CAS 2017A5219 Gaetano Marotta v Al Ain FC
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 20 Apr 2018
Why it matters
This case clarifies the strict requirements for applying the 'Durchgriff' principle in CAS arbitration, particularly that a sole shareholder must provide more than a self-declaration to pierce the corporate veil. It also confirms that the date of notification of a claim is irrelevant for the two-year limitation period under FIFA RSTP; the key date is the event giving rise to the dispute.
Summary
Gaetano Marotta, a licensed players' agent, claimed he was entitled to a €900,000 commission from Al Ain FC for facilitating the transfer of a player from Sunderland AFC in 2011. Marotta acted through his company, Gama Sport & Events SA, which had a mandate from Al Ain. However, the transfer ultimately fell through, and Al Ain later signed a loan deal with Sunderland via another agent. Marotta filed a claim with FIFA in July 2013, but the FIFA Single Judge rejected it, finding that the contract was with Gama Sport & Events SA, not Marotta personally. Marotta appealed to CAS, arguing that as the sole shareholder of Gama, he should be entitled to the commission under the 'Durchgriff' principle (piercing the corporate veil). The CAS panel dismissed the appeal. It held that Marotta failed to prove he was the sole shareholder, as he only provided a self-declaration and an employee's testimony, not the share certificates or register. The panel also found no abuse of rights by Al Ain. Additionally, the panel noted that even if Marotta had standing, the claim might be time-barred under FIFA's two-year limitation period, as the event (the alleged commission agreement) occurred in September 2011, and the claim was filed in July 2013, but the panel did not need to decide this. The decision upholds the principle that a company is a distinct legal entity and that piercing the corporate veil requires clear evidence of sole ownership and abuse.
The detail
Parties: CAS 2017A5219 Gaetano Marotta v Al Ain FC
Outcome: Appeal dismissed; FIFA Single Judge decision upheld; Mr. Marotta has no standing to sue Al Ain FC.
Applicable law: FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) 2012 edition; Swiss Code of Obligations; CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration
Issues in play: The dispute involved the principle of 'Durchgriff' (piercing the corporate veil) under Swiss law, and the question of whether a natural person can claim rights belonging to his company. Also at issue was the two-year limitation period under FIFA RSTP Article 25 para. 5.
Read the full decision at Court of Arbitration for Sport (football, via FIFA) ↗
Locus Standi links to the source decision and publishes its own plain-language summary. It does not reproduce the text of the award.