Football intermediaries, or agents, are again under attack in the news. For some, corrupt behaviour has become endemic in football’s culture. It is always dangerous to scapegoat a whole profession or a group of people. Many intermediaries are trying their best to lawfully defend the interests of their clients, but some are not. The key focus should be on providing an adequate legal and administrative framework to limit the opportunities for corrupt behaviour in the profession. This is easier said than done, however. We are dealing with an intrinsically transnationalized business, often conducted by intermediaries who are not subjected to the disciplinary power of federations. Sports governing bodies are lacking the police power and human resources necessary to force the intermediaries to abide by their private standards. In this context, this blog aims to review a recent case in front of the regional court of Frankfurt in Germany, which highlights the legal challenges facing (and leeway available to) national federations when regulating the profession.

Since April 2015, the FIFA Regulations on Working with Intermediaries (“Intermediaries Regulations”) entered into force. They replaced the 2008 FIFA Players’ Agents Regulation and introduced dramatic changes to the regulation of players’ agents (for a quick introduction read our short guide here). Although seeing its first light on April Fools’ Day, the Intermediaries Regulations are not to be taken lightly. On the contrary, the new rules constitute a major turning point in the governance of player and club representation. Furthermore, the question of the compatibility of the Intermediaries Regulations with EU competition law promptly arose when the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (LG) had to rule on a challenge to the Reglement für Spielervermittlung (DFB-regulations), the national measure implementing the FIFA Regulations issued by the German Football Federation (DFB, Deutschen Fußball Bund). In its injunction of 29 April 2015 the LG found some provisions of the DFB-regulations to be contrary to Article 101 TFEU (see our earlier blog). This decision was appealed by both parties to the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (OLG), which rendered its ruling on 2 February 2016. This blog aims to analyse the decision of the OLG, while also putting it into its wider legal and social context.

I.              Back to the future: The Piau case revived

It is not the first time that the regulation of football agents/intermediaries by football federations and EU law are colliding. The previous Piau saga that started on 23 March 1998 with a complaint to the European Commission by a French agent, Laurent Piau, ended only very recently in front of the French Courts with a painful defeat for Mr. Piau. In the framework of that case, the then Court of First Instance of the EC (CFI) issued a ruling on the compatibility of the FIFA Agents Regulations with EU competition law, on appeal against the Commission’s decision to reject the complaint by Laurent Piau. In that decision, the CFI famously showed its surprise to see a private association engaging in regulatory activity without an express delegation of public power. In the words of the Tribunal, “the rule-making power claimed by a private organisation like FIFA, whose main statutory purpose is to promote football, is indeed open to question”.[1] Indeed, “[i]n principle, such regulation, which constitutes policing of an economic activity and touches on fundamental freedoms, falls within the competence of the public authorities”.[2] Yet, as many know, the world of football is special and in practice national states have very much relinquish regulatory control over it.

The CFI was pragmatic enough to recognize this unusual state of affairs. In fact, this peculiarity also enabled it to consider that the FIFA regulations, issued by a private organization, could not escape the scope of EU competition law.[3] Yet, in fine, the CFI endorsed the compatibility of the FIFA regulations with EU Competition law. It considered first that the European Commission (EC) was right in holding that it obtained the repeal of the most restrictive provisions contained in the original FIFA regulations.[4] Furthermore, the CFI supported the EC’s view that the compulsory nature of the FIFA licensing mechanism could be justified under the framework of then Article 81(3) EC [now 101(3)TFEU]. It stated that the “Commission did not commit a manifest error of assessment by considering that the restrictions stemming from the compulsory nature of the licence might benefit from an exemption on the basis of Article 81(3) EC”.[5] Finally, the CFI affirmed the applicability of Article 82 EC [now 102 TFEU] to the FIFA regulations, but concluded that “it follows from the above considerations regarding the amended regulations and the possible exemption under Article 81(3) EC that such an abuse [of a dominant position] has not been established”.[6]

Thus, based on the framework of analysis used in Piau, there is absolutely no doubt that EU competition law is applicable to the DFB-regulations (and analogically to all the other national regulations implementing the new FIFA Intermediaries Regulations).[7] The key question, however, is whether the restrictive effect on competition of those new rules can be justified. Such a justificatory framework of analysis is also broadly in line with the CJEU’s case law on competition law and sport, and in particular its Meca-Medina ruling.[8] The question of the legitimate objectives and proportionality of the new rules was rightly identified by the LG and OLG as the defining one to assess rule-by-rule the legality of the DFB’s regulations.

II.            The OLG Frankfurt and the Compatibility of the DFB regulations with EU Competition Law

The OLG’s ruling bears no clear winner or loser, as both parties can claim to have prevailed on parts of their claims. In its decision the Court clearly outlined a set of provisions that it deemed compatible with EU law, and another contrary to it. In any event, this case is again a good reminder that EU law is no golden bullet against the regulations of the Sports Governing Bodies (SGBs). Instead, their compatibility with EU law must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, bearing in mind their contexts and objectives. Nevertheless, EU law can be invoked to challenge the rationality of the SGBs’ regulations and to check any disproportionate encroachment on the economic freedom of the affected actors.

A.    The DFB rules incompatible with EU Law

In the present case, the DFB’s regulations for intermediaries faced a relatively detailed quasi-constitutional control by the OLG. The German court found that parts of the regulatory options adopted by the German federation are disproportionate to attain their objectives and therefore contrary to Article 101 TFEU. This is especially true of the rule forcing intermediaries to abide by the rules and jurisdictions of the DFB, UEFA and FIFA, and of the rule imposing a duty to provide an extended certificate of good conduct usually reserved for professions involving a risk to the integrity of minors.

In line with the decision in first instance, the OLG ruled against the provision requiring intermediaries to submit to the jurisdictions of FIFA, UEFA, DFB and its members in connection with all violations of their regulations and statutes (see point 1 of DFB Vermittlererklärung für natürliche Personen – Anhang 1, and a related notice later issued by the DFB).^[9] In the OLG’s view, it would result in an impossible situation for intermediaries, as they would be required to have a ‘reasonable’ knowledge of, at least, 35 different association statutes and face being subjected to 30 different jurisdictions.^[10] The court puts forward that it is necessary, as a prerequisite for the submission of non-members to the rules of an association and its jurisdiction, to be able, at any time to take knowledge, in a reasonable manner, of the content of the regulations, compliance mechanisms and sanctions. This possibility was not warranted in the present case. In other words, if the DFB wishes to subject intermediaries to its jurisdiction it is possible, but it would need to clearly define what such a submission would entail in terms both of the rules and procedures that would be applicable. In fact, as recognized by the European Parliament,[11] some type of disciplinary control by the national federations over the intermediaries is necessary to give some teeth to their regulations.

Furthermore, the OLG also rules that agents cannot be forced to submit an extended certificate of good conduct (erweiterten Führungszeugnisses).^[12] The OLG agrees with the appellant that this duty is impossible to fulfil as under German criminal law, such certificate can be issued only for occupations suitable to establish/result in contacts with children and young people. Yet, such a contact with minors is not at the heart of an intermediary’s profession, especially that, as we will see below, intermediaries cannot derive any financial compensation for a transfer or employment contract involving a minor, it seems thus impossible for he or she to obtain the requisite certificate.^[13]

The OLG has clearly drawn a line in the sand. There is a limit to the obligations the DFB can impose, they must be rationally possible to fulfil and connected to the objectives pursued and must not be unreasonably burdensome for the intermediaries.

B.    The DFB rules compatible with EU Law

The judgment is rather remarkable for what it considers proportionate regulation by the DFB.

First, it endorses, contrary to the LG, the proportionality of the ban on intermediary fees for transfers or contracts involving minors.[14] This ban was a very controversial part of the new FIFA regulations, as it was deemed extremely restrictive of the economic freedom of intermediaries and potentially counter-productive. [15] However, in the view of the OLG, article 7.7 of the DFB-regulations pursues a legitimate objective: the protection of minors (der Minderjährigenschutz).[16] It aims, more specifically, to prevent the transfer of underage players based solely on the economic interests of the intermediary and/or that underage players are taken to Germany without a stable employment perspective.[17] Moreover, the OLG deems this prohibition to be necessary as the other legal protections for minors provided by the German civil code are often inapplicable.[18] Finally, the court considers this prohibition to be proportionate. First, because intermediaries are not barred from being remunerated for advising minors when this advice is not requested in the framework of the conclusion of an employment contract or a transfer. Furthermore, the OLG notes that similar measures have been adopted in all other European countries and is supportive of a uniform approach to the regulation of the role of intermediaries in transfers of minors.[19] Overall, this is not a surprising assessment. The need to combat human trafficking and to fight abuses linked to transfers of minors have been repeatedly emphasised by the European institutions in their soft law.[20] Recently, the European Parliament underlined ‘the specific vulnerability of young players and the risk of them becoming victims of human trafficking’[21]. Only time will tell whether this type of draconian measure will rein such abuses. In any event, if reducing the economic incentives of intermediaries linked to transfers of minors will most probably restrict their economic opportunities, it is also likely to diminish the connected incentives for human trafficking in football.[22]

Furthermore, the OLG’s judgment also endorses the transparency requirements imposed by the DFB. More precisely, it deemed the obligation for clubs and players to disclose the contract details covering remuneration and payments to intermediaries’ enshrined in article 6.1 DFB-regulations compatible with EU competition law.[23] The legitimate aim pursued is the transparency and traceability of the market for intermediaries. Behind this objective, lies the idea that player transfers should be primarily based on sporting, rather than financial reasons. Consequently, it deems that an obligation to disclose payments connected to intermediation is necessarily linked to the attainment of this goal. This duty to disclose is also considered proportionate. For the OLG, it does not run counter the German data protection rules, nor does it constitute a disproportionate infringement in the commercial operations of an intermediary. When balancing the interest of the intermediary to keep the financial flows secret and the interest of the DFB in unveiling these flows, the OLG finds that transparency aimed at limiting the external influence of intermediaries on transfers should prevail.^[24] In the eyes of the court, the DFB has concretely demonstrated that the negotiation of transfers is linked with important fees (erheblichen Zahlungen), which are liable to trigger a transfer of a player for economic reasons, rather than sporting ones. This, the OLG argues, runs counter to the ideal of fair sporting competitions. ^[25] In general, striving for greater transparency/publicity in the intermediary market is at the heart of the regulatory shift intended by the new FIFA regulations.[26] In fact, a recent report by two Harvard based scholars argues that the lack of transparency in the transfer market is one of the main causes for money laundering and corruption in football.[27] This is reinforced by the concentration of the market for intermediaries, with a group of happy few constituting an oligopoly.[28] Besides, due to the inherently transnational operation of the market, it is extremely difficult to monitor for national authorities. Intermediaries rely on complex contractual structures (many of them have been recently exposed on the footballleaks website), juggling with national laws and arbitration clauses to reduce both their taxes and regulatory oversight. Though the transparency requirements imposed by the DFB are extremely limited (a first rough synthesis for 2015 is available here) and way bolder proposals must be put on the table,[29] this is an important step in the right direction. This quest for transparency and openness around the financial flows involving intermediaries is very much “applauded” by the European parliament.[30] In fact, if supporters and citizens, who are often in fine called to financial rescue when an overspending club is ailing, are expected to exercise a public check over the over-optimistic (and sometimes corrupt) management of clubs and the correlated extravagant fees paid to intermediaries, they must be able to rely on trustful data to conduct such a critical assessment.

Finally, and this is most interesting in light of the on-going legal battle over FIFA’s third-party ownership ban, the OLG, confirming the LG’s assessment, also recognized the legitimacy of the DFB’s ban on an intermediary having an interest in future transfer compensations.[31] Its legitimate purpose is to rein the disproportionate influence, based on personal financial incentives, of intermediaries on a player’s transfers.[32] The OLG seems to follow the LG’s view that the potentiality of obtaining a share of future transfer fees constitutes a major incentive for intermediaries to actively encourage an early termination of a player’s contract.[33] In short, the German court endorses the need to limit incentives for intermediaries to trigger contractual ruptures over their personal financial interest in a future transfer of a player. A similar logic could be applied to the proportionality assessment of the TPO ban. Indeed, this ban is also aimed at avoiding that transfers be triggered for purely financial reasons. The idea being that a club should not be in a position of dependence vis-à-vis a third-party (in practice often an intermediary) that would force it to transfer a player to satisfy its own purely economic rationale. In this regard, the OLG’s judgment is very encouraging for FIFA as it supports a logic of ‘de-financiarization’ of football. The court is very much recognizing that economic incentives should not be front-and-centre in contemporary football and that the fact that there is a clear economic dimension to sport (triggering for example the application of EU law and/or labour law) should not overshadow its other dimensions (cultural, social, ethical, educational). Conciliation is necessary, players are not amateurs anymore, transfers are possible, TV rights money can trickle down, but the rampant financiarization (and collateralization) of labour contracts seems both dangerous in terms of the economic instability it might trigger (think FC Twente) and of the unethical abuses it might incite and conceal.

Conclusion: The legal consequences of FIFA’s retreat

The new FIFA Regulations for Intermediaries are first and foremost a confession of impotence from the part of FIFA. Fifteen years after introducing a worldwide regulatory mechanism applicable to football agents, FIFA basically acknowledged its incapacity to control the profession and rein its negative externalities. The old licensing system proved unable to provide a qualitative level playing field for agents, nor was FIFA capable (or willing to invest enough resources) to truly enforce its rules. In fact, at the local level, a multitude of informal agents and practices had practically hollowed out the FIFA Regulations.[34] Yet, instead of strengthening its regulatory apparatus and enforcement mechanisms, FIFA decided to retreat and basically handed over the responsibility to regulate intermediaries to the multitude of national federations. One can be excused for doubting at first that such a re-nationalization is well suited to control an inherently transnational market.[35] Yet, there is still some room left for hope.

The re-nationalization of the Regulations will undoubtedly bring about a complex regulatory landscape with different regimes applicable in each national jurisdiction.[36] Moreover, agents/intermediaries might face an enhanced amount of red tape and administrative fees if they aim at entering each and every national market. These negative consequences can be tempered, however, by a number of things. First of all, the market for intermediaries has never been truly transnational. Sociologists have shown that it operates more as a chain of national actors rather than with truly transnational players.[37] Furthermore, the big transfer money (and thus intermediary money) in football is concentrated on a small number of national markets (mainly the European big five[38]). This means that if those markets jointly engage in a strict regulation of intermediaries it will affect disproportionately (probably positively) the profession. Due to massive TV rights revenues these national federations and leagues also dispose of the necessary (financial and administrative) resources to rigorously enforce their rules. For example, if at a European level, national federations were able to coordinate their new intermediaries regulations and provide a level regulatory field for the profession, which would involve both reducing the administrative costs to exercise it and a sharper control of its negative externalities, FIFA’s regulatory retreat would be largely compensated by a potentially more effective regulatory system.

What is the role of EU law in this regard? The Piau case is a good reminder that the CJEU is sympathetic to the need to regulate the market for intermediaries. Since then, the soft law of the European institutions (and especially the European Parliament’s position) has very much comforted this sympathy.[39] However, it would be rather naïve to believe that the EU would be able and willing to take on the task of single-handedly re-regulating such a complex transnational field. It has currently other burning priorities and crucially lacks the resources and expertise to do so. The role of EU law is rather one of a careful catalyst and counter-power, aimed at encouraging private regulations at the national or transnational level and eschewing that they go too far in scapegoating the intermediaries and in restricting their economic freedoms. In this regard, the OLG Frankfurt provided, on the basis of EU law, a rather balanced review of the DFB regulations, striking down some of the more intrusive (or arguably less rational) parts of the regulations, while recognizing the legitimacy and proportionality of others. EU law can be invoked to open up a critical discussion over the regulatory trade-offs of transnational private regulations. Not more but also not less.

[1] Case T-193/02, Laurent Piau v Commission [2005] ECR II-0209, paras. 112-115; Landesgericht Frankfurt am Main: Urteil vom 29. April 2015 · Az. 2-06 O 142/15, para. 77. On the Piau ruling see D. Waelbroeck & P. Ibañez-Colomo, ‘Case C-171/05 P, Laurent Piau, Order of the Court of Justice (Third Chamber) of 23 February 2006, [2006] ECR I-37’, Common Market Law Review 43: 1743–1756, 2006.

[2] Ibid., para. 78.

[3] “On the other hand, since they are binding on national associations that are members of FIFA, which are required to draw up similar rules that are subsequently approved by FIFA, and on clubs, players and players’ agents, those regulations are the reflection of FIFA’s resolve to coordinate the conduct of its members with regard to the activity of players’ agents. They therefore constitute a decision by an association of undertakings within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC (Case 45/85 Verband der Sachversicherer v Commission [1987] ECR 405, paragraphs 29 to 32, and Wouters and Others, paragraph 71), which must comply with the Community rules on competition, where such a decision has effects in the Community.” Ibid., para. 75.

[4] Ibid., paras 83-99.

[5] Ibid., para. 104.

[6] Ibid., para. 117.

[7] This is well recognized and explicated in the OLG’s judgment. See, OLG Frankfurt am Main, Urt. v. 02.02.2016, Az.: 11 U 70/15 (Kart), para. II.1.

[8] Case C-519/04 P David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen v Commission [2006] ECR I-6991, para. 42 ff. See further S. Weatherill, ‘Anti-doping Revisited: The Demise of the Rule of ‘Purely Sporting Interest’?’ in S. Weatherill, European Sports Law, ASSER Press, Springer, 2014, pp. 379-399 and B. Van Rompuy, The Role of EU Competition Law in Tackling Abuse of Regulatory Power by Sports Associations, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2767467.

[9] OLG Frankfurt am Main, Urt. v. 02.02.2016, Az.: 11 U 70/15 (Kart),, II.2.b.

[10] Ibid, II.2.b

[11] The European Parliament “Underscores the finding of the study that the regulations of agents established by sports federations are basically aimed at controlling access to the profession and regulating its exercise, but that these bodies have only limited supervisory and sanctioning powers, since they lack any means of control or direct action vis-à-vis sports agents who are not registered with them; nor are they entitled to impose civil or criminal penalties”. European Parliament, Resolution on players’ agents in sports, 17 June 2010, (2011/C 236 E/14), para.8.

[12] OLG Frankfurt am Main, Urt. v. 02.02.2016, Az.: 11 U 70/15 (Kart), II.3.a

[13] Ibid, II.3.a: Art. 3.2 and 3.3 DFB-regulations

[14] Ibid, II.2.a

[15] For a good critique see N. de Marco, ‘The new FA Football Intermediaries Regulations and the Disputes Likely to arise’, at §23-25.

[16] Art. 7.7 DFB-regulations

[17] OLG Frankfurt am Main, Urt. v. 02.02.2016, Az.: 11 U 70/15 (Kart), II.2.a

[18] “Die Regelung ist auch notwendig; insbesondere bieten entgegen den Darstellungen der Klägerin die Regelungen zur beschränkten Geschäftsfähigkeit Minderjähriger gemäß §§ 104 ff BGB im vorvertraglichen Feld der Anbahnung eines möglichen Vertragsschlusses keinen Schutz. Dies erlangt Bedeutung, sofern - wie vom Beklagten dargestellt - eine Mehrzahl an potentiellen Spielern angeworben, jedoch nur einer tatsächlich vermittelt wird.” Ibid, II.2.a.

[19] “Schließlich erlangt bei der Verhältnismäßigkeitsprüfung auch Bedeutung, dass im europäischen Ausland ausnahmslos Regelungen hinsichtlich des Verbots der kostenpflichtigen Vermittlung minderjähriger Spieler verabschiedet wurden, so dass eine einheitliche Handhabung im Sinne des Minderjährigenschutzes in besonderer Weise geboten erscheint.” Ibid, II.2.a.

[20] See amongst others: European Parliament, Resolution on the future of professional football in Europe, 29 March 2007, (2006/2130(INI)), paras 35-38; European Parliament, Resolution on players’ agents in sports, 17 June 2010, (2011/C 236 E/14), para.6-7;

[21] European Parliament, Resolution on players’ agents in sports, para.6.

[22] This is a truly worrying development. See A. C. Najarian, ‘"The Lost Boys": FIFA's Insufficient Efforts To Stop Trafficking of Youth Footballers’, 22 Sports Law. J. 151 2015. On the ‘muscle drain’ phenomena, see W. Andreff, ‘“Muscle Drain” in Sport and how to regulate it? A plea for a “Coubertobin” tax’ and J. Scherrens, ‘The muscle drain of African Football Players to Europe: Trade or Trafficking?’, Master Thesis 2007.

[23] OLG Frankfurt am Main, Urt. v. 02.02.2016, Az.: 11 U 70/15 (Kart), II.3.b; Art. 6.1 DFB-regulations

[24] Ibid, II.3.b

[25] “Dies widerspricht dem Grundsatz eines am fairen Wettbewerb orientierten sportlichen Wettkampfs [...]“. Ibid, II.3.b

[26] In FIFA’s own words: “The new system does not regulate access to the activity but provide a framework for tighter control and supervision of the transactions relating to transfer of football players in order to enhance transparency.” FIFA, Working with intermediaries – reform of FIFA’s players’ agents system, Background information, April 2015, p.2.

[27] M. Andrews and P. Harrington, Off Pitch: Football’s financial integrity weaknesses, and how to strengthen them, CID Working Paper No. 311 January 2016, p.68-103.

[28]“The analysis of shares highlights that the big five league players’ representation market is highly concentrated: half of the footballers are managed by 83 football agents or agencies. Our study reveals the existence of closed relational networks that clearly favors the concentration of players under the control of few agents.”R. Poli, G. Rossi & R. Besson, Football Agents in the biggest five European football markets. An empirical research report, CIES, February 2012, p.2.

[29] Andrew and Harrington suggest for example to create both a “Transfer Clearinghouse to house transfer process information” and a “centralized processes for registering and managing intermediaries”, op.cit. 27, p.96-99.

[30] The EP “[a]pplauds sport governing bodies’ efforts to bring about more transparency and supervision of financial flows.” European Parliament, Resolution on players’ agents in sports, 17 June 2010, (2011/C 236 E/14), para.11. See also European Parliament, Resolution on the European dimension in sport, 2 February 2012 (2011/2087(INI)), paras 76, 78 and 87.

[31] OLG Frankfurt am Main, Urt. v. 02.02.2016, Az.: 11 U 70/15 (Kart),, II.3.c; Art. 7.3 DFB-regulations

[32]“Zweck der Regelung ist es, einer an sachfremden, d.h. nicht sportlichen Interessen ausgerichteten Einflussnahme der Vermittler auf Spielerwechsel, insbesondere im Bereich der vorzeitigen Vertragsbeendigung, entgegenzuwirken. Die Regelung ist geboten, da dieser Zweck durch das Verbot insbesondere der Zahlung von Transferentschädigungen oder Beteiligungen an einem künftigen Transferwert eines Spielers den Anreiz zur sachfremden, finanziell motivierten Einflussnahme mindert.” Ibid, II.3.c.

[33] LG Frankfurt am Main: Urteil vom 29. April 2015 · Az. 2-06 O 142/15, paras. 83-84

[34] A finding shared by the CIES study and the Study on Sports Agents in the European Union commissioned by the EC in 2009.

[35] The European Parliament stated in its 2010 Resolution on Agents that « doing away with the existing FIFA licence system for player’s agents without setting up a robust alternative system would not be the appropriate way to tackle the problems surrounding player’s agents in football”. European Parliament, Resolution on players’ agents in sports, 17 June 2010, (2011/C 236 E/14), para. 10. The same scepticism is displayed by M. Andrews and P. Harrington, Off Pitch: Football’s financial integrity weaknesses, and how to strengthen them, CID Working Paper No. 311 January 2016, at p.98.

[36] For a preliminary rough mapping, see M. Colucci (ed.), The FIFA Regulations on Working with Intermediaries – Implementation at National Level, International Sports Law and Policy Bulletin, Issue 1-2015.

[37] This is highlighted in the CIES study of 2012.

[38] I.e. the English Premier League, the German Bundesliga, the Spanish La Liga, the Italian Serie A and the French Ligue 1.

[39] European Parliament, Resolution on the future of professional football in Europe, 29 March 2007, (2006/2130(INI)), para. 44; European Parliament, Resolution on the White Paper on Sport, 8 May 2008 (2007/2261(INI)), para. 100; European Parliament, Resolution on players’ agents in sports, 17 June 2010, (2011/C 236 E/14); European Parliament, Resolution on the European dimension in sport, 2 February 2012 (2011/2087(INI)), paras 75-78. This need for regulation is also embraced, though more carefully, by the European Commission in its White Paper on Sport, see European Commission, White Paper on Sport, COM(2007) 391, at para. 4.4. See also European Commission, ‘Commission blows the whistle over inflated football transfer fees and lack of level playing field’, 7 February 2013

Editor’s Note: Shervine Nafissi (@SNafissi) is a Phd Student in sports law and teaching assistant in corporate law at University of Lausanne (Switzerland), Faculty of Business and Economics (HEC).

Introduction

The factual background

The dispute concerns a TPO contract entitled “Economic Rights Participation Agreement” (hereinafter “ERPA”) concluded in 2012 between Sporting Lisbon and the investment fund Doyen Sports. The Argentine player was transferred in 2012 by Spartak Moscow to Sporting Lisbon for a transfer fee of €4 million. Actually, Sporting only paid €1 million of the fee while Doyen Sports financed the remaining €3 million. In return, the investment company became the owner of 75% of the economic rights of the player.[1] Thus, in this specific case, the Portuguese club was interested in recruiting Marcos Rojo but was unable to pay the transfer fee required by Spartak Moscow, so that they required the assistance of Doyen Sports. The latter provided them with the necessary funds to pay part of the transfer fee in exchange of an interest on the economic rights of the player.

Given that the facts and circumstances leading to the dispute, as well as the decision of the CAS, were fully described by Antoine Duval in last week’s blog of Doyen vs. Sporting, this blog will solely focus on the decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (“FSC”) following Sporting’s appeal against the CAS award. As a preliminary point, the role of the FSC in the appeal against CAS awards should be clarified.

Scope of the Federal Supreme Court’s review as for the international arbitral awards

Since the CAS has its seat in Lausanne, Switzerland, it has adopted its procedural rules in accordance with the 12^th chapter of the Swiss Private International Law Act[2], which provides a general legal framework for international arbitration in Switzerland. Under the relevant provisions of the Swiss PILA, arbitral awards are final upon their notification and can only be challenged before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court on a very limited number of grounds in order to prevent the parties to arbitrate again the dispute before a state Court.[3] Besides, in Swiss law, there is only one level of appeal against an international arbitration award before the Federal Supreme Court.[4] Thus, the FSC “ensures a uniformity in the review of arbitral awards and the development of a consistent court practice” be being the only one instance for appeals.[5] In this way, “arbitral awards are always reviewed by the same State court, ensuring consistency”.[6]

Setting aside the award may only be possible where the sole arbitrator has been improperly appointed or where the arbitral tribunal has been improperly constituted, where the arbitral tribunal has wrongly accepted or denied jurisdiction, where the arbitral tribunal has ruled beyond the claims submitted to it, or failed to decide one of the claims, where the principle of equal treatment of the parties or their right to be heard in an adversary procedure has not been observed, where the award is incompatible with public policy.[7] In casu, the examination of Sporting Lisbon's claims is based on the incompatibility of the award with public policy within the meaning of Art. 190 para. 2 let. e PILA.

As a reminder, an award is inconsistent with public policy if it disregards those essential and broadly recognized values which, according to the prevailing values in Switzerland, should be the founding stones of any legal order.[8] “An award is contrary to substantive public policy when it violates some fundamental principles of the law applicable to the merits to such an extent that it is no longer consistent with the notions of justice and system of values; among such principles are, in particular, the sanctity of contracts, compliance with the rules of good faith, the prohibition of abuse of rights, the prohibition of discriminatory and confiscatory measures, as well as the protection of incapable persons. (…). If it is not easy to define substantive public policy positively and to set its boundaries with precision, it is easier to exclude one item or another from it. The entire process of interpreting a contract and the legal consequences logically drawn therefrom are excluded; so is the interpretation of the statutory provisions of a private law body by an arbitral tribunal. Furthermore, it is not sufficient to show incompatibility with public policy – a concept more restrictive than arbitrariness – by showing that the evidence was wrongly assessed, a factual finding manifestly wrong, or a rule of law clearly violated”.[9]

Thus, the examination of this international arbitral award by the FSC is limited to the question of the compatibility of the said award with public policy, a notion more restrictive than arbitrariness.

The judgement of the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland - the merits

Sporting Lisbon’s defence

First, the Portuguese club tried to demonstrate that the CAS award violated material public policy by giving effect to one-sided and usurious contracts including excessive restriction.[10]

The claim is based on figures from the ERPA contract. Considering that Doyen Sports invested €3 million at the beginning, the company managed in all cases with 12.36% of minimum return insofar as it activated the Put Option, or 40% if the company requested payment of the Minimum Interest Fee. These two scenarios did not take into account the possibility that the player concerned by the ERPA be transferred with a capital gain, thus enabling Doyen Sports to get an investment return of about 400%, as was the case for the transfer of Marcos Rojo to Manchester United.

Sporting Lisbon compared this investment return to its own, as it would only be left with €1 million, i.e. the 5% of the transfer fee once the 75% for Doyen Sports’s share and the 20% for Spartak Moscow’s share deducted. Therefore, according to the Portuguese club, the ERPA, which it describes as a partiary loan[11], infringes the provisions on usury, would be a one-sided contract and, accordingly, would be null and void under Swiss law.[12]

Secondly, Sporting Lisbon explained that it gave up its freedom of action in an unacceptable manner under and art. 27 of the Swiss Civil Code (protection of one’s legal personality against excessive restrictions).[13] Indeed, some clauses of the ERPAs required Sporting Lisbon to accept a transfer offer deemed sufficiently high, if not Sporting would be forced to pay Doyen Sports 75% of the proposed transfer fee without receiving any fee, precisely because of the absence of any transfer.[14] According to the Portuguese club, Doyen Sports was not only in a position to ask Sporting Lisbon to transfer Marcos Rojo even if the club preferred to keep the player in its squad for purely sporting reasons, but also to require the club to make its best efforts to transfer the player before the end of his employment contract. Sporting Lisbon further underlined that the ERPA is made up of clauses stipulating that the club, conscious of the harshness and the severity of the consequences of certain clauses, takes the commitment to consider these clauses as fair and a necessary condition to Doyen’s interest in the player’s economic rights.

Thirdly, the club considers that the award of the CAS violates material public policy because it gives effect to contracts that seriously disregard the personality rights and the fundamental rights of the players. ERPA contracts would seriously undermine the players by putting pressure on the club by various clauses, including a clause obliging it to pay to Doyen Sports a minimum amount of €4.2 million (the Minimum Interest Fee) in the event that Marcos Rojo is not transferred to another club before the end of his employment contract. Such a clause would force Sporting to do everything possible to encourage the player to leave the club before the expiration of the employment contract. Thus, the player, even though he is not a party to the contract, would see his right to free economic development restricted, if not annihilated, in particular his ability to take the appropriate decisions for his sporting career and to freely choose the club for which he intends to play.[15] As regards fundamental rights, Sporting Lisbon argues that the ERPA-mechanism allows a third party to indirectly decide whether the player concerned by the ERPA must continue to play for his club or whether he must accept the conclusion of a contract with another club. Such a situation would violate the prohibition of forced labor set out in Art. 4 para. 2 ECHR and, more generally, human dignity.[16]

Finally, according to Sporting Lisbon, there should be a shared conception of moral standards in the field of sport in general and football in particular. These standards should not only prevent players from becoming an object of speculation, but also prevent investors to take advantage of the financial difficulties of the clubs. By taking advantage of clubs in financial difficulty, investors make indecent profits, while the clubs lose control of the situation from the sporting point of view. The standards would help to strengthen contractual stability, which is a cardinal principle of the transfer system.

The FSC’s Decision

The FSC first considered the figures provided by Sporting Lisbon with regard to the calculation of the minimum return of 12.36% (insofar as the Put Option is activated) and 40% (in case Doyen requests payment of the Minimum Interest Fee), and found that these figures were based on a calculation over three and five years respectively. Consequently, if the calculation of the investment return was made over one year, this would have given interest rates lower than 15%, which would be lawful under Swiss law. In addition, the arguments based on Doyen Sports’ investment return of about 400% with the transfer of Rojo were considered as irrelevant. These figures cannot be qualified as interests, but only as a kind of remuneration of the lender, which depends on the amount of the transfer fee, thus being similar to a partiary loan paid by giving a share to the lender on the profit realized by the borrower in a subsequent transfer operation.[17] Therefore, assuming that the relationship between the two parties is a lender-borrower relationship, the fact that Doyen Sports could acquire 75% of the future transfer fee of the player for whom it had initially financed the transfer at Sporting Lisbon for an equivalent share (i.e. €3 million out of €4 million), is not an usurious, one-sided contract, nor immoral.

Finally, the particular aspect of this type of contract relates to the enormous capital gains that can be made with the transfer operation, in casu about 400%. Nevertheless, the FSC considers that this capital gain depends on predominantly random elements.[18] The fact that Marcos Rojo played well at the 2014 World Cup, and that the Argentine selection reached the final of this competition, could not be foreseen. Thus, the sudden increase in his value on the transfer market is totally uncertain and cannot be invoked as a claim against Doyen Sports.[19] Moreover, the FSC recalled that the opposite situation was also possible, i.e. a drastic loss of the value of the player based on his performance in selection and club. These elements can therefore not be objectively taken into account by the parties. At the end of its reasoning on this issue, the FSC took the liberty to criticize Sporting Lisbon by saying that the club would not have been offended by such capital gain if it had been the sole beneficiary of the transfer fee.[20]

Secondly, the FSC analyzed the argument put forward by Sporting Lisbon that the ERPA contract would seriously undermine its freedom under Art. 27 CC. It should be kept in mind that, according to case-law, a breach of that provision does not necessarily mean a violation of public policy. Such a violation is instead conceivable only in case of a blatant and grievous violation of a fundamental right.[21] It must be considered in this respect that a contractual limitation of economic freedom is disproportionate within the meaning of Art. 27 (2) CC only when the debtor submits to someone else’s arbitrariness, gives up his economic freedom or restricts it in such a way that the foundation of his economic existence is jeopardized.[22] In casu, the FSC recalls that Sporting Lisbon is not inexperienced in the sharing of economic rights insofar as Marcos Rojo was not the only Sporting player affected by this type of contract.[23] It was the club that took the initiative to contact Doyen Sports to request its financial assistance. The conclusion of the contract was also preceded by lengthy negotiations during which the club was assisted by experts and lawyers. Finally, the dispute with Doyen Sports concerning Marcos Rojo was not in itself able to deteriorate the club’s financial situation, and thus preventing it from pursuing its economic activities.

Thirdly, the FSC examined the claim concerning the personality and fundamental rights of the players concerned by an ERPA.[24] The judges considered that the club limited itself to purely theoretical reflections without, however, demonstrating in concrete terms how the ERPA contract would seriously undermine the aforementioned rights. To the extent that the FSC has limited power to review international arbitral awards, it is hardly theoretical arguments that will demonstrate that a CAS award violates public policy according to Art. 190 para. 2 let. e PIL. Moreover, Sporting Lisbon’s argument concerning the personality and fundamental rights of Marcos Rojo is incompatible with the fact that the club has used the TPO mechanism for several other players. Again, the FSC questioned the sincerity of this argument had Sporting Lisbon received the full amount of the transfer fee. Furthermore, although the FSC recognizes the quality of the club to report a violation of the player’s personality rights[25], it is not established by the judges that the players themselves have complained of any such violation. On the contrary, when he signed for Manchester United, Marcos Rojo would have welcomed the fact of joining one of the best clubs in the world. Marcos Rojo, who was earning the equivalent of €1.14 million in Sporting Lisbon, currently earns about €4 million per year at the English club. Therefore, it is somewhat bold on the part of Sporting Lisbon, according to the FSC, to put forward the prohibition of forced labor or the violation of human dignity in such circumstances.

Finally, The FSC did not want to admit a notion of moral standards in the field of sport in general, and football in particular, in relation to the definition of the concept of material public policy.[26] Apart from the fact that it seems difficult to determine what is a moral standard in football, to adapt the concept of material public policy in relation to a particular activity and, more importantly, to a particular branch of the activity concerned - in this case, sport or football - would in some way soften the force and reduce the scope of the concept by leaving to FIFA the task of defining the notion of morality proper to football. The result would be a dilution of the notion of material public policy and, consequently, an increased difficulty in defining the contours of this concept, not to mention the formation of a casuistry that is not favorable to the predictability of the law.

In conclusion, the FSC recalls that the high mobility of professional footballers and their frequent transfers are caused by FIFA regulations, in particular the rules relating to the maximum duration of an employment contract binding a Player to a football club and the conditions of a subsequent transfer of that same player to another club, but also by the manner in which the transfer system is applied.[27]

For all these reasons, the Federal Supreme Court rejected Sporting Lisbon’s appeal against the CAS award of 21 December 2015.

Conclusion

Following the award of the CAS, the FSC confirmed the validity of the ERPA contracts under Swiss law. The mechanisms that make up the agreements signed by Doyen Sports and other companies that invest in the player transfer market are based on traditional legal instruments, including the assignment of future receivables. Thus, from a Swiss legal point of view, TPO agreements do not undergo the same moral reprimand administered by the highest football bodies, such as FIFA, UEFA or FIFPro.

Consequently, the legal battle that resulted in a victory for the “pro-TPOs” and the model proposed by the third parties, challenges the legitimacy of FIFA regulations and, more specifically, Art. 18^ter RSTP. The arguments used by Sporting Lisbon to justify the early termination of the ERPA contract are very similar, or even identical, to those presented by FIFA to justify the formal ban of the TPO in May 2015.

Nevertheless, the fact that Swiss contract law is quite liberal does not exclude the invalidation of an ERPA for material public policy reasons. As we have seen with Football Leaks, the TPO mechanism can constitute a definite threat to the financial situation of clubs, such as FC Twente. It all depends on the case brought before the courts. Indeed, the case of Sporting Lisbon was not necessarily the best opportunity to challenge the validity of the contract, as the action of Art. 21 CO was time-barred (as mentioned in the previous blog on the initial CAS award) and the player joined, voluntarily, one of the best clubs in the world.

I believe that Art. 21 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (unfair advantage) as well as Art. 27 CC and 28ss CC (personality rights) may, depending on the case before the CAS, be a legal basis for the invalidation of the contract. To the extent that a dispute arises between an inexperienced club and an investment company, the application of Art. 21 CO is not totally excluded. In addition, if a player whose economic rights have been assigned to a third party is obliged to leave the club against his will or even join a club for whom he does not wish to play, the provisions on personality rights may find an echo at the CAS.

All eyes are on other courts where ‘TPO-cases’ are pending. Most importantly, the CAS should soon issue an award in the Doyen Sports and FC Seraing United v. FIFA case. As a reminder, in January 2015, the Belgian club and Doyen Sports concluded an ERPA contract despite the FIFA ban being enacted in December 2014. As a result, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee sanctioned the Belgian club with a transfer ban (for four complete and consecutive registration periods) and a fine of CHF 150.000 for breaches relating to the third-party ownership and third-party influence. The CAS is therefore seized of an appeal against a disciplinary sanction imposed by FIFA and will be obliged to take Art. 18^ter RSTP into consideration and to judge whether the sanction is justified. It remains to be seen whether the arguments based on EU law by Doyen Sports and FC Seraing United will be taken into consideration. Indeed, both parties also filed a complaint, based on EU law, before the Belgian Courts to challenge the TPO ban.[28] For now, all these procedures have failed. It will be interesting to see how the CAS will judge the Seraing case that relates to the same mechanism although the two cases are fundamentally different. The Rojo case dealt with a contractual dispute before the ban, while the Belgian club and Doyen Sports challenged a sanction issued by FIFA and the ban as such.

In any event, TPO deals have rarely been so much under the public spotlight since their ban, and the legal suspense goes on…

[1]     Economic rights are the rights to future transfer fees from the transfer of the player to another club, and, unlike federative rights, economic rights can be divided between multiple parties. See, among others, W. Tyler Hall, After the Ban: The Financial Landscape of International Soccer After Third-Party Ownership, Oregon Law Review, Vol. 94, 2015, pp. 179 – 221.

[2]     Hereinafter “PILA”.

[3]     Mavromati, Despina, The Role of the Swiss Federal Tribunal and Its Impact on the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), 29 September 2016.

[4]     Antonio Rigozzi, L'arbitrage international en matière de sport, Bâle, (Helbing & Lichtenhahn), 2^ème édition, 2005.

[5]     Niederer Kraft & Frey, Swiss Arbitration – Practical Aspects and New Developments, Publication 19, 2015, p. 28.

[6]     Ibidem.

[7]     Art. 190 para. 2 PILA.

[8]     ATF 132 III 389 consid. 2.2.3.

[9]     Judgment of the FSC, 4A_116/2016, December 13rd 2016, par. 4.1. The English translation is based on the Judgment of the FSC, 4A_304/2013, March 3rd 2014, par. 5.1.1 made by http://www.swissarbitrationdecisions.com (emphasis added).

[10]    Judgment of the FSC, 4A_116/2016, December 13rd 2016, par. 4.2.1.

[11]    Under Swiss law, the “partiary” loan is a form of loan in which the remuneration of the lender consists in a share of the borrower’s earnings. The “partiary” loan has a random element: the remuneration of the lender depends on the success of a specific business or transaction of the borrower. In casu, the ERPA can be qualified as a “partiary” loan insofar as the transaction depends on the profit made by Sporting in case of a transfer of Marcos Rojo and provides for a share of Doyen in Sporting’s success. See, Bovet / Richa, CO 312 N 6 in : Commentaire romand Code des obligations I, Pierre Tercier / Marc Amstutz (édit.), 2^ème édition, Bâle, 2012 ; Pierre Tercier / Laurent Bieri / Pascal G. Favre, Les contrats spéciaux, 5^ème édition, Genève Zürich Bâle (Schulthess) 2016, N 2539.

[12]    Judgment of the FSC, 4A_116/2016, December 13rd 2016, par. 4.2.1.

[13]    Hereinafter “CC”.

[14]    Judgment of the FSC, 4A_116/2016, December 13rd 2016, par. 4.2.1.

[15]    Judgment of the FSC, 4A_116/2016, December 13rd 2016, par. 4.3.1.

[16]    Ibidem.

[17]    Judgment of the FSC, 4A_116/2016, December 13rd 2016, par. 4.2.3.

[18]    Ibidem.

[19]    Ibidem.

[20]   Judgment of the FSC, 4A_116/2016, December 13rd 2016, par. 4.3.3.

[21]    Judgment of the FSC, 4P.12/2000, June 14^th 2000, par. 5b. aa.

[22]    Ibidem.

[23]    In March 2013, 35 to 40 players' economic rights were shared with various investment funds. See CAS 2014/0/3781, par. 217.

[24]   Judgment of the FSC, 4A_116/2016, December 13rd 2016, par. 4.3.3.

[25]    According to the exceptio de jure tertii principle, see Judgment of the FSC, 4A_304/2013, March 3rd 2014, par. 3.

[26]   Judgment of the FSC, 4A_116/2016, December 13rd 2016, par. 4.2.3.

[27]    Judgment of the FSC, 4A_116/2016, December 13rd 2016, par. 4.3.3.

[28]   Patricia Moyersoen, La décision du TAS du 21 décembre 2015 à propos des contrats de TPO passés entre le Sporting Club du Portugal et la société Doyen Sports Investments, http://www.droitdusport.com/; http://www.rfc-seraing.be/audience-au-tas-de-lausanne/.

Editor’s note: Serhat Yilmaz (@serhat_yilmaz) is a lecturer in sports law in Loughborough University. His research focuses on the regulatory framework applicable to intermediaries. Antoine Duval (@Ant1Duval) is the head of the Asser International Sports Law Centre.

Last week, while FIFA was firing the heads of its Ethics and Governance committees, the press was overwhelmed with ‘breaking news’ on the most expensive transfer in history, the come back of Paul Pogba from Juventus F.C. to Manchester United. Indeed, Politiken (a Danish newspaper) and Mediapart (a French website specialized in investigative journalism) had jointly discovered in the seemingly endless footballleaks files that Pogba’s agent, Mino Raiola, was involved (and financially interested) with all three sides (Juventus, Manchester United and Pogba) of the transfer. In fine, Raiola earned a grand total of € 49,000,000 out of the deal, a shocking headline number almost as high as Pogba’s total salary at Manchester, without ever putting a foot on a pitch. This raised eyebrows, especially that an on-going investigation by FIFA into the transfer was mentioned, but in the media the sketching of the legal situation was very often extremely confusing and weak. Is this type of three-way representation legal under current rules? Could Mino Raiola, Manchester United, Juventus or Paul Pogba face any sanctions because of it? What does this say about the effectiveness of FIFA’s Regulations on Working with Intermediaries? All these questions deserve thorough answers in light of the publicity of this case, which we ambition to provide in this blog.

Paul Pogba: From Manchester to Juventus…and back 

On 3 August 2012, 19 years old Paul Pogba moved from Manchester United to Juventus on a free transfer. Four years later, his comeback to Manchester United was the most expensive transaction that the history of football ever recorded. Interestingly (and controversially), the latter transfer involved only one agent, Carmine “Mino” Raiola, acting on behalf of the three parties involved in the transaction. Indeed, on 20 July 2016, Raiola signed an agreement with Juventus stipulating that one of his companies, Topscore Sports Ltd, was contracted to find a suitable acquirer for the player before 31 August 2016 in return of a hefty commission payable by Juventus if Pogba was transferred for a minimum fee of €90,000,000 below which the club was not prepared to sell the player and the company was not entitled to any remuneration. A year before, one of Raiola’s many companies, Topscore Sports Ltd, had already been appointed by Juventus as of 1 March 2015 to facilitate the transfer of Pogba. The 2016 contract acknowledged that Topscore Sports Ltd succeeded in “creating hype around the future transfer” and triggered “a bidding war” to recruit the player. Hence, pursuant to the 2016 agreement, if Topscore managed to secure a transfer above the minimum fee, Juventus would pay to Raiola’s company €18,000,000. Furthermore, Raiola would earn €3,000,000 more for each €5,000,000 increase above the minimum fee of the final amount.

Simultaneously, on 27 July 2016, Mino Raiola signed a representation contract with the player through the Monaco based company Uuniqq Srl. The contract provided for a commission “amounting to 5% of the Player’s Basic Gross Income as result of any employment contract negotiated or renegotiated by the Intermediary”. While, on 8 August 2016, Raiola concluded, again through Uuniqq Srl, an agreement with Manchester United. On 9 August 2016, Juventus and Manchester United agreed to the transfer of Pogba for a compensation of €105,000,000. Pogba obtained a salary of €10,200,000 in 2016/2017, reaching €13,800,000 in 2017/2018. On top of that, he also secured a €2,200,000 bonus every time Manchester United qualifies for the Champions League and a €1,160,000 one in case he wins the ballon d’or. According to the agreement with Manchester United, the agent would be paid for his intermediary services five installments of €3,883,658 each, payable every 30 September from 2017 to 2020. In addition to that, Manchester United was undertaking the duty to pay the player’s fee to the agent. Consequently, Uuniqq Srl was also due to receive five installments of €516,342 each, payable on the same dates.

To sum up, as a consequence of Pogba’s transfer from Juventus to Manchester United, Topscore Sports Ltd collected a total commission of €27,000,000 from Juventus, consisting of the agreed minimum of €18,000,000 plus an additional €9,000,000 for overshooting his targeted transfer fee. Uuniqq Srl got a total commission of €22,000,000, resulting from the €19,420,000 (5 instalments of €3,883,658 each) paid by Manchester United as “club services” and €2,580,000 (5 instalments of €516,342 each) paid by the club as “player’s services” on behalf of Pogba. This is the contractual set-up leading to the headline number of € 49,000,000, but is it actually legal?  

Three key questions on the legality of Mino Raiola’s role in Pogba’s transfer

There is a tremendous amount of confusion in the press regarding the legality of the above-explained contractual arrangements. For example, FIFA might be investigating the transfer, but in practice it is not in a position of enforcing any direct sanctions, besides a fine for any misleading declarations of Manchester United or Juventus to the FIFA TMS, against the clubs, the player or the intermediary. Indeed, since the entry into force of the new FIFA Regulations on Working with Intermediaries (RWI) in 2015, the responsibility to police intermediaries has been delegated to national federations, in the present case the English FA and the Italian FIGC. It means in practice that the key question is whether Raiola, the clubs or the player complied with the obligations enshrined in the federations’ regulations. The Italian FIGC has not fulfilled its basic transparency obligations under the new FIFA rules, and should be sanctioned by FIFA for not doing so, thus it is impossible to assess whether Raiola and Juventus have complied with the FIGC’s rules. However, the FA has done his regulatory homework well and we believe that the case will raise numerous questions with regard to the compatibility of the behaviour of the parties with the FA’s Regulations on Working with Intermediaries (FA RWI).

• Is Mino Raiola's total fee/commission in breach of the FA RWI?

The fees payable to Mino Raiola by all parties involved in the transfer (Manchester United as “the registering club”, Juventus as “the former club” and Pogba as “the player”) seems to be the most controversial, and peculiar, aspect of the transfer. Mino Raiola is to receive almost 38% of the total value of Pogba’s contract from Manchester United and only 5% from Pogba directly. Despite the fact that the amount of these fees seems excessive in comparison to market standards under which the level of intermediary commission varies between 5% to 10% and in some of the most extreme cases 20% (see here and here), they do not as such breach the FA RWI. The English FA regulates remuneration payable to intermediaries under section C of its regulations and the indicative level of commission is at 3% (regulation C11). However, this is only a “recommendation” and is aimed at providing guidance to the market and not at constituting an absolute requirement. The non-binding nature of this restriction on the level of commission means that the parties to the transfer are free to negotiate a higher level of commission and this seems to be the case for the representation contracts between Manchester United, Pogba, and Mino Raiola. Additionally, the level of commission, if payable by the player, is to be calculated in accordance with the player’s gross annual income for the entire duration of the relevant employment contract (Article C11.a) whereas the Club’s fee is either based on the player’s gross annual income for the entire duration of the relevant employment contract (Article C11.b) or on the transfer compensation (transfer fee) paid in connection with the transfer (Article C11.c). Both the club and the player are entitled to make the payments to the intermediary in a lump sum or periodic instalments (Article C3 and C7). The club can also make the payments to the intermediary on behalf of the player, if a written request made by the player to do so, and periodic deductions from player’s salary can be made by the club to sanction those payments (Article C2.b). In the light of these provisions of the FA RWI,  the representation contracts published by the Danish news outlet, Politiken (see here) clearly prescribe the remunerations and payment schedules to Mino Raiola by both Manchester United and Pogba  and these contractual arrangements seem to be in compliance with the regulations.

• Can Mino Raiola represent all parties to the transfer?

The other controversial aspect of the transfer is the representation arrangements by Mino Raiola in respect of Manchester United, Pogba and Juventus. According to the documents published by Politiken and Mediapart, Mino Raiola represented both Manchester United and Pogba under the same transaction. At this point, distinction needs to be made between the dual representation (the intermediary represents the player and either the registering or the former club) and the multiple representation (the intermediary representing the player, the registering club and the former club) as the FA RWI uses both terminologies interchangeably. However, the distinction between the dual and the multiple representation becomes clear under the Intermediary Declaration Form IM1 (see here), the document that must be completed by all parties to the transfer and lodged with the English FA. The document clearly outlines declaration requirements in respect of representation of the player, the registering club and the former club. The representation arrangements between Manchester United, Pogba and Mino Raiola is a dual representation, which is clearly acknowledged by the English FA in its annual disclosure of individual transactions registered, where Mino Raiola and his company, Uuniqq Srl, are listed as the representative of both the Club and the Player (see here). Additionally, as mentioned above, Mino Raiola had also a representation contract with Juventus for the sale of the player. Under the circumstances, it seems the representation contract with Juventus adds another layer to the representation arrangements and constitutes the element of multiple representation with regards to the FA RWI. These arrangements clearly raise the possibility of a conflict of interest, therefore, the English FA allow dual/multiple representation only if the intermediary and the other relevant parties to the transfer strictly comply with the consent requirements of its regulations (Article E1). Otherwise the intermediary may only act for one party to the transfer (Article E1) and cannot receive any remuneration from other parties (Article E3).

Firstly, if the intermediary has a pre-existing representation contract with one party (“the first party”) to the transfer, then that contract should be lodged with the English FA (Article E2.a). In this case, the extracts of representation contract refer to “the player representation contract” between Pogba and Mino Raiola which seems to indicate the existence of a representation contract prior to the multiple representation arrangements. Therefore, it is safe to assume that Pogba could be “the first party” to the transaction and the existing representation contract can constitute a pre-existing representation contract under the FA RWI which should have been lodged with the English FA prior to the other representation arrangements. Secondly, the intermediary should obtain all parties’ (emphasis added) prior written consent to provide services to any other party to the transaction (“the other party(ies)”) (Article E2.b) meaning that Mino Raiola should have obtained the consent of Manchester United, Pogba and Juventus to enter into the multiple representation arrangements. Then, once the intermediary and the other party(ies) agree on the terms of representation, prior to entering into actual representation contracts, the intermediary must inform all parties of the full details regarding the proposed fee to be paid by all parties to the intermediary (Article E2.c). Mino Raiola, should not only have sought the consent of all parties to the multiple representation but also disclosed them the level of fees payable to him by each party. Finally, all parties to the transfer should be given opportunity to seek independent legal advice on the proposed arrangements and provide their written consent for the intermediary to enter into dual/ multiple representation arrangements with other parties (Article E2.d, E2.e).

 As a result, the key focus of the investigation initiated by FIFA but which will inevitably move to the English FA seems to be whether Mino Raiola complied with the regulatory requirements imposing written consent prior to entering into the multiple representation arrangements. Due to the involvement of different companies located in multiple jurisdictions, it is particularly important that the representation contract with Juventus was disclosed to other parties of the transfer, i.e., Manchester United and Pogba and included under the IM1 form. A potential non-compliance with these requirements would constitute a regulatory breach. The omission of information under the relevant paperwork by the parties might be considered as the concealment or misrepresentation of reality and/or substance of any matters in relation to the transaction which is also regulatory breach (Article A3). Any regulatory breach shall be misconduct and sanctioned accordingly (Article F1). All parties involved have potentially, if a multiple representation agreement was not disclosed to the FA, breached the FA rules. However, only Juventus and Raiola knew with certainty about this multiple heads. It is doubtful that the FA could sanction Juventus, which is out of its jurisdictional reach (one could potentially envisage a transfer ban to the FA). Yet, Raiola’s multiple companies must be registered with the FA to conclude transfers with Premier League clubs, thus if he fails to demonstrate that he obtained prior written consent from all the parties to the multiple representation, one could envisage that the FA would suspend their registrations.

• Who has authority to investigate and sanction Mino Raiola for regulatory breaches (if there is any)?

The final central question is: which governing body, in this case either the English FA, the Italian FIGC or FIFA, has the authority to investigate and sanction potential regulatory breaches in the transfer? The jurisdictional nexus derives from the international dimension of a transfer involving two different associations, (English FA and Italian FIGC) and the application of FIFA Regulations on Status and Transfer of Players (FIFA RSTP). It gets even more complicated if Raiola’s original intermediary registration with the Dutch FA is taken into consideration. Against this background, the FIFA Regulations on Working with Intermediaries (FIFA RWI)’s fundamental aim was to bring some transparency in an opaque market and Article 9.1 FIFA RWI authorises associations to hand out sanctions on any party under their jurisdiction that commits regulatory breach of FIFA regulations as well as their statutes or regulations. The article implies therefore that either the English FA or the Italian FIGC (or the Dutch KNVB) may have the authority to sanction Raiola if he falls under their jurisdiction. In the case of intermediaries, the jurisdiction is generally inferred by the registration and the English FA obliges any applicants to submit to its jurisdiction through the declaration under its intermediary registration process. A close scrutiny of the English FA’s intermediary disclosures reveals Mino Raiola’s intermediary registration as natural person (see here). He has also registered his five companies as legal persons including Uuniqq Srl (see here) which is the one used for the transfer of Pogba with the English FA. These registrations could provide the English FA with jurisdiction over Mino Raiola to investigate the transaction and, if any regulatory breach is proven, to impose any sanctions. The investigative power of the English FA over Minor Raiola also derives directly from his registration under which he consented to communicate to the English FA , for the purposes of investigation, all contracts, agreements and records in connection with his activities as an intermediary. Moreover, if for any reason Mino Raiola gets eventually sanctioned by the English FA, FIFA would have the authority to extend the sanction worldwide (Article 9.2 of FIFA RWI). 

Conclusion: Regulating intermediaries without FIFA 

What are the broader lessons we can learn from this case?

• First, the transfer market remains, despite the recent TPO ban and FIFA RWI, an opaque market on which conflicts of interest are routine. In this regard, FIFA’s decision to retreat from any direct involvement in the regulation of intermediaries, despite the obvious shortcomings of the old licensing system, has proven to be a relatively poor and to some extent incoherent choice. The legitimate objectives invoked to ban TPO are in turn betrayed by the decision to let go of any supervision of intermediaries. In general, the cognitive dissonance of FIFA vis-à-vis the transfer system is striking, it attacks on the one hand (rightly in the view of one of us) the financiarization of football through TPO, but supports it on the other by maintaining in place a system that transforms players into speculative assets.

• Second, the scope of regulation of intermediaries is now exclusively dependent on the decisions of national federations. If the English FA decides to crack down on conflicts of interest in the transfer market, it will have a tremendous impact on the way intermediaries operate. The English market represents a huge share of the whole transfer market and is hardly avoidable for major intermediaries. Further, if the federations of the so-called big five (England, France, Italy, Germany, Spain) leagues would accept to coordinate their intermediaries’ regulations, they would have such a dominant market position that in practice they would very much define how the transfer market operates. In this regard, the Pogba case will be decisive (and symbolic) to determine whether the English FA is ready to lead the way down a stricter regulatory road.

• Third, fans (and their clubs) are the ultimate losers of this state of play, they should rebel! The intermediaries’ fees are a consequence of the structural lack of competition and transparency in the transfer market. In the end, those who are going to the stadium every week or have an expensive subscription to watch the Premier League are paying the intermediaries. We the consumers of football are the ones on the losing end of this masquerade of a market. If clubs are unwilling to assert their contractual rights against ruthless intermediaries, it is unlikely for example that Manchester United will ask compensation from Mino Raiola if he omitted to inform them of the obvious conflicts of interest in the Pogba transfer, their supporters (and shareholders) should try to force them to do so.

Editor’s note: Marine Montejo is a graduate from the College of Europe in Bruges and is currently an Intern at the ASSER International Sports Law Centre.

In its decisions regarding the joint selling of football media rights (UEFA, Bundesliga, FA Premier league), the European Commission insisted that premium media rights must be sold through a non-discriminatory and transparent tender procedure, in several packages and for a limited period of time in order to reduce foreclosure effects in the downstream market. These remedies ensure that broadcasters are able to compete for rights that carry high audiences and, for pay TV, a stable number of subscriptions. In line with these precedents, national competition authorities have tried to ensure compliance with remedy packages. The tipping point here appears to be the premium qualification of sport rights on the upstream market of commercialization of sport TV rights.

This begs the question: which sport TV rights must be considered premium? The European Commission already held that European football championships, the Olympics and Formula 1 are premium rights but the question remains open for various other sports because they have not been the subject of competition proceedings yet. Two recent cases (the decisions are accessible here and here) brought before the French competition authority concerning rugby TV rights highlighted the need to bring out objective criteria to determine what are premium sport rights, bearing in mind that something premium in France may be qualified as non-premium in another market depending on its characteristics. Before discussing the need for legal certainty for sport rights holders, we will appraise the two French decisions on rugby and how premium sports are qualified.  

From non-premium to premium 

Canal Plus, the current holder of the rights, and the Ligue Nationale de Rugby (national rugby league, “LNR”) entered into a negotiated procedure regarding the renewal of their Top 14 TV rights. However, in December 2013, the procedure was unsuccessful and the LNR decided to terminate the contract it had with Canal Plus. In so doing, the LNR started a legal war with its former broadcaster. As one of the conditions for the approval of the TPS/Canal Sat merger, Canal Plus was required to give the LNR the option to terminate their contract at the end of the 2013/2014 season.[1] The LNR, deciding that the price Canal Plus was paying did not correspond to the reality of the market anymore, started an open call for tenders for the next four seasons which led Canal Plus to file several legal actions to challenge the interruption of the negotiations, the termination of the contract and the call for tenders. Almost immediately the LNR suspended the call for tenders and resumed its negotiations with Canal Plus. In January 2014, the exclusive TV rights for all the Top 14 matches were awarded to Canal Plus - not only for the subsequent four but ultimately the following five seasons (2014/2015 to 2018/2019). Canal Plus had to put 355 million euros on the table to acquire the exclusive rights, amounting to twice the amount it paid for the previous broadcasting contract. BeIN Sports, a newcomer on the French sport TV rights market,[2] filed a complaint and asked for interim measures with the Autorité de la concurrence.[3]

The French competition authority, in its decisional practice,[4] distinguishes six different markets for sport TV rights acquisitions: (i) the national football first division market (Ligue 1); (ii) the market for annual football championships involving French teams (Ligue, UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League); (iii) the market for the most attractive foreign football championships; (iv) the market for other football competitions; (v) the market for events of major importance other than football; and (vi) the market for sport competitions other than football and events of major importance (or “other rights”). The first five markets are better known as premium rights while the last one consists of all other non-premium rights. Rugby media rights were considered as non-premium before that decision.

The Autorité recognized that rugby and more importantly, the Top 14 championship, were facing an important growth in popularity as reflected by the high value of its broadcastings rights and the high audiences it attracts. At the time of the decision, rugby was the third sport, after football and tennis, in terms of viewers and Canal Plus accepted to pay an average of 71 million euros per season for the rights.

Top 14 average rights price per season (1998-2014) 

Canal Plus Top 14 audiences and best audiences per season (2008-2014)

The Top 14 appears to be an important source of subscriptions (pt. 100) which makes it particularly attractive for pay TV channels. This competition was the second driver of subscriptions (32%) for Canal Plus just after the Ligue 1 (51%) but before the UEFA Champions League (31%). In light of these circumstances, the Top 14 rights should be considered as premium TV rights.

Next, in considering which market these rights should belong to, the Autorité set four criteria to be met to decide on the relevant premium market: (i) key sales driver for TV subscription; (ii) high audiences; (iii) value over 10 million euros per season; and (iv) competition characteristics (level and regularity). Without being particularly clear, the Autorité seems to consider that the Top 14 rights belong to a separate premium market (pt. 138). As a consequence, given the particularities of the French market, the Top 14 rights shifted from the non-premium market to the premium market which means that their commercialisation should have been awarded through a transparent and non-discriminatory tender procedure, for a limited period of time and divided into several packages consistent with the national and European practices.[5] 

From non-premium to semi-premium? 

The question concerning the premium qualification of sport TV rights arose again in a more recent case[6] before the French competition authority, this time concerning the live broadcasting rights for rugby’s second tier (“Pro D2”). The LNR carried out a public consultation for the marketing of commercial rights for the Pro D2 championships for the 2015/2016 to 2019/2020 seasons. Following three rounds of negotiation, Canal Plus and Eurosport were awarded the rights for a total of 31 million euros. The third and rejected applicant, Ma Chaîne Sport (“MCS”), a fairly new but growing sports channel[7] and more importantly part of the Altice group (a multinational cable, fiber, telecommunications, contents and media company), filed a complaint before the French Autorité de la Concurrence. In this complaint, it claimed it was excluded from the selling process as a result of both a cartel between Eurosport, Canal Plus and the LNR, and an abuse of dominant position from the LNR on “the market for the acquisition of semi-premium sport TV rights” (pt.47).

The TV rights for the Pro D2 championship are part of the sport “other rights” market as the competition authority never had to decide on that particular case before. However, MCS is claiming that these rights should belong to a new and different market of semi-premium sport rights that, without combining together the usual criteria found in the jurisprudence to identify premium rights, are still able to attract significant audiences, making them sufficiently attractive to be of interest to premium channels.[8] MCS further argues that the Pro D2, the football Ligue 2 (second division), the basketball Pro A and the handball D1 (all first division) belong on that market. All those rights, with the exception of the Ligue 2 rights which are considered as premium, are valuable in terms of killer content for pay TV but currently belong to the non-premium rights market. The Autorité acknowledges that the non-premium rights market is set as default and brings together a heterogeneous set of rights in attractiveness and value (pt.55). It also acknowledges that some of these rights attract higher prices but not quite enough to meet the threshold of 10 million euros per season to be considered as premium. Referring to its consistent decision making, the Autorité considers that relying on a sole criterion, namely a higher selling price than the average prices in the non-premium market, is not sufficient to change the relevant market to a premium market, without a substitutability analysis (pt.58). As a consequence, those rights are still deemed to belong to the non-premium rights market.

The recognition of a semi-premium market would have led to a division in the non-premium rights market (i.e. semi-premium rights on the one hand and the remaining rights that are less valuable on the other hand). Once again, the Autorité points out that such a categorization within the non-premium category is irrelevant from a competition law point of view (pt.59). Establishing a specific premium TV rights market should involve legal consequences as usually occurs when TV rights shift from the non-premium market to a specific premium market. Within the same market, it is difficult to see what those legal consequences should be. The non-premium TV market is ruled by common contract law in contrast to premium rights that have to comply with a number of obligations to ensure compliance with EU competition law (open and transparent tendering process, packages, and limits in duration). Imposing those remedies on the semi-premium market would lead to the absorption of the market by the premium TV rights markets (pt.63). As a consequence, the Autorité finds that there is no legal need to define a semi-premium sport TV rights market.  

Towards legal certainty for sport rights holders

We have seen that the shift between non-premium and premium sport rights is the tipping point that leads rights holders to start open tendering processes for the selling of their rights. However, in France, the Code du Sport provides that sport federations are the owners[9] of the media rights for their sport. These federations can decide to transfer this ownership to clubs.[10] In this case, joint selling by the league is compulsory[11] and it has to be done through an open and transparent tender process, the rights must be packaged and they must be sold for a maximum period of four years.[12] The Code du Sport codifies the remedies imposed by the European Commission in the joint selling of football media rights cases, but it does not mention premium rights. These obligations are applicable in the case of transfer of ownership and where a professional league exists. Thus, in France it only applies in relation to football, rugby, basketball, volleyball and handball, five sport for which a professional league has been set up. In practice, the French football federation is the only federation that transferred the ownership of rights to its clubs for the first and second divisions[13] and, as a consequence, the football national league, responsible for the joint selling on behalf of the clubs, has to respect the obligations laid down in the Code. It is possible that, in hoping to circumvent those obligations, the other four federations decided to keep the ownership of the media rights. This is, in particular, the case of the rugby federation where the league is selling the media rights for the Top 14 and Pro D2 on behalf of the federation.[14]

Both decisions on the Top 14 and Pro D2 reintegrate the notion of premium and non-premium rights into the legal analysis. In the case of rugby, where the national provisions for the selling of sport rights did not apply because the federation was the owner of these rights and not the clubs, the shift from non-premium to premium rights leads to the application of competition remedies. Moreover, the Top 14 decision opens the way to tendering processes, packaging and the limiting of contract durations in cases of sports where national provisions do not apply because there is no professional league. Indeed, in this scenario, the media rights will be considered as premium because they fulfil all criteria. Hence, two scenarios can be envisaged: where a professional league exists, the federation has to decide whether it transfers the rights ownership to clubs and respects the obligations laid down in the law; and where it decides to retain ownership, or if there is no league, the federation or league has to make sure its rights are not premium in accordance with the Top 14 decision before deciding on the marketing procedure it has to follow.

The criteria developed by the French competition authority appear to be quite objective and effective as these criteria were also used by the Belgian competition authority in a dispute between Proximus and Telenet concerning the rights of the 2015-2016 cycle-cross Superprestige competition that were awarded to Telenet.[15] Telenet used the cumulative criteria from the Top 14 decision to show that cycle-cross does not constitute a separate market from the other cycling rights that are not premium. The national competition authority however, also referring to the French decision, considers that these rights should be on a separate premium market because of their popularity throughout Flanders and that they are subscriptions driver. The question remaining here is whether it would be useful to codify these criteria. First, it has to be stated that these criteria were only used in the case of live TV and that it is difficult to assess if they are objective enough to be used for all media transmissions (which are mostly Internet-based). On the other hand, media is a fast moving market and it is absolutely not certain that engaging in a legislative process to codify those criteria will give the margin of appreciation necessary to correctly assess premium sport media rights markets and prevent any distortion of competition. A full codification does not appear essential in that case and, as shown in the Belgian cycle-cross situation, these criteria can be used in other sports and markets to determine the premium qualification of media rights which gives a modicum of legal certainty to sport rights holders.

However, a question remains surrounding sport rights that almost fall within the premium market. For non-premium rights, rights holders have the freedom to decide how they want to organise the selling of their TV rights. As Telenet in the Belgian decision on cycle-cross rightly pointed out, the imposition of a transparent tender procedure for rights holders that belong to the non-premium market creates an imbalance as they do not have the same resources as the premium rights holders to organise such a costly tender procedure. Yet, in practice, and in the Pro D2 case, rights holders tend to organise tender procedures and unbundle their rights even though they are not legally obliged to do so. In the case of the Top 14, the LNR carried out a market assessment before even starting its negotiations with Canal Plus and should have known its rights fell into the premium category. The problem here for rights holders is to prevent any dispute arising after the selling process concerning the non-premium/premium qualification of the TV rights in question. Identifying a semi-premium category may be useful for rights holders in better managing the shift from non-premium to premium rights holders. Right holders that are close to seeing their non-premium rights become premium should carefully assess the commercial attractiveness of their rights and probably decide on a formal selling procedure in order not to risk their selling process being annulled by competition authorities.

As seen with these two French cases, the value of sport TV rights may change over time, depending on factors such as the improvement in the level of competition and the public interest, which creates the possibility for these rights to change categories. Moreover, this appreciation may change from one national market to another. Moving from the non-premium to premium market implies some important changes in the selling process and rights holders should carefully appraise the value and popularity of their sport beforehand. The criteria laid down in the Top 14 decision may be considered as guiding principles in this process and, accordingly, it may be used by other competition authorities faced with similar circumstances.

[1] Autorité de la concurrence, 12-DCC-100, 23/07/2012

[2] BeIN Sport is a French sport premium channel in direct competition with Canal Plus and Eurosport and owns an important portfolio of sport rights for football (Ligue 1, Ligue 2, UEFA Champions League and Europa League), rugby, tennis and handball in particular. In February 2016 Canal Plus announced it had reached an agreement to exclusively distribute beIN Sports. The French competition authority is expected to decide very soon on that issue.

[3] Autorité de la concurrence, 14-MC-01, 30/07/2014 and Cour d’Appel de Paris, arrêt du 09 octobre 2014.

[4] Autorité de la concurrence, 12-DCC-100, 23/07/2012.

[5] Commission Decision, UEFA Champions League (Case COMP/C.2-37.398), 23/07/2003

[6] Autorité de la concurrence, 16-D-04, 23/03/2016.

[7] MCS (from July 2016, SFR Sport channels) sport rights portfolio mainly consists of the competition rights overlooked by the biggest actors on the market. However, it owns some valuable rights such as the basketball Pro A (French first division basketball championship), the CEV DenizBank Volleyball Champions League, the WTA tour in tennis and more importantly, from 2016, the FA Premier League.

[8] « qui, sans réunir l’ensemble des critères habituellement retenus par la jurisprudence pour identifier un caractère premium, sont des moteurs d’audience significatifs pour les chaînes thématiques sportives et des contenus suffisamment attractifs pour également intéresser les chaînes premium », pt.49

[9] Code du Sport, articles L.331-1 and R.333-1

[10] Ibid, L.331-1

[11] Ibid, article R.333-2

[12] Ibid, article R.333-3

[13] See article 25 of the FFF/LFP convention

[14] See article 28 of the FFR/LNR convention

[15] Belgische Mededingingsautoriteit, 15-VM-65, 05/11/2015