Gaetano Marotta v. Al Ain FC (CAS 2017/A/5219)
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 20 April 2018
Why it matters
This case clarifies the strict requirements for applying the 'Durchgriff' principle in Swiss law, particularly in sports arbitration. It establishes that a natural person claiming to be the sole shareholder must provide concrete evidence (e.g., share certificates or shareholder register) beyond a self-declaration and employee testimony. The decision reinforces the legal independence of a company and limits the ability to pierce the corporate veil to claim rights belonging to the company.
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 player A. from Sunderland to Al Ain in 2011. Marotta acted through his company, Gama Sport & Events SA, which had a mandate from Al Ain. However, the transfer negotiations fell through, and Al Ain later signed a loan deal with Sunderland through another agent, Rawad Georges Kassis, paying him €600,000. Marotta filed a claim with FIFA on 1 July 2013, more than two years after the events. The FIFA Single Judge rejected the claim on the merits, 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 able to claim 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 shareholder register. The Panel also noted that Al Ain did not abuse its rights by insisting on the company's separate legal personality. Additionally, the Panel found that Marotta's claim was time-barred under FIFA's two-year limitation period, as the events occurred in September 2011 and the claim was filed in July 2013. The Panel upheld the FIFA decision, confirming that Marotta had no standing to sue personally.
The detail
Parties: Gaetano Marotta v Al Ain FC
Case number: CAS 2017/A/5219
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), Swiss Code of Obligations, CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration
Issues in play: The case involved the principle of 'Durchgriff' (piercing the corporate veil) to determine whether Mr. Marotta could personally claim a commission that was owed to his company, Gama Sport & Events SA. Also at issue was the timeliness of the claim under FIFA's two-year limitation period.
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.