CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10341 — Elias Fernando Aguilar Vargas v. Changchun Yatai FC

"Aguilar Vargas" · CAS dismissed a Costa Rican player's EUR 2.2 million claim after finding the Chinese agent lacked authority to bind the club.

What happened in Aguilar Vargas

Elias Fernando Aguilar Vargas, a Costa Rican professional footballer, claimed that Changchun Yatai FC had entered into a binding employment contract with him for the 2023 season at EUR 1,100,000 net per year for two years, totalling EUR 2,200,000. Negotiations were conducted entirely via WeChat between the Player's Agent (Rodrigo Melo) and a Chinese Agent (Li Feng), who was described as the Club's 'preferred agent or intermediary.' The Chinese Agent sent the Player an Offer on the Club's letterhead signed as 'President,' but the Club denied any knowledge of or involvement in the negotiations. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber rejected the Player's claim on 31 August 2023, finding the Offer was unilateral, lacked essential contractual elements, and had not been duly executed. The Player appealed to CAS. The three-member Panel conducted a de novo review, including a videoconference hearing on 16 January 2025. The Panel found that the Chinese Agent was not duly authorized by the Club to negotiate the Player's transfer, that the Club had never formally ratified the Offer, and that the WeChat history itself undermined the Player's case — particularly the 18 October 2022 message where the Chinese Agent described the negotiations as 'secret in club.' The appeal was dismissed and the FIFA DRC decision confirmed. The Panel strongly condemned both agents' conduct for misleading the Player, and criticized the Player's Agent for prioritizing commission over his client's career interests.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10341

On 14 March 2023, the Player filed a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (FIFA DRC) against Changchun Yatai FC, alleging breach of an employment contract and seeking EUR 2,200,000 in compensation. The FIFA DRC rejected and dismissed the claim by decision dated 31 August 2023, with grounds communicated on 11 October 2023. The DRC found the Offer was unilateral, lacked specific start/end dates, bore no designated space for the Player's signature, and contained no other evidence of a duly executed contract. On 31 October 2023, the Player filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS under Articles R47 and R48 of the CAS Code, also naming FIFA as Second Respondent. FIFA was subsequently excluded from the proceedings with the Player's agreement. The Club requested a three-member Panel; the Panel was constituted on 29 October 2024. A videoconference hearing was held on 16 January 2025. The Player was granted Legal Aid by the ICAS Athletes' Commission on 14 February 2024, rendering the award free of costs.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10341

• The Chinese Agent was not duly authorized by Changchun Yatai FC to negotiate the Player's transfer, as no power of attorney or formal mandate was produced and the Club was never informed of the negotiations.
• A 'preferred agent or intermediary' relationship between a club and an agent is insufficient to grant that agent authority to bind the club to any particular deal; each transfer requires a separate mandate.
• Under Article 38 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, where a person without authority enters into a contract on behalf of a third party, rights and obligations do not accrue to the latter unless it ratifies the contract, and no such ratification occurred here.
• The Player failed to meet the 'comfortable satisfaction' standard of proof required to establish that the Disputed Documents were concluded with the Club's involvement.
• Procedural irregularities alleged before the FIFA DRC are moot at the CAS stage, as Article R57.1 of the CAS Code grants the Panel full authority to conduct a de novo review.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Panel applied a 'comfortable satisfaction' standard of proof — greater than balance of probabilities but less than beyond reasonable doubt — and placed the burden on the Player under Article 8 of the Swiss Civil Code. Examining the WeChat history in detail, the Panel identified several key indicators that the Chinese Agent lacked authority: (1) the Player's Agent himself drafted and proposed the Offer, suggesting the initiative came from the player's side; (2) the Chinese Agent's 18 October 2022 message that negotiations were 'secret in club' indicated the Club had not been formally involved; (3) the Chinese Agents testified they had received no mandate from the Club and had not informed it of the negotiations; (4) after being told the Club renewed Serginho's contract, the Player's Agent's reaction was to seek other clubs rather than assert an existing contract; and (5) no power of attorney was ever produced. The Panel rejected the argument that the Chinese Agent's status as 'preferred agent' conferred general authority to bind the Club. It also noted the Player's Agent's failure to conduct due diligence. Having found no authorized mandate, the Panel held the question of whether the Offer constituted a valid employment contract moot.

Why Aguilar Vargas matters in CAS jurisprudence

This case clarifies that a club's long-standing 'preferred agent or intermediary' relationship with a football agent does not confer general authority to bind the club to employment contracts without a specific mandate for each transaction. The Panel's detailed analysis of WeChat negotiations as primary evidence, and its condemnation of both agents for misleading the player, reinforces CAS standards on agent due diligence and the limits of apparent authority under Swiss law in football transfer disputes.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2014/A/3546 CAS 2019/A/6095 CAS 2020/A/6748 CAS 2008/A/1589 CAS 2021/A/8070 CAS 2016/A/4558

Frequently asked questions about Aguilar Vargas

Did Changchun Yatai FC have a binding employment contract with Aguilar Vargas based on the Offer sent by the Chinese agent?

No. The CAS Panel found that the Chinese Agent was not duly authorized by Changchun Yatai FC to negotiate or conclude the Player's transfer. The Club was never informed of the negotiations, no power of attorney was produced, and the Club never ratified the Offer. Accordingly, no binding employment contract was formed between the Player and the Club.

Can a football club's 'preferred agent' bind the club to a player contract without a specific mandate?

No, according to this award. The Panel held that a continuous relationship between a principal and a 'preferred agent or intermediary' is insufficient to grant the agent authority to bind the principal to any particular deal. Each transfer requires a separate mandate, and the Chinese Agent's status as the Club's preferred intermediary did not authorize him to sign offers or pre-contracts on the Club's behalf.

What compensation was the player Aguilar Vargas seeking and what did CAS award him?

The Player sought EUR 2,200,000 (two million two hundred thousand euros), representing the full value of the two-year Offer at EUR 1,100,000 net per season. CAS awarded him nothing, dismissing the appeal in its entirety and confirming the FIFA DRC's decision rejecting his claim.

What standard of proof did CAS apply in the Aguilar Vargas v. Changchun Yatai case?

The Panel applied the 'comfortable satisfaction' standard, defined as greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, citing CAS 2020/A/7503 and CAS 2018/A/6075. The burden of proof rested on the Player under Article 8 of the Swiss Civil Code, and the Panel found he failed to meet that standard regarding the Chinese Agent's authority to represent the Club.

Topics: Art. 17 RSTP & contract termination at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.