The case revolves around a dispute between Club Galatasaray A.S. and Hugo Issa, a licensed football agent, concerning commission payments related to the transfer of a player. The player, referred to as M., signed a professional contract with Galatasaray in 2006, valid until 2011. A separate agreement involving Galatasaray, the player, and the agent stipulated that Galatasaray would pay the agent USD 110,000 upfront and 10% of the player’s salary for subsequent seasons. The player later authorized Galatasaray to deduct and pay the agent’s commission directly from his salary. However, during loan periods to other clubs, Galatasaray ceased paying the agent’s commission, arguing there was no salary from which to deduct it.
The agent filed a claim with FIFA’s Players’ Status Committee, seeking USD 210,000 for unpaid commissions. FIFA partially accepted the claim, ordering Galatasaray to pay USD 75,000 plus interest while rejecting further claims. Galatasaray appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that FIFA failed to consider a third loan period and that no payment was due during the loan periods. The CAS panel, led by sole arbitrator Mark Hovell, examined the case de novo but noted it could not consider new claims not raised before FIFA.
The panel acknowledged the common practice in football of loaning players, where the original contract remains in force but key obligations like salary payments are suspended. It also recognized that clubs often deduct agent fees from player salaries and pay them directly. However, during loan periods, the loaning club is not responsible for the player’s salary, and thus no deductions for agent fees can be made. The panel upheld FIFA’s decision in part, confirming Galatasaray’s liability for the agent’s commission during periods when the player was not on loan. However, it adjusted the amount owed, considering the loan periods during which no salary was paid by Galatasaray.
The final ruling required Galatasaray to pay a reduced sum, reflecting only the periods the player was under their direct employment. The decision emphasized the contractual obligations and the limitations imposed by loan agreements, ensuring fairness in the distribution of financial responsibilities between clubs and agents. The case highlights the complexities of player loans and agent commissions in football contracts, underscoring the importance of clear contractual terms to avoid disputes. The Sole Arbitrator ultimately upheld Galatasaray’s appeal, ruling that the club had no liability toward the agent under the Payment Contract during the loan periods. The Court of Arbitration for Sport set aside the FIFA Single Judge’s decision, declaring no sum payable by Galatasaray to the agent and dismissing all further relief requests.