The case revolves around a dispute between US Città di Palermo S.p.A. (the Club) and Goran Veljkovic (the Agent) concerning the validity and enforcement of a mandate agreement related to the transfer of player Milan Milanovic. The Club engaged the Agent to assist in the player’s registration, agreeing to pay €1.5 million, with additional performance-based bonuses. A supplementary agreement later adjusted the payment terms. The Club paid only €250,000, prompting the Agent to file a claim with FIFA for the remaining €1.25 million plus interest. The Club countered, arguing the contract was invalid due to the Agent’s alleged dual representation of both the Club and the player, creating a conflict of interest.
The FIFA Players’ Status Committee ruled in favor of the Agent, ordering the Club to pay the outstanding amount. The Club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which upheld the FIFA decision. The CAS panel emphasized that while FIFA’s Players’ Agents Regulations (PAR) require agents to comply with national laws, violations typically result in disciplinary sanctions rather than contract invalidation. The panel found the mandate agreement valid, as it complied with FIFA PAR requirements and showed no evidence of excessive remuneration. The Club failed to prove the fee was disproportionate or that the Agent’s dual representation invalidated the contract.
The Club argued that the Agent violated the mandate by representing both parties, citing an internet publication where the Agent allegedly referred to himself as the player’s representative. However, the Agent denied these claims, submitting a witness statement from the player, who confirmed he was represented by his parents, not the Agent. The CAS panel concluded the Club did not meet its burden of proof, as it provided insufficient evidence to substantiate its allegations. The panel also dismissed the Club’s claim for reimbursement of the €250,000 already paid, reinforcing the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept).
Regarding remuneration, the Club contended the €1.5 million fee was excessive, but the panel noted FIFA regulations allow lump-sum payments without specific caps for club-agent agreements. The Club had voluntarily agreed to the fee, which included conditional payments, and had not paid a transfer fee for the player. The panel found no evidence the fee was disproportionate, aligning with contractual fairness.
Ultimately, the CAS dismissed the Club’s appeal, confirming the FIFA decision and ordering the Club to pay the remaining €1.25 million plus 5% annual interest from March 2013. The ruling underscored the importance of contractual compliance in football agency agreements and the limited role of national laws in invalidating international contracts under FIFA regulations. The case highlights the necessity for clubs to provide robust evidence when challenging agent agreements and reaffirms the binding nature of duly executed contracts in sports disputes.