Ginés Carvajal Seller v. FC Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk (CAS 2013/A/3443)
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 6 October 2014
Why it matters
This case clarifies that a failure to comply with FIFA's written contract requirement does not automatically void an agency agreement. It establishes that agents can rely on oral agreements and Swiss law to claim commission, and that the burden of proof lies on the club to show the agent agreed to be paid by a third party. The decision also confirms that 5% interest applies under Swiss law for late payments.
Summary
Ginés Carvajal Seller, a Spanish football agent, was authorized by FC Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk to negotiate the transfer of Brazilian player Giuliano Victor de Paula from Internacional. The authorization was in writing but did not specify the commission rate. The agent claimed they orally agreed on a 5% commission (€550,000). After the transfer, the club refused to pay, arguing the agent had agreed to be paid by the player's agent, Tonietto, under a separate agreement. The FIFA Players' Status Committee rejected the agent's claim, citing lack of written commission agreement. On appeal, the CAS panel found that while the written mandate did not meet FIFA's strict requirements for a representation contract, the oral agreement was valid under Swiss law. The panel held that FIFA's regulations do not invalidate oral agreements; they only allow sanctions. The agent proved on balance of probabilities that 5% was agreed, supported by testimony from the agent and Internacional's lawyer. The club failed to prove the agent agreed to be paid by Tonietto. The panel ordered the club to pay €550,000 plus 5% interest from the date of first demand.
The detail
Parties: Gines Carvajal Seller v FC Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk
Case number: CAS 2013/A/3443
Outcome: Appeal allowed; FC Dnipro ordered to pay €550,000 plus 5% interest from 6 July 2011 to the agent.
Quantum: €550,000
Applicable law: FIFA Regulations on Players' Agents (2008), Swiss Code of Obligations
Issues in play: The case involved a conflict between FIFA's requirement for a written agency contract (Article 19) and Swiss law's recognition of oral agreements. The panel held that non-compliance with FIFA's form requirement does not invalidate the agreement but may lead to sanctions; the agent could still claim commission under Swiss law.
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.