Genoa Cricket and Football Club v. Juan Aisa Blanco (CAS 2013/A/3393)
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 23 June 2014
Why it matters
This case clarifies the burden of proof in agent commission disputes: once a written representation contract and transfer agreement reference the agent's involvement, the club must rebut the presumption of causation. It also confirms that mere association of two agents with the same parent company does not prove a conflict of interest under Art. 19.8; actual evidence of dual representation or double remuneration is required. The decision on amicus curiae briefs from FIFA is also notable.
Summary
Genoa Cricket and Football Club appealed a FIFA decision ordering it to pay agent Juan Aisa Blanco EUR 350,000 under a representation contract for facilitating the transfer of player J. from UD Almeria. The club argued (1) no causal link between the agent's activity and the transfer, (2) conflict of interest because the agent and the player's agent both belonged to the same sports management company You First Sport, and (3) attempted double remuneration. The CAS Panel applied Swiss law and FIFA Regulations. On causation, the Panel noted that while the agent provided no direct evidence (emails, phone records), the transfer agreement itself referenced the agent's causal role and was written on the club's paper and signed by the club. This shifted the burden to the club to rebut the presumption, which it failed to do. On conflict of interest, Art. 19.8 prohibits an agent from representing both sides in the same transaction. The Panel found no evidence that the agent acted for both club and player; he represented only the club in negotiations with UD Almeria. The mere fact that both agents worked for the same parent company did not prove a conflict. On double remuneration, the club's payment of EUR 50,000 during proceedings was consistent with the contract, not evidence of double dipping. The Panel dismissed the appeal and confirmed the FIFA decision, ordering the club to pay the outstanding EUR 350,000 plus 5% interest. The Panel also denied the club's request for an amicus curiae brief from FIFA, reasoning that FIFA, as the first-instance decision-maker, should not provide interpretive briefs on appeal.
The detail
Parties: Genoa Cricket and Football Club v Juan Aisa Blanco
Case number: CAS 2013/A/3393
Outcome: Appeal dismissed; FIFA decision confirmed; Club ordered to pay agent EUR 350,000 plus interest.
Quantum: EUR 350,000
Applicable law: FIFA Players' Agents Regulations (2008 edition); Swiss Civil Code (Art. 8); CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration
Issues in play: Burden of proof regarding agent's causal role in transfer; interpretation of conflict of interest under Art. 19.8 of FIFA Regulations.
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.