The case between Rafael Epstein, a football agent, and FC Lokomotiv Moscow centered on Epstein's claim for a commission of EUR 550,000, representing 10% of the transfer fee for a player moved from FC Akhizar Belediyespor to Lokomotiv. The dispute was adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which upheld FIFA's earlier decision dismissing Epstein's appeal. Epstein argued that an authorization granted by Lokomotiv in July 2014, allowing him to negotiate but not finalize the transfer, along with an alleged oral agreement, entitled him to the commission. Lokomotiv denied any oral agreement and contested Epstein's involvement in the transfer. The CAS panel found that the authorization did not meet FIFA's Players’ Agents Regulations (PAR) requirements for a full representation agreement and did not inherently entitle Epstein to a fee. The panel noted Epstein's inconsistent testimony and the absence of corroborating evidence for his claims. Additionally, the panel highlighted that Lokomotiv had engaged another agent, Natalia Dodonova, to finalize the transfer, further weakening Epstein's case. The decision underscored the necessity for clear, documented agreements in agent-club relationships and the challenges of relying on oral agreements in disputes.
Epstein's claim was initially rejected by FIFA's Players’ Status Committee, which cited the lack of a formal representation contract as required by FIFA regulations. The committee emphasized that the authorization did not specify remuneration and that Epstein failed to provide written evidence supporting his claim. Epstein appealed to CAS, where procedural disputes arose, including delays in Lokomotiv's response and objections to the attendance of Epstein's business partner at the hearing. The CAS panel ultimately ruled that Epstein's activities, such as identifying the transfer opportunity and setting up a meeting, did not constitute sufficient involvement to warrant a commission. The panel also dismissed Epstein's suspicions about the authenticity of the transfer agreement and Dodonova's contract, finding no evidence of forgery.
The case highlighted the complexities of agent-club relationships in football transfers, particularly the importance of formal agreements and the burden of proof in disputes. The CAS panel concluded that Epstein did not meet the required burden of proof to establish an enforceable agreement for commission. The decision reaffirmed that agents must ensure remuneration terms are explicitly agreed upon and documented, especially when operating under limited authorizations. The ruling dismissed Epstein's appeal, upheld FIFA's original decision, and rejected all further claims, emphasizing the need for clear contractual terms in football agency dealings. The outcome serves as a reminder of the legal and procedural challenges in such disputes and the necessity for agents to substantiate their claims with concrete evidence.