On 1 April 2015, the new FIFA Regulations on Working with Intermediaries (hereinafter referred as the Regulations) came into force. These Regulations introduced a number of changes as regards the division of competences between FIFA and its members, the national associations. A particularly interesting issue from an EU competition law perspective is the amended Article 7 of the Regulations. Under paragraph 3, which regulates the rules on payments to intermediaries (also previously referred to as ‘agents’), it is recommended that the total amount of remuneration per transaction due to intermediaries either being engaged to act on a player’s or club’s behalf should not exceed 3% of the player’s basic gross income for the entire duration of the relevant employment contract. In the case of transactions due to intermediaries who have been engaged to act on a club’s behalf in order to conclude a transfer agreement, the total amount of remuneration is recommended to not exceed 3% of the eventual transfer fee paid in relation to the relevant transfer of the player.

In other words, the new Regulations recommend a benchmark cap on the percentage of remuneration that an intermediary engaged in negotiations with a view to concluding an employment contract or a transfer agreement can receive for his/her service. From the perspective of an antitrust lawyer such a provision immediately rings a bell of a potential distortion of competition. The Association of Football Agents (AFA), the representative body of 500 football agents in England, contends in a complaint to the European Commission that Article 7(3) of the Regulations distorts competition under EU law. In this regard, the present blog post will analyse whether Article 7(3) of the Regulations infringes Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). If so, what would be the possible justifications and which are the requirements that must be fulfilled in the case at hand.

The general rule

To begin with, Article 101(1) of the TFEU stipulates that the following shall be prohibited: “all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of completion within the internal market”.[1] Thus, in order to find an infringement of Article 101(1), it must be established that 1) the FIFA Regulations constitute a decision by an association of undertakings; 2) that Article 7(3) of the Regulations may affect trade between EU Member States; and 3) that Article 7(3) of the Regulations has as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal market.

Decision by an association of undertakings

Even though, the concept of ‘decision by an association of undertakings’ is not defined in the founding treaties of the European Union, this notion has been interpreted broadly by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).[2] In order to determine whether the FIFA Regulations are to be regarded as a decision of an association of undertakings within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU it has to be established that the members of FIFA are undertakings for the purpose of EU competition law and that FIFA constitutes an association of undertakings. In Piau it was settled that “…it is common ground that FIFA’s members are national associations, which are groupings of football clubs for which the practice of football is an economic activity. These football clubs are therefore undertakings within the meaning of Article 81 EC and the national associations grouping them together are associations of undertakings… ”.[3] Therefore, from the judgement of the Court of First Instance (now the General Court) it is plain that FIFA constitutes an association of undertakings within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU. As regards the concept of ‘decision’, the General Court declared that since players’ agents receive a fee on a regular basis for the provision of their service, this constitutes an economic activity which does not fall within the scope of the specific nature of sport as defined by the previous CJEU’s case-law.[4] Moreover, the Regulations adopted by FIFA are binding  on national associations members of FIFA and on clubs, players and their agents and thus those regulations constitute a decision by an association of undertakings within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU.[5] In addition, in a recent case, the CJEU adjudged that even a price recommendation, regardless of its exact legal status, may be regarded as constituting such a decision.[6] Therefore, from the abovementioned it follows that based on the proximity of the legal issues discussed in Piau and the main research question at hand, it is likely that the new FIFA Regulations will be deemed a decision by an association of undertakings for the purpose of Article 101(1) TFEU.

Effect on trade between Member States

According to the Commission guidelines on the effect on trade, it is the agreement or decision that must be capable of affecting trade between Member States. It implies that there must be an impact on cross-border economic activity and that it must be possible to foresee with a sufficient degree of probability that the decision may have direct or indirect, actual or potential influence on trade between EU countries.[7] Since the Regulations at hand bind all members of FIFA, including all 28 EU Member States, and concern intermediaries operating in every EU country, there is undoubtedly a potential effect on trade between Member States. As a result of the provisions under Article 7(3) of the Regulations on Working with Intermediaries, every football player or club’s agent in the EU will be potentially restricted to receive a remuneration under the specified recommended price cap. Therefore, the second condition under Article 101(1) TFEU is also fulfilled.

Object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition

Article 101(1) (a) TFEU lists “…directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices…” as an object by an agreement that constitutes a restriction on competition.[8] Further, the Commission has continuously interpreted recommended pricing as falling under the category of price fixing in the sense of Article 101.[9] In this line of reasoning, the CJEU stated that in order to establish that a recommendation constitutes price-fixing, account must be taken of three factors: 1) the common interest between the members of the association, 2) the nature of the recommendation and 3) the statutes of the association.[10] The same test was later applied also by the Commission in its Fenex Decision.[11] Furthermore, in its Guidelines on the applicability of Article 101 to horizontal co-operation agreements, the Commission has acknowledged that any standard terms containing provisions which influence the prices charged to customers, including recommended prices, would constitute a restriction of competition by object. The General Court has also confirmed that recommended rates may constitute indirectly a pricing system binding its members.[12] Therefore, Article 101(1) (a) TFEU has been interpreted by the Commission and the CJEU as capable of encompassing “recommended prices” under the scope of “price-fixing”.

As regards the content of Article 7(3) of the Regulations, it clearly recommends a 3% benchmark cap on the remuneration an intermediary may claim as a result of his/her service. Firstly, even though the provision recommends the percentage cap, the national football associations are bound to implement the Regulations at the national level and the decision of whether to impose the remuneration cap is ultimately determined by the football clubs and the players.[13] By being able to limit the percentage of the commission that an intermediary can receive for a certain transaction, the relevant participating clubs and football players will have the common interest to secure a bigger ‘piece of the pie’ for themselves. Secondly, the nature of the recommended cap, even though non-binding, is detailed, clear and specific. It also appears in a binding legislative document, which national associations are required to fully implement. Nonetheless, even if they decide not to apply the recommended price cap, clubs and players will still be inevitably influenced by such a recommendation in their business activities.[14] Therefore, indirectly the nature of Article 7(3) encourages national associations to follow the recommended limit on agents’ remuneration. Lastly, the statutes of FIFA (Articles 2, 5, 10 and 13), give the Association the competence to draw up regulations and ensure their enforcement, regulate the transfer of players and oblige its members to fully comply with its regulations. As a consequence, even though the remuneration cap is a recommendation by FIFA it is highly likely that de facto this provision will lead to a coordinated behaviour among clubs and players as regards limiting the maximum payment that an intermediary can receive.

Typically, agents receive between 5-10% of their player’s gross income, so the limit of 3%, if enforced, would be a serious damaging shift for agents from a financial perspective as well.[15] Moreover, Article 7(3) of the Regulations constitutes a measure that could also be detrimental to the players and the quality of service that they receive. Due to the price cap, intermediaries will be discouraged to compete and improve. The goal of players’ having experienced and professional agents, who provide a high quality of services, is to assist and guide athletes in achieving the best possible deal in usually considered short careers.[16] As a result, the benchmark cap enshrined in Article 7(3) has the object of distorting competition on the market of football intermediaries’ services by both limiting the amount of remuneration and by indirectly decreasing the quality of the provided services.

At national level, not only the AFA in the UK has contested the Regulations, but also recently, after a complaint lodged by Rogon Sport Management, the German District Court (Landgericht Frankfurt/Main) suspended the implementation of the national regulation adopted by the German Football Association (DFB) transposing the FIFA’s Regulations. The District Court ruled that the limit on agents’ commissions in player transfers constitutes and unlawful restriction on the right to provide services even though DFB was following the recommendations stipulated by FIFA.

In the alternative, even if a restriction by object cannot be established, Article 7(3) still has the effect of distorting competition under Article 101(1). The criteria establishing whether a decision by an association is restrictive by its effect include defining the relevant market and assessing the possibility to access it, while taking into account existing and new competitors.[17] It must also be appraised whether the decision restricts actual or potential competition that would have existed in its absence.[18] Concerning the present discussion, Article 7(3) of the Regulations applies on the market of football intermediaries’ services in the EU. There will be undoubtedly an effect on the behaviour of existing intermediaries since normally their remuneration has been 5-10% and now it will be capped to 3%. This amendment could have the possible effect of lowering the level of competition on the market, decreasing the quality of the provided services and possibly driving some intermediaries out of business. In the absence of the decision at hand, these effect on competition would be significantly less likely to occur. As a consequence, the decision of FIFA to recommend a restriction on the remuneration of football intermediaries will have the effect of distorting competition.

Therefore, from the abovementioned analysis it follows that the recommended remuneration cap of 3% falls under the scope of Article 101(1) TFEU and constitute a decision by an association which has effect on trade between Member States and which restricts competition within the internal market.

Possible Justification

Although, a restriction within the meaning of Article 101 has been established, it remains to be analysed whether such a restriction may be justified. In Wouters, the CJEU held that not every decision of an association of undertakings which restricts the freedom of action of the parties necessarily falls within Article 101(1).[19] In order to apply this provision, account has to be taken of the overall context in which the decision was taken, its objectives. Subsequently, it has to be considered whether the consequential restrictive effects are inherent in the pursuit of those objectives.[20] In that context, it is important to verify whether the restrictions of competition are limited to what is necessary to ensure the implementation of legitimate objectives.[21] In other words, for a restriction to be justified, there must be a legitimate reason and the restrictive measure has to be necessary and proportionate for the achievement of the legitimate aim.

In Piau, the Regulation of Agents was justified as it aimed “to raise the professional and ethical standards for the occupation of players’ agent in order to protect players, who have a short career”.[22] In this case, the General Court ruled that the Commission did not err in its assessment by deciding that the licence system in place, which imposes qualitative rather than quantitative restrictions, seeks to protect players and clubs and takes into consideration the risks incurred by players in the event of poorly negotiated transfers.[23] Moreover, according to FIFA, the European Commission, EPFL and FIFPro, it is indisputable that the aim of the new Regulations is to enhance financial transparency related to players’ transfers and the protection of minor players. In this regard, even though the Commission or the CJEU has not yet decided upon the legitimacy of Article 7(3), it can be fairly assumed that the percentage cap, aiming to protect the exploitation of football players through enhanced financial transparency, can be considered as a legitimate aim.

Nevertheless, contrary to Piau, which concerned the licensing procedure of an agent, the present Article 7 stipulates a qualitative criterion rather a quantitative one. Furthermore, it is dubious whether such a recommended benchmark is suitable for achieving the legitimate aim of protecting football players. According to some commentators, it is foreseeable that the remuneration cap will lead to underhand, illegal payments so that intermediaries can maintain the level of compensation that they receive. As a result, intermediaries will further the very problem that FIFA intends to resolve by behaving in a manner that completely negates the primary purpose of the regulations. It can thus, lead to agents looking for new inventive ways to secure payment, for instance through higher percentage for work carried out in relation to the player’s commercial rights or signing longer representation contracts, which in turn  can also result in exploiting players. Some other negative effects may be the emergence of more persons involved in player transfers (lawyers, accountants or financial advisors), leading to less legal certainty and more disputes over the question who is liable for a certain transaction. Furthermore, a protection of minor players (Article 7) and ensuring financial transparency (Article 6) are already regulated in other provisions of the Regulations and thus a 3% cap seems to be redundant limitation towards the achievement of those goals.

Instead, other less restrictive possibilities for attaining the protection of football players are available. As proposed by AFA, a model of self-regulation and accreditation of intermediaries can be set up in co-operation with the national football associations.[24] By such a system, clubs and players could ensure themselves that an intermediary is of a particular standard, even though they would have the freedom to conclude a contract with those agents who do not fulfil a binding accreditation standard.[25] Such a system will not only be more preferred than the current FIFA’s Regulations but it will also be compatible with EU competition rules.[26] Other commentators consider that a more efficient option would be for FIFA not to cap agent fees but rather to strengthen existing ‘fit and proper’ enforcement measures to ensure global compliance with those standards. In this way, the fear expressed by FIFPro that “unnecessarily large amount of money disappears from professional football through agents” will be countered by stricter enforcement measures without restricting competition on the market. Another option for FIFA to avoid anti-competitive effects is for example, the publication of historical or survey-based price information by independent parties. Such regular publications might provide more trustworthy price guides reflecting the dynamics of the relevant market, enhance price transparency and at the same time avoid distortion of competition.

In any event, the measure in question appears to go beyond what is necessary. Typically agents receive between 5-10% of the player’s gross income and thus, a 3% recommended cap is seriously damaging the financial interests of intermediaries. Here, it ought to be mentioned that during the consultation process at FIFA’s Executive Committee, which led to the approval of the Regulations, all relevant stakeholders were present (member associations, clubs, FIFPro, professional football leagues, etc.) with the exception of any intermediaries’ representatives. Subsequently, the interests of agents were neglected during the discussion and the outcome was a stronger bargaining power granted to clubs and players in relation to transfers’ negotiations. This imbalance might lead to an asymmetry of information between agents and players and thus, to a distortion of the market. Further, not only is the content of Article 7(3) too strict but it is also too general and broad, encompassing all intermediaries and not foreseeing any exceptional circumstances. There is also no procedure in place, which allows agents to prove their qualifications and loyalty. As a result, even though an intermediary must have an impeccable reputation and is not allowed to charge minor football players, he/she is still presumed to be abusing his/hers powers and there is no mechanism allowing an intermediary to rebut this presumption.

Since, Article 7(3) of the Regulations does not satisfy the broad criteria for justification in Wouters and API, it is highly unlikely that it will pass through the narrow efficiencies test laid down in Article 101(3) TFEU. Hence, this assessment will not be analysed in this blog post.

Therefore, regardless of the fact that Article 7(3) of the Regulations serves a legitimate aim, it is dubious whether this particular measure is suitable for the achievement of the said goal and it is apparent that its restrictive effects go beyond what is necessary.

Conclusion

In this post, the potential negative effects of Article 7(3) of the FIFA Regulations on Working with Intermediaries on EU competition law were considered. It was concluded that pursuant to the Piau case and the Commission’s decisional practice, such a recommendation constitutes a decision of an association of undertakings which is capable of distorting competition within the meaning of Article 101(1). Next, it was analysed whether the legitimate reason of preventing the abusive practices of players’ exploitation can justify the restriction on competition. The author’s view is that a 3% cap on the commission granted to agents is not the most appropriate measure to do so and thus it constitutes a disproportionate restriction on EU competition rules.

[1] Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2012) OJ C326/01 art 101.

[2] Case C-309/99 Wouters and Others [2002] ECR I-1577 para 64; Case C-35/96 Commission v Italy [1998] ECR I-3851 para 60; A recommendation by an Association can also constitute a decision, see Case C 96-82 IAZ v Commission [1983] ECR 3369 paras 20-21.

[3] Case T-193/02 Piau v Commission [2005] ECR II-0209 para 69.

[4] Ibid, para 73.

[5] Case T-193/02 Piau v Commission [2005] ECR II-0209 para 75. See also Case C-45/85 Verband der Sachversicherer v Commission [1987] ECR 405 paras 29-32 and Case C-309/99 Wouters [2002] ECR I-1577 para 71.

[6] Case C-136/12 Consiglio nazionale dei geologi v Autorità garante della concorrenza e del mercato (ECJ 18 July 2013) para 46; See also Case C-45/85 Verband der Sachversicherer v Commission [1987] ECR 405 para 32.

[7] Ibid, paras 19-24.

[8] Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2012) OJ C326/01 art 101(1) (a).

[9] Belgian Architects’ Association [2005] OJ L4/10 paras 3 and 4; Case COMP/37.975 PO/Yamaha [2003] para 141; See also, a tariff recommendation issued by an Association of undertakings was considered to be anticompetitive in Fenex [1996] OJ L181/28 para 74.

[10] Case C-45/85 Verband der Sachversicherer v Commission [1987] ECR 405 paras 29-31.

[11] Fenex [1996] OJ L181/28 para 47.

[12] Joined Cases T-213/95 & T-18/96 Stichting Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf (SCK) and Federatie van Nederlandse Kraanbedrijven (FNK) v Commission [1997] ECR II-1739 paras 159 and 161-164.

[13] See the text of Article 7 of the Regulations.

[14] See Fenex [1996] OJ L181/28 para 73.

[15] UEFA ‘Club Licensing Benchmarking Report 2012’ < http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/02/09/18/26/2091826_DOWNLOAD.pdf> page 54.

[16] Case T-193/02 Piau v Commission [2005] ECR II-0209 para 102.

[17] Case C-234/89 Delimitis [1991] ECR I-0935 paras 14, 16 and 18.

[18] Ibid, para 19 and 21.

[19] Case C-309/99 Wouters and Others [2002] ECR I-1577 para 97.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Joined Cases C-184 to 187, 194, 195 & 208/13 API (CJEU 4 September 2014) para 48; Case C-519/04 P Meca-Medina [2006] ECR I-6991 para 47 and Case C-136/12 Consiglio nazionale dei geologi v Autorità garante della concorrenza e del mercato (ECJ 18 July 2013) para 54.

[22] Case T-193/02 Piau v Commission [2005] ECR II-0209 para 102.

[23] Ibid, para 100.

[24] Nick De Marco, ‘The New FA Football Intermediaries Regulations and the Disputes Likely to Arise’ (Blackstone Chambers, 27 April 2015) pages 13-14.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid.

Doyen (aka Doyen Sports Investment Limited) is nothing short of heroic in its fight against FIFA’s TPO ban. It has (sometimes indirectly through RFC Seraing) attacked the ban in front of the French courts, the Belgium courts, the European Commission and the Court of Arbitration for Sport. This costly, and until now fruitless, legal battle has been chronicled in numerous of our blogs (here and here). It is coordinated by Jean-Louis Dupont, a lawyer who is, to say the least, not afraid of fighting the windmills of sport’s private regulators. Yet, this time around he might have hit the limits of his stubbornness and legal ‘maestria’. As illustrated by the most recent decision of the saga, rendered in March by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in a case opposing the Belgium club RFC Seraing (or Seraing) to FIFA. The arguments in favour of the ban might override those against it. At least this is the view espoused by the CAS, and until tested in front of another court (preferably the CJEU) it will remain an influential one. The French text of the CAS award has just been published and I will take the opportunity of having for once an award in my native language to offer a first assessment of the CAS’s reasoning in the case, especially with regard to its application of EU law.

I.               The facts and procedure of the case

To cut a relatively long story short, RFC Seraing [the variation of the name of the club remains a disturbing mystery in the various proceedings in Belgium and at FIFA] entered a TPO agreement with Doyen on 30 January 2015, stipulating that the club transfers the economic rights of three players to Doyen against a sum of €300.000. At that time the transitory phase of FIFA’s TPO ban enshrined in art. 18ter RSTP was already in force and the FIFA TMS, tasked with monitoring the enforcement of the RSTP, quickly jumped on the matter. The issue was referred to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee, which opened on 2 July 2015 proceedings against RFC Seraing for breaching arts. 18bis and 18ter RSTP. Additionally, on 7 July 2015, Seraing introduced in the TMS a request to recruit a Portuguese player, to which it attached an ERPA (on Doyen’s ERPAs see our blog here) attributing 25% of the economic rights attached to the player to Doyen against a payment of €50 000. A few days after, the FIFA TMS started another investigation into the transfer and on 21 July 2015 the FIFA Disciplinary Committee extended the existing proceedings to also cover this matter.

On 4 September 2015, the Disciplinary Committee rendered its (unpublished) decision finding that ‘FC Seraing’ breached arts. 18bis and 18ter RSTP. Consequently, it banned the club from recruiting players (at national and international level) for the next four transfer windows and handed out a fine of CHF 150.000. Seraing challenged the decision with FIFA’s Appeal Committee, which decided on 7 January 2016 to reject the appeal and confirmed the original decision. Eventually, Seraing appealed this decision to the CAS, leading to the latest award. As a side note, it feels like the disputes involving RFC Seraing (or FC Seraing or Seraing United) are a set-up prompted by Doyen to be able to challenge the validity of art. 18ter RSTP in various jurisdictions. If it were true it should not affect the question of the legality of the ban, but it is probably not of great support to the credibility of some arguments raised by Doyen, or its alter ego Seraing, in these proceedings.

II.             The CAS’ assessment of the compatibility of FIFA’s TPO ban under EU law

As the competence of CAS in this matter was not contested, the key question was against which law(s) should the compatibility of FIFA’s TPO ban be assessed. Due to the history of RFC Seraing’s key lawyer, it is no surprise that much of the award is spent assessing the EU law compatibility of the ban. In the past, as I have argued elsewhere (my CAS and EU law article is accessible for free here, download it now!), the CAS has been rather reluctant to apply EU law rigorously. This case is therefore a great opportunity to assess whether it has raised its standards in this regard.

a.    The applicability of EU law

First, is EU law applicable to the case? The CAS has rarely applied EU law (the exception confirming the rule being the rather old CAS 98/200 case, which was later challenged in front of the EU Commission leading to the ENIC decision), an absurdity 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 (SGBs), even when seated outside of the EU. Additionally, in light of the centrality of the free movement rights in EU integration, it is to be expected that like the EU competition rules they be considered part and parcel of a European public policy with which arbitral awards must comply to be recognized and enforced by national courts in the EU.

Thus, the less spectacular, but probably more important, aspect of the award is the clear affirmation that EU law is applicable because it constitutes a “mandatory provision of foreign law” in the sense of art. 19 of the Swiss Federal Act on Private International Law (PILA).[1] Mandatory provisions of foreign law must be taken into account when three cumulative conditions prevail:

1. Such rules belong to a special category of norms which need to be applied irrspective of the law applicable to the merits of the case;
2. there is a close connection between the subject matter of the dispute and teh territory where the mandatory rules are in force;
3. 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.[2]

In this case, the Panel considers that the three cumulative conditions are fulfilled because:

1. EU competition law and EU provisions on fundamental freedoms are largely regarded as pertaining to the category of mandatory rules by courts and scholars within the EU;
2. the close connections between (a) the territory on which EU competition law  and EU provisions on fundamental freedoms are in force and (b) the subject matter of the dispute results from the fact that the challenge against the legality of the RSTP has an obvious impact on the EU territory. Indeed, the RSTP aims to regulate the activity of football clubs, many of which are European. Furthermore, the particular decision affects the participation of RFC Seraing to competitions taking place on the European soil.
3. Finally, the Swiss legal system shares the interests and values protected by EU law, specifically by the EU competition rules and EU fundamental freedoms.[3]

This is a strong confirmation that EU law (mainly EU free movement rights and EU competition law), which applies almost naturally to decisions and regulations of the SGBs[4], will always be deemed applicable if invoked in front of the CAS to challenge their legality. This, as Seraing has learned in the present instance, does not mean that the SGBs rules will be automatically found incompatible with EU law. Instead, it merely subjects them to a duty of justification and proportionality, which will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.[5] The message for sports lawyers appearing in front of the CAS is then: Work hard on your EU law! But don’t get your hopes up too high… 

b.    The compatibility of FIFA’s TPO ban with EU law

The rest of the CAS award is mainly dedicated to assessing the compatibility of the TPO ban with EU law.[6] In doing so, the CAS, rightly in my view, considered that the conditions regarding the compatibility, or not, of a private regulation of an SGB with the EU free movement rights and competition rules overlap with regard to the key question: the proportionality of the rule.

The legitimacy of the objectives of the TPO ban

The Panel’s assessment focuses firstly, and therefore mainly, on a possible disproportionate restriction of the free movement of capital guaranteed under art. 63 TFEU. The Panel decides to assume, without addressing it, that article 63 applies horizontally. This is still a widely uncharted territory and the CJEU has yet to take a clear stand on it. However, the CAS decided to be better safe than sorry and, thus, followed a maximalist interpretation of the scope of application of the article by applying it horizontally to the rules of FIFA. From the outset, it is uncontested that articles 18bis and 18ter RSTP constitute a restriction to the free movement of capital in the EU.[7] Yet, as emphasized by the Panel, a restriction does not entail an automatic incompatibility with EU law. Instead, the restrictive effect might be justified by a legitimate objective and compatible with EU law if the rule or measure is a proportionate mean to attain that objective. In the present case, FIFA invoked a number of potential legitimate objectives underlying the TPO ban:

• The preservation of the contractual stability;
• The preservation of the independence and autonomy of clubs in the management of their recruitment policy;
• The securing of the integrity of football and preservation of the loyalty and equity of competitions;
• The prevention of conflicts of interests and the securing of transparency in the transfer market.[8]

Those objectives remained uncontested by Seraing and the Panel concluded that they could be deemed legitimate in the sense of the CJEU’s jurisprudence.[9] Instead, Seraing tried to argue that the ‘real’ objective of FIFA in adopting the TPO ban was to ensure that the clubs monopolize the financial streams generated by the transfers of players.[10] Yet, it failed to provide the necessary evidence to convince the Panel, which insisted that “TPO has triggered amongst many commentators and inside the various instances and organisations of football intense worries to which the objectives invoked by FIFA are a response”[11]. Additionally, the Panel considers “that this practice gives way to numerous risks, in particular: risks linked to the opacity of investors escaping the control of football organizations and who are able to freely sell-on their investment; risks of a restriction of the economic freedom and rights of players, through the influencing with a speculative interest of their transfer; risks of conflicts of interests, or even of rigging or manipulation of games, contrary to the integrity of competitions, as the same investor can have TPO deals and multiples clubs involved in the same competition; risks linked to the ethics of sport because the objective pursued by investors is purely a financial and speculative one, to the detriment of sportive and moral considerations”.[12] Hence, the arbitrators buoyed the legitimacy of FIFA’s objectives in adopting the TPO ban.

The proportionality of the ban

The key question is then whether the FIFA ban can be deemed a proportionate means to attain its legitimate objectives. It is at this most crucial stage of the evaluation of the compatibility with EU law that a number of academic commentators have denied the ban’s proportionality.[13] It is the most important part of the award, which will be most likely scrutinized and attacked in follow-up cases in front of national or European courts. It is important to note that SGB regulations have never failed in front of the CJEU because they were lacking a legitimate objective, but rather because they were not considered adequate or necessary to attain their objectives. This stage of the analysis entails political considerations and a comparative analysis of the policy alternatives (and their feasibility) available to tackle a specific problem. In other words, it is not sufficient to claim that you can think in the abstract of a less restrictive alternative, you need to factually demonstrate that this less restrictive alternative is a credible candidate to attain the objective. This is obviously a difficult task for a lawyer. Furthermore, procedural considerations connected to the rulemaking process will come into play. If a sporting rule has been devised via an inclusive legislative procedure and finds broad support amongst the affected actors, then it will in turn be more likely to be deemed proportionate. Instead, if a rule is the result of a secretive, exclusive and authoritarian procedure, then it will be easier to challenge its proportionality. Thus, both substantial (effects-based) and procedural (legitimacy-based) considerations are key to evaluate the proportionality of the TPO ban.

The Panel insists first that the TPO ban has limited effects on the freedom to invest in football. Indeed, it finds that investors are not barred from investing in clubs or to finance specific operations (such as transfers), the ban is devised only to exclude certain types or modalities of investing.[14] On the procedural/legislative side, the Panel notes that the ban has been introduced after a broad consultation and on the basis of numerous, though unpublished, expert reports.[15] This positive assessment of the adoption process could be contested, especially because FIFA did not release the expert reports to the public, which were therefore not subjected to the critical scrutiny of their peers.  Moreover, the Panel takes due note of the relatively long experimentation of a lighter measure (article 18bis RSTP), which has proven inefficient to control the widespread recourse to TPO.[16] The question was then whether Seraing would be able to come up with a credible less restrictive alternative to rein the anarchic use of TPO in football. The Belgian club claimed that FIFA’s legitimate objectives could have been attained through regulation and measures improving transparency (very similar to La Liga’s argument here).[17] Nonetheless, the arbitrators noted that Seraing failed to specify the alternative measures it envisaged.[18] Instead, the Panel sided with FIFA in finding that it lacks the capacity and legal competence to properly police investors which are not subjected contractually to its disciplinary power.[19] In such a context, the Panel finds that the risks of conflicts of interests stemming from TPO contracts cannot be properly controlled by FIFA and the national federations, and the alternative measures proposed by Seraing are bound to fail.[20] Finally, the Panel also referred to the previously existing bans in France, England and Poland, insisting that FIFA was also aiming at harmonizing the rules applicable to the transfer market in Europe to alleviate any potential discrimination.[21] Hence, the arbitrators conclude that the ban is a proportionate restriction to art. 63 TFEU and compatible with EU law. While the Panel doubts that the TPO ban has substantial restrictive effects on the free movement of players and on the freedom to provide services of agents,[22] in any case it refers to its findings under art. 63 TFEU to conclude that it must be held proportionate.[23]

Regarding the compatibility of the ban with EU competition law, Seraing argued that it constitutes an unlawful restriction to free competition under article 101 TFEU and an abuse of a dominant position under article 102 TFEU. The CAS deemed (uncontroversially) FIFA an association of undertaking for the purpose of article 101 TFEU and recognized that the TPO ban affects trade between the Member States.[24] However, the arbitrators emphasized that Seraing bears the burden of proving that the ban constitutes a restriction by object or effect of free competition in the internal market.[25] In that regard, the CAS referred to the CJEU’s analytical framework developed in its Wouters case.[26] It concluded, referring to its previous holdings, that the ban had legitimate objectives and was necessary to attain them, and therefore did not constitute a restriction in the sense of article 101 (1) TFEU. As far as the abuse of a dominant position is concerned, after criticizing the lack of serious economic analysis by the appellant,[27] the Panel simply reiterated its previous findings regarding the legitimate objectives and proportionality of the ban.[28] 

The CAS swiftly rejected all the other arguments raised by Seraing on the basis of the EU’s Fundamental Rights Charter,[29] the European Convention of Human Rights,[30] and Swiss law.[31] Nonetheless, it did held that the sanction imposed on Seraing by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee was too stringent in light of the proportionality principle and reduced Seraing’s transfer ban to three windows and a fine of CHF 150.000.[32]

III.           Conclusion

Doyen lost a new battle and, while the war is still raging on, the controversial company is slowly starting to run out of legal ammunitions to challenge FIFA’s TPO ban. I have explained elsewhere why I believe the ban to be compatible with EU law and many of the arguments of the CAS in this award resonate with my own views.  Yet, though I think banning TPO is a step in the right direction to a healthier transfer market, I also believe that FIFA is artificially sustaining a transfer market that leads to the shadowy financiarization of football brutally exposed in the recent football leaks. In other words, the fact that a challenge against articles 18bis or 18ter fails does not mean that the whole RSTP is compatible with EU law, and for various reasons I believe that the current article 17RSTP is likely to fall foul of the EU internal market rules.[33]

The broader lesson of this TPO saga is that EU law is (at last) becoming a potent tool to challenge SGBs and their rules at the CAS. However, EU law is not blind to the necessary regulatory function they exercised vis-à-vis transnational sporting activities. What EU law targets is the SGBs’ illegitimate, disproportionate, and abusive regulatory behaviour to the detriment of the affected actors. When invoking EU law, sports lawyers must be aware of the need to show concretely the disproportionate nature of the rule or decision challenged. This is a heavy evidentiary burden. In other words, one cannot be satisfied with simply pointing out a restrictive effect, instead an interdisciplinary engagement with the economic and social effects of a regulation as well as with its legislative process is in order.

On a final note, I am truly pleased to see that the CAS is finally taking EU law a bit more seriously. This is a giant step forward, which will protect its awards from challenges in front of national courts, foster its reputation in Europe’s legal communities, and empower it as a counter-power inside the system of the lex sportiva. I urge the CAS to fully embrace this change and to continue to thoroughly assess the EU law compatibility of the sporting rules challenged in front of it. In this regard, it should keep in mind that the more these rules are the result of a deliberative and inclusive (in a way democratic) transnational legislative process, the more they can be deemed legitimate in the eyes of EU law…and vice versa.

[1] TAS 2016/A/4490 RFC Seraing c. FIFA, 9 mars 2017, para. 73 : « La Formation arbitrale considère que le droit de l’Union Européenne (« droit de l’UE »), dont notamment les dispositions des traités en matière de liberté de circulation et de droit de la concurrence, doivent être prises en compte par la Formation arbitrale, dans la mesure où elles constituent des dispositions impératives du droit étranger au sens de l’article 19 de la Loi fédérale sur le droit international privé du 18 Décembre 1987 (« LDIP »).

[2] This English translation is taken from CAS 2016/A/4492 Galatasaray v. UEFA, 23 juin 2016, para. 43.

[3] TAS 2016/A/4490 RFC Seraing c. FIFA, para. 76. The French version reads as follows :

i.       Les dispositions de droit européen, concernant notamment le droit de la concurrence et les libertés de circulation, sont communément considérées comme des règles impératives par les juridictions de l’Union et la doctrine ;

ii.     Les relations étroites entre (a) le territoire sur lequel le droit européen est en vigueur et (b) l’objet du litige, tiennent au fait que la mise en cause de la légalité du RSTJ a un impact évident sur le territoire européen. En effet, le RSTJ vise à réguler l’activité des clubs de football, dont de nombreux clubs européens. De plus, la Décision attaquée affecte notamment la participation du RFC Seraing à des compétitions se déroulant sur le sol européen.

iii.    Enfin, l’ordre juridique suisse partage les intérêts et valeurs protégées par le droit européen et notamment les dispositions de droit européen en matière de droit de la concurrence et de libertés de circulation.

[4] See B. van Rompuy, The role of EU Competition Law in Tackling Abuse of Regulatory Power by Sports Associations. In general, see S. Weatherill, European Sports Law, Asser Press, 2014. For my take on the centrality of EU law to exercise a ‘counter-democratic’ check on the lex sportiva, see my PhD thesis (in French) available here.

[5] See crucially CJEU, Meca Medina, 18 July 2006, ECLI:EU:C:2006:492, para.42.

[6] See TAS 2016/A/4490 RFC Seraing c. FIFA, paras 90-144

[7] Ibid., para.97.

[8] Ibid., para 101. En l'espèce la FIFA invoque plusieurs objectifs poursuivis par les mesures en cause, et qu’il convient de reprendre : la préservation de la stabilité des contrats de joueurs , la garantie de l'indépendance et l'autonomie des clubs et des joueurs en matière de recrutement et de transferts, la sauvegarde de l'intégrité dans le football et du caractère loyal et équitable des compétitions, la prévention de conflits d'intérêts et le maintien de la transparence dans les transactions liées aux transferts de joueurs.

[9] Ibid., paras 102-104.

[10] Ibid., paras 105-106.

[11] Ibid. para. 107.

[12] Ibid., para.108.

[13] See J. Lindholm, Can I please have a slice of Ronaldo? The legality of FIFA’s ban on third-party ownership under European union law and S. Egger, Third-party Ownership of Players’ Economic Rights und Kartellrecht, in K. Vieweg, Inspirationen des Sportrechts, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, 2016, pp.307-331.  

[14] TAS 2016/A/4490 RFC Seraing c. FIFA, paras 109-112

[15] It refers to “une phase significative d’étude, de consultation, de travaux et discussions à laquelle ont participle de nombreux interlocuteurs”, at Ibid., para.113.

[16] Ibid., para.114.

[17] Ibid., para. 116.

[18] Ibid.

[19]“La FIFA ne peut pas contrôler les intérêts de personnes qui ne lui sont pas affiliées, ni les contrats qui sont conclus à l'occasion ou à la suite de transferts par d'autres personnes que les clubs, joueurs et agents et dont la déclaration est obligatoire via le TMS.” Ibid., para.117.

[20] Ibid., para.118.

[21] Ibid., para. 120.

[22] Ibid., paras 125-127.

[23] Ibid., para. 128.

[24] Ibid., para. 135.

[25] Ibid., para. 137.

[26] Ibid., para. 138.

[27] Ibid., para. 142.

[28] Ibid., para. 143.

[29] Ibid., paras 145-148.

[30] Ibid., paras 149-151.

[31] Ibid., paras 152-161.

[32] Ibid., paras 167-179.

[33] On this see R. Parrish, Article 17 of the Fifa Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players : Compatibility with EU Law and G. Pearson, Sporting Justifications under EU Free Movement and Competition Law: The Case of the Football ‘Transfer System’.