D according to which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent a commission payable in two instalments as follows: EUR 10,000 for the “period 2008-2009” “by signing the present agreement” and EUR 11,000 for the “period 2009-2010” “if the player D is part of the manpower of the Football Club [i.e. the Respondent]”. 5. Equally, the Single Judge duly noted that, on 8 May 2009, the Claimant and the player L concluded an agency contract valid from the date of signature until 8 May 2011, under the terms of which the Claimant was entitled to receive 10% of Player L’s total basic annual salary negotiated on his behalf by the Claimant. 6. With regard to the first part of the claim concerning the player D, the Single Judge acknowledged that, in his claim to FIFA, the Claimant had requested the payment of EUR 11,000 arguing that the Respondent had only paid him a part of the commission due according to the agreement. Furthermore, the Single Judge observed that, for its part, the Respondent had admitted having signed an employment contract with the player but, at the same time, had alleged that no commission was due to the Claimant because the player had signed with the Respondent a termination agreement ending their contractual relationship on 20 May 2010. 7. On the basis of the aforementioned allegations, the Single Judge considered that he would have to address the question of whether the Claimant was entitled to receive commission on the basis of the agreement concluded with the Respondent. 8. In this context and first of all, the Single Judge acknowledged that the Respondent had never contested having signed the agreement with the Claimant. Furthermore, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent and the player D had concluded an employment contract which was duly terminated on 20 May 2010, i.e. just before the end of the 2009-2010 football season in country C. In light of the above, the Single Judge concluded that since the player had concluded an employment contract with the Respondent and was part of the team for the 2008- 2009 as well as 2009-2010 football seasons, the aim of the agreement had been fulfilled. 9. In continuation and on the basis of the above, taking into account that the player D and the Respondent had concluded an employment contract on 1 July 2008, the Single Judge held that the condition for the payment of the Claimant’s commission to the agreement had been met. 10. Bearing in mind the foregoing and in accordance with the basic legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, the Single Judge held that based on the agreement concluded between the parties, the Respondent had agreed to pay to the Claimant a commission. Furthermore and considering that the Respondent appears to have only paid to the Claimant an amount of EUR 10,000 for the “period 2008- 2009”, the Single Judge ruled that the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent the remaining sum for the “period 2009-2010”, i.e. the amount of EUR 11,000, in relation with the player D. 11. Additionally, for the sake of good order and in response to the Respondent’s allegations that the commission, if due to the Claimant, should only amount to EUR 8,000 since the yearly salary of the player D had been reduced to EUR 80,000, the Single Judge held that such an argument could not be taken into account as the commission stipulated in the agreement was a lump sum agreed upon in advance which did not depend on the yearly salary of the player D. 12. After having dealt with the first part of the Claimant’s claim, the Single Judge turned his attention to the second request of the Claimant, i.e. the request of payment of EUR 5,000, which apparently represented 10% of the Player L’s yearly salary for the 2009/2010 football season and which had not been paid by the Respondent to the Claimant. 13. In this respect and as a preliminary remark the Single Judge was keen to underline the content of art. 20 par. 1 and 5 of the Regulations, which provides, inter alia, that “A players’ agent who has been contracted by a club shall be remunerated for his services by payment of a lump sum that has been agreed upon in advance” and that “The amount of remuneration due to a players’ agent who has been engaged to act on a player’s behalf is calculated on the basis of the player’s annual basic gross income”. Furthermore, the Single Judge also 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”. 14. In continuation, the Single Judge 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. 15. With the aforementioned considerations in mind, the Single Judge went on to consider the relevant elements on file which could help establish what kind of contractual relationship the parties had entertained at the time the player had concluded his employment contract with the Respondent. In this respect, and after a thorough analysis of the documentation as well as the allegations of the Respondent, the Single Judge was of the view that the Claimant neither had concluded any representation contract directly with the Respondent nor had contacted the Respondent prior or during the signing of the player’s employment contract with the Respondent. The Single Judge was eager to stress that the Claimant had only represented the interests of the player L in the relevant transaction and, therefore, it could be safely assumed that the Respondent had no contractual obligations towards the Claimant and concluded that this part of the complaint of the Claimant should be rejected. 16. Finally, the Single Judge turned his attention to the last request of the Claimant, i.e. the reimbursement of a flight ticket. In this respect, and while referring again to the content of art. 20 par. 1 and 5 of the Regulations, the Single Judge underlined that such a request, which related to the reimbursement of a specific item the value of which had not even been mentioned or agreed upon between the parties beforehand, could clearly not be accepted. 17. As a consequence of all the above, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant’s claim is partially accepted and that the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent as commission the amount of EUR 11,000. 18. Lastly, the Single Judge 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, including the Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of currency of country H 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. 19. On account of the above and considering that the claim of the Claimant has been partially accepted, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 16,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 5,000. 20. 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 Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 3,000. Consequently, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of currency of country H 3,000 has to be paid by the Respondent in order to cover the costs of the present proceedings. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, agent M, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club A, has to pay to the Claimant, agent M, the amount of EUR 11,000, within 30 days, as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, agent M, are rejected. 4. If the aforementioned amount is not paid 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. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 3,000 are to be paid, within 30 days, as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows: 5.1 The amount of currency of country H 1,000 has to be paid by the Claimant, agent M. Given that the latter already paid an advance of costs in the amount of currency of country H 1,000 according to art. 17 of the Rules governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the Claimant, agent M, is exempted from paying the abovementioned costs of the proceedings. 5.2 The amount of currency of country H 2,000 has to be paid by the Respondent, Club A, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XX- XXXX: 6. The Claimant, agent M, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club A, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under point 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 Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives