The case involves a legal dispute between Al Ittihad FC, a Saudi Arabian football club, and Daniel Gonzales Landler, a football agent, over the payment of a commission for facilitating the transfer of a Brazilian player from Vasco da Gama to Al Ittihad. The dispute stemmed from a commission agreement signed on July 22, 2012, in which Al Ittihad agreed to pay Landler a commission of USD 400,000, equivalent to 5% of the player’s net contract value, for his services in negotiating the transfer. The agreement stipulated that the commission would be paid in one installment by August 15, 2012, and that the agent’s tasks would conclude upon the player signing the employment contract with the club. However, Al Ittihad refused to pay the commission, leading to arbitration proceedings before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The key legal issues addressed in the case included the conditions under which an agent’s commission becomes due, the doctrine of judicial estoppel, and the proportionality of the commission under Swiss law. The arbitrator ruled that the commission was due upon the player signing the employment contract, regardless of whether the agent had completed all ancillary tasks, as the agreement did not condition payment on the fulfillment of additional duties. The arbitrator also noted that Al Ittihad had assigned some of the agent’s tasks to other intermediaries, further supporting the agent’s claim. The doctrine of judicial estoppel was invoked to prevent Al Ittihad from adopting a contradictory position to its earlier stance in related proceedings involving other agents.
Al Ittihad argued that the commission was excessive and should be reduced under Swiss law, particularly since the player only served a fraction of his contract before terminating it. The club contended that the commission should be proportionally reduced to reflect the player’s brief tenure. However, the arbitrator found no basis for reducing the commission, as the agreement did not tie payment to the player’s duration of service. The arbitrator emphasized the principle of freedom of contract and deferred to the parties’ agreement unless exceptional circumstances demonstrated the commission was excessive. In this case, a 5% commission was deemed reasonable and consistent with common practice. The arbitrator also rejected arguments linking the commission to the player’s tenure at the club or the unilateral termination of the employment contract, as there was no contractual basis or evidence to justify a reduction.
The arbitrator upheld the FIFA Players’ Status Committee’s decision, ruling that Al Ittihad was obligated to pay the agreed commission to Landler. The award reinforced the enforceability of commission agreements in football transfers, provided they are clearly drafted and comply with applicable regulations. The case highlights the importance of contractual clarity and the limited grounds for challenging agreed remuneration in the absence of manifestly excessive terms or exceptional circumstances. The decision underscores the autonomy of parties in determining agent fees and the judiciary’s reluctance to interfere with freely negotiated contracts. The CAS ruling confirmed the agent’s entitlement to the commission and dismissed all other claims, reinforcing the binding nature of contractual agreements in such cases.