The case involves a contractual dispute between Nicolas Gabriel Franco, a football players' agent, and Sportovni Klub Slavia Praha (SK Slavia Praha), a Czech football club, regarding unpaid fees for Franco's services in negotiating a player's employment contract. The dispute originated from an agreement signed on January 30, 2014, where SK Slavia agreed to pay Franco a fixed fee of EUR 100,000 for recruiting the player D. The payment was due by February 28, 2014, but SK Slavia failed to fulfill its obligation, prompting Franco to seek legal recourse. Franco initially filed a claim with the Football Association of the Czech Republic (FACR) in November 2014, but it was declared inadmissible in December 2014 due to lack of jurisdiction, as Franco was not registered as an agent with the FACR.
Franco then pursued the matter through FIFA’s Players’ Status Committee (PSC) in January 2015, but FIFA initially declined to proceed, citing the pending FACR proceedings. After the FACR Arbitration Panel ruled against Franco in March 2016, stating that SK Slavia owed nothing due to the termination of the player’s contract, Franco requested FIFA to reopen the case in July 2016. However, by this time, FIFA’s 2015 Regulations on Working with Intermediaries had come into effect, excluding disputes involving agents from FIFA’s jurisdiction. FIFA treated Franco’s request as a new claim and declared it inadmissible. Franco subsequently appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in March 2018, naming both FIFA and SK Slavia as respondents.
The CAS proceedings addressed several procedural and substantive issues, including the correct identification of the respondent (SK Slavia vs. Sportovni Klub Slavia Praha) and the applicability of FIFA’s jurisdiction under the 2015 regulations. The Sole Arbitrator determined that Franco’s initial claim filed with FIFA in January 2015 had been effectively withdrawn when his lawyer requested reimbursement of the advance of costs in March 2016, citing FIFA’s lack of competence. Consequently, the claim filed in July 2016 was considered a new submission, falling outside FIFA’s jurisdiction under the 2015 regulations. The Sole Arbitrator upheld FIFA’s decision, dismissing Franco’s appeal and confirming that the original claim had been abandoned.
The case highlights the complexities of jurisdictional conflicts in sports disputes, particularly involving agents and clubs, and underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules and forum selection in arbitration. It also illustrates the challenges posed by regulatory changes, such as FIFA’s shift from regulating players’ agents to intermediaries, which affected the resolution of ongoing disputes. The decision emphasized the binding nature of contractual terms and the limitations on revisiting disputes once resolved or abandoned in a chosen forum. Franco was left with the option to pursue his claim in competent ordinary courts, as the CAS ruling did not address the merits of his financial claim. The case serves as a reminder of the procedural hurdles and jurisdictional nuances inherent in sports arbitration.