The case involves a dispute between professional football player Vladimir Stojkovic and his agent, Anthony McGill, regarding the payment of an agent’s fee following Stojkovic’s transfer to FC Partizan Belgrade. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on 31 January 2014, addressing whether McGill was entitled to a commission of EUR 70,000 despite not being actively involved in the transfer negotiations. The parties had signed a two-year exclusive representation agreement on 5 October 2010, which granted McGill the exclusive right to represent Stojkovic in negotiations with football clubs. The agreement stipulated that McGill would receive a 10% commission on the player’s annual gross salary from any contract negotiated during its term, including those negotiated by Stojkovic himself. Clause 6(D) explicitly stated that Stojkovic would owe the commission even if he concluded a contract without McGill’s involvement, provided he notified McGill in writing.
Stojkovic argued that McGill was not entitled to the fee because he had not participated in the transfer negotiations. However, the CAS panel ruled that the explicit terms of the agreement, particularly Clause 6(D), obligated Stojkovic to pay the commission regardless of McGill’s involvement, as long as the transfer occurred during the contractual period. The panel emphasized that such clauses must be clear and unequivocal to be enforceable, and the agreement met this standard. The decision reinforced the principle that agents can claim commissions for transfers occurring during their representation period if the contract explicitly provides for such payments, even if they were not directly involved in the negotiations.
The dispute also centered on the validity of the representation agreement and its termination. Stojkovic claimed he had terminated the agreement on 8 February 2011, rendering McGill ineligible for further fees. However, the panel found that Stojkovic failed to provide sufficient evidence of a material breach by McGill, making the termination invalid. The panel noted that Stojkovic’s actions suggested an attempt to avoid paying the commission, as he did not communicate dissatisfaction with McGill’s services or issue a proper termination notice before signing the contract with Partizan.
The panel examined the employment contracts Stojkovic signed with Partizan on 11 January 2011 and 13 June 2011. It concluded that the first contract was the "real deal," as its conditions were fulfilled by the second contract, which had identical terms. The panel rejected Stojkovic’s argument that the second contract was independent, emphasizing that the first contract had been uploaded into FIFA’s Transfer Matching System (TMS) and its conditions were met by 1 July 2011. The panel also dismissed Stojkovic’s claim that the upload was a mistake, finding no evidence to support this assertion.
Ultimately, the panel ruled that McGill was entitled to the commission of 10% of Stojkovic’s EUR 700,000 annual salary, amounting to EUR 70,000. The decision upheld the validity of the representation agreement and dismissed Stojkovic’s appeal, confirming the earlier ruling by FIFA’s Single Judge. The case underscores the importance of precise contractual language in representation agreements and the binding nature of such terms when clearly stipulated. It also serves as a reminder to players and agents to carefully define their obligations and rights to avoid disputes. The Court of Arbitration for Sport dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision in favor of McGill.