Danilyuk Mikhail v. Football Club Shinnik (CAS 2015/A/3889)
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 9 June 2015
Why it matters
This case confirms that a players' agent's remuneration can include a bonus payment based on the player's performance, as long as agreed in advance. It clarifies that no additional agent report is required for such bonus, and that the principle of pacta sunt servanda prevails. The decision also illustrates the interplay between FIFA regulations and national civil law in football agency disputes.
Summary
Mr. Danilyuk, a licensed players' agent, entered into an agency agreement with FC Shinnik in August 2011 to facilitate the transfer of a player. The contract provided for a fixed fee of USD 50,000 and an additional bonus of USD 50,000 per season if the player participated in official matches in the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 seasons. The player was transferred and the fixed fee was paid. However, when the player played in two matches in the 2012-2013 season, the club refused to pay the bonus, arguing that the agent had not performed any additional services and that the agreement was a sham. The Russian Football Union's Players' Status Committee dismissed the agent's claim, citing lack of an agent report and an additional act of completion. On appeal, the CAS Sole Arbitrator held that the bonus payment was valid under FIFA and RFU regulations, which allow a lump sum agreed in advance, including performance-based bonuses. The arbitrator found that the bonus was not dependent on further services by the agent, but on the player's participation, which was proven. Therefore, no additional report or act was required. The club was ordered to pay USD 50,000 plus 5% interest from the due date.
The detail
Parties: Danilyuk Mikhail v Football Club Shinnik
Case number: CAS 2015/A/3889
Outcome: Appeal upheld; Club ordered to pay additional remuneration of USD 50,000 plus 5% interest from 15 October 2013.
Quantum: USD 50,000
Applicable law: FIFA Players' Agents Regulations 2008, RFU Players' Agents Regulations 2010, Russian Civil Code (Articles 1006, 1008, 157, 395, 972, 991)
Issues in play: Whether a bonus payment contingent on player participation is valid under FIFA/RFU regulations and Russian civil law, and whether an agent must provide additional reports for such bonus.
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.