The case revolves around a dispute between M., a licensed football players' agent, and Ittihad Club, a Saudi Arabian football club, concerning unpaid agent fees for the transfers of players K. and J. M., along with another agent and other individuals, operated under the Italian company P. Srl. During July and August 2005, Ittihad Club engaged with P. Srl for the transfers, though no written contracts were signed. The club issued a cheque for 200,000 EUR payable to P. Srl, which was later dishonored due to insufficient funds. P. Srl invoiced the club for 200,000 EUR for K.'s transfer and 300,000 EUR for J.'s transfer, referencing an offer from the club that included a 300,000 EUR commission but did not specify the recipient. Despite repeated demands, the club failed to pay, prompting M. and his partner to file a claim with FIFA's Players' Status Committee in December 2005, seeking payment of the commissions, interest, and reimbursement of banking costs. The claim was filed in the names of M. and his partner, not P. Srl. In December 2006, the FIFA Single Judge rejected the claim, stating that the evidence did not establish an agreement between M. personally and the club, as the transactions were directed at P. Srl. The judge also noted that the offer for J.'s transfer was addressed to P. Srl and did not specify M. as the payee. M. and P. Srl appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in April 2007, seeking to overturn FIFA's decision and secure payment of the claimed amounts. The CAS panel emphasized the legal distinction between a company and its members, ruling that only the legal entity (P. Srl) could claim the fees, not M. individually. The panel upheld FIFA's decision, reinforcing that the right to judicial protection belonged to the company, not its shareholders or members, unless exceptional circumstances justified lifting the corporate veil. The Respondent, Ittihad Club, requested the appeal's dismissal, arguing that the Appellant lacked legitimate rights to the disputed fees and raised jurisdictional objections, though these were deemed belated. CAS addressed its jurisdiction under Swiss Private International Law, noting that FIFA's rules and Swiss law govern appeals from FIFA decisions unless parties agree otherwise. The appeal was deemed admissible as it was filed within the 21-day deadline stipulated by FIFA Statutes. The core issue was whether M. was entitled to the claimed agency fees, given that no written contract existed between him and the Respondent. M. argued that an oral agreement had been concluded, but the evidence showed that the transactions were conducted through P. Srl, not M. personally. The panel rejected M.'s argument that P. Srl was merely a formal structure, emphasizing the legal separation between a company and its members. The panel concluded that M. had not established a direct contractual relationship with the Respondent and therefore was not entitled to the claimed fees. The decision underscores the importance of formal agreements and the legal distinction between individuals and corporate entities in contractual disputes. The panel found no basis to disregard P. Srl's legal personality and ruled in favor of the Respondent, dismissing the appeal and upholding the FIFA Players' Status Committee's original decision. The case serves as a cautionary example for agents and clubs to ensure explicit contractual terms and proper legal representation in transfer dealings.