In a judgment handed down on Friday 4 October (Case C-650/22), the Court of Justice of the European Union held that certain FIFA rules on the transfer of professional football players are incompatible with EU law governing competition and the free movement of workers (Articles 45 and 101 TFEU).
In Belgium, a former professional footballer, the Frenchman Lassana Diarra, is contesting certain provisions of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) issued by FIFA and implemented by its member national football associations.
These rules apply when a club considers that one of its players has terminated his employment contract without ‘just cause’ before the normal end of that contract. In such cases, a footballer may not leave his club unless he pays his salary until the end of the contract, and any club seeking to hire him may be ordered jointly and severally to pay his salary as well as various costs (finding a replacement, for example). The recruiting club is also exposed to sporting sanctions, which can go as far as a ban on registering new players.
Such provisions have helped to create a lucrative transfer market between clubs, which enriches many intermediaries, such as agents.
In its judgment, the Court of Justice held that the rules at issue are contrary to EU law. In its view, these provisions hinder the free movement of professional footballers who wish to work for a club established in another Member State, by placing potentially high legal, financial and sporting risks on players and clubs wishing to employ them.
In particular, the compensation that the player and new club are required to pay to the original club in the event of terminating the contract ‘without just cause’ is set on the basis of imprecise or discretionary criteria that may be devoid of any objective link with the employment relationship concerned and that are disproportionate, the Court ruled.
In the Court’s view, restrictions on the free movement of professional players may be justified by the general interest objective of ensuring the regularity of interclub football competitions by maintaining a certain degree of stability in the workforce of professional football clubs. However, subject to verification by the Belgian courts, it believes that the rules in question appear to go beyond what is necessary to achieve this objective.
Secondly, with regard to competition law, the Court of Justice held that the rules at issue are intended to restrict or even prevent cross-border competition between professional football clubs. Rules that restrict this competition across the board by fixing the distribution of workers between employers and cloistering markets are similar to a no-poach agreement, it adds, considering these measures neither indispensable nor necessary.
See the judgment of the Court of Justice: https://aeur.eu/f/dqi (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)