Rodrigo Ribeiro Souto v. Anselmo de Barros Paiva (CAS 2012/A/2889)
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 12 November 2013
Why it matters
This CAS award clarifies the burden of proof under Brazilian law in sports arbitration, the application of FIFA regulations over time, and the calculation of default interest under Brazilian law. It also addresses conflicts of interest when an agent holds economic rights in a player, though the panel found no conflict here.
Summary
The case concerns a dispute between Brazilian football player Rodrigo Ribeiro Souto and his agent Anselmo de Barros Paiva over unpaid commission under a representation agreement signed on 2 January 2007. The agent claimed 10% of the player's salaries from contracts he negotiated with Santos FC. The player argued that the agent had already been compensated through economic rights assignments and that the claim was time-barred. The CRL (Brazilian football dispute resolution body) partially upheld the agent's claim, awarding 10% of salaries from the second employment contract (2008-2009) but rejecting claims for the first contract due to a two-year prescription. The player appealed to CAS. The CAS panel confirmed the CRL decision, holding that the applicable FIFA regulations were those in force when the alleged violations occurred (2008 edition). Under Brazilian law, the player bore the burden of proving that a new agreement had replaced the 10% commission, which he failed to do. The panel also found no conflict of interest because the agent's percentage-based fee aligned his interests with the player's. The award ordered payment of R$132,000 plus 1% monthly interest from the date of summons (3 May 2010).
The detail
Parties: Rodrigo Ribeiro Souto v Anselmo de Barros Paiva
Case number: CAS 2012/A/2889
Outcome: Appeal dismissed; CRL decision confirmed: player ordered to pay agent R$132,000 plus 1% monthly interest from 3 May 2010.
Quantum: R$132,000
Applicable law: FIFA Regulations on Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) and FIFA Players' Agents Regulations (2001 and 2008 editions); Brazilian Civil Code; Brazilian National Tax Code; CAS Code of Sports-Related Arbitration
Issues in play: The case involved determining which version of FIFA regulations applied (2001 or 2008) and applying Brazilian law on prescription, burden of proof, and default interest.
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.