The CJEU finds that two FIFA regulations are contrary to European law
ANDl Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) noted that some FIF rulesAnd in questions Transfers of football players are contrary to European lawbecause impede free movement they limit competition between clubs and do not appear to be indispensable or necessary.
In particular, we are talking about payment compensation from the football player’s new club, when your previous contract was terminated unilaterally; as well as the imposition of sanctions for non-compliance with this order and the possibility of refusal of federations to issue a certificate of transfer while the legal process is ongoing.
This Friday the court ruled on case concerning the Frenchman Lassan Diarra, former footballer for Chelsea, Arsenal, Real Madrid and Paris Saint-Germain, among others, who contested part of the rules applicable to the contractual relationship between players and clubs of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RETJ).
In particular, one that concerns cases of litigation between a player and a club regarding the unilateral termination of a contract, which establishes that the player and the club that wants to employ him are jointly and severally liable for the payment of any compensation due to his player. former club The regulations stipulate that in case of non-compliance, sporting and financial sanctions may be imposed on the player and his new club.
Diarra signed a contract with Lokomotiv Moscow in 2013. and a year later the club terminated the contract after alleging an alleged breach and “termination of contract without reasonable cause”.
He Lokomotiv demanded compensation before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber, which agreed with him and set the amount at 10 million euros, and the midfielder responded by demanding payment of his salary from the Belgian court in Charleroi, which sentenced FIFA and the Belgian Federation to pay a provisional amount of 10 million euros. 60,001 euros.
FIFA appealed to the Mons Court of Appeal, which in turn appealed to the Court of Justice of the European Union. This authority asked the European Court whether FIFA’s rules complied with the free movement of workers and competition law.
FIFA rules prevent free movement of football players
The community judges have now concluded that the rules “may impede the free movement of goods.” professional football players who want to continue their career and work in a new club” because they imply ” that the players and clubs who those wishing to sign them are exposed to legal risks significant, to unforeseen and potentially very high economic risks.”
They also add that they are exposed to “serious sporting risks which may generally prevent the international transfer of these players.”
The CJEU recognizes that restrictions on the free movement of football players can be justified by “the aim of the general interest of ensuring the regularity of football competitions between clubs, maintaining a certain degree of stability in the composition of professional football clubs.”
But in Diarra’s case, he explains that “it appears that the rules in question in many respects go beyond what is necessary to achieve this goal.”
The CJEU believes that the controversial rules are intended to limit or even eliminate cross-border competition between EU clubs through the unilateral signing of contracts with players or those whose employment relationship has ended without a valid reason.
The Luxembourg Court recalls that “the ability to compete by signing already trained players plays an important role in the professional football sector, and that the rules that typically discourage this form of competition by establishing the distribution of workers between employers and delineating markets resemble a non-solicitation pact.
The community judges are relying on arguments that Attorney General-designate Maciej Szpunar used in his previous analysis of the case, the conclusions of which are not binding. The final decision now rests with the Mons Court, which must apply the public justice guidelines establishing case law.