The case revolves around a legal dispute between Kenneth Joseph Asquez, a British football agent, and FC Manisaspor, a Turkish football club, concerning unpaid fees amounting to €285,000 under an Agent Contract. The dispute was initially brought before FIFA's Players' Status Committee (PSC) in 2011. Before the PSC could issue a decision, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement on September 17, 2012, wherein Manisaspor acknowledged the debt and agreed to a payment plan with specific installments due between September 2012 and December 2013. The agreement stipulated that if Manisaspor failed to comply, the remaining amounts would become immediately due, and the FIFA proceedings could be reactivated. The agreement also designated FIFA or the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) as the dispute resolution forums.
Despite the Settlement Agreement, the PSC issued a decision on September 25, 2012, ordering Manisaspor to pay the outstanding amount. However, FIFA later suspended the proceedings due to the Settlement Agreement. When Manisaspor failed to meet its payment obligations, Asquez sought to enforce the PSC decision through FIFA's disciplinary mechanisms. FIFA refused, arguing that the PSC decision had become obsolete due to the Settlement Agreement, which had resolved the dispute. Asquez contended that the PSC decision remained valid and that FIFA's refusal to act constituted a denial of justice. He filed an appeal with CAS, alleging that FIFA's inaction left him without legal recourse.
The case hinged on the principle of estoppel (venire contra factum proprium), which prevents a party from acting contrary to its prior actions if another party relied on them in good faith. The Sole Arbitrator emphasized that this principle could not be invoked by a party that did not act in good faith. The arbitrator found that the Settlement Agreement had novated the original debt, rendering the PSC decision null and void. The arbitrator also noted that Asquez had failed to inform FIFA of the Settlement Agreement in a timely manner, contributing to the confusion.
FIFA's jurisdictional changes, effective April 1, 2015, further complicated the matter, as they removed players' agents from the list of parties entitled to lodge claims before the PSC. Asquez argued that the case, having been suspended under the old regulations, should not be affected by the new rules. However, the arbitrator upheld FIFA's position, stating that the Settlement Agreement had resolved the dispute and that the PSC decision was no longer enforceable. The arbitrator also dismissed Asquez's claim for reimbursement of costs and compensation, ruling that FIFA had not committed a denial of justice.
The case underscores the complexities of contractual enforcement, jurisdictional changes, and the importance of good faith in legal proceedings. It highlights the challenges faced by agents in securing payments from clubs and the need for clear dispute resolution mechanisms. The arbitrator's decision reinforced the binding nature of settlement agreements and the consequences of non-compliance, ensuring that parties honor their commitments under established legal principles. The case was ultimately resolved by CAS, which affirmed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the obligations of the parties involved.