The case revolves around a dispute between Horatiu George Horoba Virgil, a licensed football agent, and professional player Lucian Sanmartean over unpaid commissions for negotiating employment contracts. The dispute was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) after initial rulings by the Romanian Football Federation's (RFF) National Dispute Resolution Chamber and Appeal Committee. The central issue was the validity and enforceability of a representation contract signed in December 2009, which entitled Horatiu to a 10% commission on Sanmartean's annual gross salary for contracts he negotiated. The contract expired in December 2011. Horatiu claimed EUR 95,000 for a 2010 contract and EUR 112,000 for a 2012 contract, but the latter was negotiated after the representation contract had expired, with evidence suggesting another agent handled those negotiations.
FIFA's Players' Agents Regulations (PAR) mandate strict formalities for representation contracts, including written agreements with specific details like party names, duration, remuneration, and signatures. Contracts are valid for a maximum of two years and can only be extended in writing. The arbitrator emphasized that licensed agents must comply with these requirements to protect all parties involved. Failure to meet these formalities invalidates the contract, and agents aware of the rules cannot claim remuneration if they fail to adhere to them.
The RFF bodies dismissed Horatiu's claims, citing the expiration of the representation contract for the 2012 claim and potential time-bar issues for the 2010 claim. CAS upheld this decision, ruling that Horatiu could not claim remuneration for the 2012 contract as the representation contract was no longer in force. Additionally, Horatiu failed to prove his involvement in the 2010 negotiations, as his name was absent from the contract, a requirement under FIFA PAR. The claim for the 2010 contract was also deemed time-barred under FIFA regulations, as it was filed more than two years after the contract was signed.
The arbitrator found Horatiu's evidence insufficient to support his claims. A memorandum he presented lacked the player's signature and contained conflicting payment terms, while a newspaper article indicated another agent negotiated the 2012 contract. The ruling reinforced the importance of adhering to formal contractual requirements and timely filing of claims. Horatiu's inability to comply with these standards or substantiate his involvement in the negotiations led to the dismissal of his appeal. The case underscores the necessity for agents to ensure proper documentation and timely actions to secure their rights under contractual agreements. The decision serves as a reminder of the strict regulatory framework governing player-agent relationships and the consequences of non-compliance.