The moment you lose control without realising it
Picture a standard Dubai resale deal. A listing agent has a property on a shared platform, no exclusive mandate in place. A buyer’s agent calls — the buyer is ready, pre-approved, and wants to view today. The listing agent is keen, the viewing goes well, and both agents are now locked into a negotiation between their respective clients. The price is agreed over WhatsApp. Everyone is excited.
Then comes the question nobody has formally answered: how is this commission being split?
At that moment, one of two things happens. Either one of the agents proposes a structure — a percentage, a payment timing, a form to sign — or both agents proceed on the assumption that the other knows what the deal is. In the first case, whoever proposes controls the terms. In the second case, nobody does, and the dispute has already started. It just hasn’t surfaced yet.
This is not an edge case. When two brokers collaborate on a deal, the commission structure must be agreed upon in advance. Without a clear agent-to-agent agreement, many agents end up in costly disputes or losing their commission entirely. The Dubai market’s structural reality — shared listings, no mandatory exclusivity, multiple agencies competing on the same inventory — means co-brokered deals are not the exception. They are the daily operating environment. And in that environment, the agent who frames the structure first is the agent who controls what happens next.
What “proposing the structure” actually means
It does not mean being aggressive or making an ultimatum. It means being the first to answer three questions in writing:
- What is the split?
- When does each party get paid?
- What triggers payment, and who holds the commission cheque until it clears?
These are not administrative details to sort out after the deal is done. They are the deal, from an agent’s point of view. The buyer and seller are negotiating over the property. The two agents are, simultaneously, negotiating over who gets what and when.
The agent who proposes the structure shapes the answers to all three questions. The agent who waits is stuck accepting whatever comes out of the conversation — or reopening a negotiation that the other side considers closed.
In practice, proposing the structure means being the one who circulates Form I before the first viewing, not after the MOU is signed. When the seller’s listed agent and buyer’s agent work in collaboration for any property, they are supposed to sign Form I — a form that is an agreement between RERA-certified agents that secures the brokers’ clients, their listings, and states their commission split, and which binds the two agents in a professional relationship.
That form is the structural proposal. Whoever drafts it first sets the default terms.
Why Dubai’s deal mechanics make this urgent
Dubai’s resale market does not have a universal multiple-listing service that enforces co-broking rules the way some other markets do. Dubai does not have a government-mandated fixed commission rate. However, the market has settled on widely accepted standards that almost every licensed brokerage follows. That means the rate, the split, and the timing are all negotiated deal by deal — and the negotiation starts the moment two agents make contact.
When two agents are involved in a transaction — a listing agent representing the seller and a buyer’s agent representing the buyer — the commission needs to be split between them. How that split works determines a lot about how each agent behaves during the deal. The most common structure in Dubai is what’s called a co-brokerage arrangement.
The buyer pays 2% commission to their agent. The seller pays 2% commission to their agent. Each side pays their own agent directly. That’s the cleanest structure and the one that creates the clearest incentive alignment — each agent is financially accountable to the party they’re representing.
But this clean structure only exists if it is proposed and agreed. Without that agreement, the split defaults to custom, assumption, and memory — three things that courts and RERA dispute panels cannot enforce. A verbal commission split agreement is not enforceable under RERA regulations. If a dispute arises between two agents over who is owed what, the agent without a signed Form I is in a very weak position.
The RERA forms framework gives agents the tools. Form A is signed with the seller. Form B is signed with the buyer. Form I governs the co-brokerage relationship between two agents, formalizing the commission sharing structure. Before the buyer’s agent can arrange viewings, share the property’s details, or participate in negotiations, both agents must sign Form I. This protects the listing agent’s client relationship, ensures the buyer’s agent receives their agreed share of commission, and prevents disputes about who facilitated the sale.
The tool exists. Using it before any substantive work begins is what separates the agent who controls the deal from the agent who reacts to it.
Where the money actually sits — and why timing matters
In a secondary market resale
Agent commission — typically 2% of the sale price — becomes legally due upon Form F signing. For sales, the commission cheque is usually collected by the agent at the time of signing the Form F (MOU). However, the agent does not cash it immediately. The cheque is held as security. It is only handed over or cashed on the day of the final transfer at the DLD Trustee Office, once the Title Deed has been successfully transferred.
This matters for the split conversation. If both agents’ commissions are collected separately from their respective clients — buyer’s agent from the buyer, listing agent from the seller — the timing is clear and neither agent is waiting on the other. Both agencies sign Form I to record the introduction and guarantee an equal commission split after the sale. Form I ensures fair cooperation and eliminates disputes between agencies.
But where a single commission cheque is collected by one brokerage and then disbursed internally to the other, the timing problem compounds. The receiving brokerage holds the money. The other brokerage waits. Brokerages routinely handle developer co-broking agreements, RERA-regulated commission caps, performance-tiered split structures, project-specific bonus schemes, and multi-agent team deals — all simultaneously. Managing these variables manually through spreadsheets or disconnected accounting tools creates chronic errors, agent disputes, delayed payments, and compliance risks.
The agent who proposed the structure — specifically, who gets paid how, from which cheque, and by which date — does not have this problem. The split is in writing and signed before the commission cheque exists.
In an off-plan deal
For off-plan sales, the commission is paid by the developer of the project, and the commission percentage can vary from developer to developer and from project to project. RERA requires all commission agreements between developers and brokerages to be registered. This ensures transparency and protects both parties.
In a co-brokered off-plan deal, the primary agency — the one with the developer relationship — receives the commission from the developer. The referring or co-brokering agency depends on the primary agency to pass on the agreed split. That payment comes after the developer pays, which can be on a milestone or post-completion basis depending on the developer’s own schedule.
Without a written split agreement in place before the referral is made, the co-brokering agent has no lever. The primary agency is not legally obligated to pay anything to a party with whom it has no signed agreement. To protect both agents, signing an Agent-to-Agent agreement before working together is recommended. In off-plan, this is not a recommendation — it is the only thing standing between you and a polite but definitive refusal when the developer’s payment arrives.
The agent who proposes the structure — who sends the co-brokering agreement before introducing the client to the primary agency — is the agent who gets paid. The agent who introduces the client first and asks for a split later is making a gift.
In an Ejari rental
Commission is due when the Ejari-registered tenancy contract is signed and the security deposit and first cheque is handed over. Contracts must also be registered through the Ejari to be legally recognized. While post-dated cheques remain the most common payment method, bank transfers and digital payments are becoming more popular.
In a rental co-broke, both agents typically have contact with the client at the moment the lease is signed. That moment passes quickly. The tenant hands over the commission cheque — usually 5% of annual rent — alongside the first rent cheque, the security deposit, and the Ejari fee, all at once. If the split was never agreed in writing, whoever is holding the commission cheque has every practical advantage, regardless of who did more work.
Since the introduction of VAT in the UAE in January 2018, a 5% Value Added Tax applies to real estate brokerage services. VAT is charged on the commission amount, not the property price. The brokerage must be VAT-registered and provide a valid tax invoice. A valid VAT invoice cannot be issued for a commission that has not been formally agreed. The structural proposal — the Form I and the split terms — is also the document that makes clean invoicing possible for both agencies.
The anatomy of a commission dispute
Most agent-to-agent commission disputes in Dubai do not start with bad faith. They start with ambiguity that neither party resolved in time. The sequence is almost always the same:
- Two agents agree informally to work together on a deal.
- They proceed through viewings, negotiation, and MOU signing on the strength of that informal agreement.
- The commission is collected. One agency holds it.
- A disagreement emerges — about the split percentage, about whose client it really was, about whether the other agent’s contribution was sufficient to trigger payment.
- The party without a signed agreement tries to escalate through RERA or DLD.
Commission disputes are fact-specific — who introduced whom, what was signed, what was paid. If a commission dispute arises, RERA’s Rental Disputes Settlement Centre handles the case. Having a written agreement is essential to win any dispute.
The agent who proposed the structure — and had it signed — arrives at that dispute with a document. The other agent arrives with a recollection. Recollections lose.
It is worth being specific about what “proposed the structure” means in a dispute context. It is not enough to have sent a WhatsApp message saying “let’s do 50/50.” An agent cannot fall back on verbal agreements or informal understandings once a deal is underway. The paperwork defines everything. The proposal has to be a signed form, or a signed agreement that references the split percentage, the property, both parties’ RERA numbers, and the timing of payment. That document is not bureaucracy — it is the evidence.
The psychology of proposing first
There is a tactical dimension to this that experienced agents understand without needing it explained, but it is worth naming.
When you propose the structure, you do three things simultaneously. First, you establish yourself as the agent who runs a professional operation — you know the forms, you use them early, and you do not wing it. Second, you anchor the terms. In Dubai, there is no official law dictating the exact split for agent-to-agent commissions. Sale transactions are usually a 50/50 split of the total commission. Rental transactions are usually a 50/50 split, but sometimes negotiable depending on the effort involved. If you propose 50/50 first and the other party accepts, that is the deal. If you wait, the other party may propose 60/40 in their favour — and now you are negotiating upward from an anchor they set.
Third, you reduce the deal’s risk surface. An unsigned co-broking arrangement is a liability for both agents, not just for you. The agent who proposes Form I is doing both parties a favour, and framing it that way costs nothing. “Let’s get the form signed before we run the viewing — easier for both of us” is not a power play. It is a professional standard. And it positions you as the agent who protects the deal rather than the one who complicates it.
In fast-moving markets like Dubai, agents sometimes proceed on trust or a phone call agreement when time is short. This almost always creates problems if the deal becomes complicated. Speed is not a reason to skip the form. It takes less time to generate and sign Form I than to file a complaint with RERA. The form is the shortcut, not the obstacle.
The specific moments when the structure must be proposed
Before the first viewing
If a buyer’s agent is calling about your listing, Form I is proposed in that call or the message that follows it. Not after the viewing. Not once an offer is on the table. The moment both agents are investing time in the same transaction, the split should be agreed. Form I comes into play when a buyer’s agent identifies a suitable property that is listed by a different agent. Before the buyer’s agent can arrange viewings, share the property’s details, or participate in negotiations, both agents must sign Form I.
Before the client introduction in an off-plan referral
If you are referring a client to another agency for an off-plan project, your agreement needs to exist before the introduction happens. Once the client is in the primary agency’s system, your leverage is gone unless you have a signed agreement in place.
Before the MOU is drafted
In a resale deal, Form F is prepared by the real estate broker or agent managing the property sale. They fill out the form with important details such as the sale price and terms of the agreement. The agent who prepares Form F also has the ability to record the commission structure. Form F lists the terms and conditions, rate, commission split for buyer’s and seller’s agent, and other vital details of the property. If your split is already agreed and in Form I before Form F is drafted, the MOU will reflect it accurately. If it is not, the MOU may record terms that do not match what you thought you agreed — and that document is legally binding once signed.
In writing, with specificity
The split percentage must be explicit. “We’ll sort it out” is not a split. The agent-to-agent agreement specifies the property in question, the names and RERA registration details of both agents, the commission split arrangement (typically 50/50 of the total commission), confidentiality obligations regarding client information, and terms governing how the agents will cooperate through the transaction.
If the split departs from 50/50 — because one agent has the exclusive mandate, because one agency has done substantially more qualifying work, or because the deal is an unusual structure — that deviation must also be explicit and agreed. Exclusive listings sometimes see the listing agent offer a smaller split if they have exclusive rights. There is nothing wrong with a 60/40 or a 70/30, as long as both agents have signed it before the deal moves forward.
What “paid at the same time” actually prevents
The structural proposal is not just about percentages. It is also about sequencing. And the most dangerous moment in any co-brokered deal is the gap between when the client pays and when the non-collecting agency receives its share.
In that gap, things happen. Disputes get raised about whether the work was done. Internal approvals slow down. Accounts departments send the wrong amount. The primary brokerage has its own internal split to process first, and your portion is somewhere in that queue. None of this is necessarily bad faith — but the outcome for the waiting agent is the same regardless of the cause.
The structural proposal that eliminates this gap is the one that arranges for both commissions to be collected at the same time, from the same transaction event, with the split defined in advance. In a resale deal, that event is Form F signing and the subsequent transfer. In a rental, it is the tenancy contract signing and the handover of cheques. In an off-plan referral, the trigger and the timing need to be agreed in the co-broking agreement itself because the developer’s payment schedule governs everything downstream.
When multiple agents are involved in a single listing, the commission is typically split among them. This can sometimes complicate the transaction, so clear agreements should be in place from the start. “From the start” is not legal advice. It is the practical condition under which disputes disappear. An agreement that specifies who gets paid, how much, from which cheque, and at what point in the transaction is a complete agreement. Anything less is an invitation to argue later.
The principle that removes the friction
The market does not have a mechanism that automatically protects agents who do the work but skip the paperwork. RERA provides a framework. RERA sets guidelines for brokerage activities, including licensing real estate agencies and professionals, enforcing compliance, regulating real estate marketing, providing a framework for property development and sales, and resolving disputes between parties involved in real estate transactions. Agents must adhere to these regulations, and contracts between clients and agents should clearly outline the commission structure. But the framework only works if the documentation exists. The regulator can only enforce what is written down.
That is the core principle: the agent who proposes the structure controls the deal because structure is the only thing the system can enforce. The deal without structure exists in the memory of two people who will soon have different recollections of what was agreed.
The agent who drafts Form I before the viewing, who specifies the split, the timing, and the trigger, and who has the other agent’s signature before any substantive work begins — that agent has converted a handshake into a contract. They have moved from the realm of trust into the realm of rights. And rights, unlike trust, survive a slow commission payment, a change of manager at the other brokerage, or a deal that goes sideways at the transfer.
There is one outcome in a co-brokered deal that removes all of this friction entirely: both agents, agreed on their split upfront in writing, both paid at the same moment the client pays, with no gap and no waiting. It is not a complicated outcome. It is not expensive to achieve. It requires only that the structural proposal happens at the beginning — before the viewing, before the introduction, before the MOU — and that both agents sign it.
Every deal where that does not happen is a deal where someone is owed money they may never see. And in almost every case, it is the agent who let someone else propose the structure — or who let the structure go unproposed entirely.
The Dubai market rewards speed. But it only pays agents who have paperwork.
