Players Rights in European Football

1. Players Rights in European Football Daniel Geey Solicitor Daniel.Geey@ffw.com 6 March 2009

2. Discussion Outline • Bosman and the old 3+2 • New Transfer Regulations • Webster • UEFA European Club Competition Restrictions • FIFA European Club Competition Proposals (6+5 rule) • Drugs and CAS Adrian Mutu Daniele Mannini and Davide Possanzini

3. Bosman • 1995 Decision • Three foreign and two assimilated players (3+2 rule) only in European Competitions. Direct discrimination. • Free transfer to another member state club if a player is out of contract • Does it apply to non-EU workers? • Can an out of contract player transfer to a team in the same member state? • Do UEFA have quota’s in place today?

4. New Transfer Regulations Main aspects • training compensation for players under the age of 23 • solidarity mechanism in order to redistribute a significant proportion of income to professional and amateur clubs involved in the training of a player • a transfer window • Minimum and maximum contracts (1-5 years) with protected periods of 3 years for under 28 year olds and 2 years for over 28 year olds

5. Webster case • Webster invoked Article 17 of the Transfer Regulations to move from Hearts to Wigan • FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber awarded £625k • Appealed by both sides to Court of Arbitration for Sport • Protected Periods- Webster had one year of contract left • Notice of intention to invoke the rule • CAS decision awarded Hearts £150k. A club had a 1.5m bid rejected by Hearts who originally demanded £4m. • No more transfer fee’s or just a new exit route? • New Bosman?

6. UEFA Restrictions • Home grown player rule definition for European club competitions. • Can be either “club-trained” or “association-trained”. • The player must have been registered with the club (or with another club affiliated to the same national association) for three full seasons, or 36 months, between the age of 15 and 21. UEFA has gradually introduced the rule in three phases: • Season 2006-07: minimum of 4 homegrown players in a squad limited to 25; • Season 2007-08: minimum of 6 homegrown players in a squad limited to 25; • Season 2008-09: minimum of 8 homegrown players in a squad limited to 25.

7. UEFA Restrictions II • No nationality restrictions but age discrimination? • Clubs have no obligation to put a certain number of home grown players on the field of play. • Examples. Hyypia of Liverpool out for first phase in for second phase • Fabregas would not be a home grown player if he played for Barca. • New Trend? Greater importation of young foreign players stifling opportunities of, for example, English youngsters? • These UEFA regulations have also been adopted by certain national football associations including Germany, Italy, Portugal and Russia.

8. FIFA Proposals (6+5 rule) • True quota for foreign players. Bosman problem? • Every team must consist of at least 6 home grown players. • It is important to highlight here that a “home grown” player is not necessarily the same thing as the UEFA “locally-trained player” rule. • A home grown player is a national of the league in which the club he plays for is registered. i.e. Lampard playing for Chelsea as an Englishman. • New Report funded by FIFA? What does it say?

9. European Commission’s Thoughts • White Paper on Sport (July 2007), • “rules requiring that teams include a certain quota of locally trained players could be accepted as being compatible with the Treaty provisions on free movement of persons if they do not lead to any direct discrimination based on nationality”.

10. UEFA and FIFA Restrictions • Impinge on the rights of European Footballers? • Any more so than a transfer window? • The FIFA or UEFA system worse than the other?

11. Adrian Mutu • The question of when a football player that has been correctly sacked for a legitimate breach of his contract is liable for the £15.8m transfer fee that Chelsea paid to Parma even though he had no part to play in the negotiation of this fee. • A look into the complicated dispute resolution process of this case.

12. 28 Oct 2004 Mutu sacked 20 Apr 2005 FAPL Appeals Committee judged Mutu committed a breach 15 Dec 2005 CAS dismisses player appeal 11 May 2006 Chelsea applies for compensation against Mutu 26 Oct 2006 DRC decides it does not have jurisdiction to make a decision and makes the claim inadmissible 21 May 2007 CAS decides DRC does have jurisdiction to determine the appropriate sanction and order compensation 15 Aug 2008 DRC rules Mutu has to pay over €17m following the player’s failed drug test 5 Sept 2008 MUTU asks CAS to annul the DRC decision

13. Daniele Mannini and Davide Possanzini and Drugs • Anyone heard of this case? • On December 1, 2007, both played in Brescia’s 2-0 home defeat by Chievo in Serie B. • They were informed that they had been selected to provide blood and urine samples. • The procedure is for the anti-doping inspector to stay with them until they enter the sample-collection room and ensure that they provide a sample. • They are allowed at the inspector’s discretion, so long as they remain “under visual control,” to enter the dressing room or even take a quick shower.

14. Daniele Mannini and Davide Possanzini and Drugs • Their manager then ordered them into the dressing room (obviously furious at the defeat) and not to go to the testing room. • The inspector however did not enter the dressing room, and when he tried to do so, he says he could not, because somebody inside was blocking the door, which remained unlocked. • After a few tea cups were thrown, they arrived at the testing area 25 minutes late. • WADA who appealed the Italian FA’s decision to ban them for 15 days due to the mitigating circumstances, argued that the players had violated Article 2.3 of its code, by “refusing or failing without compelling justification to submit to sample collection after notification as authorised in applicable anti-doping rules or otherwise evading sample collection”. • A minimum ban of 12 months.

15. Daniele Mannini and Davide Possanzini- Outcome? • CAS followed the WADA code and imposed the minimum ban of 12 months even though • no one refused to provide a sample, • that the players were following the club’s instructions and • that they tested negative. • Tough on players trying to earn a living.

16. Presentation Thoughts “FIFA and UEFA are fundamentally in agreement about how to regulate the number of European Union footballers in national and European club competitions.” Discuss. • Major differences. UEFA acknowledge no direct nationality provisions are likely to succeed under EU law. 6+5 v locally trained players • UEFA only require adherence to their match day squad restrictions in European competitions CL, EC and Inter. (Although some countries have voluntarily brought this in in their domestic league.) • FIFA want their 6+5 quota for European and national competitions. See latest report commissioned by FIFA. • PL against any quota or even the ‘softer’ UEFA restrictions. The FL has brought restrictions in Dec 2008 which require 4 of the 16 member squad to be home grown.