Introduction: FIFA’s TPO ban and its compatibility with EU competition law.
Day 1: FIFA must regulate TPO, not ban it.
Day 2: Third-party entitlement to shares of transfer fees: problems and solutions
Day 3: The Impact of the TPO Ban on South American Football.
Day 4: Third Party Investment from a UK Perspective. 

Editor’s note: Finally, the last blog of our TPO ban Symposium has arrived! Due to unforeseen circumstances, FIFA had to reconsider presenting its own views on the matter. However, FIFA advised us to contact Prof. Dr. Christian Duve to author the eagerly awaited blog on their behalf. Prof. Dr. Christian Duve is a lawyer and partner with Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP and an honorary professor at the University of Heidelberg. He has been a CAS arbitrator until 2014. Thus, as planned, we will conclude this symposium with a post defending the compatibility of the TPO ban with EU law. Many thanks to Prof. Dr. Duve for having accepted this last-minute challenge!

This blog article outlines FIFA’s reasons to introduce Art. 18ter FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) which bans third-party ownership of players’ economic rights (TPO). In recent years, TPO was perceived as a threat to the integrity of football competitions within the international football community[i] and has become an area of concern for FIFA. Nevertheless Art. 18ter RSTP has been heavily criticized mainly by the proponents of TPO and a complaint has been filed with the European Commission by the Spanish and the Portuguese Leagues for an alleged violation of EU competition law. In the following it will be shown that such criticism does not sufficiently take into consideration the specific characteristics of the practice of TPO as well as football in general. It explains the rationale behind Art. 18ter RSTP which

-      fosters the integrity of competition which is a priority topic for FIFA,

-      promotes the independence of clubs by preventing third parties’ influence in sporting decisions,

-      leads to stable squads,

-      provides an opportunity for investors to invest in the clubs rather than in single players,

-      leads to financially healthier clubs.

Hence, with the introduction of Art. 18ter RSTP, FIFA pursues legitimate aims which justify the ban of the TPO practice.

1.              FIFA’s Way to Art. 18ter RSTP

TPO covers various situations in which a third party invests in the economic rights of a player in order to receive a compensation with regard to a future transfer. Whilst it is widely used in South America and in Southern Europe as an alternative funding possibility, especially to finance investments in sporting talent,[ii] TPO is explicitly prohibited in England, France and Colombia.[iii] The English ban on TPO was introduced in 2008 after the commotion caused by the Tévez case in 2006 where the contract between Tévez and West Ham United contained a provision giving a third party owner the right to decide on the transfer and the transfer fee of the player without any right to veto by the club.

FIFA has introduced a new rule Art. 18bis RSTP which prohibits clubs to enter into contracts that are liable to jeopardise the club’s independence, its policies or the performance of its teams and freedom of decision-making in employment and transfer-related matters and came into force on 1 January 2008.[iv] However, after having mandated two studies providing data and information on TPO in several countries in 2013 and 2014, it was felt that Art. 18bis RSTP was not sufficient and did not address this subject in an appropriate manner. Therefore FIFA decided to introduce a new Art. 18ter RSTP as from 1 May 2015.

The main provision of Art. 18ter RSTP reads:

1.      No club or player shall enter into an agreement with a third party whereby a third party is being entitled to participate, either in full or in part, in compensation payable in relation to the future transfer of a player from one club to another, or is being assigned any rights in relation to a future transfer or transfer compensation. […]

It has been criticized that Art. 18ter RSTP prevents and restricts competition in the market for capital investment in football in a way that is not proportionate for attaining its legitimate objective and that Art. 18ter RSTP is therefore incompatible with EU Competition law. However, such criticism does not sufficiently take into consideration the specific characteristics of football as will be shown in this blog.

2.              The Rationale of Art. 18ter RSTP

First and foremost, Art. 18ter RSTP protects the integrity of the game itself by allowing for the necessary freedom in the contractual relationship between a club and a player, to determine whether and when the player is fielded as well as to decide independently and for sporting reasons only whether and when they are transferred.

Second, with regard to financial aspects of the clubs, critics undervalue that Art. 18ter RSTP is limited to a prohibition of an investment in a club’s players and does not in any way limit an investment in the clubs themselves leading to financially healthier clubs.

2.1           Art. 18ter RSTP Fosters the Integrity of Football

Art. 18ter RSTP pursues several legitimate aims, inter alia, the integrity of competition (2.1.1.), the independence of clubs (2.1.2.) and the stability of squads (2.1.3.).

2.1.1      Integrity of Competition

The protection of the integrity of the game is not only one of FIFA’s main objectives according to Art. 2 e) of the FIFA Statutes, it was also recognized by the European Commission as a legitimate aim justifying limitations on competition.

With regard to the UEFA rule on the “Integrity of the UEFA Club competitions: Independence of clubs” establishing a ban on the ownership of several clubs participating in the same competition by the same person or company, the European Commission held that the ban was in any case a necessary rule to ensure its legitimate aim of protecting the integrity of sporting competitions by “protecting the uncertainty of the results and giving the public the right perception as to the integrity of the […] competitions with a view to ensure their proper functioning“.[v] Previously, a Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decision has also confirmed the validity of this limitation and found that “when commonly controlled clubs participate in the same competition, the «public’s perception will be that there is a conflict of interest potentially affecting the authenticity of results»” and that “that ownership of multiple clubs competing in the same competition represents a justified concern for a sports regulator and organizer”.[vi]

The danger of such conflicts of interests is, however, not limited to club owners, it extends to investors, agents and coaches. Similar to the situations in which a third party has interests in several clubs participating in the same competition, conflicts of interests can also arise in cases where third parties own shares in economic rights of several players of different teams which are competing against each other.[vii] Especially if a player in which a third party has an economic interest competes against a club that is owned by the same investor, there is a significant potential for such conflicts. Even within the same team, the risk of having the same owner of a number of players presents a competitive integrity risk.[viii]

In any case and irrespective of an actual conflict, a conflict may at least be perceived by the public in connection with TPO. Such perception leads to a loss of confidence in the integrity of the competition and damages the image of the sport. In the light of the increasing threat of match manipulation, the involvement of third-party owners creates a danger to the reputation of the competition that could weaken the football world. The integrity of the game is therefore only guaranteed if players and clubs are not influenced by third parties owning the players’ economic rights with the aim to maximize their investment.[ix]

2.1.2      Independence of Clubs

To ensure the independence of its Members’ affiliated clubs is one of FIFA’s objectives pursuant to Art. 18 para. 2 of the FIFA Statutes. The second TPO study found that “the spread of TPO in the majority of the cases may be closely related to a partial takeover of the clubs’ control by actors seeking primarily short-term profit and speculating on the purchase and sale of economic rights, regardless of sporting concerns”[x]. TPO potentially has an impact on player selection on the field of play and creates complications for transfer negotiations as the clubs’ sporting interests (e.g. of holding a player despite a lucrative offer or of letting a player go without being offered a lucrative transfer fee) may conflict with investors seeking a profitable return on their investment.

Even though interests may coincide if the investor speculates for a rise in the player’s market value (e.g. Santos FC refusing Chelsea FC’s offer for Neymar), one prominent example of conflicting interests is the Tévez case in which West Ham United was deprived of any rights with regard to a future transfer of the player. More recently, contract renewal negotiations with Zambrano, a key player of Eintracht Frankfurt, are jeopardized by a third party whose entitlement to future transfer compensation for Zambrano is to be bought by Eintracht.[xi] 

Overall, the more clubs are depending on TPO financing, the more negotiating power third party investors have. The second TPO study mentions the purchase of economic rights at preferential prices, pre-emptive rights on new players or even greater influence on transfer policy.[xii] Moreover, with players’ economic rights in the hands of various investors the fragmentation of interests within a club increases. The independence of clubs can only be guaranteed by preventing a partial takeover of the clubs’ control by third parties especially with regard to transfers.

2.1.3      Stability of Squads

The aforementioned clash of interests between investors speculating on the purchase and sale of players’ economic rights and clubs reoccurs when it comes to the frequency of transfers. Whereas an investor makes money out of transfers, a club may be more interested in building a stable team and team cohesion for sporting reasons. The Demographic Study of CIES in 2014 found that “in general, the number of transfers carried out by teams during the current season is at an all-time high” and stated that “the increasing speculation surrounding players’ transfers is also visible through the progressive drop in the number of club-trained players, which has attained its lowest level since 2009”.[xiii] Pursuant to the same study, players recruited from January 2013 onwards represented 41.3% of squads on average (10.2 signings per club). At the same time, the best performing clubs generally have the most stable squads. For instance, FC Barcelona has the most stable squad among European top division teams. Its Players have been for 5.5 years in the first team squad on average pursuant to the Demographic Study of CIES in 2014.[xiv]

Leagues and club representatives stressed in the Second TPO study that the increasing gaps between clubs in terms of stability contribute to the general decline in the competitive balance both at national and international level.[xv] FIFA’s overall objective to promote football, laid down in Art. 2 a) of the FIFA Statutes, is endangered by such contractual instability caused by TPO.

2.2           Art. 18ter RSTP Provides an Incentive for Investment in Clubs

Football clubs play the central role with regard to the aforementioned legitimate aims. In order to achieve those objectives, appropriate financing mechanisms are fundamental for football clubs. It is undisputed that clubs need external sources. A solution that takes sufficiently into account the role of the clubs and their needs can only be to finance clubs directly. By prohibiting the TPO of single players’ economic rights, Art. 18ter RSTP creates an incentive for investors to invest in the clubs themselves.

Admittedly, some football clubs have been affected by financial difficulties and thus do not seem to be attractive for investors at first sight. In this context, however, it must be taken into account that clubs that seek regular access to talent by means of TPO are becoming even more and more dependent on the regular injection of funds from external investors which may lead to a “vicious circle of debt and dependence”.[xvi] With a club selling its players’ economic rights to third parties, the value of the respective club’s assets decreases. As a result, it is even harder to find potential investors interested in financing the club.[xvii] Therefore TPO cannot be a sustainable financing option. Improving the overall financial health of club football is a major concern for football associations. Therefore the UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations (FFP) were established to prevent professional football clubs from excessive spending. Although the regulations only contain disclosure requirements with regard to TPO, they were released in view of a TPO ban.[xviii]

Overall, critics therefore have to take into account that Art. 18ter RSTP prohibits only one single form of investment whilst it promotes at the same time investment in the clubs specifically tailored to the overarching aim of fostering the integrity of the game.

3.              Conclusion

Art. 18bis RSTP has already targeted the aforementioned legitimate aims. However, this provision may be easily circumvented by inserting a clause into the TPO agreement stating that it does not permit any exercise of influence by the third party within the club’s employment and transfer-related matters, policies or performance of its team. In practice, the engaged third parties will interfere with a club’s sporting decisions in many cases despite such a contractual clause. Interviewees in the second TPO study reported that in practical terms, many third­party investors do influence the transfer of players.[xix] Therefore, there is a consensus among football stakeholders that TPO should be restricted. The legitimate aims underlying Art. 18ter RSTP can be achieved most effectively by a total ban of the TPO practice. Whereas critics point to the lack of financing options caused by the prohibition of TPO, this blog has argued that in the specific context of football competitions the integrity of the game benefits from direct investments in the clubs.

[i] Cp. FIFA Circular no. 1420 of 12 May 2014.

[ii] Third-party ownership of players’ economic rights, Part II., Centre de droit et d’économie du sport et Centre international d’étude du sport, June 2014, p. 3.

[iii] Moreover, Poland has a rule which is interpreted by its football association as prohibiting third parties to hold a player’s economic rights with an exception for former clubs, cp. TPO study I, p. 3, 17 et. seq.

[iv] Art. 18bis RSTP, as introduced in 2008, reads:

1.   No club shall enter into a contract which enables any other party to that contract or any third party to acquire the ability to influence in employment and transfer-related matters its independence, its policies or the performance of its teams.

2.   The FIFA Disciplinary Committee may impose disciplinary measures on clubs that do not observe the obligations set out in this article.

[v] European Commission, Rejection Decision of 25 June 2002, Case COMP/37 806: ENIC/ UEFA, para. 47.

[vi] Arbitration CAS 98/200 AEK Athens and SK Slavia Prague / Union of European Football

Associations (UEFA), award of 20 August 1999, para. 48 (available at http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/sites/CaseLaw/Shared%20Documents/200.pdf).

[vii] Third-party ownership of players’ economic rights, Part II., Centre de droit et d’économie du sport et Centre international d’étude du sport, June 2014, p.  9, 81.

[viii] Cp. Third-party ownership of players’ economic rights, Part I., Centre international d’étude du sport, p. 33.

[ix] Third-party ownership of players’ economic rights, Part II., Centre de droit et d’économie du sport et Centre international d’étude du sport, June 2014, p. 81 et. seq.

[x] Third-party ownership of players’ economic rights, Part II., Centre de droit et d’économie du sport et Centre international d’étude du sport, June 2014, p. 8.

[xi] Available at: http://www.fr-online.de/eintracht-frankfurt/carlos-zambrano-eintracht-frankfurt-zambrano-deal-gefaehrdet,1473446,29843342.html.

[xii] Third-party ownership of players’ economic rights, Part II., Centre de droit et d’économie du sport et Centre international d’étude du sport, June 2014, p. 88.

[xiii] Available at http://www.football-observatory.com/demographic-study-2014-now.

[xiv] Available at http://www.football-observatory.com/demographic-study-2014-now.

[xv] Third-party ownership of players’ economic rights, Part II., Centre de droit et d’économie du sport et Centre international d’étude du sport, June 2014, p. 78.

[xvi] Third-party ownership of players’ economic rights, Part II., Centre de droit et d’économie du sport et Centre international d’étude du sport, June 2014, p. 9.

[xvii] Third-party ownership of players’ economic rights, Part II., Centre de droit et d’économie du sport et Centre international d’étude du sport, June 2014, p. 88.

[xviii] Available at http://www.uefa.com/community/news/newsid=2064391.html.

[xix] Third-party ownership of players’ economic rights, Part II., Centre de droit et d’économie du sport et Centre international d’étude du sport, June 2014, p. 88.

Yesterday, the European Commission stunned the European Sports Law world when it announced unexpectedly that it had signed a “partnership agreement” with UEFA named (creatively): ‘The Arrangement for Cooperation between the European Commission and the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA)’. The press release indicates that this agreement is to “commit the two institutions to working together regularly in a tangible and constructive way on matters of shared interest”. The agreement was negotiated (as far as we know) secretly with UEFA. Despite recent meetings between EU Commissioner for sport Vassiliou and UEFA President Platini, the eventuality of such an outcome was never evoked. It is very unlikely that third-interested-parties (FIFPro, ECA, Supporters Direct etc.) were consulted in the process of drafting this Arrangement. This surprising move by an outgoing Commission will be analysed in a three-ponged approach. First, we will discuss the substance of the Arrangement (I). Thereafter, we will consider its potential legal value under EU law (II). Finally, and maybe more importantly, we will confront the political relevance of the agreement (III).  

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/photo/photoDetails.cfm?sitelang=en&ref=026448#13

The substance of the “Arrangement” between UEFA and the European Commission

What’s in the Arrangement? In short, a lot of random considerations, very little concrete commitments, and an administrative structure for future dialogue.

The “basis” for the cooperation between UEFA and the European Commission is a mixed bag of shared concerns and common views. Both institutions are keen on strengthening their dialogue “in the interests of the long-term development and societal role of sport in general and football in particular” (Article 2.1. of the Arrangement), especially in the light of the societal value of sport (Article 2.2.) and the many challenges and risks it is facing (Article 2.3.). Therefore, they “endeavour to strengthen policies designed to encourage the local training and education of athletes” (Article 2.4.). The parties share the view that “appropriate solutions are to be found in order to ensure that athletes are available to play for their national teams” (Article 2.5.), but also that “redistribution mechanisms concerning, for example, audiovisual media revenues and training compensation fees should be recommended” (Article 2.6.). Furthermore, they acknowledge that “[F]inancial stability, transparency and better governance within sport can be pursued through responsible self-regulation”. For example, “measures to encourage greater rationality and discipline in club finances with a focus on the long-term as opposed to the short-term, such as Financial Fair Play initiative, contribute to the sustainable development and healthy growth of sport in Europe” (Article 2.7.).  

The parties also agree that the “health and human dignity of athletes must be protected from abusive and unethical practices”. In this regard, “[I]t is important that […] so-called third-party ownership of the “economic rights” of player, do not threaten the integrity of sporting competition or undermine the relationship of trust and mutual respect that should exist in any relationship of employment” (Article 2.8.). More broadly, the parties recognise the need for social dialogue, protecting fundamental rights, promoting gender equality and to fight all forms of racism, xenophobia, homophobia and discrimination (Article 2.9.). It is recognized that “[t]o improve good governance standards, UEFA can also play a prominent role in seeking appropriate solutions on issues pertaining to players’ transfers and agents at European level” (Article 2.10.). Concerning match-fixing, the parties acknowledge that close cooperation is needed (2.11). 

The Arrangement calls for an “effective protection of intellectual property rights”, as their exploitation “represents an important source of income for professional football” (Article 2.12.). It also favours “the reinforcement of the Council of Europe convention on spectator violence” (Article 2.13.). In a very important holding, arbitration is recognised as “an important voluntary tool for settling disputes in sport and ensuring that sporting rules are applied, interpreted and enforced in an effective and uniform manner, while also ensuring respect of the applicable legal norms and procedural safeguards within and outside of the EU” (Article 2.14.). Finally, “the European Commission and UEFA will collaborate in the context of the planned European Week of Sport, using football to promote healthy physical activity” (Article 2.15).

This collection of, more or less, random thoughts collated in the Arrangement lead to two broad objectives: “to promote cooperation and strengthen relations between the European Commission and UEFA in the interests of the sustainable development of football” (Article 3.1.1.) and “to exchange information, knowledge and good-practice on matters of common interest” (Article 3.1.2). These objectives are to be implemented through a “policy dialogue” between the Secretary General of UEFA and the Director General responsible for Sport in the EC (Article 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, & 4,5). The implementation will also involve “Regular and ad hoc meetings […] between officials of the Sides […]” (Article 4.3.).

The Arrangement will start on the date of the signature [14 October 2014] and is to last until 31 December 2017 (Article 5.1.). The Sides to the Arrangement are free to amend it (Article 5.2). While, each side “can, at any time discontinue the application of this Arrangement, but should endeavour to provide a three-month notice of such discontinuation to the other Side” (Article 5.3.). Finally, both sides acknowledge that the “Arrangement does not create rights or obligations under international, EU or domestic law” (Article 5.4.).   

The legal value of the “Arrangement” under EU law

This is not a memorandum of understanding, a gentleman’s agreement between UEFA and the Commission, or a simple political declaration; this Arrangement is formally approved by a binding decision of the European Commission, to which it is attached. This decision could not be based on Article 165 paragraph 4 of the TFEU (the sports legal basis), as it does not confer to the European Commission the power to adopt such a decision. Hence, the Commission needed to rely on its general competence derived from Article 17 TEU.[1] Already, this is cause for legal concern; for example one could question the legitimacy of the circumvention of the limits set expressively in Article 165 TFEU and the recourse to Article 17 TEU to stretch the Commission’s competences. Ultimately, it could lead to a legal challenge against the decision, based on the European Commission’s lack of competence to adopt it. In any way, this is unlikely to happen, as it would require an EU Institution (the Council or the European Parliament), or a Member State to do so. 

What does the fact that the Arrangement is enshrined in a European Commission decision mean in legal terms? As specified in Article 288 TFEU: “A decision shall be binding in its entirety”. This is a legally binding document, in theory reviewable by Courts and potentially capable of generating rights and legitimate expectations for a third party (most probably UEFA). The Commission was apparently very weary of dodging this possibility. Therefore, it kept the wording of its commitments relatively vague and introduced many references to the primacy of EU Competition law and the EU acquis in the text. Moreover, article 5.4 of the Arrangement stipulates that it “does not create rights or obligations under international, EU or domestic law”. This makes it very difficult to envisage a possibility for UEFA to claim that it has concrete legitimate expectations arising from this Arrangement.[2] Consequently, in practice, this Arrangement is very much a soft legal instrument in the guise of hard law administrative decision. Nevertheless, the law is not always only about the law and such soft legal documents might have hard political and legal consequences. 

The hard political (and legal) reality of a soft legal “Arrangement”

The legal theoretical debate over the nature and function of soft law instruments has been on-going for more than 20 years now.[3] But, one thing seems to be more or less certain, soft legal mechanisms matter.[4] They matter politically, as they shape the perception of public opinion and play a role in public discourse. Sometimes they might also matter legally, especially when legal standards based on the substantial balancing of values (or risks) are used, as for example the proportionality principle. Therefore, the European Commission should be very weary of using such soft instruments in a blunt fashion. 

In our view, this Arrangement between UEFA and the European Commission is a misguided soft law instrument. Indeed, despite its willingness not to get into an agreement creating legal rights for UEFA, the European Commission will be haunted (politically and legally) by it for the years to come. For example, it will be very difficult for the European Commission to consider that UEFA’s Financial Fair Play regulations are disproportionate in the sense of the Meca-Medina test, after recognizing that it contributes to “the sustainable development and healthy growth of sport in Europe”. The Commission also adds that this recognition is “subject to compliance with competition law”. Thus, it remains in theory possible for the DG Competition to consider FFP incompatible with EU Competition law. However, one need not be a political wizard to understand the difficulty to do so after having enshrined such a statement in an official decision (UEFA is already claiming that the Commission “fully supports” the “implementation of Financial Fair Play”). UEFA would easily point at the obvious contradiction and the European public would rightly blame the European Commission for its inconsistency.                                                                                            

Unfortunately, this Arrangement is not only about UEFA’s FFP regulations; instead, the European Commission is signing on a set of very controversial statements. Indeed, by qualifying sporting Arbitration as “an important voluntary tool for settling disputes in sport” and “ensuring respect of the applicable legal norms and procedural safeguards within and outside of the EU” it indirectly recognizes the legitimacy of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. This is notwithstanding the very acute doubts about the “voluntary” nature of this arbitration[5], as well as potential concerns related to its independence. In this context, one can only be perplexed by the willingness of the European Commission to throw caution to the wind. The CAS might be a useful tool for sports governing bodies trying to evade the purview of national courts; it might even be necessary to avoid the fragmentation of the global anti-doping regime or to offer a quick and clean dispute resolution mechanisms in certain disciplinary or commercial cases. However, its legitimacy and its capacity to safeguard the fundamental rights of athletes is not a given and the European Commission would have been well advised to show considerable restraint in weighing in on this question. This lack of caution is generally true for other very complex socio-economic issues tackled en passant in the Arrangement, and in which UEFA had a keen (economic) interest to defend: the release of players for the national teams, the intellectual property rights over football and the regulation of the transfer system. 

Finally, UEFA will now enjoy privileged access to the highest level of the EU’s executive branch. This is akin to an ‘all you can eat’ lobbying ticket to defend its interests and views. UEFA may have a central function in the organization of European football, but, it is not the UN, States have no say in its policies, nor have the people which are directly affected by them.[6] There is no good reason to confer a special political status to UEFA, especially taking into account that, as a private government, it refuses to give a real institutional voice to some of its most prominent “citizens”: the players, the clubs or the fans. By doing so, the Commission risks cutting itself from the other legitimate voices of football and losing sights of its duty to defend the European general interest as a whole. 

Did the outgoing European Commission rush to cash-in on a visual accolade from Michel Platini? One is left to wonder. For all these substantial political concessions, the European Commission won only the meagre promise that “UEFA will collaborate in the context of the planned European Week of Sport, using football to promote healthy physical activity”. Such an Arrangement could have potentially made sense, if the European Commission would have imposed in return certain governance standards on UEFA (real stakeholders participation, transparency requirements etc…), or conditioned its signature to the full implementation of the recently agreed (and not even mentioned in the Arrangement) European social dialogue agreement for professional football players. 

In short, with this Arrangement the European Commission capitulated politically in front of UEFA. Such a capitulation need not take a legally binding form; its political meaning is enough. It is a sad day for European Sports Law and for those keen on democratizing the governance of football and on subjecting it to the rule of law. One can only hope that, as it has done in the past, the Court of Justice will be willing to supplant the Commission in defending the European general interest and the rights of athletes.

[1] Article 17(1) TEU reads as follows: “The Commission shall promote the general interest of the Union and take appropriate initiatives to that end. It shall ensure the application of the Treaties, and of measures adopted by the institutions pursuant to them. It shall oversee the application of Union law under the control of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It shall execute the budget and manage programmes. It shall exercise coordinating, executive and management functions, as laid down in the Treaties. With the exception of the common foreign and security policy, and other cases provided for in the Treaties, it shall ensure the Union's external representation. It shall initiate the Union's annual and multiannual programming with a view to achieving interinstitutional agreements.”

[2] On the scope of the notion of « Legitimate expectations » in EU administrative Law, see P. Craig, EU Administrative Law, OUP, 2012, pp. 567-570

[3] For an early discussion of soft law in the framework of EU law see : F. Snyder, ‘The effectiveness of European Community Law : Institutions, Processes, Tools and Techniques’, Modern Law Review, vol.56, 1993, 19-56, p.32-35

[4] L. Senden, Soft law in European Community Law, Hart Publishing, 2004 ; O. Stefan, Soft Law in Court : Competition Law, State Aid and the Court of Justice of the EU, Kluwer, 2013.

[5] The recent Pechstein decision by the Landgericht München highlighted this lack of consent from the part of the athlete. See the decision at www.openjur.de/u/678775.html

[6] On the need to distinguish between its factual capacity to create legal rules and its legitimacy to do so, see A. Duval, ‘Lex Sportiva : A playground for transnational law’ available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2317826

In 2009, Sepp Blatter expressed his concerns that half of the players participating in the 2014 FIFA World Cup would be Brazilians naturalized by other countries. The Official list of Players released a few weeks ago tends to prove him wrong[1]. However, some players have changed their eligibility in the past and will even be playing against their own country of origin[2]. This post aims at explaining the key legal aspects in changes of national affiliation and to discuss the regulations pertaining to the constitution of national sides in general[3].

The 32 national associations engaged in the final competition are bound by two sets of rules, namely the Regulations of the 2014 World Cup – Brazil and the Regulations Governing the Application of the FIFA Statutes 2013[4]. Their common purpose is to ensure that players have a genuine, close and credible link with the national association which selects them on its roster[5]. This is primarily ensured by the permanent holding of the nationality of the country of the national association in question[6]. It means that nationality must not be pegged to the residence of the player in a certain country[7]. Naturally, sanctions may apply in the case of a breach of these stipulations[8].

The global race to secure talent meeting this nationality requirement is not new. It appears that it has however reached a new level in light of the Diego Costa case since FIFA regulations do not prevent nor address the issue of dual call-up[9]. Many players, such as Manchester United midfield Adnan Janujaz (who actually just elected to play for Belgium a few weeks ago)[10], are placed in a difficult if not untenable position. They are indeed denied the right to refuse an international selection according to FIFA regulations even if they are called-up by both national teams they are affiliated to[11].

The recent Diego Costa saga put this issue under intense media scrutiny[12]. To summarize the issue, the Brazilian-born player had gained very few international appearances in the preliminary phase, playing exclusively friendlies for his country of birth, before acquiring Spanish nationality and moving to represent Spain at the 2014 FIFA World Cup. His choice was portrayed as traitorous by some officials of the Brazilian football federation. In light of this, imagine for one second the headlines of the worldwide press if Diego Costa had defeated Brazil during the knockout phase (28 or 29 June) or the grand final on 13 July 2014, if both teams had qualified for the second phase of the tournament. In the eyes of many, FIFA is responsible for allowing Diego Costa to play against his country of birth. However, this is overlooking that the acquisition of a new nationality and change of national associations are strictly regulated, and that such regulations are actually decided collectively by the members of FIFA. In this respect, it should be mentioned that the Brazilian Football Federation has not made any official move to modify the rules so far[13].

Acquisition of a new nationality

Article 7 of the 2013 FIFA Regulations reads as follow: “Any Player who refers to art. 5 par. 1 to assume a new nationality and who has not played international football in accordance with art. 5 par. 2 shall be eligible to play for the new representative team only if he fulfils one of the following conditions: a) He was born on the territory of the relevant Association; b) His biological mother or biological father was born on the territory of the relevant Association; c) His grandmother or grandfather was born on the territory of the relevant Association; d) He has lived continuously for at least five years after reaching the age of 18 on the territory of the relevant Association”.

Under this article, the acquisition of a new nationality must be distinguished with double nationality. Dual nationals by birth may elect to represent the national association of their choice. This is notably the case of football players born in Northern Ireland for instance[14]. They can play for the Irish Football Association (Northern Ireland) or the Football Association of Ireland (Ireland) as they can claim British and Irish nationalities at birth[15]. Of note, this article applies only to player who have acquired a new nationality before their first international appearance. If this is not the case, they will not be allowed to play for their new country. 

The “granny rule” and the five-year waiting period are the most controversial eligibility regulations. Some authors find indeed that gaining eligibility through a grandparent does not offer a link close enough with the country that the player wishes to represent. Consequently, they advocate that this provision be deleted from the FIFA regulations[16]. The waiting rule was introduced in order to protect national identity and young players[17] and thus, to prevent expedited naturalization of football players. It institutes a de facto prohibition to play at international level before the age of 23 years old when naturalized. This rule was challenged twice since its coming into force in 2008. First, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Federation and the Australian Federation sought laxer rules in order to include immigrant players in their national side. The FIFA Congress rejected this bid by 153 to 42 votes and the second submission for a change was even withdrawn before being put to vote[18]. This landslide vote shows that FIFA members are favoring the status quo.

Change of association

Article 8, paragraph 1, of the 2013 FIFA Regulations reads as follow: “If a Player has more than one nationality, or if a Player acquires a new nationality, or if a Player is eligible to play for several representative teams due to nationality, he may, only once, request to change the Association for which he is eligible to play international matches to the Association of another Country of which he holds nationality, subject to the following conditions: a) He has not played a match (either in full or in part) in an Official Competition at “A” international level for his current Association, and at the time of his first full or partial appearance in an international match in an Official Competition for his current Association, he already had the nationality of the representative team for which he wishes to play; b) He is not permitted to play for his new Association in any competition in which he has already played for his previous Association”

Appropriately seeking to balance the interests involved, this rule serves to monitor change of eligibility and protect the integrity of international competitions while respecting the rights of players to move from one country to another[19]. FIFA did not monitor such changes until the mid-1960s[20]. The world governing body for football introduced at that time the concept of an election of nationality and banned change of national association until 2003.

The FIFA Congress introduced a limited right to change national affiliation but it was first reserved for U-23 players only[21]. In 2008, FIFA extended this right to any player provided that they were dual nationals when they had played for their first country and had not played in an Official Competition at “A” level (i.e. with the first team of a national association)[22]. The chart indicates that the number of requests to change association increased dramatically after 2008. However, it has now stabilized at approximately 30 requests per year. In this respect, the 2014 FIFA World Cup does not seem to have had any effect compared to the 2010 edition combined with the new set of rules.

To date, 237 players have taken the opportunity to change national affiliation and 24 of them are currently participating in the 2014 FIFA World Cup. This represents approximately 10.10% of the 237 players and only 3.26% of the 736 players engaged in the competition. This figure is line with the 2004 Athens Olympics Games for instance where 2.6% of the athletes had change their sporting nationality[23]. It shows that the concerns of Sepp Blatter have not materialized and that the situation is currently under control. Therefore, there is certainly no urgent need to further strengthen the existing regulatory framework.

[1]For a mapping of ancestral and international connections between teams, see: Brazil 2014: Visualising ancestral and international connections between teams (http://codehesive.com/wc-ancestry/).

[2] If he had been fielded, Eduardo Alves da Silva would have been the first to play against his country of birth during the opening match (Brazil – Croatia: 2 – 1).

[3] This post will not address the issue of shared nationalities (art. 6 Regulations Governing the Application of the FIFA Statutes 2013) and change of association due to states authorities nor its process (art. 8 par 2 and 3 Regulations Governing the Application of the FIFA Statutes 2013).

[4] Available at FIFA.com.

[5] McCutcheon, National eligibility rules after Bosman, in: Professional Sport in the EU: Regulation and Re-regulation TMC Asser Press (Den Haag) p. 127.

[6] Article 5 par. 1 Regulations Governing the Application of the FIFA Statutes 2013.

[7] Article 5 par. 1 Regulations Governing the Application of the FIFA Statutes 2013.

[8] Fielding an ineligible player is sanctioned by the mandatory forfeiture of the game and a CHF 6’000 fine (article 8 par. 3 the Regulations of the 2014 World Cup – Brazil and article 31 FIFA Disciplinary Code).

[9] A situation of dual call-up may occur when a player, dual national and who has not elected a sporting nationality, is called by both associations he belongs to. This raises the issue of the right to refuse an international selection.

[10] According to the project Brazil 2014: Visualising ancestral and international connections between teams, Adnan Janujaz is the most connected player.

[11] Article 3 par. 1 – Annexe 1 – Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players 2012.

[12] See for example: Páez Romero, Regulations: Player eligibility: the Diego Costa case, in: World Sports Law Report, Vol. 12 issue 1 (January 2014); Margaritis, The Dynamics of nationality and football, in: LawInSport, 28 April 2014; Lovatt, Changing nationality in football: the FIFA rules that helped Brazilian Diego Costa play for Spain, in: LawInSport, 4 November 2013.

[13] This is probably due to the fact that the Brazilian Football Federation has lost only one player to the current FIFA regulations. It should be noted that Brazilian players who have never been selected nor have played in friendlies are not cast by FIFA statistics on change of eligibility.

[14] Hafner, La qualification des joueurs en équipe représentative au regard de la réglementation de la FIFA : le cas de la Coupe du monde 2010, n° 35.

[15] Cf. CAS 2010/A/2071 Irish Football Association v/ Football Association of Ireland, Daniel Kearns and FIFA, award of 27 September 2010.

[16] For instance: Hall, Fishing for All-Stars in a Time of Global Free Agency: Understanding FIFA Eligibility Rules and the Impact on the U.S. Men’s National Team, in: Marquette Sports Law Review, Vol. 23 Issue 1, p. 205.

[17] FIFA Congress 2011 – Minutes, p. 64.

[18] FIFA Congress 2011 – Minutes, p. 64 and FIFA Congress 2013, Minutes, p. 85.

[19] McCutcheon, National eligibility rules after Bosman, in: Professional Sport in the EU: Regulation and Re-regulation TMC Asser Press (Den Haag) p. 138. A general prohibition of change eligibility is likely to be deemed illegal. Cf. Oswald, First conclusions of the lecturers, in : La nationalité dans le sport : Enjeux et Problèmes, Editions CIES (Neuchâtel) 2006, p.201.

[20] Hall, Fishing for All-Stars in a Time of Global Free Agency: Understanding FIFA Eligibility Rules and the Impact on the U.S. Men’s National Team, in: Marquette Sports Law Review, Vol. 23 Issue 1, p. 194. Van den Bogaert, Practical Regulation of the Mobility of Sportsmen in the EU post Bosman, p. 348.

[21] Hafner, La qualification des joueurs en équipe représentative au regard de la réglementation de la FIFA : le cas de la Coupe du monde 2010, n° 44.

[22] Hafner, La qualification des joueurs en équipe représentative au regard de la réglementation de la FIFA : le cas de la Coupe du monde 2010, n° 45.

[23] Poli/Gillon, La naturalisation de sportifs et fuite des muscles. Le cas des Jeux Olympiques de 2004, in : La nationalité dans le sport : Enjeux et Problèmes, Editions CIES (Neuchâtel) 2006, p. 59.