Editor’s note: Josep F. Vandellos Alamilla is an
international sports lawyer and academic based in Valencia (Spain) and a member
of the Editorial Board of the publication Football Legal. Since 2017 he is the
Director of the Global Master in Sports
Management and Legal Skills FC Barcelona – ISDE.
I think we would all agree that the reputation of
players’ agents, nowadays called intermediaries, has never been a good one for
plenty of reasons. But the truth is their presence in the football industry is
much needed and probably most of the transfers would never take place if these
outcast members of the self-proclaimed football
family were not there to ensure a fluid and smooth communication between all
For us, sports lawyers, intermediaries are also
important clients as they often need our advice to structure the deals in which
they take part. One of the most recurrent situations faced by intermediaries and
agents operating off-the-radar (i.e. not registered in any football association
member of FIFA) is the risk of entering in a so-called multiparty or dual representation
and the potential risks associated with such a situation.
The representation of the interests of multiple
parties in football intermediation can take place for instance when the agent represents
the selling club, the buying club and/or the player in the same transfer, or when
the agent is remunerated by multiple parties, and in general when the agent incurs
the risk of jeopardizing the trust deposited upon him/her by the principal. The
situations are multiple and can manifest in different manners.
This article will briefly outline the regulatory
framework regarding multiparty representation applicable to registered
intermediaries. It will then focus on provisions of Swiss law and the
identification of the limits of dual representation in the light of the CAS
jurisprudence and some relevant decisions of the Swiss Federal Tribunal.More...
Editor’s Note: Shervine Nafissi (@SNafissi) is a Phd Student in sports law and teaching assistant in corporate law at University of Lausanne (Switzerland), Faculty of Business and Economics (HEC).
The factual background
The dispute concerns a TPO contract entitled “Economic Rights Participation Agreement” (hereinafter “ERPA”) concluded in 2012 between Sporting Lisbon and the investment fund Doyen Sports. The Argentine player was transferred in 2012 by Spartak Moscow to Sporting Lisbon for a transfer fee of €4 million. Actually, Sporting only paid €1 million of the fee while Doyen Sports financed the remaining €3 million. In return, the investment company became the owner of 75% of the economic rights of the player. Thus, in this specific case, the Portuguese club was interested in recruiting Marcos Rojo but was unable to pay the transfer fee required by Spartak Moscow, so that they required the assistance of Doyen Sports. The latter provided them with the necessary funds to pay part of the transfer fee in exchange of an interest on the economic rights of the player.
Given that the facts and circumstances leading to the dispute, as well as the decision of the CAS, were fully described by Antoine Duval in last week’s blog of Doyen vs. Sporting, this blog will solely focus on the decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (“FSC”) following Sporting’s appeal against the CAS award. As a preliminary point, the role of the FSC in the appeal against CAS awards should be clarified.More...
Editor’s note: Professor
Mitten is the Director of the National Sports Law Institute and the LL.M. in
Sports Law program for foreign lawyers at Marquette University Law School in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He currently teaches courses in Amateur Sports Law, Professional
Sports Law, Sports Sponsorship Legal and Business Issues Workshop, and Torts.
Professor Mitten is a member of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS),
and has served on the ad hoc Division for the XXI Winter Olympic Games in Sochi,
This Book Review is published at 26 Marquette Sports Law Review 247 (2015).
comprehensive treatise of more than 700 pages on the Code of the Court of
Arbitration for Sport (CAS) (the Code) is an excellent resource that is useful
to a wide audience, including attorneys representing parties before the CAS,
CAS arbitrators, and sports law professors and scholars, as well as
international arbitration counsel, arbitrators, and scholars. It also should be of interest to national
court judges and their law clerks because it facilitates their understanding of
the CAS arbitration process for resolving Olympic and international sports
disputes and demonstrates that the Code provides procedural fairness and
substantive justice to the parties, thereby justifying judicial recognition and
enforcement of its awards.
Because the Code has been in existence
for more than twenty years—since November 22, 1994—and has been revised four
times, this book provides an important and much needed historical perspective
and overview that identifies and explains well-established principles of CAS
case law and consistent practices of CAS arbitrators and the CAS Court Office. Both authors formerly served as Counsel to
the CAS and now serve as Head of Research and Mediation at CAS and CAS
Secretary General, respectively, giving them the collective expertise and
experience that makes them eminently well-qualified to research and write this
Graph 1: Number of Cases submitted to CAS (CAS Satistics)