FFAR practice questions

Question 1

Rafa Santos advised coach Luca Ferri on an international employment move from River United (Argentina) to Zenith SC (Italy). The employment contract was signed and the move completed on 22 May 2023. Their only written mandate was an intermediary appointment that expired on 30 June 2023, before the FFAR activity rules applied. Rafa kept that expired PDF in a drawer. In March 2026 he wants a FIFA Football Agent licence and asks whether he can “reactivate” the 2023 paper for a new coaching deal, whether the May 2023 work bars him under the twenty-four-month eligibility rule, and what he needs before any new Football Agent Services. Which statement best describes his position?

Accepted Answer

He remains unlicensed until FIFA issues a licence, the May 2023 services do not breach the then-applicable licence-for-services rule, and the expired mandate cannot be extended or revived; Football Agent Services from 1 October 2023 required a FIFA licence even if that paper had still been in force. FFAR licensing provisions arrived earlier than the activity rules that require a FIFA licence to perform Football Agent Services (those activity rules applied from 1 October 2023). Intermediary work completed in May 2023 therefore does not itself prove unlicensed Football Agent Services under article 5 paragraph 1 b). Rafa still may not perform Football Agent Services now unless FIFA issues him a licence. The June 2023 paper had already expired, so it cannot be reactivated as a current mandate; any new Representation Agreement would have to comply with the FFAR. Article 22 paragraph 3 required a licence to continue Football Agent Services from 1 October 2023 even where a pre-FFAR agreement was still in force.

Answer

The May 2023 intermediary work automatically triggers a twenty-four-month ineligibility bar under article 5, so he cannot apply until May 2025 at the earliest.

Answer

He remains unlicensed until FIFA issues a licence, the May 2023 services do not breach the then-applicable licence-for-services rule, and the expired mandate cannot be extended or revived; Football Agent Services from 1 October 2023 required a FIFA licence even if that paper had still been in force.

Answer

Because he still holds the expired PDF, he may keep providing Football Agent Services for Luca without a FIFA licence until FIFA decides the application.

Answer

FIFA must treat him as licensed for all coaching transactions once he files the application, because the intermediary regime permanently grandfathered expired mandates.

Question 2

Tom Becker runs a consultancy that markets itself as media training for athletes. On 11 August 2025 he hosted a paid webinar titled “How I close international employment contracts for eight percent.” On 2 February 2026 FIFA’s integrity review obtained a recording of a three-way call in which he negotiated a signing-on fee with Harbor FC and a player, then invoiced the work as “career consultancy.” He applied for a FIFA Football Agent licence on 1 April 2026, describing himself only as a media trainer who never negotiates contracts. FIFA flags the webinar and the call. Which statement correctly states when he may next apply?

Accepted Answer

He may apply again from 3 February 2028 at the earliest, because the twenty-four-month bar runs from the latest unlicensed Football Agent Services conduct. Article 5 paragraph 1 b) bars a licence application where the applicant performed Football Agent Services without the required licence in the preceding twenty-four months. Negotiating a signing-on fee for a consultancy invoice is Football Agent Services; calling oneself a media trainer does not cure it. The bar is measured from the latest relevant conduct (2 February 2026), so eligibility to apply resumes from 3 February 2028.

Answer

He may apply immediately because self-labelling as a media trainer removes the conduct from Football Agent Services.

Answer

He may apply again from 12 August 2027 at the earliest, because the twenty-four-month bar runs only from the paid webinar.

Answer

He may apply again from 3 February 2028 at the earliest, because the twenty-four-month bar runs from the latest unlicensed Football Agent Services conduct.

Answer

He may never apply after any paid webinar that mentions a percentage fee, regardless of how much time has passed since the last conduct.

Question 3

Licensed Football Agent Elena Russo is retained by midfielder Sara Ndiaye for an international employment move to Metro Lions. Metro Lions also wants Elena to perform Football Agent Services for the club in the same transaction. Sara’s annual Remuneration under the offered contract is USD 175,000 with no conditional payments. On 2 May 2026, before any negotiation meeting, both Sara and Metro Lions sign identical prior written consent letters naming Elena as their agent for this deal. Elena proposes a combined service fee equal to 12% of Sara’s Remuneration, split equally so Sara and Metro Lions each pay half. Which statement correctly assesses the dual-client arrangement and the proposed fee?

Accepted Answer

Prior explicit written consent from Sara and Metro Lions can permit dual representation of the Individual and Engaging Entity, but a 12% fee on Remuneration at or below USD 200,000 exceeds the permitted dual-representation band and must be reduced to the applicable cap. Article 12 paragraph 8 allows one exception to the one-party rule: the agent may act for an Individual and an Engaging Entity in the same Transaction if both give prior explicit written consent. Acting for a Releasing Entity with the player remains barred. Article 14 paragraph 10 lets the Engaging Entity pay up to half of the total service fee in permitted dual representation, so the equal split is within that payment rule. Article 15 then caps service fees by client and Remuneration band; permitted dual representation at or below USD 200,000 is capped at 10% of Remuneration, while representing the Individual alone at or below the threshold is capped at 5%. A 12% dual-client fee therefore still needs a reduction to the dual-representation cap — consent and a lawful payer split do not validate an over-cap fee, and player-only caps do not apply when both clients are represented.

Answer

The dual mandate is unlawful unless the releasing club also signs the same Representation Agreement, even though Sara and Metro Lions already gave prior written consent.

Answer

Prior explicit written consent from Sara and Metro Lions can permit dual representation of the Individual and Engaging Entity, but a 12% fee on Remuneration at or below USD 200,000 exceeds the permitted dual-representation band and must be reduced to the applicable cap.

Answer

Because Remuneration is below USD 200,000, Elena may charge up to 10% of Remuneration when acting only for the player, so the 12% dual-client fee is automatically lawful without prior written consent.

Answer

Dual representation is always barred when the agent also wants a fee from the Engaging Entity, and FIFA must refuse any consent letters signed before the transfer is registered.

FFAR practice questions

Question 1 of 3

Question 2 of 3

Question 3 of 3

FFAR practice questions

Question 1 of 3

Question 2 of 3

Question 3 of 3