The case involves a legal dispute between Club de Regatas Vasco da Gama and Pedro Cabral Silva Junior, a former licensed football agent, concerning a commission claim related to a settlement agreement between Vasco da Gama and Al-Ittihad Club. The dispute originated from the 2012 transfer of a player, D., from Vasco da Gama to Al-Ittihad, where Al-Ittihad failed to pay the agreed transfer fee of EUR 5,000,000. After legal proceedings, including a FIFA Players’ Status Committee decision and a subsequent Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) award, Al-Ittihad was ordered to pay the amount plus interest and penalties. In 2015, Vasco da Gama negotiated a settlement directly with Al-Ittihad without Silva Junior's involvement. However, Silva Junior claimed a 10% commission, arguing his initial 2014 authorization was tacitly extended due to ongoing negotiations. The Comitê de Resolução de Litígios (CRL) of the Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF) initially ruled in Silva Junior's favor, ordering Vasco da Gama to pay EUR 500,000. After a motion for clarification, the CRL reduced the commission to 3% (EUR 150,000), citing the absence of a written contract and applying FIFA's default 3% remuneration rule.
Vasco da Gama appealed to CAS, contesting the CRL's jurisdiction and the validity of Silva Junior's claims. The CAS Sole Arbitrator, João Nogueira da Rocha, examined the case, focusing on whether the dispute fell under FIFA Players’ Agents Regulations (PAR), which only cover negotiations of employment contracts or transfer agreements, not settlement disputes. The Arbitrator emphasized the personal relationship required between agents and clients under FIFA PAR and highlighted potential conflicts of interest, as Silva Junior allegedly collaborated with Rodrigo Nunes de Oliveira, who was involved in negotiations for Al-Ittihad. The Arbitrator found no evidence supporting Silva Junior's claim that his authorization was extended or that he personally rendered services. The Arbitrator also dismissed the argument that Oliveira acted on Silva Junior's behalf, noting such delegation would violate FIFA PAR.
Ultimately, the Arbitrator ruled in favor of Vasco da Gama, setting aside the CRL's decision and rejecting Silva Junior's commission claim due to lack of jurisdiction, insufficient evidence, and violations of FIFA PAR. The case underscores the importance of clear contractual terms, regulatory compliance, and the limitations of agent authority in football transactions. The final CAS decision reinforced the necessity for parties to substantiate claims with credible evidence and adhere to the legal frameworks governing football agents.