Key CAS Cases Involving Agents in 2024
Appeal over FIFA’s Agent Licensing Decision
One prominent case was CAS 2023/A/9938 José Pedro da Silva Maia Pinho v. FIFA (award dated 26 April 2024). The subject of this appeal was FIFA’s decision to reject an agent’s license application under the new FFAR. FIFA had denied Mr. Pinho a football agent license because he failed to meet an eligibility requirement in Article 5(a)(ii) of the FFAR – specifically, the rule that an applicant “must have never been convicted of a criminal charge”. Mr. Pinho had a prior criminal conviction (for an offense described as “damage with violence”), which was under appeal in court.
Legal issues: In his CAS appeal, the agent challenged both procedural and substantive aspects of FIFA’s decision. Procedurally, he argued that FIFA violated his right to be heard by failing to notify him of important correspondence during the licensing process, and he claimed he should be exempt from the new exam requirement because he had previously been a registered intermediary with the Portuguese FA. Substantively, he contended that since his criminal case was still on appeal (not final), it should not count as a disqualifying conviction under the FFAR’s eligibility rules.
Outcome: CAS dismissed the appeal, firmly upholding FIFA’s decision to refuse the license. The panel found no procedural unfairness – the electronic communications sent via FIFA’s Agent Platform were deemed valid notice, and the agent had ample opportunity to present his case during CAS proceedings. On the substantive issues, CAS interpreted the FFAR strictly. The panel decided that the agent’s offense (“damage with violence”) clearly qualified as a “violent crime” under the regulations, and it rejected the notion that only final convictions count – noting that the FFAR deliberately omitted any reference to a “final” conviction, implying any conviction is disqualifying. In sum, the CAS panel concluded the applicant did not meet the FFAR’s integrity criteria, which justified the license rejection, and thus the appeal was dismissed with the FIFA decision upheld in full.
Appeal Involving an Agent Contract and Force Majeure
Another significant case was CAS 2023/A/10178 Federación Venezolana de Fútbol (FVF) v. Evgeni Marinov (award dated 10 September 2024). The subject of this dispute was a FIFA Players’ Status Chamber (PSC) decision that ordered the Venezuelan Football Federation (FVF) to pay a match agent (Mr. Marinov) a sum of money for his services. The agent had organised a friendly tournament in Türkiye, which FVF agreed to participate in via a contract. After a severe earthquake struck Türkiye on 6 February 2023, FVF refused to send its team to the tournament, citing the disaster as a force majeure event, and unilaterally terminated the contract with the agent without paying the full agreed fees . The agent’s claim for his fee (including a penalty clause) was upheld by FIFA’s PSC, and FVF appealed that ruling to CAS.
Legal issues: The core question was whether the earthquake justified contract termination under a force majeure clause in the agent agreement, thereby excusing FVF from paying the agent. FVF argued the unforeseen natural disaster fundamentally altered the circumstances, invoking force majeure and the doctrine of clausula rebus sic stantibus (change of circumstances) to avoid its payment obligations. The CAS case therefore examined the validity of invoking force majeure in these conditions and the burden of proof on the party claiming it. Another issue was that FVF had not paid the first instalment due under the contract even before the earthquake occurred, raising questions of good faith and contract breach by FVF.
Outcome: CAS ruled against the federation, siding with the agent and enforcing the contract. The Sole Arbitrator found that the force majeure clause could not be triggered because, in reality, the tournament still took place as scheduled despite the earthquake – all matches were eventually played, and the event was held successfully. Thus, the earthquake did not actually prevent the tournament or the possibility of FVF’s participation. Moreover, FVF failed to prove that it was truly unable to perform its obligations. The award noted that FVF provided no concrete evidence of an impossibility to travel or play – the federation could not show why the team couldn’t fly to Türkiye or how the situation made performance unfeasible. The arbitrator also pointed out that by the time FVF sent its termination notice, it was already in default on its first payment to the agent, undermining its position that the contract was terminated solely due to the earthquake . Under Swiss law (applicable via the CAS rules) and the contract terms, there was no legal basis to relieve FVF of its duties, especially given that the agent had fulfilled all of his obligations in organising the tournament.
Consequently, CAS held that FVF had no valid grounds to terminate the agreement and must honour the contract. The appeal was dismissed, and the PSC decision was confirmed. FVF was ordered to pay the agent the outstanding balance of €18,540 plus a contractual penalty of €26,000, with a high interest rate of 15% per annum as stipulated, running from April 2023 until payment. This outcome reinforced that even in the face of unexpected events, a party must meet a very high threshold to invoke force majeure; otherwise, contractual payment obligations to agents remain in force.
Trends and Legal Insights for Agent-Related Appeals
The 2024 CAS caseload suggests several trends and implications for football agents and other stakeholders:
- Rise of Agent Appeals: The number of CAS appeals involving agent issues more than doubled compared to the previous year (from 3 to 7 cases). This surge is largely attributed to FIFA’s new Football Agent Regulations coming into effect, leading to new types of disputes (e.g. licensing denials, compliance with agent rules). Agent-related matters have become a noticeable portion of CAS’s football docket (about 6% of FIFA cases in 2024), whereas they were minimal before. This indicates that agents and clubs/federations are increasingly willing to litigate issues around agent rights and obligations.
- Strict Enforcement of Agent Regulations: CAS decisions in 2024 show a strict approach to FIFA’s agent rules. In the licensing case, the panel underscored that integrity criteria will be enforced to the letter – a criminal conviction (especially for a violent offense) is a firm bar to obtaining a license, even if that conviction is under appeal. CAS gave deference to FIFA’s regulatory intent to uphold professional standards among agents. Aspiring agents should therefore ensure they meet all FFAR requirements (clean criminal record, exam, etc.), as CAS is unlikely to overturn FIFA’s application of these rules absent clear misuse of process. The Pinho case also clarified that procedural complaints (like lack of notice) will not succeed if CAS finds the applicant still had a fair chance to present his case.
- Force Majeure is Narrowly Construed: The Marinov case provides a cautionary tale on claiming force majeure to escape contractual duties to agents. CAS maintained a high bar for what qualifies as an exonerating event. Even a serious incident like a natural disaster must truly prevent performance to justify non-compliance. If the event’s impact can be mitigated or if the intended event (match/tournament) proceeds regardless, parties will still be held to their contracts. Clubs and federations cannot lightly walk away from agreements with agents without consequence. They must document concrete, insurmountable impediments if they seek to invoke force majeure; otherwise, CAS is likely to enforce payment clauses, including any agreed penalties and interest for late payment. On the flip side, for agents, this outcome is encouraging – it shows that CAS will uphold agents’ rights to agreed fees as long as the agent fulfilled their obligations, offering confidence that contracts with clubs/FAs are legally robust.
- Contractual Clarity and Penalties: The decisions also highlight the importance of clear contract terms and the enforceability of penalty clauses. In FVF v. Marinov, the CAS arbitrator honoured the 15% interest rate and lump-sum penalty stipulated in the agent’s contract, finding nothing unlawful or excessive about it under the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept. This demonstrates that well-drafted agent agreements, including deterrent clauses for breach, will be taken seriously by CAS. Agents should ensure their contracts include solid payment terms and remedies, while clubs/federations should be aware that they will likely be held to those terms in event of a dispute.
- Implications for the Future: The 2024 experience suggests that agent-related disputes are now an established part of football jurisprudence at CAS. We may see further appeals on issues like agent licensing (for example, challenges to exam results or other FFAR provisions) and disputes over agent commissions or regulations compliance. With CAS setting precedents – such as confirming that non-final convictions can disqualify an agent and that “force majeure” will be rigorously scrutinised – both agents and FIFA (and national federations) will adjust their strategies. FIFA’s Legal department might take confidence that CAS backs its new regulatory framework, whereas agents and their lawyers now have guidance on how CAS views key clauses. For instance, individuals with blemished records might think twice before pursuing a license appeal given the Pinho outcome, and federations will know that pulling out of an agent-organised event without strong justification could be very costly.
Conclusion
Football agents and those who engage them should take note of the CAS jurisprudence emerging from 2024. The CAS & Football Annual Report 2024 data shows agent-related appeals, though still a minority of cases, are on the rise and often involve high-stakes questions of regulatory compliance and contract law. The CAS rulings in these cases underscore a trend of strict legal scrutiny and enforcement: FIFA’s agent regulations are being upheld as written, and contractual commitments to agents are enforced in full barring truly extraordinary circumstances. This evolving body of CAS decisions provides valuable clarity on the rights and obligations in the football agent sector. Going forward, stakeholders in the football industry – from agents seeking licenses, to clubs and FAs dealing with agents – would be wise to align with these legal standards, as CAS has shown it will consistently favour rule compliance and contractual certainty in disputes involving agents
