Kees Ploegsma v. PFC CSKA Moscow (CAS 2016/A/4573)
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 10 March 2017
Why it matters
This case clarifies that oral agency contracts in football can be valid under Swiss law even if they violate FIFA's written-form requirement, as the PAR does not provide for invalidation as a sanction. It also establishes that the two-year limitation period under FIFA PAR can be interrupted by a debtor's acknowledgment, applying Swiss law subsidiarily to fill a lacuna.
Summary
Kees Ploegsma, a Dutch football agent, helped transfer Japanese player K. from VVV-Venlo to PFC CSKA Moscow in 2009-2010. Ploegsma claimed an oral agreement with CSKA for a EUR 750,000 commission, of which EUR 500,000 was paid via a third party (Fileca). The remaining EUR 250,000 was unpaid. FIFA's Players' Status Committee rejected Ploegsma's claim, citing lack of a written contract as required by the FIFA Players' Agents Regulations (PAR). Ploegsma appealed to CAS. The CAS panel found that under Swiss law, contracts need not be in writing unless a specific form is prescribed. The PAR requires written representation contracts but does not state that oral agreements are invalid; the sanctions for non-compliance do not include invalidation. Thus, the oral agreement was valid. The panel also addressed the limitation period: the third instalment (EUR 150,000) was due 31 July 2012, and the claim was filed 31 March 2015, over two years later. However, an email from CSKA's sporting director on 15 May 2013 acknowledging the debt and promising payment in June interrupted the limitation period under Swiss law (Article 135 SCO), starting a new two-year period. The fourth instalment (EUR 100,000) was not time-barred. The panel ordered CSKA to pay EUR 250,000 plus 5% interest from the respective due dates.
The detail
Parties: Kees Ploegsma v PFC CSKA Moscow
Case number: CAS 2016/A/4573
Outcome: Appeal upheld; CSKA ordered to pay Ploegsma EUR 250,000 plus interest.
Quantum: EUR 250,000
Applicable law: FIFA Players' Agents Regulations (2008 edition), Swiss Code of Obligations
Issues in play: Whether an oral agency contract is valid despite FIFA PAR requiring written form; whether the two-year limitation period under FIFA PAR can be interrupted by acknowledgment of debt 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.