The case revolves around a dispute between a football player’s agent, Mr. G., and the player O. regarding the agent’s claim for commission under a representation contract signed on 10 February 2003. The contract, valid for 24 months, entitled the agent to a 10% commission on the player’s annual gross salary from employment contracts he negotiated, along with exclusive placement rights. On 27 January 2004, the player signed a two-year employment agreement with Incheon United, a Korean club, without the agent’s direct involvement in negotiations. The agent claimed entitlement to commission, citing a fax he sent to the club’s coach on 18 January 2004 asserting his exclusive representation. The FIFA Players’ Status Committee (PSC) rejected his claim on 21 November 2005, prompting the agent to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The CAS examined the case under FIFA regulations and Swiss law, as no specific applicable law was agreed upon. The central issues were whether the agent was entitled to commission for the player’s contracts with Incheon United and later with Urawa Red Diamonds, and whether the PSC’s decision was correct. The CAS determined that the agent’s commission was contingent on successfully facilitating a contract between the player and a club. While the agent introduced the player to Incheon United, he did not participate in negotiations or the contract’s conclusion, which were necessary for commission entitlement. The CAS clarified that mere introduction of a club to a player does not warrant commission unless the agent is the effective cause of the transaction. The exclusivity clause in the contract did not prevent the player from negotiating independently, provided no other agent was involved. Since the agent did not fulfill his role in securing the contract, the CAS upheld the PSC’s decision, dismissing the appeal and confirming the agent’s claim was unfounded. The ruling highlights the necessity of an agent’s active involvement in negotiations and contract conclusion to justify commission claims. The legal principles governing the case emphasize that an agent’s entitlement to commission depends on their direct contribution to the transaction’s completion. The agent argued that his introduction of the player to the club should suffice, but the Sole Arbitrator ruled that mere introduction does not constitute contract conclusion. The agent must be the effective cause of the transaction, meaning their actions must directly lead to the contract’s signing. The agency contract lacked explicit terms guaranteeing payment for introductions alone, and without such provisions, the agent could not claim remuneration without demonstrating significant involvement in finalizing the deal. The player retained the right to negotiate independently unless the agent was explicitly appointed as a sole agent, which was not the case. The PSC supported this view, stating that an agent’s activities must be causal to the contract’s conclusion, aligning with general legal principles. The PSC also clarified that exclusivity clauses prevent the player from hiring other agents but do not restrict direct negotiations. The Arbitrator upheld the PSC’s decision, concluding that the agent failed to prove his involvement beyond the initial introduction and thus was not entitled to commission. The CAS dismissed the appeal, reinforcing the principle that agents must actively contribute to contract finalization to earn their commission.