The case revolves around a dispute between Gheorghe Stratulat, a licensed football agent, and PFC Spartak-Nalchik, a Russian football club, concerning the non-payment of his fee under an agency agreement related to the transfer of player Eugeniu Cebotaru in 2012. The agreement stipulated a fee of EUR 200,000, payable in two installments, but the employment contract between the club and the player did not include the agent’s name or signature, as required by FIFA and Russian Football Federation (RFU) regulations. When the club failed to pay, the agent filed a claim with the RFU Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which dismissed it due to the absence of the agent’s signature on the employment contract and lack of proof of services rendered. The agent appealed to the RFU Players’ Status Committee (PSC), which upheld the DRC’s decision, citing the absence of a delivery-acceptance act as stipulated in the agency agreement.
The agent then brought the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the absence of his signature or reference in the employment contract should not invalidate the agency agreement or his right to payment. CAS jurisprudence and FIFA regulations support this view, stating that non-compliance with formal requirements does not nullify the agreement but may lead to sanctions by football authorities. The CAS panel, led by sole arbitrator Fabio Iudica, was tasked with determining whether the agent was entitled to his fee despite procedural shortcomings. The key legal issue was whether the absence of the agent’s reference or signature on the employment contract invalidated the agency agreement. CAS precedent and FIFA regulations clarify that such omissions do not automatically void the agreement or deny the agent’s right to compensation, though they may trigger disciplinary measures.
The respondent, PFC Spartak-Nalchik, argued that the agent failed to prove his involvement in the transfer or compliance with contractual and regulatory requirements, highlighting the absence of delivery-acceptance acts and the agent’s signature on the employment contract. The club also contested the authenticity of a letter submitted by the agent, which acknowledged the debt, and claimed the employment contract was concluded earlier than documented, rendering the agency agreement a "sham." However, the arbitrator found inconsistencies in the club’s evidence and upheld the authenticity of the agent’s letter, which confirmed the club’s obligation to pay the fee.
The arbitrator ruled in favor of the agent, stating that the original agency agreement remained effective and entitled him to the agreed fee of EUR 200,000, plus 5% annual interest on two installments of EUR 100,000 each, starting from 25 February and 25 March 2012, respectively. The appeal was upheld, overturning the RFU PSC’s decision, and the club was ordered to fulfill its financial obligations. The ruling emphasized that the club’s acknowledgment of the agent’s role and the debt outweighed any formal irregularities or inconsistencies in the evidence. The case underscores the importance of adhering to regulatory formalities while affirming the binding nature of validly concluded agency agreements in football transfers. The final award, issued on 19 November 2013, resolved the dispute by upholding the agent’s claim and ordering the club to pay the specified amount with interest.