The case centers on a dispute between Genoa Cricket and Football Club (the Club) and Juan Aisa Blanco (the Agent) concerning a representation contract tied to a football player transfer. The Club appealed a decision by the FIFA Players’ Status Committee, which had ruled in favor of the Agent, ordering the Club to pay outstanding fees. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel addressed several key legal and procedural issues in its award.
The panel first clarified the role of an amicus curiae in arbitral proceedings, stating that FIFA, as both a rule-making body and a first-instance decision-maker, should not submit amicus briefs. Instead, interpretations of FIFA’s regulations should be communicated through formal judicial decisions. The panel denied the Club’s request for an amicus curiae brief, emphasizing the absence of public interest and FIFA’s prior refusal to intervene.
On the merits, the panel examined the burden of proof regarding the Agent’s involvement in the player transfer. Under Swiss law and CAS jurisprudence, the Agent initially had to demonstrate his role in facilitating the transfer. The panel noted that the transfer agreement explicitly referenced the Agent’s involvement, shifting the burden to the Club to disprove this link. The Club failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption, leading the panel to conclude the Agent had contributed to the transfer.
The panel also addressed the Club’s conflict of interest claim under Article 19.8 of FIFA’s 2008 Players’ Agents Regulations, which prohibits agents from representing multiple parties in the same transaction. The Club argued the Agent and the player’s other representative were affiliated with the same company, You First Sport. However, the panel found no evidence of double remuneration or improper representation, ruling that mere association between the agents did not invalidate the contract.
The factual background revealed the Agent signed a representation contract with the Club in July 2010, entitling him to a €400,000 fee for assisting in the player’s transfer. The Club paid only €50,000 during proceedings, withholding the remaining amount. The FIFA Players’ Status Committee had previously ruled in favor of the Agent, finding no conflict of interest and upholding the contractual obligation. The CAS panel affirmed this decision, dismissing the Club’s appeal and confirming the Agent’s entitlement to the unpaid fees.
The Club also accused the Agent of misconduct, including attempting to receive double remuneration, citing two checks totaling €50,000 made to You First Sport. The panel dismissed this claim, noting the payment aligned with the contractual terms and lacked evidence of illicit intent.
Ultimately, the CAS panel upheld the validity of the representation contract, rejected the conflict of interest claim due to insufficient evidence, and maintained the Agent’s right to payment under the agreed terms. The decision reinforced principles of contractual obligations and the proper allocation of the burden of proof in disputes involving player transfers. The appeal was dismissed, and all additional claims were rejected, with the panel emphasizing the Club’s failure to substantiate its allegations. The original decision was confirmed, requiring the Club to pay the outstanding €350,000 plus interest.