This year’s FIFA congress in Sao Paulo should not be remembered only for the controversy surrounding the bid for the World Cup 2022 in Qatar. The controversy was surely at the centre of the media coverage, but in its shadow more long-lasting decisions were taken. For example, the new Regulations on Working with Intermediaries was approved, which is probably the most important recent change to FIFA regulations. These new Regulations will supersede the Regulations on Players’ Agents when they come into force on 1 April 2015. In this blog post we compare the old and the new Regulations followed by a short analysis and prospective view on the effects this change could have. 

The Road to the New Regulations

Players’ agents, or “intermediaries” should we use FIFA’s new terminology, provide their services to football players and clubs to conclude employment contracts and transfer agreements. FIFA has been regulating this activity since it introduced the first Regulations on players’ agents on 1 January 1996. Even though the Regulations were amended several times since then, it is only during the last five years that a permanent consultation process was put in place. According to a FIFA press release, the consultation process involved member associations, confederations, clubs, FIFPro and professional football leagues. Surprisingly however, the press release does not mention whether agent stakeholders, such as Pro Agent were also consulted. The ultimate objective of these consultations was to propose a new system that is more transparent and simpler in its implementation and administration.[1] At the beginning of 2013, a Sub-Committee for Club Football was set up to deal exclusively with the issue of reforming the Players’ Agents Regulations. Later on that year the Committee presented a draft for the FIFA Congress 2013 based on the following three findings:

1. The current licensing system should be abandoned

2. A set of minimum standards and requirements  must be established in FIFA’s future regulatory framework

3. A registration for intermediaries must be set up [2]

The draft Regulations were finally approved by the FIFA Executive Committee on 21 March 2014 and by the FIFA Congress on 11 June 2014. Furthermore, the three objectives outlined are supposedly reflected in the new Regulations.  

A Rough Comparison of the Old and New Agents/Intermediaries Regulations

In the following flowcharts we have summarized the key requirements enshrined in both the old and the new agents/intermediaries FIFA regulations. This provides a clear comparison of the differences and similarities existing between the two regulatory frameworks.

Flowchart: Becoming an Agent under the Old FIFA Regulations
FlowchartRegulationsPlayers'Agents.jpg (179.7KB) 

Flowchart: Becoming an Intermediary under the New FIFA Regulations
FlowchartRegulationsonWorkingwithIntermediaries.jpg (146.5KB)

By abandoning the old licensing system, the procedure to become an intermediary becomes much simpler than before. The applicant does not have to undergo an examination by FIFA anymore, nor does he need to conclude a professional liability insurance in his own name or provide a bank guarantee from a Swiss bank for a minimum amount of CHF 100,000. Furthermore, in contrast to the old Regulations, legal persons can now also act as intermediaries. Thus, in the near future we can expect players such as Cristiano Ronaldo, Radamel Falcao and coach Jose Mourinho to be represented by the agents’ company GestiFute rather than simply the agent Jorge Mendes. 

However, it should be noted that FIFA’s new Regulations on Working with Intermediaries are to be considered as minimum standards or requirements. In accordance with Art. 1(3), the right of associations to go beyond these minimum standards/requirements is preserved. In other words, national associations can set higher thresholds for becoming an intermediary should they wish for. In order to better understand the practical reality of the regulation of agents it is therefore necessary to analyse to what extent different associations set different standards and requirements.  

Registration

Under the new Regulations, the national associations will still be responsible for adopting a registration system regarding the intermediaries. However, several important changes between the old and the new Regulations can be deciphered, including the contractual terms between the intermediary and the player/club and the remuneration terms.  

Contractual terms

Under the old Regulations, the representation contract between the agent and the player and/or club would only be valid for a maximum period of two years. Moreover, the contract could be extended for another period of maximum two years (Art. 19(3) of the old Regulations). According to Art. 3 of the new Regulations, "intermediaries must be registered in the relevant registration system every time they are individually involved in a specific transaction". Players and clubs disclose all the details to the association when called upon. Thus, by allowing players not to be contractually bound to a specific intermediary for a specific period of time, the bargaining position of the player when engaging the services of an intermediary is likely to increase.

Remuneration terms

In both the old as well as in the new Regulations the amount of remuneration shall be calculated on the basis of the player’s basic gross income. [3] Nonetheless, where under the old Regulations the remuneration is calculated on the basis of the player’s annual income, under the new Regulations the remunerations is calculated on the basis of the player’s income for the entire duration of the contract. Moreover, as stipulated in Art. 7(3)a) of the new Regulations, the “total amount of remuneration per transaction due to intermediaries (…) should not exceed 3% of the player’s basic gross income for the entire duration of the contract”. Secondly, the new Regulations prohibit any payment to intermediaries when the player is a minor.[4] With the new provisions on remuneration FIFA hopes to avoid that intermediaries exploit players. Indeed, in many countries it is still common practice for players to (unknowingly) sign contracts with their agents forcing them to pay a much higher share of their income. This was perfectly possible under the old Regulations since it did not provide a remuneration limit due to the players’ agents and there was no prohibition regarding remuneration to the agent when the player is a minor and should be way more difficult under the new Regulations.

Conclusion
With the new Regulations FIFA attempts not to regulate access to the activity anymore, but instead to shape the practice itself: players and clubs are authorised to choose any parties as intermediaries and can change intermediary at any moment since they are not bound by a contract with the intermediary. Furthermore, with the remuneration limit of 3% of the player’s income FIFA aims to limit the risk of players being exploited by their intermediaries.

Even though FIFA has explicitly stated the new Regulations will not deregulate the profession, it seems that it is placing the main responsibility to regulate onto the national associations. Not only will all the national associations be required to introduce a registration system, but they are also responsible for enforcing the rules and for imposing sanctions in case the new Regulations are breached. As we have seen, when selecting an intermediary, players and clubs shall act with due diligence. However, the definition of the interpretation of the notion of due diligence is left open and could differ from country to country.

With the game of football becoming ever more globalised and with an ever increasing amount of international transfers of players, regulating the profession of agent/intermediary at the national level is becoming increasingly difficult. In this context, FIFA has adopted a surprising orientation by delegating the responsibility to regulate the profession to the national associations.

[1] http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/organisation/administration/news/newsid=2301236/

[2] http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/organisation/bodies/congress/news/newsid=2088917/

[3] The Regulations on Players’ Agents, Art. 20(1) and the Regulations on Players’ Agents, Art. 7(1)

[4] The Regulations on Players’ Agents, Art. 7(8)

The year is coming to an end and it has been a relatively busy one for the CAS Ad Hoc divisions. Indeed, the Ad Hoc division was, as usual now since the Olympic Games in Atlanta in 1996[1], settling  “Olympic” disputes during the Winter Olympics in Sochi. However, it was also, and this is a novelty, present at the Asian Games 2014 in Incheon.  Both divisions have had to deal with seven (published) cases in total (four in Sochi and three in Incheon). The early commentaries available on the web (here, here and there), have been relatively unmoved by this year’s case law. Was it then simply ‘business as usual’, or is there more to learn from the 2014 Ad Hoc awards? Two different dimensions of the 2014 decisions by the Ad Hoc Division seem relevant to elaborate on : the jurisdiction quandary (part. 1) and the selection drama (part. 2).

Part. 1: The Jurisdiction quandary: Too early to be judged!

The scope of jurisdiction of the Ad Hoc Division of CAS is provided for in article 1 of the ‘Arbitration Rules for the Olympic Games’ (the same is true for the Asian Games)[2]. However, legal uncertainties over this scope of jurisdiction remain a defining feature. Many earlier disputes in front of the Ad Hoc division have tackled this question, and this has been true again this year.[3]

It is not so much the scope rationae personae that might be problematic, although one case arose at the Asian games in which two former squash players were denied access to the Ad Hoc division on the basis of not being “participating athletes”.[4] Nor is it the rationae materiae that has been a real problem, as claimants tend to submit disputes, which are related to the Games. No, the problem child is usually the jurisdiction rationae temporis. Indeed, article 1 of the rules states that “any disputes covered by Rule 61 of the Olympic Charter, insofar as they arise during the Olympic Games or during a period of ten days preceding the Opening Ceremony of the Olympic Games” can be subjected to the jurisdiction of the Ad Hoc Division. So the key question is: When does a dispute “arise”? 

In the Birkner case[5], the Ad Hoc Division in Sochi had to grapple extensively with the question of when the dispute arose as, during the hearing, the respondent, Comitato Olympico Argentino, “denied the existence of a basis of jurisdiction of the panel”. The case concerned a selection drama for the Sochi Games (see part 2); jurisdiction rationae personae and rationae materiae were unproblematic. The CAS did examine whether the local remedies were exhausted, and considered that “that there were no internal remedies to exhaust”.[6] The only barrier left for jurisdiction to be asserted was the ratione temporis. In short, “did the dispute arise in the required time frame?”[7]

This “vexing issue” [8] was touched upon repeatedly in past Ad Hoc division awards.[9] In the Birkner case, it had to be demonstrated that the dispute arose not earlier than the 28 January 2014, 10 days before the opening ceremony scheduled for the 7 February 2014. The panel first reaffirmed the fact that “the date when the dispute arose cannot, per se, be the date when the Request for Arbitration is filed” .[10]  So, back to the key question, when did the dispute arise?

The award refers extensively to the Schuler case[11]. In its main holding on jurisdiction, the 2006 panel considered that “it would not be possible to say that a dispute had arisen until Ms Schuler had decided to appeal and had filed notice of her appeal”.[12] Nevertheless, the 2014 panel refused to consider the Schuler precedent to be applicable to the Birkner case for two reasons: the factual situation is different and the reasoning used in Schuler is fundamentally flawed.

On the factual side, contrary to the Schuler case, the panel finds that “[i]n the present case […] the explanation was not given on a date inside the required period, as it was either on 20 January 2014, which is the date of the letter of explanation, or on 22 January 2014, which is the date on which the Applicant says that she received that letter”.[13] Both of these dates being well before the 10 days period, the panel is of the opinion that it lacks jurisdiction. On the legal side, the panel is clearly not “convinced by the legal reasoning adopted in the Schuler case” .[14] In fact, it considers that “[s]uch conclusion could extend the jurisdiction of the ad hoc Division outside the precise and limited framework set by the Rules, which this Panel is required to respect and apply” [15]. The panel is of the opinion that “the date when a dispute arises is in general […] the date of the decision with which the Applicant disagrees” .[16] However, “[s]uch a date can arise later […] if […] the decision is not self-explanatory and requires some explanation in order for the parties to know with certainty that they are in disagreement”.[17]

This is a noteworthy consideration, which indicates a substantial reduction of the scope of jurisdiction of the CAS Ad Hoc Division. If the parties do not agree to the jurisdiction of CAS (in practice they often do not contest the jurisdiction[18]) it will render more difficult the referral of a dispute to the Ad Hoc Division. This understanding of the start of a dispute is contradicting the overall aim of the Ad Hoc Division, which is to deal swiftly with all disputes intimately linked to the Games. In this light, a more flexible interpretation of the jurisdiction rationae temporis, as suggested in the Schuler case, is preferable. Athletes are no legal experts; they (and sometimes their lawyers) need time to find their way through the jungle of sporting regulations and dispute resolution mechanisms potentially applicable. The crucial importance of the Olympic Games for an athlete’s career call for an interpretation of the start of the dispute that focuses on the intention to challenge the decision as highlighted in the Schuler award[19]. Moreover, any doubts concerning the starting date of the dispute should play in favour of the athlete, unless the time between the date of notification of the contentious decision and the decision to lodge a complaint in front of CAS is disproportionately (and abusively) long. The attack by the Birkner panel on the reasoning adopted in Schuler is no anodyne move; in the future it may threaten the access to justice of athletes and their ability to obtain a swift and fair decision, in a context where they most urgently need it.

[1] On the early days of the CAS Ad Hoc Division at the Olympics, the book by Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler is a must read : G. Kaufmann-Kohler, Arbitration at the Olympics, Kluwer Law, 2001.

[2] Article 1 of the Arbitration Rules for the OG stipulates that:

“The purpose of the present Rules is to provide, in the interests of the athletes and of sport, for the resolution by arbitration of any disputes covered by Rule 61 of the Olympic Charter, insofar as they arise during the Olympic Games or during a period of ten days preceding the Opening Ceremony of the Olympic Games.”

“In the case of a request for arbitration against a decision pronounced by the IOC, an NOC, an International Federation or an Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, the claimant must, before filing such request, have exhausted all the internal remedies available to him/her pursuant to the statutes or regulations of the sports body concerned, unless the time needed to exhaust the internal remedies would make the appeal to the CAS Ad Hoc Division ineffective.”

[3] CAS OG 14/03; CAS AG 14/01; CAS AG 14/02.

[4] See CAS AG 14/01, §2.5. See also CAS OG 12/03, §2.3.

[5] CAS OG 14/03

[6] CAS OG 14/03, §5.14

[7] CAS OG 14/03, §5.17-5-30

[8] CAS OG 14/03, §5.20

[9] Most notably in the Schuler case, CAS OG 06/002. For a general commentary see: I.S.LR. 2006 pp.50-51 and A. Rigozzi, ‘The decisions rendered by the CAS Ad Hoc Division at the Turin Winter Olympic Games 2006’, Journal of International Arbitration 23 (5): 453-466, 2006

[10] CAS OG 14/03, §5.21

[11] CAS OG 14/03, §5.24

[12] CAS OG 06/002, §14

[13] CAS OG 14/03, §5.25

[14] CAS OG 14/03, §5.25

[15] CAS OG 14/03, §5.27

[16] CAS OG 14/03, §5.28

[17] CAS OG 14/03, §5.28

[18] See for example CAS OG 14/01 §6.2 and CAS OG 14/02 §6.5

[19] In cases, in which the dispute overtly arose earlier than 10 days before the games such a restrictive interpretation could be tolerated. See for example: CAS OG 12/03, §2.3.23; CAS OG 12/02, §4.10; CAS OG 12/04, §5.2.