Newly-minted Bafana Bafana coach Pitso Mosimane’s agency and wife have rubbished an Iranian football agent’s claims that he negotiated a lucrative contract for his head coach job with Iranian soccer club Esteghlal Cultural and Sport Company.
Moira Tlhagale and her agency, Moira Tlhagale Sports Marketing and Management (MT Sports), have also denied liability for a R1.2 million fee claimed by football agent Hamed Ghadiri over his alleged role in securing Pitso the contract, which saw him and his technical team earn a whopping R24 million per season.
Their denials are contained in their -responding affidavits they filed in the Joburg High Court where they are slugging it out with Ghadiri over the R1.2 million commission he is demanding from them.
Ghadiri dragged Moira and MT Sports to the Johannesburg High Court in April this year after accusing them of dribbling him of his commission for allegedly securing a coaching job for Pitso with the club.
In his founding affidavit, Ghadiri alleged that MT Sports granted him a Special Power of Attorney (SPOA) to negotiate Pitso’s coaching contract with Esteghlal.
After obtaining the SPOA, Ghadiri claimed he signed a service agreement with MT Sports.
Ghadiri said he solicited and obtained an offer of employment from the club for Pitso.
As a consequence, he added, Pitso signed a contract of employment with the club on 18 October 2024.
He said MT Sports agreed to pay him USD75,000 (more than R1.2 million) for his services.
This, he said, was 75% of the fee MT Sports was to receive from the club after Pitso had put pen to paper.
Despite Ghadiri signing the service agreement and returning it to MT Sports, the agency allegedly zigzagged before giving him a copy.
Ghadiri said that, following further negotiations, MT Sports eventually released a copy of the service agreement to him. He said this confirmed that MT Sports was indebted to him.
Ghadiri said Pitso also confirmed to him in a WhatsApp message on 28 February 2025 that he “should not worry” and that his wife “will pay [him]”.
He said that although Pitso prematurely terminated the contract with the club, the former Bafana Bafana coach promised him that he would be paid.
He said they told him that payment would be effected once Pitso’s claim against the club before the FIFA Football Tribunal was resolved.
Ghadiri said he received confirmation that Pitso had been paid by the club, but the agency refused or failed to pay his moolah.
In their plea, Moira and MT Sports admit that Ghadiri introduced Pitso to Esteghlal but dispute the extent of his authority to negotiate on behalf of the parties.
They say Ghadiri was authorised only to approach the club and establish whether it had an interest in Pitso.
According to Moira and MT Sports, the Special Power of Attorney did not authorise Ghadiri to conduct further negotiations, conclude contracts or receive fees.
The defendants say negotiations with Esteghlal were subsequently conducted by Valtulum Secoedada Limitada, represented by FIFA agent Alfonso Leon Lleo, together with Moira in her capacity as director of MT Sports.
They claim Esteghlal agreed during the negotiations to pay an agent’s fee of $100,000, which is more than R1.6 million.
The defendants further allege that, after the agreement with the club, Moira reached an oral agreement with Ghadiri that the company would pay him R1.2 million for “introducing” Pitso to Esteghlal.
However, they say the payment was conditional on the company first receiving the more than R1.6 million agent’s fee from the Iranian club.
The defendants claim Esteghlal subsequently failed or refused to pay the R1.6 million.
As a result, they state in their court papers, the company has not received the payment from the club.
The defendants also dispute the validity of a written services agreement relied upon by Ghadiri.
They say the agreement was drafted and sent to Ghadiri at his request, but that it was never signed by the parties and was not returned to them for signature.
Moira and MT Sports therefore deny that the services agreement is in force or legally binding.
They further deny that Pitso had authority to enter into agreements with Ghadiri or to speak on behalf of the company or Tlhagale.
Moira and MT Sports also deny referring a complaint to FIFA.
The court papers indicate that Ghadiri was advised that Pitso would refer a dispute to FIFA, but the defendants deny that they themselves referred a complaint to the football governing body.