The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued an award on 12 November 2013 in a dispute between Brazilian football player Rodrigo Ribeiro Souto and licensed agent Anselmo de Barros Paiva. The case centered on the validity and enforceability of a representation agreement signed in 2007, which granted the agent exclusive rights to negotiate contracts for the player in exchange for 10% of his gross earnings. The agent claimed unpaid fees from contracts facilitated with Santos FC, leading to disputes before the Brazilian Football Confederation's dispute resolution committee (CRL) and Brazilian courts. The CAS panel, composed of Fabio Iudica, Michele Bernasconi, and Ulrich Haas, addressed several key issues, including the applicable FIFA regulations, burden of proof under Brazilian law, and the calculation of interest rates.
The panel determined that the applicable FIFA regulations were those in force at the time of the alleged violations. Under Brazilian law, the burden of proof lies with the party claiming a right, requiring them to substantiate allegations with convincing evidence. The CAS Code follows an adversarial system, emphasizing active proof by the parties. The panel also referenced Brazilian Civil Code provisions for calculating default interest, specifying that interest accrues from the initial summons until payment is made, with a default rate of 1% per month if not otherwise stipulated.
The player argued that the agent’s claims were time-barred due to prescription, citing either a two-year or six-month limitation period. The CRL ruled that the six-month prescription did not apply, as it pertained to the agent’s licensing status rather than services rendered. It upheld the biennial prescription, limiting claims to those arising after May 2008, thus excluding remuneration from the first employment agreement ending in December 2007. The CRL also dismissed arguments about the player’s economic rights, focusing solely on the representation agreement and ruling that the agent was entitled to 10% of the player’s salaries from Santos FC between January 2008 and his 2010 transfer to São Paulo FC, plus 1% monthly interest.
The player appealed to CAS, raising procedural and substantive objections. He argued that the agent violated FIFA’s prohibition by seeking redress in Brazilian courts and that his right to be heard was violated during initial proceedings. The player also contended that the agent unlawfully held economic rights over his transfers, violating FIFA regulations. The agent countered that the disputes before Brazilian courts and the CRL were distinct, involving different parties and legal grounds, and denied any violation of the player’s rights.
The CAS panel confirmed the appeal’s admissibility, noting it was filed within the required 21-day period. Jurisdiction was established based on CBF statutes and CRL regulations, which allow appeals to recognized arbitration courts like CAS. The panel rejected the player’s argument of lis pendens, clarifying that the state court proceedings had a different scope and involved additional parties. It also addressed the player’s right to be heard, noting any procedural flaws in earlier proceedings were remedied by the appeal process at CAS.
On the merits, the panel upheld the CRL’s findings, ruling that the representation agreement was valid and enforceable. It confirmed the agent’s entitlement to the 10% commission for services rendered, including negotiating employment contracts and an image rights agreement for the player. The panel dismissed the player’s allegations of a conflict of interest, noting the agent had secured a significant salary increase for the player. It ordered the player to pay the agent R$132,000, representing the 10% commission for the period from January 2008 to December 2009, plus 1% monthly interest from 3 May 2010 until payment. The appeal was dismissed, and all other motions or requests for relief were rejected. The decision underscores the enforceability of agent-player agreements and the importance of adhering to contractual terms and procedural rules in resolving sports-related disputes.