The case revolves around a contractual dispute between Sporting du Pays de Charleroi, a Belgian football club, and David Dudu Dahan, a licensed players’ agent from Israel, concerning payments related to the transfer of a player represented by Dahan. The dispute originated from a representation agreement signed in April 2009 between Dahan’s company, Scoutpush Ltd, and the player, granting Dahan exclusive mediation rights and a 10% fee of the player’s annual gross salary. A subsequent contract in December 2010 between the club and Dahan stipulated two lump-sum payments of €25,000 each for legal and tax assistance related to the transfer. While the first payment was made, the club failed to pay the second installment, leading Dahan to file a claim with FIFA’s Players’ Status Committee (PSC) in November 2012. The club countered by initiating legal action in a Belgian court, arguing the contract was void under Belgian law, and later submitted a counterclaim with FIFA seeking reimbursement of the first payment.
In August 2017, the PSC’s Single Judge partially accepted Dahan’s claim, ordering the club to pay the outstanding €25,000 plus interest, while dismissing the club’s counterclaim as inadmissible. The club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), challenging the decision on grounds including the applicability of Belgian and Swiss laws regulating job placement agencies and the validity of the payment arrangement. The CAS upheld the PSC’s decision, clarifying that players’ agents, as natural persons licensed by football associations, may organize their work through a business but must personally handle representation. The tribunal also ruled that Belgian and Swiss laws on job placement agencies did not apply to Dahan, as he was not regularly active in those markets. Additionally, the CAS confirmed that FIFA regulations permit clubs to pay agents on a player’s behalf with written consent, provided the terms align with the player-agent agreement.
The CAS Sole Arbitrator further addressed the club’s procedural arguments, including an unsubstantiated claim of parallel proceedings in Belgium, and dismissed the club’s assertion that the contract was void under Belgian law. The arbitrator emphasized the primacy of FIFA regulations, with Swiss law applying subsidiarily, and upheld the validity of the contract. The player’s written consent for the club to pay Dahan directly was deemed sufficient under FIFA rules, and the club’s failure to provide evidence of payment for the second installment reinforced Dahan’s entitlement to the amount. The arbitrator also rejected the club’s counterclaim for reimbursement of the first payment, noting it was time-barred under FIFA rules.
Ultimately, the CAS dismissed the club’s appeal, confirming the PSC’s decision and ordering the club to pay the outstanding €25,000 plus interest. The ruling underscored the enforceability of FIFA regulations in international football disputes and the limited recourse to national courts in such matters. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to contractual obligations and the consequences of breaching agreements governed by FIFA’s legal framework. The case reinforced the binding nature of contracts between clubs and agents, provided they comply with FIFA regulations, and clarified the jurisdictional boundaries between national laws and international football governance.