The case involves a legal dispute between the Non-Profit Women Basketball Club "Spartak" St. Petersburg (the Appellant) and Tigran Petrosean (the Respondent), a licensed FIBA agent, over agent fees and contractual obligations related to the engagement of basketball players. The conflict stemmed from a Standard Agency Contract signed on April 8, 2008, which appointed the Respondent to represent the Appellant in player engagements. Addendums to the contract specified commission fees for players Z., B., and M. The Appellant engaged the players but later sought to renegotiate terms due to budget constraints, leading to delayed payments and subsequent legal action. The Respondent filed a Request for Arbitration with the FIBA Arbitral Tribunal (FAT), which ruled in his favor, ordering the Appellant to pay agent fees, late payment penalties, and legal costs. The Appellant challenged this decision before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking annulment of the fees and penalties related to player M. The Respondent countered by requesting dismissal of the appeal and additional compensation for legal fees and potential future fees if the player was engaged in subsequent seasons.
The CAS proceedings examined the admissibility of email communications and the principle of ex aequo et bono, which allows decisions based on fairness rather than strict legal rules. The Sole Arbitrator noted the widespread use of emails in business and sports, affirming their admissibility in CAS proceedings. The case highlighted contractual disputes, payment delays, and the enforceability of agency agreements in professional sports. The Appellant argued that the Respondent’s counterclaim was inadmissible and that no contractual relationship existed in the 2007-2008 season, while the Respondent maintained that the agreements were binding and that he had fulfilled his duties under the Main Agency Contract. The Arbitrator found that email communications confirmed the Respondent acted on the Appellant's instructions and that the agreements were legally binding, not conditional drafts. The Appellant’s claim that registering the player would breach FIBA regulations was dismissed, as the Arbitrator noted the Appellant chose not to register the player due to financial reasons rather than legal constraints.
The CAS upheld the FAT's decision, reinforcing the binding nature of agency contracts and the consequences of non-compliance. The Arbitrator ruled in favor of the Respondent, stating the Appellant had entered binding agreements and could not unilaterally disregard the Respondent's entitlement. The decision also upheld late payment penalties, as the Appellant had not disputed the calculation method and had failed to make similar payments in other cases. Ultimately, the CAS dismissed the appeal entirely, affirming the FAT's decision and rejecting all of the Appellant's claims. The ruling emphasized the importance of contractual adherence and equitable resolution in sports arbitration, confirming the original ruling stands without modification.