The case involves a dispute between U.C. Sampdoria SpA (the Club) and José Rodriguez Baster (the Agent) over commission payments related to the transfer of footballer José Gómez Campaña. The parties entered into an agreement on 17 July 2014, stipulating that the Agent would receive €100,000 by 30 September 2014 and another €100,000 by 30 September 2015, along with a 5% commission on any transfer fee exceeding €1.2 million if the player was permanently loaned. The player was transferred from Crystal Palace F.C. to the Club and later loaned to FC Porto with an option for a permanent transfer. The Agent claimed entitlement to the commission, arguing the loan triggered the bonus clause, while the Club disputed this, citing ambiguity in the agreement and questioning the Agent's standing.
The FIFA Players’ Status Committee ruled in favor of the Agent, ordering the Club to pay €200,000 plus interest, asserting FIFA's jurisdiction under the 2008 Regulations. The Club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the payments were contingent on the player remaining registered with the Club, which did not occur due to the loan. The Club also contested the Agent's standing, claiming the agreement was with his company, Promoesport, not him personally. The CAS Sole Arbitrator analyzed the agreement's wording and the parties' conduct, applying Swiss law to interpret ambiguous terms. The Arbitrator concluded the Agent was a party to the agreement, as it explicitly conferred rights to him, and rejected the Club's interpretation that payments were voided by the loan. The Arbitrator emphasized the principle of pacta sunt servanda, ruling the Club was obligated to pay the commission since the Agent fulfilled his duties and the Club maintained a contractual relationship with the player despite the loan.
The CAS upheld the FIFA decision, dismissing the Club's appeal and affirming the Agent's entitlement to €200,000 plus interest. The ruling highlighted the importance of clear contractual terms and the need to interpret ambiguities against the drafting party, in this case, the Club. The case underscores the complexities of football transfer agreements, particularly regarding agent commissions and loan arrangements, and reinforces the enforceability of contractual obligations under Swiss law and FIFA regulations. The decision serves as a reminder to clubs and agents to draft unambiguous agreements to avoid disputes over payment conditions and jurisdictional issues.