The case involves a legal dispute between MFK Ružomberok, a Slovak football club, and Suzana Zoran, a licensed football agent, concerning an agency contract for the transfer of a player. The contract, signed on 1 February 2010, stipulated that the club would pay Zoran €18,000 upon the player's transfer from a Dutch club. The player’s employment contract with Ružomberok was signed earlier, on 21 January 2010. After the transfer, the club failed to pay the agreed commission, prompting Zoran to file a claim with FIFA’s Players' Status Committee on 11 April 2011. Zoran argued that the contract was valid and binding, as she had fulfilled her obligations, and referenced correspondence with the club’s director, who had proposed a partial settlement, which she rejected. The club denied liability, claiming Zoran had forfeited her right to payment by issuing a credit note canceling the original invoice. The club also argued that the agency contract violated FIFA’s Players' Agent Regulations, citing Articles 19 and 20.5, alleging a conflict of interest due to Zoran’s husband’s involvement in the transfer. The club further reserved the right to seek damages from the player for breaching his employment contract. Zoran countered these claims, stating the credit note was issued for fiscal reasons and that the club’s director had acknowledged the contract’s validity in settlement discussions. She maintained that any non-compliant clauses in the contract did not invalidate the entire agreement and that she had solely represented the club’s interests.
FIFA’s Single Judge partially accepted Zoran’s claim on 23 October 2012, ordering the club to pay €18,000 plus interest and legal costs. The club was given 30 days to comply, failing which the matter would be referred to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee. The decision emphasized that non-compliant clauses did not render the entire contract invalid, provided the club was aware of its financial obligations and the payment terms were clear. The club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that Zoran lacked proper licensing credentials as a Czech national and should have obtained her license in the Czech Republic rather than Bosnia and Herzegovina. The club also contested the contract’s validity, alleging double representation and a conflict of interest. Zoran defended the FIFA decision, asserting the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept) and denying any conflict of interest.
The CAS Sole Arbitrator, Jacopo Tognon, reviewed the appeal and found it admissible but unfounded. The arbitrator ruled that the agency contract was valid, as it reflected the parties’ intent to formalize Zoran’s role in the transfer. Evidence, including email exchanges, supported the conclusion that the club knowingly agreed to the terms. The club’s delay in disputing the invoice further undermined its position. The arbitrator dismissed the club’s claims regarding Zoran’s licensing and her husband’s involvement, noting these did not invalidate the contract. The appeal was rejected, and the club was ordered to pay the €18,000 commission plus interest and legal fees. The ruling underscored the enforceability of contractual agreements and the importance of good faith in dispute resolution. The case highlights the complexities of financial and contractual disputes in international football and the role of arbitration in resolving such conflicts.