The case involves a dispute between Vincenzo d’Ippolito, a licensed football agent, and Danubio FC, a Uruguayan football club, over an agency fee related to the transfer of a player to US Palermo in 2007. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued an award on October 5, 2012, addressing key legal issues. The panel ruled that the absence of a formal agency agreement on FIFA’s standard forms or payment details does not invalidate the agreement, though non-compliance may lead to sanctions. Swiss law distinguishes between brokerage contracts, and the agent’s absence during final negotiations does not negate the causal link between their services and the transfer. The panel also clarified that FIFA regulations do not prohibit an agent from claiming a fee from the transferring club, even if it is a proportion of the transfer amount. The determination of the fee, in the absence of a clear agreement, should consider the services rendered and circumstances, guided by Swiss law. Default interest begins only after a formal reminder, which in this case was deemed to be the filing of the claim with FIFA.
The dispute arose when d’Ippolito claimed a 10% commission for facilitating the transfer, citing a verbal agreement and an authorization document signed by Danubio FC’s general manager, Alberto Batista. Danubio FC denied the agreement, arguing Batista lacked authority and that other agents handled the transfer. The FIFA Players’ Status Committee initially rejected d’Ippolito’s claim, prompting an appeal to CAS. The CAS panel examined witness testimonies and evidence, concluding that while the alleged meeting in 2006 was unproven, the authorization document legally bound Danubio FC due to Batista’s apparent authority and the club’s failure to dispute it promptly. The panel found the agreement valid despite non-compliance with FIFA formalities, as such failures do not invalidate contracts under Swiss law.
Regarding the fee, the panel determined that no explicit agreement for 10% existed but acknowledged d’Ippolito’s efforts in initiating negotiations. It rejected the analogy to FIFA’s 5% guideline for player-agent agreements, as this case involved a club-agent relationship. Instead, the panel applied Swiss law, awarding a 3% fee (EUR 122,850) based on the limited scope of services. The panel also ruled that default interest of 5% per annum would apply from the date of the formal reminder, which it deemed to be the filing of the claim with FIFA on April 10, 2007.
The CAS partially upheld the appeal, adjusting the FIFA decision to reflect the owed amount and interest, while dismissing other claims. The ruling underscores the importance of clear contractual agreements and the interplay between FIFA regulations and national law in resolving disputes over agency fees. It also highlights the enforceability of agreements under broader legal principles, even when regulatory formalities are not fully met. The case provides clarity on the validity of agency agreements, the causal link between services and transfers, and the determination of fees under Swiss law when FIFA regulations are silent.