The case involved a dispute between Al-Ittihad FC, a Saudi Arabian football club, and Ghassan Waked, a licensed football agent, over unpaid commissions related to the transfer of a player from Hajduk Split in Croatia to Al-Ittihad. The dispute centered on two commission agreements signed on July 18, 2012. The First Commission Agreement stipulated a 10% commission on the player's contract value, while the Second Commission Agreement covered similar terms but was interpreted to address different aspects of the transfer process. The club argued that Waked had not fulfilled his obligations and that the commissions were excessive, especially since the player left before his contract expired. However, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) found substantial evidence, including references in the employment contract and a letter from the club's president, confirming Waked's significant involvement in the transfer. The CAS panel ruled that the club failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter these claims and determined that the two agreements were not mutually exclusive but rather covered distinct services. The 10% commission was deemed reasonable and in line with industry standards and Swiss law. The panel also rejected the club's argument for a reduction in commission due to the player's early departure, as there was no contractual clause linking the payment to the player's tenure. The CAS upheld Waked's entitlement to the full commission of €340,000 (€160,000 from the first agreement and €180,000 from the second), plus 5% annual interest from September 15, 2012, as originally decided by FIFA's Players’ Status Committee. The ruling emphasized the principle of pacta sunt servanda, affirming that contractual agreements must be honored as written. The CAS dismissed the club's appeal in its entirety, reinforcing the enforceability of agent commissions in football transfers and the importance of clear evidence in disputes over contractual obligations. The decision highlighted the role of arbitration in resolving such conflicts and upheld the validity of the agreements, ensuring Waked received the compensation he was owed.