The case involves a dispute between Gaetano Marotta, a licensed players' agent and sole shareholder of Gama Sport & Events SA, and Al Ain FC, a football club in the United Arab Emirates, over a commission claim related to the transfer of a player from Sunderland FC to Al Ain FC in 2011. The dispute was adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which addressed several key issues, including the applicable version of FIFA regulations, procedural matters such as the advance of costs and waiver of claims, and the application of the "Durchgriff" principle, which allows piercing the corporate veil under exceptional circumstances.
The CAS ruled that the FIFA regulations in force at the time the claim was filed in 2013 applied, not the most recent version. It clarified that the advance of costs is an administrative matter, and failure to pay within the deadline does not render a claim inadmissible. The CAS also noted that a party waives its right to lodge a claim with FIFA if more than two years have passed since the event giving rise to the dispute, regardless of when the respondent was notified.
The factual background revealed that in September 2011, Al Ain FC authorized Gama Sport & Events SA, represented by Marotta, to negotiate the player's transfer. Negotiations ensued, with Marotta proposing terms, but the deal initially fell through due to budget constraints. Al Ain later secured the player through another agent, Rawad Georges Kassis, and finalized the transfer in 2012. Marotta filed a claim with FIFA in 2013, seeking a €900,000 commission, arguing he was entitled to it based on the initial negotiations. Al Ain countered that the claim was time-barred and unfounded, as Marotta had acted on behalf of his company, not personally, and they had used another agent for the successful transfer.
The CAS examined whether Marotta had a valid contractual claim against Al Ain, focusing on whether he acted personally or on behalf of Gama Sport & Events SA. The panel found that all evidence, including emails and written offers on company letterhead, indicated Marotta was acting on behalf of his company, not personally. The panel rejected Marotta's argument that he could personally claim the commission as the sole shareholder, applying the "Durchgriff" principle only in cases of abuse of rights, which Marotta failed to prove. Additionally, the panel noted that FIFA regulations at the time only allowed natural persons to file claims, which might have influenced Marotta's decision to sue in his own name, but this did not alter the legal separation between him and his company.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld the FIFA Single Judge's decision, dismissing Marotta's appeal and confirming that he had no contractual claim against Al Ain. The case underscores the importance of clear contractual agreements, procedural compliance in sports arbitration, and the limited circumstances under which corporate legal separation can be disregarded. The decision highlights the complexities of agent commissions in football transfers and the legal principles governing such disputes.