Football intermediaries, or agents, are again under attack in the news. For some, corrupt behaviour has become endemic in football’s culture. It is always dangerous to scapegoat a whole profession or a group of people. Many intermediaries are trying their best to lawfully defend the interests of their clients, but some are not. The key focus should be on providing an adequate legal and administrative framework to limit the opportunities for corrupt behaviour in the profession. This is easier said than done, however. We are dealing with an intrinsically transnationalized business, often conducted by intermediaries who are not subjected to the disciplinary power of federations. Sports governing bodies are lacking the police power and human resources necessary to force the intermediaries to abide by their private standards. In this context, this blog aims to review a recent case in front of the regional court of Frankfurt in Germany, which highlights the legal challenges facing (and leeway available to) national federations when regulating the profession.

Since April 2015, the FIFA Regulations on Working with Intermediaries (“Intermediaries Regulations”) entered into force. They replaced the 2008 FIFA Players’ Agents Regulation and introduced dramatic changes to the regulation of players’ agents (for a quick introduction read our short guide here). Although seeing its first light on April Fools’ Day, the Intermediaries Regulations are not to be taken lightly. On the contrary, the new rules constitute a major turning point in the governance of player and club representation. Furthermore, the question of the compatibility of the Intermediaries Regulations with EU competition law promptly arose when the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (LG) had to rule on a challenge to the Reglement für Spielervermittlung (DFB-regulations), the national measure implementing the FIFA Regulations issued by the German Football Federation (DFB, Deutschen Fußball Bund). In its injunction of 29 April 2015 the LG found some provisions of the DFB-regulations to be contrary to Article 101 TFEU (see our earlier blog). This decision was appealed by both parties to the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (OLG), which rendered its ruling on 2 February 2016. This blog aims to analyse the decision of the OLG, while also putting it into its wider legal and social context.

I.              Back to the future: The Piau case revived

It is not the first time that the regulation of football agents/intermediaries by football federations and EU law are colliding. The previous Piau saga that started on 23 March 1998 with a complaint to the European Commission by a French agent, Laurent Piau, ended only very recently in front of the French Courts with a painful defeat for Mr. Piau. In the framework of that case, the then Court of First Instance of the EC (CFI) issued a ruling on the compatibility of the FIFA Agents Regulations with EU competition law, on appeal against the Commission’s decision to reject the complaint by Laurent Piau. In that decision, the CFI famously showed its surprise to see a private association engaging in regulatory activity without an express delegation of public power. In the words of the Tribunal, “the rule-making power claimed by a private organisation like FIFA, whose main statutory purpose is to promote football, is indeed open to question”.[1] Indeed, “[i]n principle, such regulation, which constitutes policing of an economic activity and touches on fundamental freedoms, falls within the competence of the public authorities”.[2] Yet, as many know, the world of football is special and in practice national states have very much relinquish regulatory control over it.

The CFI was pragmatic enough to recognize this unusual state of affairs. In fact, this peculiarity also enabled it to consider that the FIFA regulations, issued by a private organization, could not escape the scope of EU competition law.[3] Yet, in fine, the CFI endorsed the compatibility of the FIFA regulations with EU Competition law. It considered first that the European Commission (EC) was right in holding that it obtained the repeal of the most restrictive provisions contained in the original FIFA regulations.[4] Furthermore, the CFI supported the EC’s view that the compulsory nature of the FIFA licensing mechanism could be justified under the framework of then Article 81(3) EC [now 101(3)TFEU]. It stated that the “Commission did not commit a manifest error of assessment by considering that the restrictions stemming from the compulsory nature of the licence might benefit from an exemption on the basis of Article 81(3) EC”.[5] Finally, the CFI affirmed the applicability of Article 82 EC [now 102 TFEU] to the FIFA regulations, but concluded that “it follows from the above considerations regarding the amended regulations and the possible exemption under Article 81(3) EC that such an abuse [of a dominant position] has not been established”.[6]

Thus, based on the framework of analysis used in Piau, there is absolutely no doubt that EU competition law is applicable to the DFB-regulations (and analogically to all the other national regulations implementing the new FIFA Intermediaries Regulations).[7] The key question, however, is whether the restrictive effect on competition of those new rules can be justified. Such a justificatory framework of analysis is also broadly in line with the CJEU’s case law on competition law and sport, and in particular its Meca-Medina ruling.[8] The question of the legitimate objectives and proportionality of the new rules was rightly identified by the LG and OLG as the defining one to assess rule-by-rule the legality of the DFB’s regulations.

II.            The OLG Frankfurt and the Compatibility of the DFB regulations with EU Competition Law

The OLG’s ruling bears no clear winner or loser, as both parties can claim to have prevailed on parts of their claims. In its decision the Court clearly outlined a set of provisions that it deemed compatible with EU law, and another contrary to it. In any event, this case is again a good reminder that EU law is no golden bullet against the regulations of the Sports Governing Bodies (SGBs). Instead, their compatibility with EU law must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, bearing in mind their contexts and objectives. Nevertheless, EU law can be invoked to challenge the rationality of the SGBs’ regulations and to check any disproportionate encroachment on the economic freedom of the affected actors.

A.    The DFB rules incompatible with EU Law

In the present case, the DFB’s regulations for intermediaries faced a relatively detailed quasi-constitutional control by the OLG. The German court found that parts of the regulatory options adopted by the German federation are disproportionate to attain their objectives and therefore contrary to Article 101 TFEU. This is especially true of the rule forcing intermediaries to abide by the rules and jurisdictions of the DFB, UEFA and FIFA, and of the rule imposing a duty to provide an extended certificate of good conduct usually reserved for professions involving a risk to the integrity of minors.

In line with the decision in first instance, the OLG ruled against the provision requiring intermediaries to submit to the jurisdictions of FIFA, UEFA, DFB and its members in connection with all violations of their regulations and statutes (see point 1 of DFB Vermittlererklärung für natürliche Personen – Anhang 1, and a related notice later issued by the DFB).^[9] In the OLG’s view, it would result in an impossible situation for intermediaries, as they would be required to have a ‘reasonable’ knowledge of, at least, 35 different association statutes and face being subjected to 30 different jurisdictions.^[10] The court puts forward that it is necessary, as a prerequisite for the submission of non-members to the rules of an association and its jurisdiction, to be able, at any time to take knowledge, in a reasonable manner, of the content of the regulations, compliance mechanisms and sanctions. This possibility was not warranted in the present case. In other words, if the DFB wishes to subject intermediaries to its jurisdiction it is possible, but it would need to clearly define what such a submission would entail in terms both of the rules and procedures that would be applicable. In fact, as recognized by the European Parliament,[11] some type of disciplinary control by the national federations over the intermediaries is necessary to give some teeth to their regulations.

Furthermore, the OLG also rules that agents cannot be forced to submit an extended certificate of good conduct (erweiterten Führungszeugnisses).^[12] The OLG agrees with the appellant that this duty is impossible to fulfil as under German criminal law, such certificate can be issued only for occupations suitable to establish/result in contacts with children and young people. Yet, such a contact with minors is not at the heart of an intermediary’s profession, especially that, as we will see below, intermediaries cannot derive any financial compensation for a transfer or employment contract involving a minor, it seems thus impossible for he or she to obtain the requisite certificate.^[13]

The OLG has clearly drawn a line in the sand. There is a limit to the obligations the DFB can impose, they must be rationally possible to fulfil and connected to the objectives pursued and must not be unreasonably burdensome for the intermediaries.

B.    The DFB rules compatible with EU Law

The judgment is rather remarkable for what it considers proportionate regulation by the DFB.

First, it endorses, contrary to the LG, the proportionality of the ban on intermediary fees for transfers or contracts involving minors.[14] This ban was a very controversial part of the new FIFA regulations, as it was deemed extremely restrictive of the economic freedom of intermediaries and potentially counter-productive. [15] However, in the view of the OLG, article 7.7 of the DFB-regulations pursues a legitimate objective: the protection of minors (der Minderjährigenschutz).[16] It aims, more specifically, to prevent the transfer of underage players based solely on the economic interests of the intermediary and/or that underage players are taken to Germany without a stable employment perspective.[17] Moreover, the OLG deems this prohibition to be necessary as the other legal protections for minors provided by the German civil code are often inapplicable.[18] Finally, the court considers this prohibition to be proportionate. First, because intermediaries are not barred from being remunerated for advising minors when this advice is not requested in the framework of the conclusion of an employment contract or a transfer. Furthermore, the OLG notes that similar measures have been adopted in all other European countries and is supportive of a uniform approach to the regulation of the role of intermediaries in transfers of minors.[19] Overall, this is not a surprising assessment. The need to combat human trafficking and to fight abuses linked to transfers of minors have been repeatedly emphasised by the European institutions in their soft law.[20] Recently, the European Parliament underlined ‘the specific vulnerability of young players and the risk of them becoming victims of human trafficking’[21]. Only time will tell whether this type of draconian measure will rein such abuses. In any event, if reducing the economic incentives of intermediaries linked to transfers of minors will most probably restrict their economic opportunities, it is also likely to diminish the connected incentives for human trafficking in football.[22]

Furthermore, the OLG’s judgment also endorses the transparency requirements imposed by the DFB. More precisely, it deemed the obligation for clubs and players to disclose the contract details covering remuneration and payments to intermediaries’ enshrined in article 6.1 DFB-regulations compatible with EU competition law.[23] The legitimate aim pursued is the transparency and traceability of the market for intermediaries. Behind this objective, lies the idea that player transfers should be primarily based on sporting, rather than financial reasons. Consequently, it deems that an obligation to disclose payments connected to intermediation is necessarily linked to the attainment of this goal. This duty to disclose is also considered proportionate. For the OLG, it does not run counter the German data protection rules, nor does it constitute a disproportionate infringement in the commercial operations of an intermediary. When balancing the interest of the intermediary to keep the financial flows secret and the interest of the DFB in unveiling these flows, the OLG finds that transparency aimed at limiting the external influence of intermediaries on transfers should prevail.^[24] In the eyes of the court, the DFB has concretely demonstrated that the negotiation of transfers is linked with important fees (erheblichen Zahlungen), which are liable to trigger a transfer of a player for economic reasons, rather than sporting ones. This, the OLG argues, runs counter to the ideal of fair sporting competitions. ^[25] In general, striving for greater transparency/publicity in the intermediary market is at the heart of the regulatory shift intended by the new FIFA regulations.[26] In fact, a recent report by two Harvard based scholars argues that the lack of transparency in the transfer market is one of the main causes for money laundering and corruption in football.[27] This is reinforced by the concentration of the market for intermediaries, with a group of happy few constituting an oligopoly.[28] Besides, due to the inherently transnational operation of the market, it is extremely difficult to monitor for national authorities. Intermediaries rely on complex contractual structures (many of them have been recently exposed on the footballleaks website), juggling with national laws and arbitration clauses to reduce both their taxes and regulatory oversight. Though the transparency requirements imposed by the DFB are extremely limited (a first rough synthesis for 2015 is available here) and way bolder proposals must be put on the table,[29] this is an important step in the right direction. This quest for transparency and openness around the financial flows involving intermediaries is very much “applauded” by the European parliament.[30] In fact, if supporters and citizens, who are often in fine called to financial rescue when an overspending club is ailing, are expected to exercise a public check over the over-optimistic (and sometimes corrupt) management of clubs and the correlated extravagant fees paid to intermediaries, they must be able to rely on trustful data to conduct such a critical assessment.

Finally, and this is most interesting in light of the on-going legal battle over FIFA’s third-party ownership ban, the OLG, confirming the LG’s assessment, also recognized the legitimacy of the DFB’s ban on an intermediary having an interest in future transfer compensations.[31] Its legitimate purpose is to rein the disproportionate influence, based on personal financial incentives, of intermediaries on a player’s transfers.[32] The OLG seems to follow the LG’s view that the potentiality of obtaining a share of future transfer fees constitutes a major incentive for intermediaries to actively encourage an early termination of a player’s contract.[33] In short, the German court endorses the need to limit incentives for intermediaries to trigger contractual ruptures over their personal financial interest in a future transfer of a player. A similar logic could be applied to the proportionality assessment of the TPO ban. Indeed, this ban is also aimed at avoiding that transfers be triggered for purely financial reasons. The idea being that a club should not be in a position of dependence vis-à-vis a third-party (in practice often an intermediary) that would force it to transfer a player to satisfy its own purely economic rationale. In this regard, the OLG’s judgment is very encouraging for FIFA as it supports a logic of ‘de-financiarization’ of football. The court is very much recognizing that economic incentives should not be front-and-centre in contemporary football and that the fact that there is a clear economic dimension to sport (triggering for example the application of EU law and/or labour law) should not overshadow its other dimensions (cultural, social, ethical, educational). Conciliation is necessary, players are not amateurs anymore, transfers are possible, TV rights money can trickle down, but the rampant financiarization (and collateralization) of labour contracts seems both dangerous in terms of the economic instability it might trigger (think FC Twente) and of the unethical abuses it might incite and conceal.

Conclusion: The legal consequences of FIFA’s retreat

The new FIFA Regulations for Intermediaries are first and foremost a confession of impotence from the part of FIFA. Fifteen years after introducing a worldwide regulatory mechanism applicable to football agents, FIFA basically acknowledged its incapacity to control the profession and rein its negative externalities. The old licensing system proved unable to provide a qualitative level playing field for agents, nor was FIFA capable (or willing to invest enough resources) to truly enforce its rules. In fact, at the local level, a multitude of informal agents and practices had practically hollowed out the FIFA Regulations.[34] Yet, instead of strengthening its regulatory apparatus and enforcement mechanisms, FIFA decided to retreat and basically handed over the responsibility to regulate intermediaries to the multitude of national federations. One can be excused for doubting at first that such a re-nationalization is well suited to control an inherently transnational market.[35] Yet, there is still some room left for hope.

The re-nationalization of the Regulations will undoubtedly bring about a complex regulatory landscape with different regimes applicable in each national jurisdiction.[36] Moreover, agents/intermediaries might face an enhanced amount of red tape and administrative fees if they aim at entering each and every national market. These negative consequences can be tempered, however, by a number of things. First of all, the market for intermediaries has never been truly transnational. Sociologists have shown that it operates more as a chain of national actors rather than with truly transnational players.[37] Furthermore, the big transfer money (and thus intermediary money) in football is concentrated on a small number of national markets (mainly the European big five[38]). This means that if those markets jointly engage in a strict regulation of intermediaries it will affect disproportionately (probably positively) the profession. Due to massive TV rights revenues these national federations and leagues also dispose of the necessary (financial and administrative) resources to rigorously enforce their rules. For example, if at a European level, national federations were able to coordinate their new intermediaries regulations and provide a level regulatory field for the profession, which would involve both reducing the administrative costs to exercise it and a sharper control of its negative externalities, FIFA’s regulatory retreat would be largely compensated by a potentially more effective regulatory system.

What is the role of EU law in this regard? The Piau case is a good reminder that the CJEU is sympathetic to the need to regulate the market for intermediaries. Since then, the soft law of the European institutions (and especially the European Parliament’s position) has very much comforted this sympathy.[39] However, it would be rather naïve to believe that the EU would be able and willing to take on the task of single-handedly re-regulating such a complex transnational field. It has currently other burning priorities and crucially lacks the resources and expertise to do so. The role of EU law is rather one of a careful catalyst and counter-power, aimed at encouraging private regulations at the national or transnational level and eschewing that they go too far in scapegoating the intermediaries and in restricting their economic freedoms. In this regard, the OLG Frankfurt provided, on the basis of EU law, a rather balanced review of the DFB regulations, striking down some of the more intrusive (or arguably less rational) parts of the regulations, while recognizing the legitimacy and proportionality of others. EU law can be invoked to open up a critical discussion over the regulatory trade-offs of transnational private regulations. Not more but also not less.

[1] Case T-193/02, Laurent Piau v Commission [2005] ECR II-0209, paras. 112-115; Landesgericht Frankfurt am Main: Urteil vom 29. April 2015 · Az. 2-06 O 142/15, para. 77. On the Piau ruling see D. Waelbroeck & P. Ibañez-Colomo, ‘Case C-171/05 P, Laurent Piau, Order of the Court of Justice (Third Chamber) of 23 February 2006, [2006] ECR I-37’, Common Market Law Review 43: 1743–1756, 2006.

[2] Ibid., para. 78.

[3] “On the other hand, since they are binding on national associations that are members of FIFA, which are required to draw up similar rules that are subsequently approved by FIFA, and on clubs, players and players’ agents, those regulations are the reflection of FIFA’s resolve to coordinate the conduct of its members with regard to the activity of players’ agents. They therefore constitute a decision by an association of undertakings within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC (Case 45/85 Verband der Sachversicherer v Commission [1987] ECR 405, paragraphs 29 to 32, and Wouters and Others, paragraph 71), which must comply with the Community rules on competition, where such a decision has effects in the Community.” Ibid., para. 75.

[4] Ibid., paras 83-99.

[5] Ibid., para. 104.

[6] Ibid., para. 117.

[7] This is well recognized and explicated in the OLG’s judgment. See, OLG Frankfurt am Main, Urt. v. 02.02.2016, Az.: 11 U 70/15 (Kart), para. II.1.

[8] Case C-519/04 P David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen v Commission [2006] ECR I-6991, para. 42 ff. See further S. Weatherill, ‘Anti-doping Revisited: The Demise of the Rule of ‘Purely Sporting Interest’?’ in S. Weatherill, European Sports Law, ASSER Press, Springer, 2014, pp. 379-399 and B. Van Rompuy, The Role of EU Competition Law in Tackling Abuse of Regulatory Power by Sports Associations, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2767467.

[9] OLG Frankfurt am Main, Urt. v. 02.02.2016, Az.: 11 U 70/15 (Kart),, II.2.b.

[10] Ibid, II.2.b

[11] The European Parliament “Underscores the finding of the study that the regulations of agents established by sports federations are basically aimed at controlling access to the profession and regulating its exercise, but that these bodies have only limited supervisory and sanctioning powers, since they lack any means of control or direct action vis-à-vis sports agents who are not registered with them; nor are they entitled to impose civil or criminal penalties”. European Parliament, Resolution on players’ agents in sports, 17 June 2010, (2011/C 236 E/14), para.8.

[12] OLG Frankfurt am Main, Urt. v. 02.02.2016, Az.: 11 U 70/15 (Kart), II.3.a

[13] Ibid, II.3.a: Art. 3.2 and 3.3 DFB-regulations

[14] Ibid, II.2.a

[15] For a good critique see N. de Marco, ‘The new FA Football Intermediaries Regulations and the Disputes Likely to arise’, at §23-25.

[16] Art. 7.7 DFB-regulations

[17] OLG Frankfurt am Main, Urt. v. 02.02.2016, Az.: 11 U 70/15 (Kart), II.2.a

[18] “Die Regelung ist auch notwendig; insbesondere bieten entgegen den Darstellungen der Klägerin die Regelungen zur beschränkten Geschäftsfähigkeit Minderjähriger gemäß §§ 104 ff BGB im vorvertraglichen Feld der Anbahnung eines möglichen Vertragsschlusses keinen Schutz. Dies erlangt Bedeutung, sofern - wie vom Beklagten dargestellt - eine Mehrzahl an potentiellen Spielern angeworben, jedoch nur einer tatsächlich vermittelt wird.” Ibid, II.2.a.

[19] “Schließlich erlangt bei der Verhältnismäßigkeitsprüfung auch Bedeutung, dass im europäischen Ausland ausnahmslos Regelungen hinsichtlich des Verbots der kostenpflichtigen Vermittlung minderjähriger Spieler verabschiedet wurden, so dass eine einheitliche Handhabung im Sinne des Minderjährigenschutzes in besonderer Weise geboten erscheint.” Ibid, II.2.a.

[20] See amongst others: European Parliament, Resolution on the future of professional football in Europe, 29 March 2007, (2006/2130(INI)), paras 35-38; European Parliament, Resolution on players’ agents in sports, 17 June 2010, (2011/C 236 E/14), para.6-7;

[21] European Parliament, Resolution on players’ agents in sports, para.6.

[22] This is a truly worrying development. See A. C. Najarian, ‘"The Lost Boys": FIFA's Insufficient Efforts To Stop Trafficking of Youth Footballers’, 22 Sports Law. J. 151 2015. On the ‘muscle drain’ phenomena, see W. Andreff, ‘“Muscle Drain” in Sport and how to regulate it? A plea for a “Coubertobin” tax’ and J. Scherrens, ‘The muscle drain of African Football Players to Europe: Trade or Trafficking?’, Master Thesis 2007.

[23] OLG Frankfurt am Main, Urt. v. 02.02.2016, Az.: 11 U 70/15 (Kart), II.3.b; Art. 6.1 DFB-regulations

[24] Ibid, II.3.b

[25] “Dies widerspricht dem Grundsatz eines am fairen Wettbewerb orientierten sportlichen Wettkampfs [...]“. Ibid, II.3.b

[26] In FIFA’s own words: “The new system does not regulate access to the activity but provide a framework for tighter control and supervision of the transactions relating to transfer of football players in order to enhance transparency.” FIFA, Working with intermediaries – reform of FIFA’s players’ agents system, Background information, April 2015, p.2.

[27] M. Andrews and P. Harrington, Off Pitch: Football’s financial integrity weaknesses, and how to strengthen them, CID Working Paper No. 311 January 2016, p.68-103.

[28]“The analysis of shares highlights that the big five league players’ representation market is highly concentrated: half of the footballers are managed by 83 football agents or agencies. Our study reveals the existence of closed relational networks that clearly favors the concentration of players under the control of few agents.”R. Poli, G. Rossi & R. Besson, Football Agents in the biggest five European football markets. An empirical research report, CIES, February 2012, p.2.

[29] Andrew and Harrington suggest for example to create both a “Transfer Clearinghouse to house transfer process information” and a “centralized processes for registering and managing intermediaries”, op.cit. 27, p.96-99.

[30] The EP “[a]pplauds sport governing bodies’ efforts to bring about more transparency and supervision of financial flows.” European Parliament, Resolution on players’ agents in sports, 17 June 2010, (2011/C 236 E/14), para.11. See also European Parliament, Resolution on the European dimension in sport, 2 February 2012 (2011/2087(INI)), paras 76, 78 and 87.

[31] OLG Frankfurt am Main, Urt. v. 02.02.2016, Az.: 11 U 70/15 (Kart),, II.3.c; Art. 7.3 DFB-regulations

[32]“Zweck der Regelung ist es, einer an sachfremden, d.h. nicht sportlichen Interessen ausgerichteten Einflussnahme der Vermittler auf Spielerwechsel, insbesondere im Bereich der vorzeitigen Vertragsbeendigung, entgegenzuwirken. Die Regelung ist geboten, da dieser Zweck durch das Verbot insbesondere der Zahlung von Transferentschädigungen oder Beteiligungen an einem künftigen Transferwert eines Spielers den Anreiz zur sachfremden, finanziell motivierten Einflussnahme mindert.” Ibid, II.3.c.

[33] LG Frankfurt am Main: Urteil vom 29. April 2015 · Az. 2-06 O 142/15, paras. 83-84

[34] A finding shared by the CIES study and the Study on Sports Agents in the European Union commissioned by the EC in 2009.

[35] The European Parliament stated in its 2010 Resolution on Agents that « doing away with the existing FIFA licence system for player’s agents without setting up a robust alternative system would not be the appropriate way to tackle the problems surrounding player’s agents in football”. European Parliament, Resolution on players’ agents in sports, 17 June 2010, (2011/C 236 E/14), para. 10. The same scepticism is displayed by M. Andrews and P. Harrington, Off Pitch: Football’s financial integrity weaknesses, and how to strengthen them, CID Working Paper No. 311 January 2016, at p.98.

[36] For a preliminary rough mapping, see M. Colucci (ed.), The FIFA Regulations on Working with Intermediaries – Implementation at National Level, International Sports Law and Policy Bulletin, Issue 1-2015.

[37] This is highlighted in the CIES study of 2012.

[38] I.e. the English Premier League, the German Bundesliga, the Spanish La Liga, the Italian Serie A and the French Ligue 1.

[39] European Parliament, Resolution on the future of professional football in Europe, 29 March 2007, (2006/2130(INI)), para. 44; European Parliament, Resolution on the White Paper on Sport, 8 May 2008 (2007/2261(INI)), para. 100; European Parliament, Resolution on players’ agents in sports, 17 June 2010, (2011/C 236 E/14); European Parliament, Resolution on the European dimension in sport, 2 February 2012 (2011/2087(INI)), paras 75-78. This need for regulation is also embraced, though more carefully, by the European Commission in its White Paper on Sport, see European Commission, White Paper on Sport, COM(2007) 391, at para. 4.4. See also European Commission, ‘Commission blows the whistle over inflated football transfer fees and lack of level playing field’, 7 February 2013

Editor’s note: Thomas Terraz is a third year LL.B. candidate at the International and European Law programme at The Hague University of Applied Sciences with a specialisation in European Law. Currently he is pursuing an internship at the T.M.C. Asser Institute with a focus on International and European Sports Law.

1.     Introduction

To many it may seem obvious that athletes in a national championship should only be able to participate if they have the nationality of the relevant state. The Dutch Road Cycling National Championships should have Dutch cyclists, and the German Athletics Championships should have German athletes and so forth. However, in reality, foreign competitors are allowed to participate in many national championships in the EU, and there is a wide discrepancy between the rules of national sport governing bodies on this issue. There is no unified practice when investigating this point by country or by sport, and rules on participation range from a complete ban on foreign competitors to absolutely no mention of foreign athletes.[1] Thus, the question arises: should foreign athletes be able to participate in national sport championships?

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will soon be required to provide an, at least partial, answer to this dilemma as a result of an application for a preliminary ruling.  A German Court has referred three questions to the CJEU on the case TopFit e.V. Daniele Biffi v Deutscher Leichtathletikverband e.V. (DLV) which in essence ask whether EU citizenship rights and in particular, the requirement of non-discrimination on the basis of nationality, should be applied to non-nationals wishing to participate in an athletics national championship in Germany. In the meantime, the Advocate General (AG), who provides a non-binding opinion to the Court before a decision is delivered, Evgeni Tanchev has delivered an interesting opinion on the case. It addresses the claims from the applicants based on EU citizenship rights and urges the CJEU to instead review the case on the basis of the freedom of establishment.

This blog will dissect the AG’s opinion to assess the main arguments put forward in relation to freedom of establishment and EU citizenship. Furthermore, it will weigh the ramifications this case may have on the boundaries of EU law in relation to sport. To fully appreciate the AG’s opinion, it is necessary to first discuss the intriguing factual and legal background colouring this case. After all, this will not be the first time the CJEU faces thorny issues concerning discrimination on the basis of nationality and sport.

2.     Factual Background of TopFit e.V. Daniele Biffi v Deutscher Leichtathletikverband e.V. (DLV)

The second applicant in this case, Mr. Biffi, is an Italian resident in Germany since 2003. He works professionally as a personal trainer and coach and has a website which advertises his services. He has been a member of the Berlin-based athletics club TopFit (the first applicant) and has competed in athletics competitions including German national championships within the senior category of athletes above the age of 35. In these national competitions, he had his placings recorded and published his results on his website. In 2016, the DLV changed its rules on non-nationals participating in national championships across all age categories without notice or transitional period. The rules were changed to only allow German nationals to compete for the national title while non-nationals could only participate outside classification with the permission of the organisers. As a result, Mr. Biffi was even denied the ability to participate in one of the championships in which he previously participated without raising a brow. The applicants challenged the DLV rule on the basis that it is in contravention to the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of nationality under EU citizenship. 

3.     European Sports Law and Nationality Based Discrimination

Generally, sport governing bodies aim to have the maximum autonomy possible to formulate and apply their rules. In the EU, they have attempted and ultimately failed at securing an absolute autonomy.[2] The current relationship between the sport governing bodies and the EU has been described as a ‘conditional autonomy’ where sport governing bodies may exercise their discretion in formulating and applying their rules so long as they do not conflict with EU law.[3] It should be noted that the CJEU has mainly scrutinized rules from sport governing bodies which affect economic interests of the parties in the context of free movement and competition law. Evidently, this relationship has resulted in a struggle between sport governing bodies and the EU over a number of topics including non-discrimination on the basis of nationality.

Traditionally, the CJEU has addressed issues of non-discrimination on the basis of nationality in sports cases from a free movement perspective in ensuring that sport rules do not disrupt the EU’s internal market. For example, when a rule from the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) required that a pacemaker be the same nationality as the cyclist in the UCI Motor-paced World Championships, the CJEU rendered its ruling on the basis of the provisions establishing the free movement of workers and service providers. Moreover, the Union of European Football Associations’ (UEFA) 3 plus 2 rule which allowed football clubs to limit the number of foreign players who could play in a match to three players plus two more players who had been ‘assimilated’ by having played a certain amount of years in the concerned national football association were found in the famous Bosman case to be in contravention of the free movement of workers provisions.

In the present case, the parties have argued the case on the basis of the prohibition on the discrimination of nationality flowing from EU citizenship rights. Based on Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union, all nationals of an EU member state automatically have EU citizenship. However, these rights are only triggered when other more specific rights, such as free movement rights, are not activated first. Put differently, if the facts of a case fall within a free movement right, then the case can only be inspected in light of the relevant free movement provision; hence, EU citizenship rights may only be invoked where free movement rights are not applicable.

Interestingly enough, as the AG points out in his opinion, the facts of this case could also be framed as a restriction to freedom of establishment. In any event, the CJEU has yet to address sport rules which concern non-discrimination on the basis of freedom of establishment or EU citizenship.

So how should the CJEU address this issue? Freedom of establishment or EU citizenship rights?

4.     Analysing AG Tanchev’s Opinion: Freedom of Establishment or EU Citizenship Rights?

4.1.Scope of the Freedom of Establishment

Very early on in the opinion, AG Tanchev unambiguously expresses his preference for analysing the present case through a free movement lens.[4] He explains that Mr. Biffi is self-employed as a personal trainer and coach on a continuous and stable manner in Germany which amounts to an economic activity connected to his sporting pursuits.[5] Therefore, AG Tanchev believes the analysis should be pursued under the freedom of establishment provisions. For this view to be endorsed, it is essential that Mr. Biffi’s economic activity is sufficiently connected to his sporting endeavours.

In this context, AG Tanchev recalls the Deliège case which concerned a Judoka, who argued that a national sport governing body’s refusal to select her for an international competition was a violation of her freedom to provide services. The Court in that case had to determine whether she was engaged in an economic activity in order for the fundamental freedom to apply. In doing so, the Court unequivocally states that simply because a sport governing body labels its athlete an amateur, it does not mean that they are automatically disengaged from economic activity, and economic activities in the context of free movement of services should not be interpreted restrictively.[6] Therefore, the Court in the Deliège case focused on the judoka’s sponsorships deals and grants to conclude that she was engaged in economic activities.[7] AG Tanchev, in examining the Deliège case’s relevance, explains that this demonstrates EU law’s flexibility in finding a link between sporting and economic activities, and that even if the DLV’s rules only have an ‘indirect impact’ on Mr. Biffi’s economic activities, it should fall within the scope of the freedom of establishment.[8]

4.2.Restriction on the Freedom of Establishment and Justifications

The opinion then goes on to find that there has been a restriction of Mr. Biffi’s freedom of establishment because the DLV rule puts Mr. Biffi ‘at a disadvantage when compared with German nationals engaged in the provision of athletic training services’ because he is unable ‘to make reference to his achievements in national sporting championships in order to attract business.’ Furthermore, he states that consumers are ‘more likely to be drawn to an athletics coach advertising on-going excellence … in the national athletics championships.’[9] Given that the DLV rule is directly discriminatory, EU law only allows justification under the express derogations enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The DLV would have had a larger window to defend their rules if they were indirectly discriminatory since the CJEU accepts both express derogations and justifications which have been developed by its own case law.

AG Tanchev readily finds that the DLV’s rules fall under the public policy derogation by aiming to ensure that the winner of the national title has a ‘sufficiently strong link’ with the country organising the championship and to ensure that the national selection of athletes for international competitions is not disrupted. It could be argued that these aims have been too easily advanced as public policy objectives. The CJEU has never accepted the former as a derogation or a justification, and concerning the latter, the CJEU has accepted objectives which ensure national representation in international competitions only as justifications. Since justifications developed by the CJEU generally are not applicable to cases of direct discrimination, such as the present case, it can be said that the opinion perhaps too quickly embraces these pursued aims as public policy objectives. This being said, sport already enjoyed a special treatment in the past as the CJEU has been open to consider justifications for directly discriminatory measures in the Bosman case.

4.3.Is the DLV’s measure proportionate?

Assuming that these aims are accepted as express derogations, the DLV measures must then pass proportionality requirements which in EU law require a measure to be suitable for the pursued aim and necessary to achieve those aims. In the sporting context, the CJEU has explained that in order for a sporting rule to be proportionate it must be limited to its proper objective and it must be inherent to the organization of the sport event.[10] AG Tanchev affirms that the measure is disproportionate because the rule disallows Mr. Biffi from competing for the national title and precludes classification in such a competition when for many years he had been allowed to compete and be classified as any other German athlete.[11] Furthermore, given he had this pre-existing right, the DLV’s failure to take any transitional measures or give sufficient notice of this change violates the legitimate expectations of Mr. Biffi who exercised his free movement in reliance of this established regime and infringes the general principle of acquired rights.[12] Thus, it can be inferred that in AG Tanchev’s view, the measure could have been proportionate had there been sufficient transitional measures in place. Such a broad interpretation of proportionality by including the non-national's right to compete for the national title, would greatly restrict the options of a sport governing body wanting to change a rule that could negatively affect the participation of non-nationals in their national competitions.

If this broad approach is not accepted, AG Tanchev contends the measure is still disproportionate since the DLV’s rules potentially exclude non-national participants from competing at all in the national championships. Such a measure could only be legitimate in ‘unusual circumstances.’ In this vein, the opinion suggests less restrictive rules which instead limit the number of non-classified athletes.[13]

Other alternative models have been suggested which are much more likely to pass the proportionality test. One commentator has suggested that non-nationals should be allowed to compete in national championships while perhaps only restricting their ability to actually win the title.[14] If applied to this case, this model would allow Mr. Biffi to participate with classification in the national championships, but if he (or other non-national) were to take the first place, the national title would be given to the highest classified German athlete in the competition. Another model put forward in a recent study suggests that a non-national can only compete in the national championship after having been resident or being member of a local club for a certain period of time. All of these suggestions show that there are a multitude of less restrictive ways to protect the organisation of national championships and the selection process of national athletes for international competitions. An outright ban on participation or only allowing participation outside of classification is remarkably restrictive and has very little chance of passing the necessity requirements under proportionality.

Overall, the argument that this case should be analysed from the freedom of establishment perspective is rather convincing because the economic dimension is clearly present. However, there is still a possibility that the CJEU will follow the line of arguments brought by the applicants based on EU citizenship rights addressed at the end of AG Tanchev’s opinion.

4.4.EU Citizenship Rights

AG Tanchev begins by explaining that even if non-discrimination on the basis of nationality deriving from EU citizenship are applied, the result of the case should be the same because the stated aims of the DLV simply do not meet the proportionality requirements.[15]  However, the opinion goes on to firmly oppose the application of EU citizenship rights in this context.

In its submissions, the Commission had strongly endorsed a view that access to leisure activities should always fall within the scope of EU citizenship rights. AG Tanchev disagrees with such a wide-ranging interpretation because it would be a huge ‘constitutional step’ to give Article 21 TFEU horizontal direct effect, meaning a private party could invoke this provision in a national court against another private party. He maintains that this provision is meant to only have vertical direct effect, where a private party may invoke this provision in a national court against the state. He explains that extending horizontal direct effect to this rather open-ended provision would have a capricious effect that would damage legal certainty because Article 21 TFEU ‘comes into play in the broad and unpredictable range of circumstances’ where applicants are ‘unable to show a link between what is in issue and economic activities’ or ‘fall outside of EU legislation concerning freedom of movement.’[16] On the other hand, one could argue the very purpose of this Article is to provide EU citizens with other means to dispute measures which harm their free movement, and such a restricted interpretation would damage l’effet utile of this provision.   

While it is probably the case that Mr. Biffi’s circumstances fall within the scope of his free movement rights, imagine if he did not have any economic interest, and instead of a coach and personal trainer, he was an accountant or car mechanic. If AG Tanchev’s approach were to be taken in such a case, Mr. Biffi would have absolutely no recourse under EU law to challenge such a discriminatory rule. If Article 18 and 21 TFEU were to be interpreted so restrictively, private monopolistic actors who exercise powers that resemble those of a state (such as many sport governing bodies) could make the exercise of the European citizenship less attractive by limiting the participation of non-nationals in certain leisure activities. The Commission is right in taking a broad approach on this issue, although in the end it found the DLV’s rule to be proportionate, especially since Article 18 and 21 TFEU makes no express reservations against the applicability of these provisions on private parties.[17] A wide interpretation would completely fit the ‘conditional autonomy’ model in which sport rules fall within the scope of EU law, and it is for the sport governing bodies to explain how and why the rule is necessary or ‘inherent’ to the conduct of sports.

5.     Conclusion

If the CJEU finds this case to fall under the scope of the freedom of establishment, it is likely the DLV’s rules will fail to be justified or crumble under the proportionality requirements. Likewise, the outcome is likely to be the same in the improbable case that EU citizenship rights are applied. However, it truly would be a ‘constitutional step’, as AG Tanchev asserted, by greatly widening the possibility of using EU citizenship rights to challenge nationality discrimination in even amateur and leisure sport. Moreover, solidifying horizontal direct effect of the EU citizenship rights would have an impact way beyond sport related cases.

Regardless, even if Mr. Biffi’s case is examined from the freedom of establishment, it will be a momentous occasion for the CJEU to further elucidate the boundaries of the application of EU law to sport. In this respect, AG Tanchev’s opinion provides an excellent analysis of the legal issues arising from the free movement perspective and picks up on the most evident detail that all the parties in the case seemed to have glanced over: Mr. Biffi has an economic interest which is tied to his sporting activities. In the long run, the application of EU citizenship rights to sports seems inevitable, but TopFit e.V. Daniele Biffi most likely does not provide the CJEU with a golden opportunity to express itself on this matter.

[1] T.M.C. Asser Institute Report, ‘Study on the Equal Treatment of Non-Nationals in Individual Sports Competitions’ (2010).

[2] Case 36-74 B.N.O. Walrave and L.J.N. Koch v Association Union cycliste internationale, Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie and Federación Española Ciclismo [1974] ECR 1974 –01405; Case C-415/93 Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL v Jean-Marc Bosman, Royal club liégeois SA v Jean-Marc Bosman and others and Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) v Jean-Marc Bosman [1995] ECR I-04921.

[3] Stephen Weatherill, Principles and Practice in EU Sports Law (1^st edn, Oxford University Press 2017) 71.

[4] Case C-22/18 TopFit e.V. Daniele Biffi v Deutscher Leichtathletikverband e.V. [2019] ECLI:EU:C:2019:181, Opinion of AG Tanchev, para 48.

[5] ibid para 55.

[6] Joined Cases C-51/96 and C-191/97 Christelle Deliège v Ligue francophone de judo et disciplines associées ASBL, Ligue belge de judo ASBL, Union européenne de judo [2000] ECR I-02549 para 46.

[7] ibid paras 51-53.

[8] TopFit, Opinion of AG Tanchev (n 4) para 62.

[9] ibid para 70.

[10] Walrave (n 2) para 9; Deliège (n 6) para 64.

[11] TopFit, Opinion of AG Tanchev (n 4) paras 80, 88.

[12] ibid para 83.

[13] ibid paras 92-93.

[14] Weatherill (n 3) 203.

[15] TopFit, Opinion of AG Tanchev (n 4) para 97.

[16] ibid para 103.

[17] ibid paras 37-40.

Editor’s note: Rhys Lenarduzzi recently completed a Bachelor of Law (LL.B) and a Bachelor of Philosophy (B.Phil.) at the University of Notre Dame, Sydney, Australia. As a former professional athlete, then international sports agent and consultant, Rhys is interested in international sports law, policy and ethics. He is currently undertaking an internship at the T.M.C. Asser Institute with a focus on Transnational Sports Law.

In September 2018, the Football Stakeholders Committee endorsed the idea of a Clearing House that was subsequently approved in October of the same year by the FIFA Council. A tender process commenced in July 2019 for bidders to propose jurisdiction, operation and establishment. Whilst many questions go unanswered, it is clear that the Clearing House will be aimed at closing the significant gap between what is owed and what is actually paid, in respect to training compensation and solidarity payments. The Clearing House will have other functions, perhaps in regard to agents’ fees and other transfer related business, though those other operations are for another blog. It will hence act as an intermediary of sorts, receiving funds from a signing and therefore owing club (“new” club) and then moving that money on to training clubs. Whilst separate to FIFA, to what extent is unclear.

I have landed at the position of it being important to include a section in this blog series on the soon to commence Clearing House, given it appears to be FIFA’s (perhaps main) attempt to improve the training compensation and solidarity mechanisms. As will be expanded upon below, I fear it will create more issues than it will solve. Perhaps one should remain patient and optimistic until it is in operation, and one should be charitable in that there will undoubtedly be teething problems. However, it is of course not just the function of the Clearing House that is of interest, but also what moving forward with the project of the Clearing House represents and leaves unaddressed, namely, the issues I have identified in this blog series.

1. Operation and Function of the Clearing House

The Clearing House will apparently work in the following ways:

When a player is registered as a professional for the first time, or, in the case an international transfer becomes known via TMS (Transfer Matching System), a Preliminary Player Passport will be created. This will contain the information acquired by FIFA from the relevant national associations and money owing will be calculated, per the FIFA redistributive mechanisms (enshrined in Article 20 and Annex 4 of the RSTP in the case of training compensation, and at Article 21 and Annex 5 in the case of the solidarity mechanism; see Blog 1 for a comprehensive overview). Aforesaid calculation will be undertaken by FIFA and not the Clearing House, and the Preliminary Passport will be reviewed, then given the green light or conversely disputed by the relevant member associations, rather than the training clubs supposedly due compensation. Payment directions, including bank accounts and official contact details of clubs and national associations connected to the redistribution will then be communicated by FIFA to the Clearing House. An invoice may then be issued to the new club and the obligation of that club is to pay accordingly, to the Clearing House. The Clearing House will then distribute to the training clubs, though its mandate extends to confirming and ensuring the amounts and details are correct, and the money makes it to its destination. FIFA will be made aware of which payment obligations have been fulfilled, and which have not. It is FIFA and not the Clearing House then who may sanction non-compliant clubs.

For a more comprehensive overview of the Clearing House, please see Toni Roca’s piece on the LawInSport website; FIFA’s Clearing House: The Future Of Solidarity Mechanism & Training Compensation.

2. Potential Positives & Success of a Kind

One can see the positive side of modernising, centralising and digitising the transfer system, so as to improve compliance and efficiency in accordance with the regulations as they stand and the payment obligations that arise from those regulations. If achieved, FIFA can say it has ticked that box and many stakeholders will be pleased.

As mentioned in the second blog of this series, “In 2018, it was reported that just USD$67.7m of the USD$351.5m due to be distributed in solidarity contributions, was actually paid. That is a mere 19.3% of what should have trickled down and perhaps just as alarming is that this percentage has been worsening”. If FIFA does in fact close the gap between what is owed and what is paid by way of the Clearing House, that would indeed be success of kind. Hundreds of millions of dollars might make it to training clubs, some of those undoubtedly do not need the compensation, but a large share of those that might benefit are the kind of club I have referred to throughout this series as nurseries and/or victims of the so-called muscle drain. If achieved, one would then have to take their hats off to FIFA, as a specific objective would have been accomplished.

Success in the way imagined above would just be solving one issue, however. I appreciate that hundreds of millions of dollars can go a long way in achieving some form of redistributive solidarity and the fruits of that redistribution could potentially be far-reaching. Though lingering behind this hypothetical success would of course be, what proceeding with the Clearing House ignores.

3. Cause for Concern

Whilst one has to applaud FIFA’s efforts towards improvements, there appears a myriad of questions left unanswered not only about the Clearing House but additionally about the redistributive mechanisms themselves. To proceed under the guise that all is well with these systems and that all that needs to be remedied is the gap between what is owed and what is actually paid, is to ignore much of what I have raised in this blog series.

The following excerpt from a relevant FIFA webpage captures the organisations’ position.

“The original objectives and principles of the transfer rules remain sound: the protection of contractual stability; encouragement of training; solidarity between the elite and grassroots; protection of minors; competitive balance; and ensuring the regularity of sporting competitions”. 

To expand, this kind of sentiment highlights FIFA’s intention to proceed without answering the fundamental questions, as though it is the position held by all that these systems are targeted at legitimate objectives and adequate to attain them. This is clearly not just a case of once the Clearing House is in operation, the systems will simply work perfectly. To put the practical critique aside momentarily, the establishment of the Clearing House is no response to a fundamental critique, the philosophical flaws in justification for the redistributive mechanisms and it appears the hindrance cause by the systems to players’ free movement will continue to be ignored. 

Additionally, and returning to a practical perspective, with the Clearing House relying on a Players Passport, the compliance or non-compliance of national associations to provide and maintain the correct information seems to be what the project hinges on. Historically, some national federations have not been so reliable in this sense, so this is likely to be another aspect that will need significant attention. There may be less disputes given the supposed streamlining of the payment process, but might this quickly be forgotten given the introduction of the Clearing House seems to simultaneously mean an increased administrative burden on FIFA and the national associations? Then let us not proceed as though there will be no disputes at all. We are yet to be made aware what the process will be in the case of a dispute over the amounts calculated, a dispute over the Preliminary Passport, or the expiry dates of outstanding payments, to point to a few issues that may arise. Afterall, the dynamics of a transfer will change with the introduction of the intermediary Clearing House and will take some getting used to. Furthermore, it looks as though the training clubs owed money will not be involved directly in the process of disputes, which is to be dealt with by the member associations. This is questionable, as not all clubs have good relationships with their national associations, nor are national associations necessarily more trustworthy or better positioned to handle a dispute. On occasions it has been found that the reason a training club has not received their training compensation or solidarity payment, was because it was being held by a national federation (see section 4. of Blog 2 for a personal anecdote of an instance as such).

4. Concluding remarks

This account of questions and concerns is not exhaustive, and yet I would emphasise the issues with training compensation and solidarity mechanism more generally. Could the establishment of the Clearing House in fact raise more questions and cause more problems than it solves, given it may just semi-solve one problem, that of the gap between what is owed and what is paid? It is reasonable to ponder whether the commencement of the Clearing House in fact houses, protects and reinforces FIFA’s commitment to systems that are ultimately flawed, when time and energy could be better spent completely overhauling them. As it stands, and if one finds themselves sympathetic to the issues I have identified throughout this series, one can be reasonably concerned that the establishment of the Clearing House prolongs the arrival of a preferable alternative system.

In my next and final blog of this series, I intend to consider alternative systems of redistribution. I will also take the opportunity to address the idea that football clubs are incentivised by training compensation and solidarity payments.