The case involves a contractual dispute between football agent Jaroslaw Kolakowski and player Daniel Quintana Sosa, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The dispute arose from a representation contract signed in October 2013, granting the agent exclusive rights to negotiate the player's transfers and entitling him to a 10% commission on contracts signed during the term, with a 15% penalty if the player signed without the agent's involvement. In September 2014, the player signed with Al Ahli SC without the agent's involvement, prompting the agent to file a claim with FIFA's Players' Status Committee (PSC) for a penalty of EUR 225,000. The PSC awarded EUR 34,375, which the agent appealed to CAS, seeking the full amount plus interest.
The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators from the UK, Italy, and Portugal, ruled on several legal principles. It affirmed that FIFA rules take precedence over conflicting choice-of-law clauses, as per Article R58 of the CAS Code. The panel held that an agent can claim commission even if not involved in a transfer, provided the agreement explicitly includes such a clause. While players cannot be forced to use an agent, breaching an exclusivity clause may incur a financial penalty. The panel clarified that commissions are typically based on the player's actual earnings under the employment contract, not the total value, and Swiss law's 5% annual interest on unpaid debts was deemed applicable.
The panel upheld the PSC's decision, rejecting the agent's appeal for the full penalty. It found the penalty clause enforceable but limited the commission to the actual duration of the Al Ahli contract (four months), resulting in the reduced award. The panel emphasized that the agent's entitlement ended with the contract's premature termination and that the penalty clause could not justify the full amount claimed. The decision underscores the balance between protecting agents' contractual rights and ensuring players' freedom to negotiate independently.
Procedurally, the agent filed the appeal in October 2017, seeking EUR 190,625 plus interest. The player's response was initially deemed inadmissible due to a missed deadline but was later admitted after the agent waived objections. The panel proceeded based on written submissions, as both parties agreed to forgo a hearing. The agent argued the player breached the exclusivity clause, while the player contested the clause's validity under FIFA, UEFA, and Polish regulations. The panel confirmed its jurisdiction, as both parties had signed the Order of Procedure, and deemed the appeal admissible.
On the merits, the panel addressed whether the agent was entitled to commission despite not negotiating the contract, whether damages should be reduced due to the contract's premature termination, the applicable interest rate, and the total damages. It found the exclusivity clause enforceable but overly restrictive, as it prohibited the player from acting independently. The panel ruled the agent was entitled to the penalty rate but reduced the claim to reflect the player's actual earnings (EUR 183,333 over four months) rather than the total contract value (EUR 1,950,000). The final award was EUR 34,375, as the panel could not award less than the PSC's decision due to the principle of ultra petita.
The panel also awarded 5% annual interest on EUR 27,500 (the recalculated commission) from October 2014, rejecting the original decision's denial of interest. The final ruling amended the PSC's decision to reflect these terms, partially upholding the agent's appeal. The case highlights the interplay between contractual agreements, sports regulations, and arbitration rules, emphasizing fairness in aligning commissions with actual earnings and respecting legal principles like pacta sunt servanda and interest obligations. The decision provides clarity on the enforceability of exclusivity clauses and the calculation of damages in sports representation disputes.