The case revolves around a dispute between football agent Ginés Carvajal Seller and FC Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk regarding unpaid commission for services rendered in the transfer of player Guiliano Victor de Paula. The agent claimed €550,000, representing a 5% commission on the €11 million transfer fee, based on a verbal agreement with the club. The club refused payment, arguing that the commission was to be handled through another entity, Tonietto Assessoria de Esportes LTDA, a claim the agent denied. The agent filed a claim with FIFA’s Players’ Status Committee, which rejected it, prompting an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS panel examined key legal issues, including the validity of verbal agreements under FIFA regulations and Swiss law. While FIFA regulations require agency agreements to be in writing, the panel noted that the absence of a written agreement does not automatically invalidate the agreement. The burden of proof fell on the agent to demonstrate the agreed commission rate, and non-compliance with FIFA regulations prevented the agent from defaulting to a 3% commission under Article 20.4. The panel considered testimonies and the likelihood that the agent was not working pro bono, applying the balance of probabilities standard. The club failed to provide evidence supporting its claim that the agent agreed to receive payment through Tonietto, leading the panel to rule that the club was obligated to pay the agent directly.
Under Swiss law, late payments in commercial contracts, including agency agreements, incur 5% interest, regardless of whether the agreement was written or oral. The panel emphasized the importance of evidence in establishing contractual terms and the consequences of non-compliance with formal requirements. The agent’s involvement in negotiations, including securing the transfer and providing a personal guarantee, supported his claim. Witness testimonies further corroborated the existence of the verbal agreement. The club’s argument that the agent acted as a favor was deemed implausible given the extensive services rendered.
The panel ruled in favor of the agent, ordering the club to pay €550,000 plus 5% interest from the date of the first demand (6 July 2011) until payment was made. The decision highlighted the enforceability of verbal agreements under Swiss law while acknowledging FIFA’s regulatory framework. The case underscores the legal complexities in football transfers and the role of CAS in resolving disputes. The final award, issued on 6 October 2014, concluded the proceedings in favor of the agent, dismissing all other claims and requests for relief. The ruling reinforced the principle that parties must substantiate their claims with credible evidence and clarified the interplay between FIFA regulations and national law in contractual disputes.