Sharks player ordered to pay commission
SHARKS No 8 Ryan Kankowski will have to pay his former agent R322 500 in commission, as well as interest on this amount dating back to May 2010.
This follows a judgment by retired KwaZulu-Natal Judge Jan Combrink following arbitration proceedings in Durban.
Awarding the claim in favour of Touch Sports Management, Judge Combrink yesterday found that Kankowski had a valid contract with his former agent and that he should pay up.
The sports agency, which negotiates commercial contracts in the form of sponsorships with sport stars, including rugby players, secured a three-year contract with the Sharks on behalf of Kankowski, which started in 2009.
Kankowski was due to receive a monthly retainer of R108 333 for the first year and R125 000 a month for the subsequent two years.
The sporting agency said that in terms of the agreement, it would receive 7.5 percent commission on Kankowski’s monthly fee.
It further claimed an additional R20 000 it said it earned to score a commercial contract on behalf of Kankowski.
According to Touch Sports Management, Kankowski agreed to be exclusively contracted to the management company for at least two years.
Should he no longer require the agency’s services, Kankowski had to give 12 weeks’ written notice.
The company said it negotiated a three-year contract for Kankowski with the Sharks, valued at R4.3 million, for the years 2009 to 2011.
Its commission on this totalled slightly more than R340 000.
Kankowski denied he owed the agency anything. He agreed he signed the management agreement, but attacked the validity of the deal.
He said the agreement was void because it was vague and that it was not enforceable as certain terms were in breach of the applicable International Rugby Board and SA Rugby Union regulations.
Kankowski said the clause in which it was stated that the agency wanted to contract him on an exclusive basis was impossible because he was contracted to the Sharks.
He also said he had signed the agreement in the belief that Hilton Houghton, who worked at the agency, would represent him. He was unaware that the agreement was intended to be between him and the agency.
He added that he never intended to bind himself to the agency. When he became aware on June 4, 2009 that Houghton was no longer employed there, Kankowski felt entitled to terminate his contract.
Judge Combrink found that the agency agreement was not vague and that it was indeed an agreement in writing between Kankowski and the agency, in which the latter was to negotiate a contract with the Sharks on his behalf.
“It is generally accepted that a person, when he or she signs a contract, is bound by the ordinary meaning and effect of the words which appear over his or her signature.”
The judge added that when the two conflicting versions of the parties are weighed up against each other, the agency’s version was more reasonable and probable by far. He said that as the agency had entered into a valid agreement with Kankowski, it was entitled to its fees. While he also slapped the rugby star with the costs of the proceedings, he declined to award a punitive award, as requested by the agency.