Editor’s note: Rhys Lenarduzzi is a final semester Bachelor of Law (LL.B) and Bachelor of Philosophy (B.Phil.) student, 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.

As recently as September 2020, questions were raised in the European Parliament on the non-application of training compensation to women’s football. Whilst this blog will predominantly consider potential inconsistencies in reasoning for and against training compensation in men’s and women’s football, the questions before the Commission were largely on the theme of disrespect and discrimination. Somewhat unfortunately, the questions raised were side-stepped, with Ms Gabriel (Commissioner for Innovation, Research, Culture, Education and Youth) simply stating that: “The TFEU does not give the Commission the competence to interfere in the internal organisation of an independent international organisation such as FIFA.” This might be true in theory, though one might feel some degree of uneasiness if privy to the Commission’s role in the 2001 FIFA regulatory overhaul.

It is currently explicit in the regulations and the commentary, that in women’s football, signing clubs are not required to compensate training clubs for developing players, through the training compensation mechanism that exists in men’s football. Though it is a contentious comment and as will be expanded below, this may not have always been the case.

At Article 20 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), one will find that the principles of training compensation shall not apply to women’s football. Further, in FIFA’s recently released Women’s Football Administrator Handbook (the handbook), it states that disputes relating to training compensation are limited for the moment to male players only.[1]

Regulations on solidarity contributions on the other hand do apply to women’s football, but given transfer fees are not so common, the use of the mechanism is not either. As an indication of how uncommon the activation of the solidarity contribution mechanism in women’s football might be, FIFA reported in the handbook just four claims with the Players’ Status Department in 2016 (three claims involving the same player), and zero since.[2] That is in comparison to hundreds of claims made per season in men’s football, where signing and owing clubs had not fulfilled their obligation to pay the solidarity contribution.

Given the aforementioned, this blog will largely focus on training compensation and how it came to be the case that this mechanism, often presented as critical in the context of men’s football, does not apply in women’s football. To do so, I will first discuss the reasoning advanced in an unpublished CAS award, which one may reasonably suspect played a fundamental role in shaping the current exemption. I will then turn to FIFA’s timely response to the award and the adoption of its Circular No. 1603. Finally, I will point out the disconnect in FIFA’s decision to adopt two radically different approaches to the issue of training compensation in male and female professional football.

1. CAS 2016/A/4598 WFC Spartak Subotica v FC Barcelona

This little-known, David vs. Goliath, Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) award on appeal of a FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) decision, might be what prompted FIFA to make the relevant changes excluding women’s football from the scope of Article 20 RSTP in 2017. Though not a public case, one might reasonably suspect the decision was the nudge that led FIFA to change the regulations and explicitly state that training compensation does not apply to women’s football, given the timing and the fact that this was ultimately a decision that went counter to the internal decision at the DRC.

A significant consideration for the CAS and one which needed to be made clear by the panel, was the distinction between whether training compensation should apply versus does apply. The CAS deemed its task was not to consider the former, regarding the latter it found the Serbian women’s club reasonably interpreted the then applicable RSTP as covering women’s football, given in other places within the same regulations there is a concerted effort to make no discriminatory distinction between the genders, and, the regulations at this stage did not explicitly state that the mechanism did not apply to women’s football.

Consequently, the award provided that FC Barcelona was to pay 2.5 years at the category 1 rate of EUR 90,000, amounting to EUR 225,000 (plus 5% interest and costs) to WFC Spartak Subotica despite numerous attempts from FC Barcelona’s legal team to aver training compensation does not apply to women’s football.

Some of the ill-received arguments were attempts to raise the question of whether training compensation should exist, largely pointing at the commercial differences and size of the game in women’s and men’s football. The panel would not deal with these questions and instead insisted on considering whether it does exist, per the regulations as they were. FC Barcelona attempted a comparative argument with Futsal where the training compensation mechanism does not apply. This was also dismissed and deemed an improper comparison. Not due to the comparison per se however, but rather the panel concluded the point may well go against the respondent, given:

“the fact that FIFA included an express exception of futsal but no equivalent exception of women’s football is at least some indication that it did not intend to exclude women's football.”[3]

The applicant relied heavily on that which was stated at the “General Provisions’ section of the RSTP (2012), namely “Terms referring to natural persons are applicable to both genders.” The tribunal saw the provision as favourable for the applicant and that the burden was with FC Barcelona to show that the RSTP ought to be interpreted another way, by either providing some additional context, history, intention or similar. The respondent was unable to do so and instead relied heavily on the previous DRC decision in its submissions and did not submit much by way of evidence at all. The panel paid particular attention to the lack of evidence given by the respondent and that this case may have looked differently had FIFA accepted an invitation to join, as FIFA may have been able to shed light on how the regulations ought to be interpreted, had they been able to provide the context and intention that FC Barcelona could not.[4]

Ultimately when it came to FC Barcelona’s submissions and the prior decision of the DRC, the CAS was uncomfortable with “a distinct undercurrent of a policy decision that the RSTP should not apply to women's football”[5] when a rigorous interpretation of the RSTP (2012) as it stood then was what was required. Furthermore, the panel landed at “an overall conclusion that the DRC reasons are flawed at various points and did not sufficiently grapple with the arguments for the Appellant.”[6]

2. 2017 amendments and FIFA Circular No. 1603

Though FIFA declined an invite to join the above CAS case,[7] it is in a sense as though the submissions made by FC Barcelona’s legal team were simultaneously on behalf of FIFA, given a heavy reliance on the prior DRC decision and what followed. In what may have appeared a clarificatory exercise at the time, it appears the 2017 amendments announced via FIFA Circular No. 1603 were at least in part a response to the above CAS case.

Within that circular, FIFA announced that the regulations “now explicitly specifies that the principles of training compensation do not apply to women's football.” It made a point that the express amendments pertaining to training compensation now reflect existing DRC jurisprudence and “clarify the always intended meaning”. Whilst that clarity is direct, it may also contain an undertone of frustration in relation to the above CAS case. FIFA were undoubtedly addressing what it perceived as a problem, though it is the following from Circular No. 1603 that might raise more questions than offer solutions: “It should be noted that the existing training compensation formula would act as a deterrent to the movement of female players and consequently stall the development of the women's game.” Sound familiar? This will be expanded upon below.

Finally on training compensation and women’s football and before addressing other issues therein, Circular No. 1603 states that “FIFA administration is working on a specific concept to be applied to the women's game in consultation with the stakeholders, bearing in mind the overall objective to promote and enhance the development of women's (professional) football.” Whilst this is for another blog and for another day, one can reasonably wonder what has been done. Or might it be the case that refraining from more regulation has resulted in more growth in the women’s game?

Noteworthy in hindsight, given the CAS case is and was not public, is that FIFA did not have the pressure it may have otherwise had to explain its regulatory amendments regarding training compensation in women’s football, that were contrary to the CAS decision. Whilst the CAS left the door open for sound arguments to be made against training compensation in women’s football, they found serious flaws in the arguments made by FC Barcelona, as well the reasons given by the DRC in the initial decision. Most notable on this front might be an out-and-out rejection of a comparison with futsal, as well rejecting a general distinction between the men’s and women’s game as being useful.  Despite this, it appears FIFA proceeded to explicitly enshrine in the RSTP that training compensation does not apply, without dealing with the fundamental questions raised but not necessarily answered in the CAS case. It is just interesting to note, that the CAS award that was challenging FIFA’s rationale was coincidentally kept confidential. This might speak for greater (and systematic) transparency with regard to the CAS’ appeal awards.

3. The Incoherence of a Double Standard Between Men’s and Women’s Football

It is certainly true, in a very general sense, that women’s and men’s football are in a different place commercially inter alia. However, as mentioned in my introductory blog, men’s football has since the late 1800s in the form of the ‘retain and transfer’ system, and now with the current mechanisms, had systems that were claimed to be imperative to incentivise training by compensating clubs for developing players (not to mention the growth and survival of the game). So why is the same rationale not applied to women’s football? Might it be reasonable to conclude that women’s football in its current stage of economic development is at an equivalent stage to where men’s football was at some point between then and now, where a system for compensating training clubs and incentivising clubs to develop youth did exist?

In any case, the rationale appears flawed, as comparing men and women’s football in the general sense is not a useful exercise. Just a brief analysis of the gap between the richest and poorest clubs in men’s football exposes it so. Other than the fact both entities are football clubs, what is the same about Real Madrid of Spain and Rèal Comboni of the Central African Republic? What are we to make of a comparison of Olympique Lyonnais Féminin (the most successful women’s football team in history and a commercially successful club and story), and Liberty Professionals F.C. men’s team of the Ghana Premier League (who do not always fill their 2,000 seat stadium)?

At paragraph II. 19 of the prior DRC decision to the above CAS case “the DRC deemed necessary to stress that the award of training compensation for the transfer of female players could possibly even hinder the further development of women’s football and render the previous efforts to have been made in vain”. A near identical claim to that made in the aforementioned FIFA Circular. This may be the case, but isn’t this just an extension of the “hindrance effect” I referred to in my previous blog regarding African players? Though not the exact same flavour of hindrance, as in the case of the African player I was largely referring to the mechanism hindering an individual from being able to transfer freely. In this instance the hindrance might be more macro in that, a growing women’s club may be set back if forced to pay compensation to the training clubs of the players they sign and in turn the women’s game suffers. In any case, the notion that training compensation might act as a deterrent or hindrance being exclusive to women’s football is absurd in theory, and even more so in my experience in practice.

The commercial differences are widely stated and perhaps overstated as reasons why signing clubs ought not or could not pay training compensation in women’s football. Whilst such a claim may at least contain a grain of truth, the commonly used argument overlooks the fact that the cost of developing and training players at grassroots level, that which is the subject of compensation, is often similar within nations and certainly across the genders. In the above CAS case, the only witness and the president of both Spartak Subotica men’s and women’s clubs, Mr Zoran Arcic, stated that the costs were almost identical for men and women and that they were paid approximately the same amounts of monthly salaries or scholarships.[8]

It has been argued that Futsal is comparable in its development with women’s football commercially, and that is why the principles of training compensation apply to neither. At paragraph II.16 of the DRC case prior to the appeal at CAS, it was averred that "the grade of professionalism reached in futsal also lies far behind the one of eleven-a-side men’s football insofar, according to the DRC, the situation may be considered as comparable to the one of the women’s game.” However it has been reported that some futsal players are signing contracts in excess of EUR1 million. How then could one conclude that training compensation regulations should apply to a small men’s club in South America or Africa, or any confederation for that matter, with entire budgets much smaller than individual players’ salaries in futsal or women’s football, when the evidence suggests the commerciality of futsal and the women’s game in size and opportunity trumps many men’s football entities.

In 2019, FIFA initiated a Club Solidarity Fund for the Women’s World Cup, which compensates or rewards clubs that trained and developed players from the age of 12 who participated in the World Cup.[9]  What is one to draw from this positive though peculiar commitment? Are only training clubs that had the fortune of one of their players going on to a world cup, worthy of being compensated? This appears inconsistent with far reaching societal effects training compensation was said to have and why it was deemed justified in the relevant cases, commentary and media. Might it be the clubs that are not able to produce players of a high enough quality to go to a World Cups that need the funding? Further, this fund will not trigger the same alleged incentives to train players that the training compensation mechanism apparently has.

An array of arguments and justifications made for a system that hinders free movement to a considerable degree, though incentivises training, was embraced in the Bernard[10] ruling of the Court of Justice of the EU. So how come women’s football should fall outside of this widely acknowledge necessity to encourage training according to FIFA? Nowhere in Bernard can one find a specific reference to men only when the importance of encouraging training is explored at length. Elsewhere in EU policy documents one finds instead the explicit recognition that “investment in and promotion of training of young talented sportsmen and sportswomen in proper conditions is crucial for a sustainable development of sport at all levels”.[11] Until the CAS award discussed above, FIFA had appeared to argue that such investment only eventuates if a training compensation system is introduced. Hence, this strange double standard between men and women’s football might deserve a much more elaborate explanation than the one put forward by FIFA.[12]

4. Conclusions

If it is the case that training women is the same or similar in cost as training men, and it is that actual cost that the training compensation mechanism is geared towards incentivising clubs to spend on youth and then be compensated for, then one might have difficulty in concluding the principles of training compensation should apply to one and not the other. If it is the case that there is vulnerability of women’s clubs and in turn of the women’s game if they had to pay training compensation, and there exists a myriad of men’s clubs in the same economic predicament, might that say something about the appropriateness of the mechanism more broadly?  Ought a player’s free movement be prioritised simultaneously with the financial viability of mid to low wealth clubs, which raises questions about the suitability of the mechanism across the genders, yet is significantly amplified by its apparent inappropriateness for women's football. 

The identification of the various flaws in the justifications for the regulations is to say nothing of whether the systems ought to exist. Rather, it is to highlight that two sets of contradictory rules are operating within the FIFA regulations and the arguments for the current state of affairs are philosophically and economically flawed.

It appears that the women’s football community has bought into this notion around transfer fees, etc. What is culturally happening then is that clubs are more likely to let a woman follow her dreams and not stand in the way in the form of demanding transfer fees (and cannot in the form of training compensation), as the concept of fees is a relatively foreign one in comparison to the men’s game. This can at first glance appear unfortunate that women’s clubs are not being compensated, but it could just as plausibly be uncovering that the important principles of free movement ought to trump a flawed redistributive system, and that in fact a system of redistribution in football could (and maybe should) be entirely divorced from the transfer system and the movement of players.

[1] FIFA Women’s Football Administrator Handbook 2020, 125.

[2] Ibid, 118.

[3] CAS 2016/A/4598 WFC Spartak Subotica v FC Barcelona at 54.

[4] Ibid at 49.

[5] Ibid at 55.

[6] Ibid at 55.

[7] Ibid at 104.

[8] CAS 2016/A/4598 WFC Spartak Subotica v FC Barcelona at 73.

[9] Women’s Football Administrator Handbook 2020, 151.

[10] Case C-325/08 Olympique Lyonnais SASP v Olivier Bernard and Newcastle UFC, ECLI: EU: C:2010:143

[11] Commission’s White Paper on Sport of 11 July 2007,6.

[12] Consider also at Annex IV to the Conclusions of the French Presidency from the European Council meeting in Nice, where it was said the “training policies for young sportsmen and women are the life blood of sport, national teams and top-level involvement in sport and must be encouraged”

Introduction
On 25 March 2015, the Labour Court of Mainz issued its decision in proceedings brought by a German footballer, Heinz Müller, against his (now former) club 1. FSV Mainz 05 (Mainz 05). The Court sided with the player and ruled that Müller should have been employed by Mainz 05 for an indefinite period following his 2009 three year contract with the club which was subsequently extended in 2011 to run until mid-2014. The judgment was based on national law implementing Directive 1999/70 on fixed-term work[1] (Directive) with the latter being introduced pursuant to art. 155(2) TFEU (ex art. 139(2) TEC). On the basis of this article, European social partners’ may request a framework agreement which they conclude to be implemented on the European Union (EU, Union) level by a Council decision on a proposal from the Commission. One of the objectives of the framework agreement,[2] and therefore of the Directive, was to establish a system to prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships[3] which lies at the heart of the discussed problem.[4] Two clauses enshrined in the framework agreement are of particular relevance to the issue of fixed-term contracts in football, namely, clause 2 which governs the Directive’s scope of application, and clause 5 which concerns measures to prevent abuse. The main questions in this regard are therefore whether fixed-term contracts in football may escape the application of the Directive based on clause 2, or be compatible with it pursuant to clause 5. The present blog post presenting the general European framework for fixed-term contract, will be followed by an in depth case note on the decision in the Müller case.

I. Employment contracts in football and the scope of application of the Directive (clause 2)
The second paragraph of clause 2 names specific types of employment relationships which the Member States, after consultation with social partners, and/or social partners may exclude from the scope of application of the Directive. Clause 2(2) does not contain any explicit provisions which would allow for the possibility of football players’ contracts to be excluded from the scope of the Directive. Also, the wording of the provision indicates that the list of the employment relationships covered by the exception is exhaustive,[5] which in turn precludes the possibility of interpreting the clause in a manner which would accommodate contracts between football clubs and their players.

Clause 2(1), on the other hand, provides that the Directive ‘applies to fixed-term workers who have an employment contract or employment relationship as defined in law, collective agreements or practice in each Member State’. As a result, the definition of ‘worker’ for the purpose of the Directive has no autonomous meaning, but is subject to the national laws of the Member States.[6] Therefore, the manner in which the framework agreement has been drafted opens the possibility for the Member States to exclude some categories of workers from the scope of application of the Directive. It follows, that based on the pure wording of clause 2(1) national authorities could theoretically deprive, inter alia, football players of the protection granted under the Directive by merely classifying them as e.g. service providers.

Despite the autonomy granted to national authorities in this regard, clause 2(1) may not be understood as providing the Member States with unlimited discretion. Recital 17 of the Directive’s preamble clearly states that the Member States are to define some of the terms included in the framework agreement ‘provided that the definitions in question respect [its content].’ Moreover, art. 2 of the Directive stipulates that ‘the Member states are […] required to take any necessary measures to enable them […] to guarantee the results imposed by [the] Directive.’[7] The flexibility granted to national authorities is further limited by the need to ensure the effective implementation of EU-derived rights. The Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU, Court) rulings set the limits to the Member States’ discretion in the implementation of clause 2(1). In this regard, the CJEU ruled in Del Cerro[8] that the Directive is applicable to ‘all workers providing remunerated services in the context of a fixed-term employment relationship linking them to their employer.’[9] The Court also stated that ‘in reserving to Member States the ability to remove at will certain categories of persons from the protection offered by [the Directive] and the [framework agreement], the effectiveness of those Community instruments would be in jeopardy as would their uniform application in the Member States.’[10] Also, in the opinion of Advocate General (AG) Maduro the concept of ‘worker’ for the purpose of the Directive must be interpreted in a way which complies with its objectives.[11]  According to the AG, the Member States should not be allowed to rely on the ‘formal’ or ‘special’ nature of the rules applicable to certain employment relationships in order to exclude them from the scope of application of the Directive.[12] Consequently, excluding a specific group from the benefit of protection afforded by the Directive can only be accepted if the competent national court decides that the nature of the employment relationship concerned is ‘substantially different from that between employees falling, according to national law, within the category of workers’.[13]

A similar reasoning to the one used in Del Cerro has been applied in Sibilio[14] where the Court, relying on recital 17 and the need to preserve the Directive’s effectiveness, ruled that in the light of the objectives pursued by the framework agreement the formal classification by the national legislature cannot rule out that a person must be recognized as a ‘worker’ if such a formality is merely notional, and thus conceals the real employment relationship.[15] Therefore, in determining what constitutes an employment contract or employment relationship under national law or practice, and thus when determining the scope of application of the Directive, the definition of these concepts may not result in an arbitrary exclusion of a category of persons from the protection offered by the Directive.[16] The CJEU leaves it for the national courts to conclude whether a person falls within the definition of a ‘worker’ based on the characteristics of the work conducted and the circumstances in which it is carried out.[17] Moreover, in Fiamingo[18] and Mascolo[19] the CJEU later confirmed that no particular sector is excluded from the scope of application of the Directive.[20]

Even though the issue of who is to be considered as a ‘worker’ pursuant to the Directive does not fall within the competence of the EU, and thus, the definition established for the purpose of the internal market provisions may not be directly applied in the context of the Directive, the autonomous Union concept of ‘worker’ and the case-law of the CJEU provide guidelines and support for the national courts of the Member State. In this regard, the CJEU stated in Lawrie-Blum[21] that ‘the essential feature of an employment relationship […] is that for a certain period of time a person performs services for and under the direction of another person in return for which he receives remuneration.’[22] The Court elaborated on the matter in Trojani[23] where it ruled that ‘any person who pursues activities which are real and genuine, to the exclusion of activities on such a small scale as to be regarded as purely marginal and ancillary, must be regarded as a worker’.[24] It cannot be denied that footballers meet the criteria set out in the case-law. The activity they pursue is genuine, they conduct their work under supervision of others, namely clubs and coaches, and receive, often hefty, remuneration.[25] It is also important to add here that already in Bosman[26] the CJEU provided, first, that the existence of, or the intention to create, an employment relationship is the only requirement necessary for the purposes of the application of EU provisions concerning the free movement of workers, and second, that football players could be regarded as workers for the purpose of (now) art. 45 TFEU.[27] This particular finding has been directly confirmed in Olympique Lyonnais.[28] It is not precluded that such considerations should influence national courts in their findings concerning ‘characteristics’ and ‘circumstances’ of the activity exercised by football players should a question in this regard arise. As a result, it seems unlikely that contracts between footballers and their clubs could fall outside the scope of the Directive.

II. Employment contracts in football and measures to prevent abuse (clause 5)
Due to the fact that the social partners considered that contracts for an indefinite period are the general form of employment,[29] the Directive sets out specific measures which serve to secure one of the Directive’s main goals, i.e. prevention of abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts. In this regard, and pursuant to clause 5, the Member States after consultation with social partners, and/or the social partners, are obliged to establish at least one of the measures provided, i.e., i) objective reasons justifying renewal of fixed-term contracts or relationships; ii) the maximum total duration of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships; iii) the number of renewals of such contracts or relationships. This particular obligation exists when there are no equivalent legal measures already in place in the national legal orders. Moreover, in establishing the measures the national authorities are to take into account the needs of specific sectors and/or categories of workers. Since the objective reasons justification is the only measure which could facilitate the maintenance of the current status quo relating to fixed-term contracts in football, it is necessary to focus on this particular provisions.

A. Interpretation of ‘objective reasons’ justification in the CJEU’s case-law
The CJEU has had a chance to rule on the interpretation of clause 5 ‘objective reasons’ on a number of occasions. Consequently, for the purpose of relying on the justification the employer not only needs to be eligible to invoke ‘objective reasons’ defence as provided for under national law, but also the national implementing measure needs to comply with the conditions established in the Court’s case-law. In this regard, the CJEU ruled in Adeneler[30] that the concept of ‘objective reasons’ refers to ‘precise and concrete circumstances characterising a given activity, which are therefore capable in that particular context of justifying the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts.’[31] The Court further elaborated on the matter by providing that ‘[those] circumstances may result, in particular, from the specific nature of the tasks for the performance of which such contracts have been concluded and from the inherent characteristics of those tasks […].’[32] As a result, national provisions may not be of a purely formal nature, but must justify recourse to successive fixed-term contracts ‘by the presence of objective factors relating to the particular features of the activity concerned and to the conditions under which it is carried out […].’[33] Thus, ‘a national provision which merely authorises recourse to successive fixed-term employment contracts in a general and abstract manner […]’[34] does not fulfil the criteria. In this regard, the Court added that ‘recourse to fixed-term employment contracts solely on the basis of a general provision of statute or secondary legislation, unlinked to what the activity in question specifically comprises, does not permit objective and transparent criteria to be identified in order to verify whether the renewal of such contracts actually responds to a genuine need, is appropriate for achieving the objective pursued and is necessary for that purpose’.[35] Moreover, the CJEU also indicated that national laws which allow for the use of successive fixed-term contracts in the context of employers’ needs which are not of a limited duration, and thus temporary, but de facto ‘fixed and permanent’ will not be compatible with the Directive.[36] The above-mentioned findings of the Court have been confirmed in a number of judgments such as Angelidaki[37]. This case concerned individuals who claimed that their fixed-term contracts with the local authorities, which the latter decided not to extended or renew upon their expiry, should have been recognized as contracts of indefinite period as the work performed was of a ‘fixed and permanent’ nature. Reliance on the criteria provided by the CJEU in Adeneler is also evident in Mascolo in which the Court addressed the issue of compatibility with the Directive of Italian national law on the basis of which teachers recruited in schools administered by public authorities and working as temporary replacement staff were employed under successive fixed-term contracts. A similar issue to the one in Mascolo emerged in Kücük[38] which concerned a clerk in the court office who was employed on a number of successive fixed-term contracts as a replacement for several permanent employees due to temporary leave having been granted to the clerks employed for an indefinite duration. Here again the CJEU referred to the established case-law and clarified that temporary needs of employers also cover the need for replacing employees on leave even in situations where the tasks assigned to fixed-term worker are part of the undertaking’s usual activities.[39] This was the result of the need for replacement staff being of a temporary nature.[40] As the social partners themselves indicated that ‘fixed-term contracts are a feature of employment in certain sectors, occupations and activities which can suit both employers and workers’[41] it is thus necessary to evaluate whether objective reasons for the justification of fixed-term contracts in football might be identified.

B. Existence of ‘objective reasons’ justifying fixed-term contracts in football
With regard to the above, it can be argued that the specific circumstances inherent to the exercise of football as a profession are susceptible to justify the successive use of fixed-term employment contracts. In that respect, uncertainty as to players’ performance has always been an inseparable element of not only football but sports in general. No matter what level of performance a player displays over a particular span of time, it can never be excluded, rather it can be expected with certainty, that a (significant) drop in performance will take place. This concerns especially ‘older’ players, i.e. those in their thirties. It is common knowledge that after reaching a certain age athletes’ physical condition deteriorates, thus making it impossible for them to maintain a steady level of performance, and thus, to contribute to the combined efforts of the team they represent. Furthermore, FIFA transfer rules limit players’ possibility of terminating contracts. Art. 14 of the 2015 Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players allows for termination to take place where a just cause exists. In this respect, introduction of contracts for indefinite period could open the possibility for players to rely on statutory termination periods in order to dissolve contracts, and thus, to become free agents. Consequently, football clubs, and especially those which focus on youth development, could be deprived of a substantial part of their income from transfer fees. This in turn could, first, limit the incentives for training young players, and second, would make it even easier for the richer clubs to acquire talents with negative consequences on competitive balance in football. Moreover, provision 43.02 of the Regulations of the UEFA Champions League 2015-18 Cycle provides that clubs may only register 25 players for the purpose of playing in the competition. Forcing clubs to sign players on indefinite contracts, combined with a limit placed on the amount of footballers that can be registered, will make it even more challenging for youngsters to enter the first team. Furthermore, as it is usually more difficult for the employer to terminate a contract, football clubs could be (indirectly) forced to keep those footballers who no longer fit the team’s tactics or club’s policy (e.g. focus on youth). In this respect, establishing contracts for an indefinite period as the industry’s standard could again negatively influence the chances of young players signing a contract. Furthermore, clubs need to be able to adjust their squads and establish stable teams in order to effectively compete on both national and international levels, and to retain, attract and satisfy their supporters. In our view, fixed-term contracts, by their very nature, are therefore better suited to address the specific characteristics of football as a sport, and as an industry.

C. Possible obstacles to the application of ‘objective reasons’ justification to contracts in football
Nevertheless, even if it is accepted that successive fixed-term contracts between footballers and their clubs may be justified based on objective reasons, it still remains that the justification does not necessarily apply. First, the Member States are free to choose between the clause 5 measures. Consequently, the very possibility of relying on objective reasons depends on the manner in which the Directive has been implemented by the Member States.[42] Second, national implementing measures must comply with the requirements established by the CJEU. Therefore, the Member States that chose to make use of the objective reasons justification are obliged to establish objective factors on the basis of which the application of the justification will be assessed. A general provision of a purely formal nature which does not provide for such objective factors will not be deemed compatible with EU law. In this regard, the criteria or factors established under national law must be capable of being applied to contracts in football. Consequently, national law implementing clause 5 objective reasons needs to be drafted in a manner which allows football contracts to be considered for the purpose of applying the justification, which might be problematic given the fact that the issue has been largely neglected. Third, it has also been established by the CJEU that national laws which allow for the use of successive fixed-term contracts in the context of employers’ needs which are ‘fixed and permanent’ will not be compatible with the Directive. It would go contrary to the objectives pursued by clause 5, i.e. prevention of abuse arising out of successive fixed-term contracts, to allow renewal of such contracts to cover ‘fixed and permanent’ needs of employers.[43] Therefore, if the ‘needs’ of football clubs are considered to be of such a ‘fixed and permanent’ character, and it may be argued that they are, then reliance on the justification would also be endangered.

Concluding remarks
The ruling of the Mainz court questioned, at least in Germany, the current arrangements whereby contracts for a definite period have been established as the industry’s worldwide standard.[44] Consequently, it cannot be excluded that the judgment will once again feed the never-ending discussion on the impact of European law on sport, the debate on the notion of specificity of sport, and more generally, the boundaries between the European Union’s intervention in sport and the autonomy of sports governing bodies. It is safe to assume that considerable controversies will arise in case the decision of the court in Mainz is upheld at higher instances. This, however, will not be the making of the courts, but to a large extent the result of the issue being neglected for years. After all, the Directive was adopted already sixteen years ago and contains no provisions allowing sport to be exempted from its scope. It follows that based on its wording it must also apply to contracts concluded between footballers and clubs. Even though it is possible to justify the successive use of fixed-term contracts on the basis of objective reasons, this depends on the national implementing measures, which do not necessarily provide for such a possibility or are fit to accommodate football contracts.

[1] Council Directive 1999/70/EC concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP [1999] OJ L 175/43 (Directive)

[2] Annex to the Directive, ETUC-UNICE-CEEP Framework Agreement on Fixed-Term Work (Framework Agreement)

[3] Framework Agreement, recital 14 and clause 1

[4] Clause 1 of the Framework Agreement also mentions a second goal, namely, the improvement of quality of fixed-term work by ensuring the application of the principle of non-discrimination. In this regard, Recital 9 of the Framework Agreement adds that the instrument is to contribute to the improvement of equality of opportunities between men and women

[5] Philippa Watson, EU Social and Employment Law (2^nd edn, Oxford University Press 2014) p 241; see also case C-212/04 Konstantinos Adeneler en anderen tegen Ellinikos Organismos Galaktos (ELOG) [2006] ECR I-6057 (Adeneler), para 57

[6] However, the definition of what constitutes a fixed-term employment has an EU definition. See Directive, clause 3(1)

[7] See also art. 288 TFEU; Adeneler, para 68

[8] Case C-307/05 Yolanda Del Cerro Alonso v Osakidetza-Servicio Vasco de Salud [2007] ECR I-7109 (Del Cerro)

[9] Ibidem, para 28

[10] Ibidem, para 29

[11] Del Cerro, Opinion of AG Maduro, para 14

[12] Ibidem, para 15

[13] Ibidem; see also case C-393/10 Dermod Patrick O’Brien v Ministry of Justice [2012] published in the electronic Reports of cases (O’Brien), para 51

[14] Case C-157/11 Giuseppe Sibilio v Comune di Afragola [2012] published in the electronic Reports of cases (Sibilio)

[15] Ibidem, para 49

[16] Ibidem, para 51; see also O’Brien, para 51

[17] Sibilio, para 52

[18] Joined cases C-362/13 REC, C-363/13 REC and C-407/13 REC Maurizio Fiamingo, Leonardo Zappalà and Francesco Rotondo and Others v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA [2014] not yet published (Fiamingo)

[19] Joined cases C-22/13, C-61/13 to C-63/13 and C-418/13 Raffaella Mascolo, Alba Forni and Immacolata Racca v Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Università e della Ricerca, Fortuna Russo v Comune di Napoli and Carla Napolitano and Others v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca [2014] not yet published (Mascolo)

[20] Fiamingo, para 38; Mascolo, para 69

[21] Case C-66/85 Deborah Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Württemberg [1986] ECR 2121

[22] Ibidem, para 17

[23] Case C-456/02 Michel Trojani v Centre public d'aide sociale de Bruxelles (CPAS) [2004] ECR I-7573

[24] Ibidem, para 15

[25] For a more detailed discussion see Stefaan Van den Bogaert, Practical Regulation of the Mobility of Sportsmen in the EU Post Bosman (Kluwer Law International, The Hague 2005) pp 57-59

[26] 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-4921

[27] Ibidem, paras 74, 87, 90

[28] Case C-325/08 Olympique Lyonnais SASP v Olivier Bernard and Newcastle UFC [2010] ECR I-2177 (Olympique Lyonnais), para 29; Olympique Lyonnais, Opinion of AG Sharpston, para 38

[29] Framework Agreement, recital 6; see also Adeneler, para 61

[30] See supra note 5

[31] Ibidem, para 69

[32] Ibidem, para 70

[33] Ibidem, para 72

[34] Ibidem, para 71

[35] Ibidem, para 74

[36] Ibidem, para 88

[37] Joined cases C-378/07 to C-380/07 Kiriaki Angelidaki and Others v Organismos Nomarchiakis Autodioikisis Rethymnis, Charikleia Giannoudi v Dimos Geropotamou and Georgios Karabousanos and Sofoklis Michopoulos v Dimos Geropotamou [2009] ECR I-3071 (Angelidaki)

[38] Case C-586/10 Bianca Kücük v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen [2012] published in the electronic Reports of cases

[39] Ibidem, para 38

[40] Ibidem

[41] Framework Agreement, recital 8

[42] See e.g. Fiamingo, para 61

[43] See e.g. Angelidaki, para 103; Angelidaki, Opinion of AG Kokott, paras 106-107;

[44] In this regard art. 18(2) of 2015 FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players stipulates that ‘[t]he minimum length of a contract shall be from its effective date until the end of the season, while the maximum length of a contract shall be five years. Contracts of any other length shall only be permitted if consistent with national laws’