Jorge Mendes, Ronaldo’s agent made £62.3 million last year. It would be assumed that all those fees were known to his players when dealing the contracts.
A landmark decision from the UK Supreme Court in Rukhadze v Recovery Partners has reinforced the strict obligations fiduciaries owe their principals — with major implications for the world of sport.
At the heart of the case was the “profit rule”: a fiduciary (who has a legal or ethical relationship of trust with a principal/his player) must not profit from their position unless they have the principal’s informed consent. The Court was asked to consider whether a common law “but for” causation test (i.e., would the fiduciary have made the profit anyway?) should apply before profits must be returned.
The Court said no.
Instead, the question is whether the profit was significantly linked to the fiduciary position — not what might have happened hypothetically.
The Rukhadze ruling serves as a stark reminder: if a fiduciary profits without consent, courts can order them to repay all profits, potentially with only a small allowance for the work they did.
In Imageview v Jack, a football agent secretly earned £3,000. The court not only demanded repayment but also forfeited his entire commission. This goes to show that transparency is the most key and agents should not be unscrupulous in their dealings.
To stay on the right side of the law:
The duty to account for profits is not just a remedy—it’s a strict legal obligation. If breached, courts won’t weigh up what might have happened. Instead, they’ll focus on what actually happened - and order repayment unless consent was properly obtained.
Fiduciaries in sport: be transparent, seek consent, and always prioritise your principal’s best interests.