Breaking: Mosimane Dragged Into R1.25 Million Legal Battle As Iranian Agent Demands Commission

South African football has been drawn into another legal controversy after Bafana Bafana head coach Pitso Mosimane became linked to a R1.25 million commission dispute arising from his move to Iranian football club Esteghlal.

The dispute involves Iranian football agent Hamed Ghadiri, who has approached the Johannesburg High Court over allegations that he was not paid for his role in facilitating Mosimane’s move to the Iranian club.

According to court documents reported by the Sunday Times, Ghadiri claims that he was authorised by Moira Tlhagale’s sports management company, MT Sports Marketing and Management, to initiate discussions with Esteghlal in October 2024 regarding the appointment of Mosimane and members of his technical team.

Ghadiri alleges that his involvement helped secure an employment offer from the Iranian club, which subsequently resulted in Mosimane signing a contract on October 18, 2024.

At the centre of the legal disagreement is an alleged service agreement involving a $100,000 (approximately R1.6 million) agent’s fee expected from Esteghlal.

Ghadiri claims that MT Sports agreed to pay him $75,000, representing 75% of the anticipated agency fee, for his contribution to facilitating the deal.

However, the agent alleges that despite fulfilling his responsibilities and helping secure the agreement, he has not received the money he believes he is entitled to.

The court papers further indicate that Ghadiri relied on a WhatsApp communication allegedly sent by Mosimane on February 28, 2025.

According to the agent’s version, Mosimane reassured him that he should not worry about the outstanding payment because his wife would arrange it.

Ghadiri also claims that Mosimane promised that the commission issue would be resolved after his dispute with Esteghlal over unpaid salaries was concluded through the appropriate football channels.

However, the matter has become more complicated because MT Sports and Tlhagale dispute several aspects of the agent’s allegations.

In their response filed before the Johannesburg High Court, Tlhagale and her company reportedly acknowledge that Ghadiri introduced Mosimane to Esteghlal.

Nevertheless, they dispute the extent of the authority given to him, arguing that his responsibility was limited to approaching the Iranian club and establishing whether it was interested in appointing the South African coach.

They maintain that he was not authorised to conduct further negotiations, conclude contractual arrangements or receive the agency fees.

The defendants further argue that subsequent negotiations were handled by another FIFA-registered agent, Alfonso Leon Lleo, working alongside Tlhagale.

Another important disagreement concerns the alleged service agreement. While Ghadiri maintains that the document established his entitlement to the commission, Tlhagale and MT Sports reportedly dispute its validity, arguing that it was never properly signed by the relevant parties.

They also contend that the promised payment was conditional on MT Sports first receiving the agency fee from Esteghlal.

According to their court papers, the Iranian club failed or refused to pay the expected fee, meaning the company did not receive the money from which Ghadiri was supposed to be compensated.

The dispute has attracted attention because Mosimane’s appointment at Esteghlal was previously surrounded by financial difficulties.

In January 2025, the coach and his technical team parted ways with the Iranian club after unresolved salary payments. His management company confirmed at the time that outstanding salaries had not been settled despite attempts to resolve the matter.

The latest legal proceedings have now brought renewed attention to the financial arrangements surrounding that appointment.

For now, the Johannesburg High Court dispute remains centred on the agent’s alleged contractual entitlement, the authority granted to him and whether the conditions for payment were fulfilled.

Neither the allegations against MT Sports nor the company’s defence should be treated as established findings of wrongdoing. The court will ultimately have to determine the contractual obligations of the parties involved.

The R1.25 million commission disagreement therefore represents another legal issue connected to Mosimane’s brief spell in Iranian football, with the outcome likely to clarify the responsibilities of the parties involved in arranging his Esteghlal appointment.

Source : https://x.com/TimesLIVE/status/2116733397926031650