Sports agent lawyer in Paris: licence replaced by professional card, mandate and unpaid commission.

Act No. 2026-725 of 3 August 2026 on the organisation, management and financing of professional sport replaced the former licence with a professional card. Under Article L. 222-7 of the Sports Code, in the wording in force since 5 August 2026, it is the competent delegated federation that issues, suspends or withdraws this card, on conditions left to a decree. Its holder is subject to initial and ongoing training, in particular in professional ethics, the prevention of sexist and sexual violence and the fight against money laundering, and must declare to the federation the sums paid or received in the course of the activity. Article 13, III of the Act provides that any individual holding a licence valid on the date of promulgation is issued a professional card. The definition of the activity has also been widened: it covers the conclusion or extension of an employment contract, an athlete's image-rights exploitation contract or a transfer agreement between clubs. For a transaction before 5 August 2026, the court applies the former text, which referred to a licence. The firm therefore first checks the date of the transaction, then the authorisation the agent held on that date.

The activity of bringing parties together for remuneration is reserved to the holder of the card, formerly the licence (Article L. 222-7 of the Sports Code). Federations prohibit their licensed members and clubs from using a person who does not hold one (Article L. 222-18 of the Sports Code), and carrying on the activity without authorisation is an offence (délit) punishable by five years' imprisonment and a fine of €375,000 (Article L. 222-20 of the Sports Code). An intermediary without authorisation cannot, in principle, base a commission claim on an agent contract. Using a nominee offers no protection: in the judgment of 13 October 2026, the criminal chamber dismissed the appeal of an intermediary who had been convicted after the trial courts found that licensed agents had merely signed the contracts. The assignment must nonetheless be characterised precisely. The commercial chamber approved a court of appeal that had held that a company "was not bound by an assignment to bring together the parties interested in concluding a sports contract, but by an assignment of assistance and advice" (Cass. com., 13 May 2026, No. 24-16.160) (our translation); the requalification and restitution sought were rejected. The firm therefore distinguishes reserved intermediation from a mere advisory service.

Article L. 222-17 of the Sports Code requires a written contract concluded with one of the parties before any introduction. The contract states the services entrusted and whether they are exclusive, a term limited to three years, the remuneration in figures, not exceeding 10% of the contract concluded, the party who pays the agent with the tax and social security consequences that may result, and the obligation to send the contract and its amendments to the federation within one month. A federation may set a shorter maximum term or a lower rate. An incomplete remuneration clause exposes the contract to nullity: the Riom Court of Appeal noted that "Article 3 of the contract is incomplete in that it mentions only part of the agent's remuneration" (CA Riom, ch. com., 16 April 2025, No. 24/00426) (our translation), then declared the agent contract null, while upholding a separate amendment. For a lawyer acting as authorised representative, the Court of Cassation likewise requires a specific fee amount: in the absence of "a determinable and specific amount of the lawyer's fees", nullity was incurred (Cass. 1re civ., 20 February 2019, No. 17-27.129) (our translation). The firm re-reads each term before claiming or challenging a sum.

Yes, subject to conditions. The Court of Cassation holds that Article L. 222-17 "does not require that the contract whose legal regime it sets be drawn up as a single written instrument" (Cass. 1re civ., 11 July 2018, No. 17-10.458) (our translation): an exchange of emails containing the mandatory terms can therefore constitute the required writing. In the same case, which came back before it, the first civil chamber specified that "while the contract under which the sports agent carries on the activity may be drawn up in electronic form, it must then bear an electronic signature" (Cass. 1re civ., 7 October 2020, No. 19-18.135) (our translation). It added that the absence of this signature, where the identity of the author and the integrity of the email are not disputed, "may be cured by voluntary performance of the contract with knowledge of the ground of nullity, amounting to confirmation" (same judgment) (our translation). It held that the mandate was not void, which deprived the club of that argument. Article 1182 of the Civil Code lays down the same rule of confirmation. The firm therefore examines the emails, the identity of their authors, the transmission to the federation and the acts of performance that took place before reaching a conclusion on validity.

Since 5 August 2026, Article L. 222-17 of the Sports Code provides that any agreement contrary to that article, or not sent to the competent delegated federation, is deemed null and void. Transmission is therefore no longer merely a formality whose breach attracts a federation sanction: it conditions the effectiveness of the contract. Article L. 222-18 of the Sports Code adds that federation rules provide that the agent's remuneration may be paid only after the contract has been sent. Federations also penalise failure to send contracts and agreements (Article L. 222-19 of the Sports Code). For a contract concluded before that date, the earlier wording applies and the consequence of a failure to send it must be examined in the light of that text and the federation regulations then in force. Under the former wording, concerning a right-of-continuation clause contrary to Article L. 222-17, the Colmar Court of Appeal noted that an action seeking to have a clause "deemed unwritten is not subject to limitation" (CA Colmar, ch. 1 A, 8 October 2025, No. 24/01627) (our translation); that judgment decides neither the case of a contract not sent to the federation nor the time limit for a claim for restitution. The firm therefore asks the federation or the agent for proof of transmission, with its date, before any discussion of the amount.

The agent may act, in law and in fact, for only one of the parties to the contract, and agents who cooperate may not represent several parties in a series of transactions leading to a transfer (Article L. 222-17 of the Sports Code). The text does, however, allow the club to pay in place of the athlete all or part of the remuneration owed to the agent, provided that a tripartite agreement signed by all parties sets out the tax and social security consequences. The distinction is decisive. The Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal upheld the annulment of an exclusive mandate signed with a player by an agent who was still negotiating for the club, holding that "The respondent rightly argues that the prohibition on dual mandates was breached" (CA Aix-en-Provence, ch. 3-1, 26 March 2026, No. 21/04886) (our translation). The club's payment of part of the commission does not, however, reduce the compensation owed by a player who terminates wrongfully: after a revocation without legitimate reason, the Toulouse Court of Appeal calculated a loss of chance on the entire commission, holding that "It matters little that the club directly bears part of the sports agent's commission" (CA Toulouse, 1re ch. sect. 1, 9 April 2025, No. 23/02619) (our translation). That is compensation, not a second payment of the commission. The firm checks who the principal was and on what document the club's payment rests.

The agent's remuneration may not exceed 10% of the amount of the contract or agreement concluded by the parties he or she brought together, and this cap applies to the total remuneration where several agents act on the same contract (Article L. 222-17 of the Sports Code). Federations may set a lower rate, differentiated by type of contract and decreasing according to the basis, taking into account in particular the rules of their international federation. The basis is read from the mandate: gross annual salary, signing bonus, transfer fee. The clause must be specific. The Colmar Court of Appeal refused to supply a missing rate, holding that "if no percentage is stipulated in the agreement, no implicit reference to the 10% cap can be inferred" (CA Colmar, ch. 1 A, 8 October 2025, No. 24/01627) (our translation). A lawyer acting as authorised representative is subject to the same cap, which includes the agent with whom the lawyer acts (Article 10 of Act No. 71-1130 of 31 December 1971). The firm recalculates the commission from the contract actually signed, deducts the sums already paid and checks that the combined remuneration of the intermediaries stays below the applicable federation cap.

The first step is to re-read the remuneration condition stipulated in the club's mandate. The Amiens Court of Appeal rejected the claim of an agent whose commission depended on a transfer of at least €1.5 million: it noted that "it was in full knowledge of the facts that the parties made payment of the agent's remuneration conditional" on that threshold, which was not reached (CA Amiens, ch. économique, 3 July 2025, No. 23/02386) (our translation), and that the mandate contained no exclusivity; the alternative claim for damages was also rejected. This decision, unfavourable to the agent, shows that an introduction made before the contract is not enough where the agreed condition is not met. If the condition is met, the agent gathers the mandate, proof of its transmission to the federation, the exchanges establishing the agent's involvement and the transfer contract. A formal notice stating the amount in figures normally precedes the action. Where the existence of the obligation is not seriously contestable, the judge hearing urgent applications may award an interim payment: the president of the judicial court (Article 835 of the Code of Civil Procedure) or, if the dispute falls within the commercial jurisdiction, the president of that court (Article 873 of the Code of Civil Procedure). In the case decided at Amiens, the judicial court had declared that it lacked jurisdiction in favour of the commercial court: the court is chosen according to the status of the parties and the nature of the contract. Otherwise, an action on the merits for payment is required, the agent having to prove the obligation relied on (Article 1353 of the Civil Code). The firm first assesses the strength of the evidence before choosing the route.

The principal may in principle revoke the mandate whenever they wish (Article 2004 of the Civil Code). However, the trial courts often characterise an agent's exclusive mandate as a mandate of common interest. The Toulouse Court of Appeal holds that "The characterisation as a mandate of common interest must be adopted where the principal and the agent are bound by a convergence of interests" (CA Toulouse, 1re ch. sect. 1, 9 April 2025, No. 23/02619) (our translation), then declares the revocation to be at the player's fault and orders the player to pay interim compensation calculated on the lost commission. The Paris Court of Appeal recalls that, "in the case of a mandate of common interest, unilateral revocation may take place only in accordance with the clauses and conditions specified in the contract or for a legitimate reason recognised by a court" (CA Paris, pôle 4 ch. 10, 16 April 2026, No. 22/16233) (our translation), and upholds the liability of the player who had terminated without legitimate reason. The penalty clause in the mandate may be reduced by the court if it is manifestly excessive (Article 1231-5 of the Civil Code). Before any revocation, the firm sets out in writing the failings alleged against the agent, checks the remaining term, the exclusivity and the termination clause, and assesses the risk of compensation.

Some mandates provide that the agent will receive a commission on any renewal, extension or new contract, even one concluded after the end of the assignment. Since 5 August 2026, an agent contract containing such a clause may not exceed three years and must state the amount of the remuneration (Article L. 222-17 of the Sports Code); the text does not expressly settle the fate of a commission promised on a contract concluded after that term, so the clause must be read on its own terms. Under the former wording, the Colmar Court of Appeal held to be deemed unwritten the stipulation giving the agent the commissions on "any amendment, any renewal, extension or replacement" (CA Colmar, ch. 1 A, 8 October 2025, No. 24/01627) (our translation) of a coach's employment contract, noting that it provided neither a period covered nor an amount or method of calculation, and that the agent had done nothing for the new contract. A valid clause does not relieve the agent of proving the transaction and its amount: the Paris judicial court dismissed the claim of an agent whose mandate reserved the remuneration even if a contract was signed without the agent, noting that signature with a new club was not sufficiently proved and that "the remuneration is calculated on a sum of €350,000 (the player's salary) which is in no way substantiated" (TJ Paris, 5e ch. 1re sect., 15 September 2026, No. 23/06718) (our translation). In each case, the court weighs the clause against the requirements of the Sports Code and the agent's actual role in the new transaction. The firm checks the date on which the new contract was concluded, the term of the mandate, the precision of the clause and the evidence that the agent took part in that negotiation.

Where the agent contract is null, it is deemed never to have existed and the services performed give rise to restitution (Article 1178 of the Civil Code). If the contract is deemed unwritten for lack of transmission to the federation or for breach of Article L. 222-17, the commission likewise loses its contractual basis. The claim requires showing the ground of ineffectiveness: no card or licence, missing terms, dual mandate, cap exceeded. It fails where the service was not reserved intermediation: in the judgment of 13 May 2026, the commercial chamber approved the rejection of the requalification of an assistance and advice contract as an agent contract, and therefore the rejection of restitution of the sums paid. It also fails where the nullity was cured by voluntary performance with knowledge of the facts (Article 1182 of the Civil Code). The action is in principle subject to a five-year limitation period running from the day the claimant knew or should have known the facts (Article 2224 of the Civil Code). The firm reconstructs the payments, identifies the ground of nullity relied on and checks the time limit before sending a request for restitution.

The answer depends on the agent's nationality and the State in which the agent is established. A national of a European Union or European Economic Area State may practise in France if qualified in one of those States or, where the profession is not regulated there, if the agent has practised it for at least one year during the last ten years; the agent must make a prior declaration to the delegated federation, even for temporary and occasional activity (Article L. 222-15 of the Sports Code). If authorised to practise in one of those States, the agent may also conclude with a sports agent an introduction agreement for an interested party, limited to one agreement per season, sent to the federation without delay (Article L. 222-15-1 of the Sports Code). A national of another State without a French professional card must conclude with a card holder, in the discipline concerned, an introduction agreement limited to the transaction and sent to the federation before any activity begins on French territory. The same text prohibits an agent established in a non-cooperative State or territory within the meaning of Article 238-0 A of the General Tax Code from carrying on the activity in France, and any introduction agreement concluded with such an agent is null (Article L. 222-16 of the Sports Code). Where several agents act on the same contract, their combined remuneration stays below the 10% cap (Article L. 222-17 of the Sports Code). The firm checks the foreign agent's nationality and place of establishment, the existence of the agreement, its date of transmission and the share of commission it provides for.

No. The Court of Cassation holds that "a lawyer may not, whether as a principal or an ancillary activity, carry on the activity of sports agent" and that, as a party's authorised representative, "a lawyer may not be paid by a club that is the counterparty of the lawyer's client" (Cass. 1re civ., 29 March 2023, No. 21-25.335) (our translation). Act No. 2026-725 of 3 August 2026 wrote this rule into Article 6 ter of Act No. 71-1130 of 31 December 1971: a lawyer may neither carry on the activity of sports agent nor hold the professional card, unless the lawyer has completed the procedure for removal from the roll (omission du tableau) before obtaining the card. A lawyer may, however, represent a party as authorised representative in negotiating an employment, image-rights or transfer contract. The mandate states the amount of the lawyer's fees, within the limit of 10% of the contract, and the lawyer is paid only by the client (Article 10 of Act No. 71-1130 of 31 December 1971). An undetermined amount exposes the agreement to nullity (Cass. 1re civ., 20 February 2019, No. 17-27.129). The firm acts within this framework: it examines the proposed contract, advises its client and, in a dispute with an agent, defends its client's interests before the court, without itself bringing the parties together for remuneration.