The case CAS 2017/A/5077 involves a dispute between Al Jazira Football Sport Company (the Club) and José Mesas Puerta (the Agent) concerning the payment of a commission related to a football player transfer. The dispute arose from a representation contract signed between the Agent and a Moroccan player in 2011, which entitled the Agent to 10% of the player’s annual wages. In 2013, the Agent and the player signed a Commission Agreement, with the player consenting to the Club paying the Agent directly. The Club confirmed this arrangement in a document issued the following day. The player was transferred to the Club but left in 2014, leading to the termination of his contract. The Agent filed a claim with FIFA’s Players’ Status Committee (PSC) in 2014, seeking EUR 1,100,000 in unpaid commission, plus interest and legal fees. The Club contested the claim, arguing the commission should be reduced since the player left early. The PSC ruled in favor of the Agent, ordering the Club to pay the full commission. The Club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which upheld the PSC’s decision.
The CAS panel determined that the PSC had jurisdiction under FIFA’s 2008 Players’ Agents Regulations, as the dispute involved an international dimension between a Spanish agent and an Emirati club. The panel emphasized the principle of pacta sunt servanda, stating the Club was bound by the agreements it had acknowledged. The Club argued it had no direct contract with the Agent and that the Commission Document was merely an acknowledgment of the player’s request, not a binding agreement. However, the panel found the document clearly indicated the Club’s commitment to pay the commission, as it was a prerequisite for the player’s transfer. The panel dismissed the Club’s reliance on Swiss law, which requires a formal contract for debt assumption, noting the unambiguous terms of the Commission Document. The Club also contended the commission should be limited to EUR 260,000, reflecting the player’s actual time at the Club, but the panel rejected this, citing prior CAS rulings that commissions are due upon transfer completion, regardless of the player’s subsequent departure.
The panel concluded the Club was legally obligated to pay the full commission, as the agreements were valid and enforceable. It upheld the PSC’s decision, dismissing the Club’s appeal and confirming the award of EUR 1,100,000 plus interest to the Agent. The ruling underscored the importance of honoring contractual obligations in football transfers and the role of arbitration in resolving such disputes. The case highlights the complexities of agent commissions and the legal principles governing them, including jurisdiction, debt assumption, and the enforceability of agreements. The final decision reinforced the binding nature of the Club’s commitment to pay the Agent, as evidenced by the Commission Document and the broader context of the transfer negotiations. The Club’s arguments were ultimately deemed insufficient to overturn the PSC’s ruling, and the CAS panel affirmed the original decision in its entirety.