The case involves a dispute between Al-Ittihad FC, a Saudi Arabian football club, and Ghassan Waked, a licensed football agent, concerning the payment of a commission fee under an agreement related to the transfer of a Brazilian player, D., from Vasco de Gama. On 18 July 2012, the parties entered into a Commission Agreement stipulating that Waked would receive a 10% commission (€500,000) of the €5 million transfer fee for negotiating the transfer and finalizing contracts. The club also engaged two other agents, Daniel Gonzales and Eduardo Uram, who handled different aspects of the transfer, including negotiating player terms and mediating the employment contract. The player signed a three-year contract but terminated it unilaterally in October 2012 due to unpaid salaries, having played only eight matches before returning to Brazil.
Waked filed a claim with FIFA’s Players’ Status Committee in March 2014, seeking the unpaid commission. In May 2015, FIFA ruled in Waked’s favor, ordering the club to pay the €500,000 plus 5% annual interest from October 2012. The club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that Waked did not fulfill his obligations and that the commission was disproportionate. The CAS panel, comprising arbitrators from the UK, USA, and Sweden, upheld FIFA’s decision. It found that Waked had fulfilled his contractual duties despite the involvement of other agents, as their roles were distinct. The panel also ruled that a 10% commission was reasonable and aligned with industry standards, rejecting the club’s argument that the player’s early termination justified reducing the fee.
The club contended that Waked had no role in negotiating the employment agreement, citing CAS jurisprudence and Swiss law, which require active involvement in contract negotiations to justify a commission. Waked countered that he had negotiated the transfer fee and finalized the contracts, fulfilling his obligations under the agreement. He provided evidence, including a letter from the club’s former president, Mohammed Hamed Fayed, confirming his involvement. The club disputed the authenticity of this letter, calling it unsworn and not contemporaneous. The CAS panel found the club’s claims unconvincing, noting the absence of witness statements or contemporaneous correspondence to substantiate its position.
The club also argued that the commission should be reduced to €41,666.66, reflecting the player’s brief tenure. The panel rejected this, stating that the agreement did not link the commission to the player’s duration at the club and that the full amount was due upon the completion of the transfer. The panel emphasized the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept) and ruled that the commission was neither excessive nor disproportionate. It also upheld the FIFA decision to award 5% annual interest from the due date.
Ultimately, the CAS dismissed the club’s appeal in its entirety, confirming the FIFA Players’ Status Committee’s decision and rejecting all further claims. The case underscores the enforceability of agent agreements in football transfers and the importance of clear contractual terms, as well as the burden of proof in disputes over agent services. The ruling highlights the CAS’s role in resolving sports-related contractual matters and the procedural adaptations made when a party faces unforeseen difficulties, such as Waked’s health issues, which led to the cancellation of a scheduled hearing and reliance on written submissions. The decision reaffirms that contractual obligations must be honored unless proven unfair or unfulfilled.