According to the former Feyenoord player, his current club Inter originally wanted to offer him a much higher salary, but in the end he only got 37.5 million euros in total for five years.
Unbeknownst to him, SEG had also taken a whopping €7.5 million commission, which he only discovered last year. After that, the international of the Dutch national team got into trouble with his previous management, with which he worked for years. “I assumed SEG would negotiate the best deal for me,” de Vrij told the judge in February.
According to SEG, it was ‘easy’ for De Vrij for management to act on behalf of Inter, and therefore not on behalf of the best footballer in the negotiations, but the court in Amsterdam rules that SEG also mediated in De Vrij’s favour. “In this case, according to the law, it must be transparent how the agreements are reciprocal, especially if there is a self-interest in the broker (SEG) that has concluded agreements on its profits with Inter,” the court said. According to the judge, SEG violated the obligation to disclose.
According to the court, SEG “did not give full disclosure”. For example, the Sports Management Agency did not say that it would receive an additional compensation of 2 million euros. The court described it as “impossible to know what Internazionale de Vrij would have paid had they known of the high commission paid to SEG” and amounted to 50 percent (€4.75m) of what SEG received for the deal between The Free. And Internacional.
SEG is considering an appeal. In its response, SEG emphasized the lack of a representation agreement and says it is satisfied that De Vrij has been fully informed. “The court established that De Vrij was not financially harmed on our part, however it ruled that the commission should be involved. We regret that the court in its ruling did not pay attention to the crucial statements we made.”
Read the court ruling here:
SEG has to pay the amount because it violated the disclosure obligation during the footballer’s transfer from Lazio to Inter Milan in the summer of 2018.
SEG states that it only mediated in favor of Internazionale, as also stated in the agreement between De Vrij and Internazionale, but the court ruled that SEG also mediated in De Vrij’s favour. In this case, and according to the law, it should be transparent how the agreements are reciprocal, particularly if there is a self-interest in the broker (SEG) that has entered into agreements with Internazionale about its profits. Under these agreements, SEG received a (substantial) commission. It is SEG’s duty to report this.
According to SEG, de Vrij reported her commission of €7.5 million. Even if proven, it still does not meet the disclosure obligation. SEG did not provide a full disclosure by not mentioning the additional €2 million compensation it will receive. In addition, SEG does not state that it informed De Vrij that it will receive 7.5 percent of the potential transfer fee. According to De Vrij, he only heard that he will receive half of the transfer fee from SEG. Thus, the breach of the obligation to disclose is fixed.
However, it is impossible to say how much Inter Milan would have paid had they known about the high commission paid to SEG. Therefore, the damage caused by the loss of opportunity for further negotiations due to a breach of the disclosure obligation must be determined. The court considers the damage to De Vrij to be 50 percent (€4.75 million) of what SEG received in exchange for the deal between De Vrij and Internazionale.
Italian tax assessment risks
Finally, De Vrij rightly pointed out that there is a risk of a retroactive assessment from the Italian tax authorities. According to him, the commission paid by Inter Milan to SEG can be considered as additional advantages. De Vrij can then be assessed, among other things, for income tax on the benefit he received as a result. If that happened, the income tax assessment and the regional assessments he would then have to pay from the part he owes to SEG cannot be considered a detriment, because he would have had to pay those taxes in any case if SEG had also billed him. her job. Any fine or other punitive action is included in the damage because SEG should have been properly notified of these potential financial consequences. The SEG is not yet entitled to the continued payment of wages by De Vrij.
“Evil tv fanatic. Proud thinker. Wannabe internet trailblazer. Music specialist. Organizer. Hardcore pop culture expert.”