The case involves a dispute between Admir Aganovic, a professional football player, and Cvijan Milosevic, a licensed football agent, brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The conflict arose from a 2009 contract in which Milosevic was appointed as Aganovic's agent, entitled to a 7% commission on the player's annual gross salary. Aganovic later contested this claim, arguing that Milosevic had no involvement in negotiating his employment contract with Swiss club Neuchâtel Xamax and that he received no salary in the third year due to the club's bankruptcy. The FIFA Players’ Status Committee initially ruled in favor of Milosevic, awarding him CHF 38,486, calculated as 7% of Aganovic's net salaries over three seasons. Aganovic appealed this decision to CAS, challenging the agent's entitlement to the commission.
The CAS proceedings involved written submissions and a hearing, though no witnesses or experts were called. Key legal issues included the applicable law, as the contract lacked a choice-of-law provision. The Sole Arbitrator clarified that while CAS cannot decide ex aequo et bono (based on fairness) without explicit authorization, it may apply the law deemed appropriate, typically Swiss law in FIFA-related disputes. The burden of proof was also emphasized, requiring each party to substantiate their claims with evidence.
The dispute centered on conflicting accounts of Milosevic's involvement in negotiating Aganovic's employment contract. Aganovic claimed Milosevic played no role, while Milosevic asserted he was actively involved. Two versions of the employment contract were presented: one listed Milosevic as the agent, while the other did not. The Arbitrator concluded that Milosevic's name was likely added post-signing, undermining his credibility. Additionally, Milosevic's testimony contained inconsistencies, such as discrepancies about his location and the sequence of events during negotiations.
The Sole Arbitrator ruled that Milosevic failed to meet the burden of proof under Clause 2.a) of the Agreement, which required him to demonstrate active participation in negotiating the contract. Despite circumstantial evidence, such as his name appearing on one version of the contract, the inconsistencies in his testimony and lack of corroborating witnesses weakened his case. Consequently, the Arbitrator set aside the FIFA decision, releasing Aganovic from any obligation to pay the commission. The ruling emphasized the importance of credible and consistent evidence in contractual disputes, upholding the principle that mere designation as an agent does not entitle one to a commission without proven active involvement. The decision dismissed all other claims for relief, affirming that Milosevic had no right to the commission under the Agreement.