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 4: Third Party Investment from a UK Perspective.
Day 5: Why FIFA's TPO ban is justified.

Editor’s note: Ariel N. Reck is an Argentine lawyer specialized in the football industry. He is a guest professor at ISDE’s Global Executive Master in International Sports Law, at the FIFA CIES Sports law & Management course (Universidad Católica Argentina) and the Universidad Austral Sports Law diploma (Argentina) among other prestigious courses. He is a regular conference speaker and author in the field of sports law.

Being an Argentine lawyer, Ariel will focus on the impact FIFA’s TPO ban will have (and is already having) on South American football.

Introduction

Before discussing the impact of the TPO ban, it is important to highlight that the purposes of TPO in South America are somehow different than in Europe. Here “economic rights” (that’s how we call it) are basically assigned in four different moments and/or situations:

First, when a youth player is first registered for the club at amateur level. This is a recognition to the person or entity that brings the player to the club and is usually between 10% and 20% of a future transfer. This practice widens the club’s scouting net and attracts promising young players from the small clubs to the big ones. The percentage can be assigned to the former club of the player, a third person who brings the player (a scout / intermediary) or to the player’s family if he comes as a free or unregistered player. In these cases the position of the beneficiary is really passive and the assigned rights are fragile and dependent of many factors (the player is not even a professional yet).

A second stage in which rights are assigned to third parties is when the club needs money to cover other obligations, unrelated to that particular player. Every club has one or more starlets and investors are willing to take the risk and acquire a percentage of the player’s economic rights. For the club, the sale of portions of the economic rights helps to balance its books and provides an alternative source of credit. In this case there’s no “standard” percentage, it depends on the money the investor is willing to pay, the potential value of the player and the needs of the club. The influence, or the ability to “force” a transfer of the player, of the third party is also subject to each particular agreement, with a direct correlation between percentage owned and influence.[1]

The third situation is when a club wants to hire a player but does not have the financial resources to do it. The rights of such a player might be owned by a company or a company might be willing to acquire the player’s rights from the former club and bring him to the new club. Consequently, the new club is used as showcase only. Under this situation, the player is usually hired for a single season with an option for the purchase of a percentage in favor of the new club, triggering –if executed- a long term employment contract. Sometimes, even if the option is not executed the TP owner recognizes the club a small percentage (around 10%) as “showcase rights” in case the player is immediately hired with a long term contract by another club after the termination of his one season contract. Under these circumstances, the influence of the TP owner is clearly strong, irrespective of how the relevant documents are drafted. 

Clubs could also turn to selling economic rights to third parties in order to cancel debts or to seduce a player for a contractual renewal. A club accepts to assign a share to the player against previous salary debts or in order to convince him to renew the contract without a mayor salary raise. If the club cannot pay the amounts wanted by the player to renew, it offers to assign the player a percentage of his own transfer. In most South American countries, the law or a collective bargaining agreement grants players a minimum percentage of the proceeds of his own transfer (between 10% and 20% depending the country)[2], but this additional assignment is heavily used to satisfy a player’s demands at a renewal of the employment contract.

With so many purposes, and taking into account the financial needs of clubs, the lack of alternative sources of financing and the number of South American players transferred each year, it is obvious that the use of TPO in South America is definitively widespread. Therefore, the impact of the ban will be certainly important, especially in the first years when clubs have not yet found alternative forms of financing.  

The impact of the FIFA Ban

The situation is aggravated by the short transitional period established by FIFA. While previous statements of FIFA officials suggested a period of 3 to 4 seasons[3], the FIFA Circular letter 1264 reduced it to just four months.

It is hard to predict the effectiveness of the prohibition. The current scenario shows many parties looking for forms or mechanisms to circumvent the prohibition, while others are trying to challenge it before the courts. If we consider the experience of art.18bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) (an article included in the FIFA rules right after the Tévez affair as an attempt to protect the independence of clubs in its transfers decisions limiting the power to force a transfer, third parties usually had in TPO agreements), the forecast for the effectiveness of art.18ter is not good. But, as we will show, in the case of art.18ter there’s a clear new impulse and moreover, UEFA stands strongly behind the prohibition. Therefore, in my opinion, we can expect a different outcome. I think the ban will be especially effective in cases of players involved in transfers from South America to the European leagues. Transfers to Portugal, Spain or Greece (countries that relied on TPO in the recent past) will be heavily scrutinized. Nonetheless, it is unclear whether at domestic level, especially in South America, the practice will be banned with similar efficiency or if it will continue secretly with limited or no control by the national Associations. Some federations already implemented their own form of TPO ban (even when art.18ter RSTP is mandatory at national level). Brazil was one of the pioneers[4] and in Argentina, the fiscal authorities, passed a regulation banning TPO agreements.[5]

As to the ways to try to circumvent the TPO ban, I think we will see a raise in the use of “bridge transfers”, which is basically the registration of a player in a club just to cover the TPO with a federative “shell”. With this maneuver, the TP owner artificially enjoys all the benefits of being a club, like retaining a percentage of the player’s future transfer or controlling the player’s career by signing a long term contract with a huge buyout clause loaning the player to different clubs each year.[6] According to the FIFA regulations any club that had ever registered the player is not a “third party” (see definition 14[7]). There is no further requirement, no “sporting interest” in the registration or playing time, the simple act of registration allows a club to have a share of the player’s future transfers. To this regard, while it is true that FIFA already sanctioned clubs for “bridge transfers”[8], it was only an isolated case (still pending at CAS) and we can see examples of patent “bridge transfers” in every transfer window and in the top-5 leagues, not just in minor competitions. 

Another way to deceive TPO is to assign a share to the player and a further (hidden) assignment from the player to a third party. At this point, a big question arises: is the player a third party according to the FIFA regulations? Can a club assign a percentage of the player’s future transfers to the player himself?
As said, the opportunity for a player to profit from his own transfer is a labour right in many South American countries. While South American employment laws, statutes and/or CBAs tend to fix a minimum percentage of the transfer fee for the player, there is no cap and in theory a player can receive up to 100% of the transfer price. 

The FIFA regulations only exclude the two clubs involved in a transfer and the previous clubs where the player was registered from being a third party. Hence, in principle, the player seems to be a “third party” too.

But art.18ter provides that “no club or player shall enter into an agreement with a third party”, based on the wording of this provision it is clear that a player should not be considered a “third party”. Moreover, the player is a necessary party in every transfer agreement and he is also subject to sanctions if he violates the aforementioned FIFA prohibition on TPO according to paragraph 6 of art.18ter.

In addition, the fact that in many South American countries the player’s entitlement to a share of his own transfer is a labour right, a systematic interpretation of art.18ter makes it plausible to sustain the validity of the assignment of a percentage of the transfer fee to the player. In that regard, it is important to recall that FIFA’s prohibition has in principle effect only at federative level. This means that at civil level, any assignment will still be valid and enforceable.

Furthermore, the jurisprudence of the majority of the South American countries holds that federative rules have only effect within the framework of the federation and cannot contradict the civil legislation, of a higher hierarchy.

Argentina is an exception in South America. Ordinary Argentine courts settled that Federative rules are the “lex specialis” in relation to the general rules of the civil code. Therefore, if the regulations of FIFA and/or the Argentine Federation prohibit TPO, any contract in that sense will be null and void, even when under our civil code the assignment of a future transfer is perfectly valid.

Saved for this exception, the result of this is that FIFA’s remedy might be worse than the disease. Since FIFA can only sanction its own members (meaning clubs and players), if a club or a player enters into a TPO agreement, such player or club might be subject to disciplinary sanctions and the contract will still be valid and enforceable.

It is not unthinkable that a player or a club surrendering to the need of funds and signing a TPO agreement despite FIFA’s ban, thereby placing himself in a difficult position. The counterpart (the third party) might force the compliance of the agreement by threatening with reporting the deal to FIFA. In the end, the ban will have the opposite effect to what was sought: Players and clubs will be more vulnerable in their relationship with the third-party than before the introduction of art.18ter RSTP.

As said, it is hard to think that clubs will immediately find an alternative source of funding or will be able to live within their own means. Therefore, it is probable that clubs will try to circumvent or challenge the rule.

Again, the final consequences are hard to predict, but will of an important magnitude. TPO is not just a financing method ‎to bring players to clubs, sharing the risk with the investor, it is also a way to get cash-flow without the need to transfer the player to another club. Furthermore, it is an essential part of the scouting method that widens the club’s network, attracts young talents to the clubs and is also a way to cancel debts towards the player or to achieve a renewal of his contract.  

Conclusion

To conclude, I don’t think the TPO ban is the best way to achieve the –alleged- objectives declared by FIFA. Obligation to disclose, controlled payments (via TMS for example) and other regulatory approaches would have been better options. The pressure from an investor could have been diluted by setting a limit (maximum percentage or maximum number of players under TPO) and the reality is that the pressure to “force” a transfer comes in general from other actors, mainly the player and/or his agent. 

Now the new “pushers” will be the European clubs. How will it be possible for an Argentine club to refuse a -say- € 5 million transfer for a 19 year old player even if the club knows his value will double or triple if he stays at the club? With the TPO ban the club cannot rely on an investor paying, for example, € 3 million for 50% of the player's economic rights to “hold on” a few years. It is worth remembering that Chelsea tried to seal the transfer of Neymar for € 20 million when he was 18. However, Santos managed to reject such offer relying on TPO.

South American players account already for approximately 25% of all the international transfers worldwide[9], after the TPO ban this percentage will certainly raise.

As to the “morals” arguments, recently reiterated by UEFA’s president Platini who said TPO is “a form of slavery”[10], I believe they are just a fallacy. Every transfer needs the player’s consent and the investor owns a share of the profit of a potential future transfer, not a part of the human being. Otherwise, for clubs, owning 100% of a human being would be equally immoral.

Moreover, other types of assignments, like third party litigation funding, are legal in many countries, including the UK and France. The similarities and analogies than can be made with TPO are immense and nobody is claiming third party litigation funding is a way of “owning a person’s justice”.

With the introduction of the Financial Fair Play Regulations European clubs and federations are looking into ways to reduce expenditures and also scrutinizing what the “neighbors” are doing. Clubs want cheaper players and clubs from countries were TPO was long ago banned had a handicap for UEFA spots against clubs from countries were TPO was allowed and relied on TPO to acquire players.[11] The TPO ban serves both objectives: A reduction in the player’s transfer price and an end to the Spanish and Portuguese transfer “tactics” that relied heavily on TPO. 

Also, the inclusion or exclusion of the player in the definition of “third party” triggers conflictive issues. In most South American countries national labour laws or CBAs allow the player to obtain a percentage of the proceeds of his own transfer. If FIFA tries to extend the definition of “third party” to include players, this might certainly prevent a complete implementation of FIFA´s TPO ban in South America. 

As a conclusion I can say that, for South American clubs, the TPO ban just changed the “predator” in the transfer market. Our clubs can now stand stronger against investors, but as counter-effect they are in a much weaker position against European clubs‎.

[1] For a discussion on “buy-sell” clauses (the core of any TPO agreement) and whether they constitute prohibited influence see my opinion: Do “Buy-Sell” Clauses In Third Party Ownership Agreements Constitute Undue Influence Under FIFA’s Art 18bis?

 http://www.lawinsport.com/blog/argentine-sports-law-blog/item/do-buy-sell-clauses-in-third-party-ownership-agreements-constitute-undue-influence-under-fifa-s-art-18bis

[2] Brazil, Peru and Bolivia are exceptions to this rule; no such right is established in their regulations. In Argentina the minimum percentage is 15% according to art.8 of the CBA 557/2009 http://infoleg.mecon.gov.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/155000-159999/158453/norma.htm , in Paraguay 20% for international transfers, art.12 law 5322 from 29^th  October 2014 http://www.escritosdederecho.com/2014/11/ley-5322-del-29-10-2014-estatuto-del-futbolista-profesional.html , in Uruguay 20%, art.34 of the Professional Footballers Statute http://www.mutual.com.uy/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49&Itemid=83 , in Ecuador 15%, Chile 10% law 20.178 http://www.sifup.cl/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Ley-20178-Estatuto-Laboral-del-Futbolista-Profesional-Chileno.pdf , and Colombia 8% art.14 Colombian Players Status Regulations http://fcf.com.co/index.php/la-federacion-inferior/normatividad-y-reglamento/158-estatuto-del-jugador

[3] http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/organisation/footballgovernance/news/newsid=2463828/

[4] http://www.insideworldfootball.com/world-football/south-america/16188-brazil-conforms-and-sets-date-for-ending-tpo-funding-practices

[5] General Resolution 3740/2015 http://eco-nomicas.com.ar/7183-rg-3740-afip-ganancias-transferencia-de-jugadores

[6] For more on “Bridge Tranfers” http://www.lawinsport.com/sports/football/item/what-is-a-bridge-transfer-in-football

[7] “Third party: a party other than the two clubs transferring a player from one to the other, or any previous club, with which the player has been registered.”

[8] http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/organisation/news/newsid=2292724/index.html

[9] Source: FIFA TMS Global Transfer Market Report 2015, page 78.

[10] http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/03/16/soccer-platini-tpo-idINKBN0MC1B220150316

[11] http://www.e-comlaw.com/world-sports-law-report/article_template.asp?Contents=Yes&from=wslr&ID=1388

The first part of this series looked at the legal framework in which FFP sits, concluding that FFP occupied a ‘marginal’ legal position – perhaps legal, perhaps not. Given the significant financial interests in European football – UEFA’s figures suggest aggregate revenue of nearly €17 billion as at clubs’ 2015 accounts – and the close correlation between clubs’ spending on wages and their success on the field,^[1] a legal challenge to the legality of FFP’s ‘break even’ requirement (the Break Even Requirement), which restricts a particular means of spending, was perhaps inevitable.

And so it followed.

Challenges to the legality of the Break Even Requirement have been brought by football agent Daniel Striani, through various organs of justice of the European Union and through the Belgian courts; and by Galatasaray in the Court of Arbitration for Sport. As an interesting footnote, both Striani and Galatasaray were advised by “avocat superstar” Jean-Louis Dupont, the lawyer who acted in several of sports law’s most famous cases, including the seminal Bosman case. Dupont has been a vocal critic of FFP’s legality since its inception.

Mr Striani’s Complaints

Initially, Mr Striani made a complaint to the European Commission to the effect that the Break Even Requirement breached European competition law, and that it restricts several fundamental freedoms of the European Union guaranteed by the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU); namely, the right to free movement of people (Article 45 TFEU), the right to free movement of capital (Article 56 TFEU), and the right to free movement of services (Article 63 TFEU).

In his complaint to the Commission, Mr Striani identified five anti-competitive effects of the Break Even Requirement:

1. It restricts external investment into football;
2. It will have the effect of calcifying the hierarchy of the game, preventing ‘small’ clubs from competing at higher levels;
3.  It will depress the transfer market;
4.  It will depress players’ wages; and
5. It will therefore adversely affect players’ agents’ revenue.

Superficially at least, each point above has merit and internal logic. Equally, there are coherent rebuttals. For balance, some (of the various) potential counter arguments are listed below:

1. From the outset, FFP has not altogether restricted exogenous investment into football and loss making (regardless of quantum) has been permissible for certain expenditure. Rather than restricting investment, FFP funnels loss-making investment in certain directions such as stadium and infrastructure spending.
2. There is little movement in football’s sporting hierarchy under any model. The evidence suggests that those clubs who spend the most on wages tend to experience the most success on the pitch;^[2] however, it is questionable whether there is inherent merit in supplanting the clubs that are best able to maximise revenue generation with those that have the owners most willing to fund losses. Under either model, those with the most money to expend on players’ wages will usually win.^[3]
3. It is reductive to equate a healthy, functioning transfer market with clubs’ rights to make losses; nor is it of intrinsic value to the sport for transfers to be significant in magnitude, whether in cost or volume.
4. Owners’ equity inputs are far from the only source of salary growth. In any event, further consideration should be given as to whether, if a deflationary effect can be established, this is a function of the top end of the salary scale being depressed reducing mean salary, or whether the impact is felt by in modal or median salary. Ultimately, FFP could depress wages on an aggregate basis but still benefit most players should median or modal wages improve in a more financially stable environment.
5. Players’ intermediaries may not have a sufficiently proximate interest in the financial regulatory aspects of clubs’ spending. UEFA’s rule-making power is given effect and legitimacy by way of complex contractual relationship between players, clubs and the sport’s governing bodies and intermediaries do not have privity of contract with UEFA insofar as FFP is concerned.

Mr Striani also brought a claim, on similar legal basis, in the Belgian national courts (Mr Striani being based in Belgium). In part because of these collateral proceedings, the Commission rejected Mr Striani’s complaint. In a press release, Mr Dupont confirmed that the Commission had given its view to the effect that Mr Striani, being an agent and therefore not directly subject to FFP, lacked a legitimate interest in the rules, and that the Belgian national courts, already having been seized of the case, were a suitable forum for a hearing of the merits.

Mr Striani was joined by various other parties in his claim in the Belgian courts. However, Mr Striani (along with his co-complainants) was again frustrated on technical grounds outwith the substantive issues of his dispute.  The Belgian court found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute, because, to put it simply, under the relevant jurisdictional rules (the Lugano Convention), UEFA was entitled to be sued in the courts of its place of domicile, i.e Switzerland. Ben van Rompuy goes into more detail on the jurisdictional nuances here.

Somewhat oddly, given its self-proclaimed jurisdictional incompetence, the Belgian Courts did make an order referring the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the CJEU rejected the referral on the basis that it was “manifestly inadmissible,” and also “observing that the national court had failed to provide any of the necessary information to enable the European Court to address European competition law issues.”^[4]

This puts Mr Striani’s complaint into no man’s land. Rejected by the Commission; rejected by the Belgian national courts; and rejected by the CJEU; all without any substantive adjudicative decision as to the legality of the Break Even Requirement. Irrespective of one’s views on FFP, it is a source of frustration that five years on from FFP’s introduction, its legality remains an unresolved question despite vigorous and not frivolous challenge. Mr Striani’s challenges have, to date, proven impotent in settling the (increasingly academic) debate.

Evidently frustrated at the Commission’s refusal to formally review the legality of FFP, Mr Striani went on to make a complaint to the EU Ombudsman alleging maladministration by Vice President of the Commission at the material time, Joaquín Almunia. The complaint centred on Mr Almunia’s association with Athletic Bilbao and his prior statements perceived as endorsing FFP. However, the Ombudsman found no maladministration to have occurred. 

Galatasaray’s CAS Appeal

There is, however, a forum in which a decision has been made as to the legality of the Break Even Requirement; namely the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Galatasary v UEFA (CAS 2016/A/4492). Galatasaray, like Mr Striani, were represented by Mr Dupont; and, like Mr Striani, the basis of Galatasaray’s case was that the Break Even Requirement breached EU competition law and illegally trammelled EU fundamental freedoms as to workers, services and capital.

The context of the dispute was as follows: Galatasaray was investigated by the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB), which, as mentioned in Part One, oversees and enforces adherence to FFP, in respect of a potential breach of FFP, and in particular the Break Even Requirement. The procedural rules governing the CFCB allow clubs to enter into a ‘settlement agreement’ at the discretion and direction of the CFCB Chief Investigator.

The CFCB Chief Investigator determined that Galatasaray had breached the Break Even Requirement and a settlement agreement was reached that provided, inter alia, that the Turkish club must “be break even compliant…at the latest in the monitoring period 2015/16,” and that the club must not increase its aggregate wage bill, which stood at €90m.

Galatasaray hopelessly failed to meet either stipulation, increasing their wage bill by €5.5m and exceeding the acceptable deviation figure in Break Even Requirement by €134.2m. These figures were audited and verified by independent consultants.

In view of this egregious breach of the settlement agreement, the Investigatory Chamber referred Galatasaray to the Adjudicatory Chamber, who, on 2 March 2016, issued a decision ordering, inter alia, that Galatasaray reduce their wage bill to a maximum of €65m over the next two FFP reporting periods, and banning the club from any European competitions for which they otherwise qualified on sporting merit for the next two seasons.

Galatasaray appealed this decision to the CAS, arguing that the sanctions levied by UEFA were illegal because the rules on which they were based, i.e. the FFP rules, were illegal.

If the basis of Galatasaray’s appeal (breach of competition law, breach of fundamental freedoms) is familiar to those with a knowledge of the legal issues FFP presents, so too will be UEFA’s defence of the Break Even Requirement. UEFA argued that the Break Even Requirement constitutes rules that “are prudential rules necessary for the proper functioning of football clubs,” and “Any restriction they may cause pursues legitimate governance objectives and is proportionate to their achievement.”^[5] (Emphasis added.) 

UEFA’s view is clearly intended to align FFP with the legal tests identified in Part One of this series; namely that FFP must be:

1. Necessary (for the proper conduct of the sport);
2.  Suitable (as a means to pursue that necessary objective); and
3. Proportionate (to the aims pursued).

Applicability of EU Law

The non-application of EU law by the CAS has previously been called ‘an absurdity’ by this blog “in light of the Bosman (and prior Walrave) case law of the CJEU, which made clear that EU law is applicable to the regulations of Sports Governing Bodies”.

In this case, UEFA postulated that EU law was “irrelevant” to the dispute – the parties both being from Turkey and Switzerland respectively, i.e. nations outside of the EU – but “did not argue” that FFP is “not subject to the invoked provisions of EU law or can be applicable even if contrary to these provisions.”^[6] Galatasaray argued that EU law applied as FFP constitutes mandatory rules in EU territory. The parties agreed that Swiss law applied.

The CAS panel of arbitrators (the Panel) found that EU law, being a foreign mandatory rule, applied pursuant to Article 19 of the Swiss Federal Act on Private International Law, under which arbitral tribunals must consider foreign mandatory rules where:

i.       such rules belong to a special category of norms which need to be applied irrespective of the law applicable to the merits of the case;

ii.      there is a close connection between the subject matter of the dispute and the territory where the mandatory rules are in force; and

iii.    in view of Swiss legal theory and practice, the mandatory rules must aim to protect legitimate interest and crucial values and their application must lead to a decision which is appropriate.

The Panel found that this test had been met on the facts in this instance. As an interesting side note, the CAS also followed this line of reasoning in the subsequent Third Party Ownership case discussed by Antoine Duval here.

Article 101 TFEU

The first hurdle for Galatasaray in establishing the illegality of the Break Even Requirement is to show that it fits within the boundaries of the prohibition laid down in Article 101 TFEU, i.e. that it has as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the European internal market.

The Panel found that FFP did not have anti-competitive intent as its object. On its face, this seems a reasonable conclusion; after all, FFP is not intended to stymie inter-club competition. However, it should not be treated as axiomatic. As Weatherill has highlighted, “UEFA’s own website (though not the FFP Regulations themselves) identify as one of the principal objectives to decrease pressure on salaries and transfer fees and limit inflationary effect”. Whether such effect was an independent goal of UEFA in instituting FFP rather than mere political bluster is open to question, but the objectives of UEFA should be subject to further interrogation.

In this instance, the Panel found that Galatasaray “failed to demonstrate that the object of [FFP] would not be stated in its Article 2 [dealing with FFP objects]”. Having considered the question, the Panel “did not find convincing evidence that the object of [FFP] would be to distort competition, i.e. to favour of disfavour certain clubs rather than to prevent clubs from trading at levels above their resources”.

Thus in order to be caught within the prohibition under Article 101 TFEU, Galatasaray would need to show that FFP had an anti-competitive effect. As FFP did not fall within the examples given in the Commission’s guidance on anti-competitive agreements (horizontal/vertical), the burden of proof fell on Galatasaray to demonstrate FFP’s anti-competitive effects.

They did not do so. However – and frustratingly for those with an interest in the topic – Galatasaray did not actually adduce any detailed empirical analysis as to the effects of FFP on competition (para. 74).

Irrespective of the lack of empirical evidence put forward, the Panel expressed a view that “competition is not distorted by ‘overspending’” (para. 76); nor does FFP ossify the structure of the market as “dominant clubs have always existed and will continue to exist”. The latter point is superficially correct; however, it fails to address the fact that the Break Even Requirement may have prevented clubs from entry to the ‘dominant club’ position of superiority. 

The Panel went on to cite with approval the applicability of the carve-out for regulatory rules developed in Wouters, as discussed in more detail in Part One of this series.

Article 102 TFEU

Galatasaray produced evidence that UEFA was a dominant undertaking (which, given UEFA is a governing body with total authority over the rules of elite European football, is a case easily made), but it did not show how it was abusing its position in the case of FFP. Thus the Panel found that Galatasaray did not demonstrate an abuse of dominance by UEFA.

Fundamental Freedoms

Galatasaray argued that the Break Even Requirement violated fundamental freedoms of the EU as to the free movement of workers, the free movement of capital, and the free movement of services. However, it submitted “very little argumentation” in support of these claims (para. 85).

The Panel highlighted the fact that FFP does not discriminate based on nationality, as the rules apply equally to all clubs participating in UEFA competitions; that the rules apply equally to “domestic operations” (para. 86); and “do not restrict fundamental freedoms: players can be transferred (or offer services cross-border without limitations; capitals can move from a EU country to another without any limit.”

Ergo, the Panel found Galatasaray had not shown any breach of a fundamental freedom of the EU.

Swiss Law

Galatasaray did not invoke the relevant provisions of Swiss competition law in detail; however, the Panel noted that the substantive nature of Swiss competition law was analogous to EU competition law, diverging only in respect of reference to the domestic market. Accordingly, the Panel’s reasoning “would be the same” (para. 89). 

The CAS’s Finding

Galatasaray did not establish its case and as such its appeal was not upheld by the CAS and the CFCB’s decision was confirmed. UEFA successfully defended the first hearing on the substantive legal issues of the Break Even Requirement. 

An Illusory Victory for UEFA?

UEFA may have successfully fended off a binding determination of the legal issues at play in challenges brought in domestic and European courts, albeit on procedural grounds; and it may have won the first serious challenge to the substantive legal issues at play in the CAS, albeit aided by a lack of proper particularisation of some of the issues by Galatasaray; but it is debatable whether it was able to altogether insulate FFP from the effect of these challenges. In the years since its inception, the nature and content of the rules has gradually shifted towards a more liberal approach to external investment, and in all probability this was influenced by the vehemence of the legal challenges to the rules.

At the outset of Mr Striani’s challenge to FFP, his lawyer, Mr Dupont, said "What my client hopes is that Uefa will be forced to review this rule and go for more proportionate alternatives”.  He may not have achieved this through a favourable determination of the courts; however, as will be examined in greater detail in Part Three of this series, he may have ultimately been successful in his objectives to some extent.

^[1] See, for example, Kuper, S and Szymanski, S 2012 Soccernomics 2nd ed. London: HarperSport at p14

^[2] See Kuper, S and Szymanski, S 2012 Soccernomics 2nd ed. London: HarperSport

^[3] It should be noted, however, that Mr Dupont has argued that a flat salary cap – in many ways more restrictive than the Break Even Requirement – would be preferable, see Stefano Bastianon, 'The Striani Challenge to UEFA Financial Fair-Play A New Era after Bosman or Just a Washout?' [2015] 11(1) The Competition Law Review 7-39 at p18

^[4] Daniel Geey, LawInSport and BASL Sport Law Year Book 2015 - 2016 (Sean Cottrell ed, LawInSport 2016) at p108

^[5] Para 50

^[6] Para 39