Introduction: The new WADA Code 2015
Day 1: The impact of the revised World Anti-Doping Code on the work of National Anti-Doping Agencies
Day 3: Proof of intent (or lack thereof) under the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code
Day 4: Ensuring proportionate sanctions under the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code

Editor's Note
Marjolaine Viret: An attorney-at-law at the Geneva bar, specialising in sports and health law. Her doctoral work in anti-doping was awarded a summa cum laude by the University of Fribourg in early 2015. She gained significant experience in sports arbitration as a senior associate in one of Switzerland’s leading law firms, advising clients, including major sports federations, on all aspects of anti-doping. She also holds positions within committees in sports organisations and has been involved in a variety of roles in the implementation of the 2015 WADC. Her book “Evidence in Anti-Doping at the Intersection of Science & Law” is scheduled for publication in 2015.

Emily Wisnosky: An attorney-at-law admitted to the California bar, she currently participates in the WADC 2015 Commentary research project as a doctoral researcher. She also holds an LLM from the University of Geneva in International Dispute Settlement, with a focus on sports arbitration. Before studying law, she worked as a civil engineer.

Introduction

Doping often results from the illegitimate use of a therapeutic product. As a result, many Prohibited Substances and Methods are pharmaceutical innovations that are or have been developed to serve legitimate therapeutic purposes. Much is being done within the anti-doping movement to coordinate efforts with the pharmaceutical industry in order to prevent abuse of drugs that have been discontinued or are still in development phase. Conversely, at the other end of the range, some Athletes may require legitimate medical treatment and wish to receive that treatment without being forced to give up their sports activities.

This post takes a cursory look at how the World Anti-Doping Code (“WADC” or “Code”) tackles these issues and provides a summary of the main changes that affect the modalities for Athletes to receive medical treatment after the 2015 revision. The first part discusses the avenues open to an Athlete to compete while under treatment, namely by applying for a Therapeutic Use Exemption (“TUE”) or, in some cases, navigating the provisions governing conditionally prohibited substances. The second part addresses the consequences in case an Athlete should fail to take the proper avenues. The post closes with observations regarding the current system in light of one of the pillars of the anti-doping movement: the Athlete’s health.

1.     Obtaining Clearance to Compete – Therapeutic Use Exemptions and Conditional Prohibitions

Amendments to Procedural Requirements for Granting a TUE

An Athlete undergoing medical treatment that involves a Prohibited Substance must seek a TUE from the competent Anti-Doping Organisation (“ADO”). The 2015 regime preserves the “national vs international” distinction that existed under the previous rules. The basic principle is that International-Level Athletes request TUEs from their International Federation, while National-Level Athletes request TUEs from their National Anti-Doping Organisation (“NADO”)[1]. During the consultation process leading to the 2015 Code, recommendations were made for an international independent TUE Committee that would grant TUEs in a centralised manner. No such system has been introduced at this point, but the 2015 revision does take steps to ease the procedural burden and enhance clarity for those Athletes whose competition schedule would require multiple TUEs (e.g. those transitioning from national-level competition to international-level competition). In particular the 2015 Code:

§  Provides a streamlined process for Athletes seeking international recognition of a national-level TUE. These Athletes are now relieved from having to go through a whole new application process if they already have the benefit of a TUE granted by their NADO: they can have the TUE “recognised” by the International Federation, which “must” grant such recognition if the TUE is in compliance with the International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions (“ISTUE”).

§  Encourages the automatic recognition of TUEs. ISTUE 7.1 newly encourages International Federations and Major Event Organizers to declare automatic recognition of TUEs, at least in part – e.g. those granted by certain selected other ADOs or for certain Prohibited Substances.

Another key procedural change reflected in the 2015 revision is an increased storage time for application data, in accordance with the extended statute of limitation period for initiating anti-doping proceedings from 8 to 10 years (revised WADC 17). During the TUE process, the application must include the diagnosis as well as evidence supporting such diagnosis[2]. This sensitive medical data is newly stored for 10 years under the revised 2015 regime for the approval form (versus 8 years under the 2009 regime). All other medical information must be kept for eighteen months from the end of the TUE validity[3].

Amendments to Substantive Requirements for Granting a TUE

The requirements to receive a TUE have been slightly adapted in the revised 2015 ISTUE, but not in a manner that would significantly alter the assessment. In short, the TUE Committee must find that the following four criteria are fulfilled:

1. Significant impairment to the Athlete’s health if the substance or method were withheld,
2. Lack of performance enhancement beyond a return to a normal state of health through the use of the substance or method,
3. Absence of any other reasonable therapeutic alternative, and
4. Necessity for use not a consequence of prior use without a valid TUE.

With regards to the manner in which these criteria operate, the 2015 revision:

§  Places the burden of proof on the Athlete. The 2015 ISTUE received an explicit addition that confirms and codifies the interpretation of the CAS panel in the recent ISSF v. WADA award (Article 4.1, in initio): “An Athlete may be granted a TUE if (and only if) he/she can show that each of the following conditions is met” (emphasis added). While a welcome addition for legal predictability, the hurdle for the Athlete to overcome is high and can lead to nearly insurmountable evidentiary situations, such as in ISSF v. WADA regarding beta-blockers in shooting and lack of additional performance-enhancement[4].

§  Remains silent as to the standard of proof. The requisite standard of proof to establish these substantive criteria is still not explicitly stated. Although the issue was left undecided in ISSF v. WADA, the solution most in line with the WADC and general principles of evidence seems the “balance of probability”-standard, as per the general provision for establishing facts related to anti-doping rule violations (WADC 3.1)[5].

§  Newly allows retroactive TUEs for “fairness” reasons. As a rule, TUEs must be obtained prior to using the Prohibited Substance or Method (ISTUE 4.2). Exceptionally, a TUE may be granted with retroactive effect, which mostly concerns lower-level Athletes for whom the applicable anti-doping rules accept such possibility (WADC 4.4.5), or for emergency situations (ISTUE 4.3). The 2015 ISTUE contains a new possibility to grant a retroactive TUE if WADA and the relevant ADO agree that “fairness” so requires. The scope of this new exception remains unclear. A recent award rejected an Athlete’s plea that (s)he did not “timeously” request a TUE based on ignorance of the system[6]. One may wonder whether fairness related reasons could offer a solution for situations of venire contra proprium factum, i.e. when the Athlete received assurance from a competent ADO that the substance or method was not prohibited^[7] and the latter could thus reasonably be considered estopped from pursuing a violation based on a subsequent positive test.

Transparency for Conditionally Prohibited Substances

Only minor changes were made in the 2015 revision in the context of conditionally prohibited substances. Some categories of Prohibited Substances are widely used to treat minor conditions, including in the context of sports medicine. Moreover, their effects on the Athlete may depend on the mode of use. Thus, the Prohibited List prohibits the following substances only conditionally:

§  Beta-2 agonists (class S.3) – e.g. Salbutamol, the active ingredient of “Ventolin” –widespread against asthma in endurance sports. “Limits of use” have been determined that are deemed to reflect an acceptable therapeutic use of the substance^[8].

§  Glucocorticoids (class S.9)^[9], which have been the subject of debates for their use in sports medicine, are prohibited only when administered by certain routes (oral, intravenous, intramuscular or rectal). A contrario all other routes of application are permitted.

These categories require adjustments for establishing an anti-doping rule violation compared to the standard regime, as the finding of a violation calls for information beyond the mere detection of the substance. Unless a distinctive trait for dosage or route of administration can be identified directly during Sample analysis^[10], the information must be gathered during results management and generally supposes explanations from Athletes regarding the causes that led to the findings. In particular, for these types of substances, the 2015 Code:

§  Applies a different burden of proof. Whereas the burden is on the Athlete to show that the criteria for a TUE are realised (see above), or to demonstrate the origins of the analytical findings to obtain a reduced sanction (WADC 10), for S.3 and S.9 substances proving dosage and/or route of administration is part of the requirements for a violation. A specific allocation of the burden to the Athlete is only provided in the Prohibited List for findings of Salbutamol and Formoterol above a certain Threshold. In all other situations, it ought to be sufficient for the Athlete to present credible explanations (e.g. listing the substance on the Doping Control form[11]) that the Prohibited Substance originated from an authorised Use. The burden of proof ought then to be on the ADO to convince the hearing panel to a comfortable satisfaction (WADC 3.1) that a prohibited Use occurred.

§ Prefers short-cut procedures and transparency. The International Standard for Laboratories (“ISL”) introduces the “Presumptive Adverse Analytical Finding” to promote procedural economy by allowing a laboratory to enquire with the Testing Authority whether a TUE exists prior to the confirmation step of the A Sample for a S.3 or S.9 class substance (normally the presence of a TUE is determined after report of the Adverse Analytical Finding, during the initial review by the ADO). The revised 2015 regime maintains this pragmatic solution, but seeks to foster transparency in order to avoid this short cut from being abused by ADOs to stop cases from going forward. The 2015 ISL makes it explicit that any such communication and its outcome must be documented and provided to WADA (ISL 5.2.4.3.1.1)[12].

2.     Sanctions for Legitimate Medical Treatment without a TUE

An Athlete who is undergoing legitimate medical treatment that involves a Prohibited Substance, but does not have a TUE might – if tested – return an Adverse Analytical Finding. As mentioned above, an anti-doping violation cannot be invalidated for reasons of legitimate medical treatment, save in exceptional circumstances where the system allows for a retroactive TUE or for authorized Use of S.3 & S.9 class substances. Thus, Athletes will typically first turn to the options in the sanctioning regime to reduce or eliminate the sanction for Fault-related reasons. The success of this effort varies considerably from case-to-case, with no clear pattern emerging in the CAS jurisprudence.

The 2015 WADC has not improved the clarity of the situation for violations involving legitimate medical treatment, unless contamination is involved. In the 2009 WADC, if Athletes were “fortunate” enough to have inadvertently Used a Specified Substance then the Panel had the flexibility to settle on a sanction ranging from a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, up to a two-year period of Ineligibility; if the Prohibited Substance was non-Specified, the shortest period of Ineligibility available was one year. This raises questions of fairness, since violations under similar factual circumstances, and with similar levels of fault are punished with very different sanctions.[13] The 2015 WADC remedied this disparate treatment when the violation involves a Contaminated Product.[14] No analogous exception to receive a facilitated reduction in the case of legitimate medical treatment is available, even though similar policy arguments could also be lodged in this context.

Before Athletes can seek to establish a Fault-related reduction, newly under the 2015 WADC they must first avoid a finding that the violation was committed “intentionally”. This prospect poses interpretational issues for medications[15]. According to the definition in WADC 10.2.3, “the term ‘intentional’ is meant to identify those Athletes who cheat.” However, the core of the definition defines “intentional” conduct as encompassing both knowing and reckless behaviour[16]. Since the violations considered in this post involve the knowing administration of a medication, it can be expected that Athletes will rely on the reference to “cheating” to argue that their conduct falls outside of this definition[17]. If they were to succeed with this line of argumentation before hearing panels, then their basic sanction starts at a two-year period of Ineligibility that is subject to further reduction for Fault-related reasons[18]. If they were to fail, they face a strict four-year period of Ineligibility, which would inevitably raise proportionality concerns for this type of violation.

The Fault-related reductions in the 2015 WADC, like those in the 2009 WADC, rest in an interpretive grey area for violations arising from legitimate medical use. A sanction can be reduced for Fault-related reasons if the Athlete can establish a factual scenario that is accepted to reflect No Fault or Negligence, or No Significant Fault or Negligence. On one hand, it is well-established that medications often contain Prohibited Substances, thus panels expect a high-level of diligence from an Athlete to avoid a violation arising from medications. Thus, these types of violations often are committed with a high level of negligence at least bordering on “significant” and at times approaching “reckless”[19]. As to the level of Fault, CAS panels are not consistent. One CAS panel found that a legitimate medical Use of a Prohibited Substance that could have been (and eventually was) excused by a TUE can implicate only a low-level of Fault[20], whereas others have come to the opposite conclusion, holding that the (alleged) “legitimate therapeutic use” of a medication was “irrelevant”, and contributed to the Athlete’s significant level of Fault[21]. In light of these different characterisations, it is difficult to predict how a panel would sanction these violations under the 2015 Code.

Conclusion – Remember Health Considerations behind Anti-Doping

Athletes do not have it easy when it comes to reconciling necessary medical treatment with high-level competition in sport. The conditions for claiming the right to compete despite Use of a Prohibited Substance or Method are stringent, and the procedure at times burdensome. There is no doubt that the system must strictly monitor any possible abuse of medical treatment as a cover up for doping attempts. Nevertheless, this system should not escalate into penalising Athletes who had a legitimate need for treatment and resorted in good faith to such treatment, especially since in many cases the performance-enhancing effects of the Use of a Prohibited Substance or Method are hypothetical at most.

The current system requires considerable Athlete transparency in matters related to their health. The TUE process is not the only context in which Athletes may have to reveal information about medical conditions and/or ongoing treatment for these conditions. Apart from the disclosure of medication and blood transfusion that Athletes are required to make on the Doping Control form, the anti-doping proceedings themselves may bring to light information about medical conditions affecting the Athlete. This may occur either because the Athlete is bound to reveal information to build a defence, or because the detection system itself may uncover collateral data indicating a pathology – known or unknown to the Athlete[22].

In return for these expectations, the anti-doping movement must keep in mind one of its key stated goals – the protection of the Athlete’s health – when regulating matters implicating legitimate medical treatment. This protection must include efforts to avoid the Athlete inadvertently committing an anti-doping rule violation while under therapeutic treatment, which may include more systematic labelling of medication with explicit warnings. The attentiveness to the Athlete’s health, however, could go beyond these efforts and exploit the data collected as part of Doping Control also for the benefit of the Athlete. The current regime already allows for suspected pathologies detected on the occasion of Doping Control to be communicated to the Athlete on certain specific aspects[23]. As Athletes agree to disclose large parts of their privacy for the sake of clean sport, it might be desirable to explore paths through which clean sport might wish to pay these Athletes back by providing them and their physicians with an additional source of data on health matters, an aspect of Athlete’s lives that is always on the brink of being endangered in elite sports.

[1]             Article 4.4.4 further addresses the right for Major Event Organisations to provide specific requirements for their Events ; for more details, see Rigozzi A, Viret M, Wisnosky E, Does the World Anti-Doping Code revision live up to its promises? Jusletter, 11 November 2013, n° 173 et seq.

[2]             See e.g. ISTUE, Annex 2.

[3]             See WADA International Standard for the Protection of Privacy and Personal Information, Annex A.

[4]             See Rigozzi A, Viret M, Wisnosky E, The ISSF v. WADA CAS Award: Another Therapeutic Use Exemption Request for Beta Blockers Shot Down, Anti-Doping Blog, 10 August 2015.

[5]             Ibid.

[6]             CAS 2014/A/3876, Stewart v. FIM, April 27, 2015. See, for a detailed analysis, see our comment on the Stewart CAS Award in Rigozzi A, Viret M, Wisnosky E, Switzerland Anti-Doping Reports, International Sports Law Review (Sweet & Maxwell), Issue 3/15, p.61 et seq, also available online at: wadc-commentary/stewart

[7]             The Prohibited List is an “open list”, which means that simply consulting the list does not always provide a conclusive answer as to whether a particular substance or method is prohibited. Prohibited Methods (“M” classes) need by their very nature to be described in somewhat general scientific terms that always leave a certain room for interpretation (see e.g. CAS 2012/A/2997, NADA v. Y). For substances (“S” classes), the precision of the description of the prohibition under the Prohibited List varies depending on the substance at stake.

[8]             Not to be confused with a Threshold concentration in the Sample. Only Salbutamol and Formoterol currently have a form of Threshold with a Decision Limit (in TD2014DL), beyond which the finding is presumed not to result from a therapeutic use and the Athlete needs to produce an administration study to invalidate the Adverse Analytical Finding.

[9]             New terminology under the 2015 Prohibited List. Up to the 2014 List, “glucocorticosteroid”.

[10]           In particular by finding Metabolites that differ depending on the route of administration. A solution codified e.g. in the revised TD2014MRPL, Table 1, for the glucocorticoid budesonide.

[11]           The standard Doping Control Form and ISTI 7.4.5 (q) invite Athletes to disclose all recent medication, supplements and blood transfusions (for blood sampling). On the legal implications of this disclosure, see Viret M, Evidence in Anti-Doping at the Intersection of Science & Law, p. 573 et seq.

[12]           On the imprecise use of the term TUE, see Viret M, Evidence in Anti-Doping at the Intersection of Science & Law, p. 379 et seq. ADOs would rely in practice on Athlete declarations on the Doping Control Form. The 2015 WADA Results Management Guidelines encourage ADOs to contact the Athlete to enquire about the route of administration if there is no TUE on the record (Section 3.4.2.2).

[13]           See also our comment on the Stewart CAS award in Switzerland Anti-Doping Reports, International Sports Law Review (Sweet & Maxwell), Issue 3/15, p.61 et seq.

[14]           A new provision (WADC 10.5.1.2) allows for these types of violations to be subject to a flexible zero-to-two year period of Ineligibility, regardless of the type of substance involved.

[15]           “Intentional” violations draw a four-year period of Ineligibility, whereas non-“intentional” violations start with a two-year basic sanction. Only non-intentional violations are subject to further reduction for Fault-related reasons. See, more generally, on intentional doping, the contribution by Howard Jacobs in this Blog Symposium.

[16]           Article 10.2.3 ab initio: “As used in Articles 10.2 and 10.3, the term ‘intentional’ is meant to identify those Athletes who cheat. The term, therefore, requires that the Athlete or other Person engaged in conduct which he or she knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk.”

[17]           For a discussion of the expected role of the term “cheat” in establishing that a violation was “intentional”, see Rigozzi A, Haas U, Wisnosky E, Viret M, Breaking Down the Process for Determining a Basic Sanction Under the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code, International Sports Law Journal, June 10, 2015. On a related note, an argument akin to those made in the Oliveira/Foggo line of cases under the 2009 Code could also arise here: If Athletes do not have actual knowledge that their medications contain a Prohibited Substance, would purposefully consuming the product still be considered “intentional”?

[18]           Article 10.2.1 places the burden of proof to establish that the violation was not “intentional” on the Athlete if the violation did not involve a Specified Substance, and on the Anti-Doping Organisation to establish that the violation was “intentional” if the violation did involve a Specified Substance.

[19]           See, e.g. CAS 2014/A/3876, Stewart v. FIM, April 27, 2015, para. 79; See also, CAS 2012/A/2959, WADA v. Nilforushan, April 30, 2013, para. 8.21. In rare cases, Athletes have been able to establish No Fault or Negligence under very specific circumstances. See, e.g. CAS 2005/A/834, Dubin v. IPC, February 8, 2006.

[20]           See, e.g. CAS 2014/A/3876, Stewart v. FIM, April 27, 2015, para. 84 where the CAS panel held that the Athlete’s level of Fault must be considered “light” where he was prescribed the medication by a doctor and later obtained a TUE. See also CAS 2011/A/2645, UCI v. Kolobnev, February 29, 2012, paras. 87-90, which does not specifically address the possibility of obtaining a TUE, but confirmed a first instance decision (after weighing a list of factors) that a Prohibited Substance taken for purposes unrelated to sport performance, and upon medical advice fell at “the very lowest end of the spectrum of fault”.

[21]           See, e.g. the ITF Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal, ITF v. Nielsen, June 5, 2006, that found that it not relevant “whether the player might have been granted a therapeutic use exemption”. See also CAS 2008/A/1488, P. v. ITF, August 22, 2008, para. 19, which found it of “little relevance to the determination of fault that the product was prescribed with ‘professional diligence’ and ‘with a clear therapeutic intention’”. These cases were both referenced in CAS 2012/A/2959, WADA v. Nilforushan, April 30, 2013, para. 8.20.

[22]          See, as a prominent example, the Claudia Pechstein saga with respect to the explanations – doping or rare pathology? - for her abnormal blood values.

[23]           See the Guidelines for Reporting & Management of Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin (hCG) and Luteinizing Hormone (LH) Findings in male athletes, as well as the recommendations for ABP expert review in the Athlete Biological Passport Operating Guidelines.

This is part two of the blog on the Willem II and MVV State Aid decisions. Where part one served as an introduction on the two cases, part two will analyze the compatibility assessment made by the Commission in two decisions.

The compatibility of the aid to MVV and Willem II (re-)assessed

Even though it was the Netherlands’ task to invoke possible grounds of compatibility and to demonstrate that the conditions for such compatibility were met, the aid granted to both Willem II and MVV was never notified. The Netherland’s failure to fulfill its notification obligation, therefore, appears to be at odds with the Commission’s final decision to declare the aid compatible with EU law. Yet, a closer look at the Commission’s decision of 6 March 2013 to launch the formal investigation shows that the Commission was giving the Netherlands a ‘second chance’ to invoke grounds that would lead to a justification of the measures. In paragraph 74, the Commission itself reached the conclusions that the clubs in question faced financial difficulties, consequently indicating that the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines might apply. In fact, the Commission even suggested possible compensatory measures, which are very much related to “the peculiar nature of professional football”[1]. These suggested compensatory measures included:

- limiting the club’s number of registered players for a season or several seasons;

- accepting a cap on the relation between salaries and turnover;

- banning the payment of transfer fees for a certain period;

- offering additional expenditure on “pro bono” activities to the benefit of the community and training of amateurs.[2]

Furthermore, it invited the Dutch authorities “to provide all useful information allowing the Commission to decide whether the aid measures can be considered compatible with the Guidelines”.[3]

The observations and information submitted by the Netherlands between March 2013 and July 2016 proved more than sufficient for the Commission to carry out its compatibility assessment. As was insinuated in the decision to launch a formal investigation, the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines proved fundamental to this assessment.  

Willem II and MVV as firms in financial difficulties

This first condition of the Guidelines was easily complied with. As regards Willem II, in the accounting year 2008/2009, it made a loss of €3.9 million on a turnover of €11.4 million. Meanwhile, its own equity decreased from €4.1 million to €200.000. The losses increased to €4.4 million on a turnover of €9.9 million for the 2009/2010 season, while its own equity decreased further from €200.000 to minus €2.1 million.[4]

MVV clearly was financially not doing much better. As the Commission itself summarizes in the MVV decision, “in 2008/2009, MVV made a loss of €1.1 million and its own equity was minus €3.8 million. By March 2010 additional losses amounting to €1.3 million had occurred and the own equity had dropped to minus €5.17 million. In April 2010, MVV was no longer able to pay salaries and other current expenditure and was on the brink of bankruptcy.”[5]

Another consequence of being in financial difficulties relates to the licensing system put in place by the Dutch football federation KNVB. As is explained in paragraph 11 of the decision to open a formal investigation, one of the obligations for clubs under the current system is submitting three financial reports a year to the KNVB. On the basis of these reports clubs are scaled in three categories (I: insufficient, II: sufficient, III: good). Clubs in category I may be obliged to present a plan for improvement in order to reach categories II or III. If the club fails to comply with the plan, sanctions may be imposed by the KNVB, including an official warning, a reduction of competition points and – as ultimate sanction – withdrawal of the licence.[6] At the time the State aid was granted, both Willem II and MVV were scaled in the insufficient category I.  

Willem II and MVV as small enterprises or medium-sized enterprises

This particular assessment is important for the two conditions below, i.e. the introduction of restructuring plans and compensatory measures. Depending on the size of the firm (or enterprise), different conditions apply. Willem II employed 53 people in 2012 and had an annual turnover of €11.4 million in 2008/2009.[7] Pursuant to the Annex of the Commission Recommendation concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, Willem II just managed to be considered a medium-sized enterprise.[8]

MVV, on the other hand, is considered a small enterprise. In the season 2009/2010 it had 38 employees and in the season 2010/2011 it had 35 employees. Its turnover and balance sheet total remained well below €10 million in both years.[9] 

Restructuring plans

Though not initially communicated to the Commission, both rescue measures were subject to certain restructuring conditions. In principle, these consisted of reducing personnel costs, by introducing new managements, selling players, and signing players free of transfer payments. In the case of Willem II, in the two years following the rescue measure personnel costs were reduced by 30%.[10] The effects of MVV’s restructuring plan were even better, since it managed to book profits for the three seasons following the aid and was scaled in the highest category (III) by the KNVB in the beginning of the season 2011/2012.[11] 

Compensatory measures

For the compensatory measures it is important to take into account point 41 of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines. Under this provision, small enterprises, such as MVV, are not required to take compensatory measures. However, this exception did not apply to Willem II. The Commission noted more expenditure of Willem II for public benefit by the training of amateurs and a reduction of the number of registered players from 31 to 27. Similarly, no transfer payments were made during the restructuring period.[12] Potentially as a result of this, Willem II was relegated to the second league in 2011 and again in 2013. In the end, the Commission concluded that “the compensatory measures required by the Guidelines were taken, which had the effect of weakening Willem II's competitive position in professional football”.[13] 

Aid limited to a minimum

Since the aid measures rescued both football clubs from bankruptcy without creating equity surplus, the Commission believed the amount of aid granted limited to what was necessary. Furthermore, the Commission highlighted that the restructuring plans were to a large extent financed by external contributors just as the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines requested. Private entities had agreed to lend €2.25 million to Willem II for the restructuring, which is well over the 40% of €2.4 million (the total amount of State aid granted) required for medium-sized enterprises under the Guidelines.[14] In the case of MVV, several private creditors decided to waive (part of) their debt, which amounted to €2.25 million. This amount is more than 25% of the €5.8 million granted by the Netherlands, the minimum requirement for a small enterprise like MVV.[15] 

One time, last time

The Commission believes this condition to be fulfilled, as the Netherlands specified that Willem II and MVV did not receive rescue or restructuring aid in the ten years before the aid measures, nor will it award any new rescue or restructuring aid to the clubs during a period of ten years.[16] 

Conclusion

At the time of writing, the non-confidential versions of the positive decisions regarding State aid granted in favour of the Dutch professional football clubs FC Den Bosch and NEC Nijmegen are not published. Nonetheless, this does not prevent us from drawing the following lessons from the Willem II and MVV decisions.

First of all, these decisions show that there is no need to draft sector specific guidelines for State aid to professional football clubs in difficulty. The Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines are all the Commission needs in order to carry out the compatibility assessment. This approach is radically different when compared to the Commission’s decisional practice for the State aid to sport infrastructure cases between 2011 and 2013.[17] Only after the Commission dealt with ten different cases, was its approach (to a large extent) codified in Article 55 of the 2014 General Block Exemption Regulation.[18]

In this regard it is important to highlight that the Commission seems to take into account “the peculiar nature of professional football”[19] when assessing the compatibility of State aid measures under the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines. For example, it showed demonstrated its awareness of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations[20] as well as national (KNVB) licensing rules when assessing the compensatory measures taken by Willem II. Moreover, it clearly endorsed the decision taken by the club not to make transfer payments during the restructuring period, since this prevents the club from spending money it might not have, while simultaneously limiting the club’s competitiveness on the field.

A further lesson that can be drawn from these decisions is that, in my opinion, the threshold to ‘pass the compatibility test’ under the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines is quite low. With regard to the condition that the club needs to be in financial difficulties in order to get the State aid, it is clear that granting State aid to professional football clubs in financial difficulties is one of the most (if not the most) common form of State aid in the sector. This was the case for the five Dutch clubs scrutinized by the Commission, as well as the three clubs from Valencia of which the non-confidential version of the decision still needs to be published. Other clubs like FC Twente and Sporting de Gijón have also received State aid over financial difficulties, even though the Commission did not investigate these measures (yet).[21] In other words, a majority of the cases are assessable under these Guidelines.

The condition that the beneficiary football club needs to stick to a restructuring plan in order to receive the State aid is key. As is elucidated in the two decisions, the restructuring plans consisted of selling players, reducing the costs of wages and not paying transfer fees for new players for a period of three years. In my view, these conditions are rather proportionate when considering that the clubs in question were on the verge of bankruptcy prior to the State aid measures. In fact, one could argue that FIFA’s transfer ban imposed on FC Barcelona for international transfers of minors, or excluding FC Dynamo from the next UEFA club competition for which the club would otherwise qualify in four seasons (i.e. the 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19 seasons) for breaching UEFA’s FFP Regulations,[22] are harsher than the restructuring conditions accepted by the Commission.

The same can be said about the need to take compensatory measures. The measures taken by Willem II (reducing the number of employees and players, and reducing the cost of wages to 48% of the turnover) could be considered a direct consequence of the abovementioned restructuring plans. The only additional compensatory measure taken by Willem II was increasing expenditure of the club for the training of amateurs, though the decision does not specify what this implied in practice.

Perhaps the only condition that could be problematic for some football clubs is the “one time, last time” criterion. Under this condition, the public authorities cannot rescue Willem II and MVV again until at least 2020. Although Willem II and MVV are currently in category III and II on the KNVB’s scale respectively, falling back to category I before 2020 could have dramatic consequences.

Be that as it may, now that the Commission’s approach for the assessment of State aid to professional football clubs in financial difficulties is out in the open, public authorities and football clubs alike should use this knowledge to their own advantage. They should remember that the Commission is willing to accept rescue aid and that the restructuring conditions are far from impossible to match. One can even wonder whether a club like FC Twente would have turned to Doyen when it was facing financial difficulties, if it had been aware of the conditions imposed by the European Commission for receiving compatible State aid under the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines.

[1] Commission Decision on State Aid SA.40168 of 4 July 2016 implemented by the Netherlands in favour of the professional football club Willem II in Tilburg, para. 50.

[2] Commission Decision SA.33584 of 6 March 2013 – The Netherlands Alleged municipal aid to the Professional Dutch football clubs Vitesse, NEC, Willem II, MVV, PSV and FC Den Bosch in 2008-2011, para. 80.

[3] Ibid, para. 77.

[4] SA.40168, para. 45.

[5] Commission Decision on State Aid SA.41612 of 4 July 2016 implemented by the Netherlands in favour of the professional football club MVV in Maastricht, para. 13.

[6] SA.33584, para. 11.

[7] SA.40168, para. 9.

[8] A firm is not considered a small enterprise i fit has more than 50 employees and an annual turnover of more than €10 million. See footnote 27.

[9] SA.41612, para. 9.

[10] SA.40168, para. 48.

[11] SA.41612, para. 52.

[12] SA.40168, para. 51. Indeed, according to www.transfermarkt.de, Willem II only paid a mere €20.000 for the signing of Kevin Brands in July 2012.

[13] Ibid.

[14] SA.40168, para. 52.

[15] SA.41612, para. 54.

[16] SA.40168, para. 55 and SA.41612, para. 61.

[17] Commission Decision of 9 November 2011, SA.31722 – Hungary - Supporting the Hungarian sport sector via tax benefit scheme; Commission Decision of 2 May 2013, SA.33618 Uppsala arena; Commission Decision of 15 May 2013, SA.33728 Multiarena in Copenhagen; Commission Decision of 20 March 2013, SA.35135 Multifunktionsarena der Stadt Erfurt; Commission Decision of 20 March 2013, SA.35440 Multifunktionsarena der Stadt Jena; Commission Decision of 18 December 2013, SA.35501 Financement de la construction et de la renovation des stades pour l’EURO 2016; Commission Decision of 2 October 2013, SA.36105 Fuβballstadion Chemnitz; Commission Decision of 20 November 2013, SA.37109 Football stadiums in Flanders; Commission Decision of 9 April 2014, SA.37342 Regional Stadia Development in Northern Ireland; and Commission Decision of 13 December 2013, SA.37373 Contribution to the renovation of ice arena Thialf in Heerenveen.

[18] For a deeper analysis of whether sport-specific guidelines are necessary, see Oskar van Maren, “EU State Aid Law and Professional Football: A threat or a Blessing?”, European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 15 1/2016, pages 31-46. To find out how sector-specific rules for State aid are usually articulated, see Ben Van Rompuy and Oskar van Maren, “EU Control of State Aid to Professional Sport: Why Now?” In: “The Legacy of Bosman. Revisiting the relationship between EU law and sport”, T.M.C. Asser Press, 2016.

[19] SA.40168, para. 50.

[20] In paragraph 51 of SA.40168, the Commission referred to a UEFA rule, which holds that the cost of salaries should not exceed 70%.

[21] For more information of the precarious financial situation of these two clubs, see our previous blogs: “Unpacking Doyen’s TPO Deals: FC Twente's Game of Maltese Roulette”, and “TPO and Spanish football, friends with(out) benefits?”.

[22] For more information on the FC Dynamo case, see our blog “UEFA’s FFP out in the open: The Dynamo Moscow Case”.