This is a follow-up contribution to my previous blog on human rights implications of the Olympic Games published last week. Together with highlighting some of the most serious Olympic Games-related human rights abuses, the first part has outlined the key elements of the Host City Contract ('HCC') as one of the main legal instruments regulating the execution of the Olympic Games. It has also indicated that, in February 2017, the International Olympic Committee ('IOC') revised the 2024 HCC to include, inter alia, explicit human rights obligations. Without questioning the potential significance of inserting human rights obligations to the 2024 HCC, this second part will refer to a number of outstanding issues requiring clarification in order to ensure that these newly-added human rights obligations are translated from paper to actual practice.

Implementation of Agenda 2020 into the HCC 

In December 2014, the IOC Session unanimously approved Olympic Agenda 2020 ('Agenda 2020'), a set of 40 recommendations intended to protect the uniqueness of the Games and strengthen Olympic values in society. Agenda 2020 makes five specific recommendations with respect to the HCC which should have been taken into account as of the 2022 HCC concluded between the IOC on the one hand and the City of Beijing and the Chinese Olympic Committee on the other hand.[1]

Most importantly, Agenda 2020 encourages the IOC to include in the HCC clauses reflecting the prohibition of discrimination as well as the protection of environmental and labour-related rights.[2] Fundamental Principle 6 of the Olympic Charter, now also reflected in Article 13.2. (a) of the 2024 HCC, reads as follows: ''The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Olympic Charter shall be secured without discrimination of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.'' Non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation had been absent from the Olympic Charter prior to Agenda 2020. As far as environmental and labour-related matters are concerned, the Host City, the Host National Olympic Committee ('Host NOC') and the Organising Committee of the Olympic Games ('OCOG') are obliged under the 2024 HCC to ''ensure that their activities in relation to the organisation of the Olympic Games comply with any international agreements, laws and regulations applicable in the Host Country, with regard to planning, construction, protection of the environment, health and safety, labour and working conditions and cultural heritage''.[3] For the first time, the 2024 HCC also makes a specific reference to the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals.[4]

In addition to promoting non-discrimination, environmental protection and labour-related rights, Agenda 2020 also fosters transparency by demanding the IOC to: (i) make the HCC public; (ii) disclose details of the IOC's financial contribution to the OCOG; and (iii) provide the HCC at the outset of a bidding procedure.[5] Moreover, Agenda 2020 suggests that entities other than the Host City and the Host NOC may become signatories to the HCC in line with the local context.[6]

What exactly has been added to the 2024 HCC?

As indicated above, the prohibition of discrimination,[7] and to a certain extent also the protection of labour-related rights,[8] appeared for the first time in the 2022 HCC, reflecting the recommendations laid down in Agenda 2020.[9] Moving to the 2024 HCC, the core human rights provision inserted therein demands that the Host City, the Host NOC and the OCOG in their activities related to the execution of the Games ''protect and respect human rights and ensure any violation of human rights is remedied in a manner consistent with international agreements, laws and regulations applicable in the Host Country and in a manner consistent with all internationally-recognized human rights standards and principles, including the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, applicable in the Host Country''.[10] Of particular importance is the explicit reference to the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights ('UN Guiding Principles'), a non-binding legal framework intended to minimize adverse human rights impacts triggered by business activities. The UN Guiding Principles are based on three pillars, namely (i) the State duty to protect human rights; (ii) the corporate responsibility to respect human rights; and (iii) access to remedy.

The following sections will address some of the issues that remain outstanding even after the insertion of human rights obligations to the 2024 HCC.

No direct involvement of the Host Country

First and foremost, the Host Country itself is not directly obliged to protect and respect human rights under the 2024 HCC. Instead, the provision discussed above imposes human rights obligations on the Host City, the Host NOC and the OCOG. It is critical to note that the relevant provision requires the Host City, the Host NOC and the OCOG not only to respect, but also to protect human rights, suggesting that these entities shall take positive actions to facilitate the enjoyment of human rights. This begs the question whether the Host City, the Host NOC and the OCOG have the political, legal and financial capacity to effectively take such positive actions.

For instance, the Host City and the OCOG would be expected to include human rights obligations in their contracts with suppliers of public infrastructure and sporting facilities. However, even if they do so under the threat of contract's termination and further sanctions, it may not suffice to prevent Olympic Games-related human rights abuses from occurring. Unlike the Host Country Authorities, the Host City, the Host NOC and the OCOG do not possess the necessary powers to monitor and adjudicate the human rights compliance of their sub-contractors. Furthermore, much of the infrastructure build-up might be conducted by the Host Country directly and would therefore evade the scope of application of the HCC.

Who determines when human rights obligations are violated? 

In practice, human rights obligations arising out of a contractual relationship are not easy to deal with, because it might be rather difficult to decide whether they have been observed or not. For this reason, it is essential to entrust an independent body with competence to decide whether the Host City, the Host NOC or the OCOG have complied with their human rights obligations under the HCC. Unfortunately, the 2024 HCC in its current form does not stipulate who is responsible for adopting a decision determining that the Host City, the Host NOC and the OCOG are in breach of their human rights obligations. 

It follows that the IOC itself (via the Coordination or Legal Affairs Commission) may take on this inquisitorial and quasi-judicial role. However, this would lead a very interested party to monitor and adjudicate the human rights compliance of the Host City, the Host NOC and the OCOG. The potential for a conflict of interests is evident, as the IOC could face negative financial and other consequences if it decides to withdraw the Games from the Host City, the Host NOC and the OCOG. In this configuration, the incentives will therefore be strongly opposed to finding for a lack of compliance.

Instead, we could imagine a separate, truly independent body consisting of NGO members, athletes' representatives, union representatives, CAS arbitrators and independent experts (such as academics or judges at the European Court of Human Rights). This body could have an investigative and an adjudicative chamber (not unlike the FIFA Independent Ethics Committee), ensuring a separation between monitoring and adjudicating. Should the Host City, the Host NOC or the OCOG consider sanctions imposed under such a mechanism arbitrary, they might still activate the CAS arbitration clause[11] and challenge the validity of these sanctions before the CAS.

Will the sanctions contemplated by the HCC be effective? 

As explained in the first part of this blog, the most severe sanction contemplated by the HCC in the event of non-compliance is the withdrawal of the Games from the Host City, the Host NOC and the OCOG with prior notice.[12] It should be emphasized, however, that a removal of the Games would result in both financial and reputational harm being incurred by the IOC.[13] Therefore, it is arguable whether the IOC would in practice be ready to withdraw the Games. In fact, the IOC has withdrawn the Games so far only due to the outbreak of the First and Second World War, when the Games were cancelled altogether.[14] Being aware of the IOC's unwillingness to withdraw the Games, the Host City, the Host NOC and the OCOG may not perceive the threat of losing the Games as credible. Consequently, these entities may not feel obliged to adhere to their human rights obligations under the HCC.

With regard to other enforcement measures, the IOC is entitled, inter alia, to retain all amounts held in the General Retention Fund[15] or withhold any payment due, or grant to be made to the OCOG pursuant to the HCC.[16] By not providing the relevant financial contribution to the OCOG, the IOC would risk delays in construction and other preparatory works – something the IOC certainly wants to avoid. Eventually, these sanctions might prove to be as inefficient as the threat of losing the Games, given that the IOC may turn a blind eye to violations of the HCC in order to safeguard its financial and other interests. Besides financial considerations, the IOC's reluctance to impose sanctions on the Host City, the Host NOC and the OCOG follows from the fact that the IOC would thereby implicitly acknowledge its mistaken decision to award the Games to a particular Host City in the first place.

Conclusion

This blog has identified three specific concerns potentially relativizing the impact of the human rights obligations recently added to the 2024 HCC. First, the Host City, the Host NOC and the OCOG as the formal addresses of these obligations may not have the capacity to ensure the human rights compliance of their sub-contractors. Second, the 2024 HCC in its current form lacks clarity as to when the Host City, the Host NOC and the OCOG are in breach of their human rights obligations and who is responsible for adopting a decision to that effect. Third, being aware of the IOC's unwillingness to withdraw the Games due to financial and other interests involved, it is likely that the Host City, the Host NOC and the OCOG might refuse to abide by their human rights obligations under the HCC. This is not to say, however, that introducing human rights requirements is not an important step forward, but as always with this type of decisions the devil will be in the implementation.

[1]    The 2022 HCC was executed in Kuala Lumpur on 31 July 2015.

[2]    Agenda 2020; Recommendation 1.5.

[3]    2024 Host City Contract – Principles; Article 15.2. (b).

[4]    Ibid., Article 15.1.

[5]    Agenda 2020; Recommendations 1.6., 1.7., 1.10.

[6]    Ibid., Recommendation 1.9.

[7]    2022 Host City Contract; Preamble (L.).

[8]    Ibid., Article 21.

[9]    Agenda 2020; Recommendation 1.5.

[10]   2024 Host City Contract – Principles; Article 13.2. (b).

[11]   Ibid., Article 51.2.

[12]   Ibid., Articles 38.2., 38.3.

[13]   R. Gauthier, The International Olympic Committee, Law and Accountability, Routledge, 2017, at 144-145.

[14]   Ibid., at 144.

[15]   According to Article 8.2. (d) of the 2024 HCC, the General Retention Fund represents a percentage (5 %) of ''any sums of money or equivalent value-in-kind payable to the OCOG in relation to the International Programme''. It is maintained and controlled by the IOC.

[16]   2024 Host City Contract – Principles; Article 36.2. (a), (b).

The Pechstein decision of the Oberlandesgericht of Munich is “ground-breaking”, “earth-shaking”, “revolutionary”, name it. It was the outmost duty of a “German-reading” sports lawyer to translate it as fast as possible in order to make it available for the sports law community at large (Disclaimer: This is not an official translation and I am no certified legal translator). Below you will find the rough translation of the ruling (the full German text is available here), it is omitting solely the parts, which are of no direct interest to international sports law.

The future of CAS is in the balance and this ruling should trigger some serious rethinking of the institutional set-up that underpins it. As you will see, the ruling is not destructive, the Court is rather favourable to the function of CAS in the sporting context, but it requires a fundamental institutional reshuffling. It also offers a fruitful legal strategy to challenge CAS awards that could be used in front of any national court of the EU as it is based on reasoning analogically applicable to article 102 TFEU (on abuse of a dominant position), which is valid across the EU’s territory.

Enjoy the read! 

Antoine

PS: The translation can also be downloaded at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2561297

OLG München · 15 January 2015 · Az. U 1110/14 Kart

Part 1. The facts (omitted)

Part 2. Holdings of the Court

A. The claim is partially receivable

I. The international competence of the German courts (omitted)

67 - II. The arbitration clause signed on the 2 January 2009 by the appellant (Pechstein) and the respondent nr 2 (ISU) does not preclude access to the ordinary courts

68 - To this end the question whether the CAS, designated by the arbitration clause, can be considered a real arbitration tribunal, despite the fact the parties have no equal influence on its composition, can stay open. The arbitration clause would also be null in that case.

1. […]

2. […]

71 - 3. The arbitration clause is in the present case inapplicable because it goes against antitrust law

a) […]

aa) […]

bb) […]

75 - b) The arbitration clause signed on the 2 January 2009 between Pechstein and ISU is invalid based on Art. 34 EGBGB, §134 BGB, §19 Abs. 1, Abs.  4 Nr. 2 GWB.

76 - aa) The ISU is a monopolist on the market for the access to Speed-Skating World Championships and therefore in a dominant position in the sense of §19 Abs.1, Abs 4 Nr. 2 GWB.

77 - An economic activity, in the sense of the German Act against restraints of Competition (GWB), is any activity consisting of offering goods or services on a market. If this condition is fulfilled, the fact that an activity is linked to sport cannot preclude the application of the Competition rules (C-49/07 MOTOE v. Greece). Sports associations offering their services on the market of sports competitions are to be considered undertakings.

78 - In the present case, the market for the organisation of the World Championships in speed skating is the relevant market. Contrary to the view of ISU, the participation to the event cannot be supplanted by the participation in national competitions, due to the worldwide interest it triggers and the connected side revenues that successful athletes can hope for.

79 – […]Moreover, it is not convincing to argue that international events as the Open Belrus Cup, the Cup of Kazakhstan, the Dutch Classics or the International Race-Seniors could trigger the same interest and be substitutable to the World Championships.

80 - ISU is thus, because of the “One-place-principle”[1], the only provider on the market for the organisation of World Championships in Speed-Skating and therefore, due to the absence of competition, a monopolist in a dominant position in the sense of § 19 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 GWB.

81 - bb) An undertaking in a dominant position is prohibited under § 19 Abs. 1, Abs. 4 Nr. 2 GWB from demanding payment or other business terms which differ from those which would very likely arise if effective competition existed.

82 - Hence, the ISU could not require Pechstein to agree to the arbitration clause signed on 2 January 2009.

83 - (1) The notion of terms of trade is be understood broadly. It comprises everything that can be agreed on contractually, including an agreement to arbitrate disputes excluding the recourse to national courts.

84 - aaa) Contrary to the opinion of ISU, the applicability of § 19 Abs. 1, Abs. 4 Nr. 2 GWB is not precluded because the signing of the arbitration clause was mandated to ISU by the International Convention Against Doping in Sport from the 19^th October 2005 ratified by Switzerland.

85 - The Convention does not include a rule imposing a duty to conclude an arbitration clause in favour of CAS. Rather, it refers in Art. 4 §1 to the principles of the World Anti-Doping Code, which in turn in Article 13.2.1 provides that in cases involving international competitions or international athletes, appeals against anti-doping decisions can only be submitted to CAS. It cannot be assumed, despite the compliance mandate that the Code imposes to its signatories in Article 23.2.2, that the Convention includes this provision in the fundamental principles to which the State parties have to abide following Art.4 §1. Moreover, the obligations stemming from Art. 4 par.1 require transposition by the national states as foreseen by Art.5 1) of the Convention. It is not clear from the submissions of ISU that Switzerland has introduced any law that would impose to ISU the duty to sign arbitration clauses in favour of CAS.

86 - The fact that the ISU may have felt that it had to sign arbitration clauses in favour of CAS due to other non-legal reasons, as for example to preserve its recognition by the IOC, is irrelevant in the context of this competition law analysis. 

87 – bbb) Omitted

88 - (2) The imposition of an arbitration clause by the organizer of International sporting competitions is not per se an abuse of a dominant position.

89 - aaa) In fact, sound and weighty arguments speak in favour of avoiding to leave to the many potentially competent national courts the duty to deal with disputes arising between athletes and International federations in the framework of international competitions, and instead to refer them to a single sports tribunal. In particular, a uniform competence and procedure can preclude that similar cases be decided differently, and therefore safeguard the equal opportunities of athletes during the competitions.

90 - bbb) Contrary to the view of the first instance court, arbitration agreements between a dominant organizer of international sports competitions and the athlete taking part in these competitions are not per se invalid due to the lack of free will of the athlete.

91 - Omitted

92 - Art 6 par. 1 ECHR is opposed to the validity of an arbitration agreement to which one of the parties has not acquiesced. But, if consent is present, the sole fact that this consent was necessary economically to be able to exercise one’s profession is not sufficient to constitute a violation of the rights warranted by Art.6 par.1 ECHR. 

93 - (3) Nevertheless, the fact that ISU required from Pechstein to sign an arbitration agreement in favour of CAS is an abuse of dominant position.

94 - It can be assumed that, due to the above-mentioned advantages, athletes would agree to the competence of a neutral arbitral tribunal if free competition would prevail on the market for the organisation of international competitions. However, an arbitration clause in favour of CAS would not be agreed under normal circumstances, as the one-sided designation of the potential arbitrators favours the associations (the International federations – such as the ISU – the national Olympic Committees and the International Olympic Committee) involved in disputes with athletes as regard the composition of the arbitral panel. Athletes accept this arrangement only because they have to in order to participate in international sporting competitions. 

95 - aaa) The aforementioned sports associations have a decisive influence on the selection of the persons acting as CAS arbitrators

96 – a-1) Pursuant to the CAS procedural rules of 2004, in place at the moment of the signing of the arbitral convention, the parties have to select an arbitrator amongst the list of CAS arbitrators compiled by ICAS [R33 par.2 of the procedural rules and S6. Nr.3 of the Statutes].

97-103 […]The Court goes on to describe the composition of the ICAS as provided for in article S4 and the mode of selection of the arbitrators included on the CAS list as provided for in article S14 of the statutes. 

104 - These provisions regulating the selection of the potential CAS arbitrators favour the sports associations in disputes against athletes, thus embedding a structural imbalance that is threatening the neutrality of CAS.

105 - Sports association hold, with 12 members directly designated by them, the majority in ICAS. Already through this situation they enjoy, due to the majority rule applying in ICAS’ decision-making procedure, a favourable position that enables them to have a decisive influence on the composition of the list of CAS arbitrators. Furthermore, due to the fact that the 12 members previously designated by the sporting associations nominate them, the independence of the 8 other members of ICAS is also not preserved. Even the CAS statutes themselves do not assume the independence of the ICAS members and of the CAS arbitrators, as they require that the last 4 ICAS members and the last fifth of CAS arbitrators be independent from the organisations which were responsible for the nomination of all the other previous members of both ICAS and the CAS arbitrators list.

106 - This disproportionate influence creates the risk that the persons included on the CAS arbitrators list predominantly or even entirely favour the side of the sporting associations over the athletes. This is also true concerning the arbitrators that are not suggested by the sporting association, but are selected in view to protect the interest of athletes or on the basis of their independence, as they are designated by ICAS members chosen by the sporting associations. A balanced influence of the parties on the composition of the arbitral tribunal that would be needed to safeguard its independence is thus not provided. Such a structural deficiency threatens the neutrality of the arbitral tribunal; this is independent of the fact whether the persons included on the CAS list of arbitrators are in any way linked to the sports associations, as this would actually open the possibility to challenge their nomination. Even when the personal integrity of the persons included on the CAS list is not affected, there is a potential risk that arbitrators share the worldview of the sports associations rather than the one of the athletes.

107 - The imbalance in favour of the sports associations is not offset by the fact that the CAS arbitrators’ list comprises a minimum of 150 persons, as the risk of a potential capture by the sports associations extends to each one of them.

108 - a-2) Moreover, an imbalance in favour of the sports associations is also grounded in the fact that in the appeal procedure before CAS, when the parties have not managed to agree on a name (see R 50 par.1 procedural rules 2004), the president of the panel is designated by the president of the appeal division of CAS, while the president of the appeal division is himself nominated by ICAS, which is structurally dependent on the sporting associations, through a simple majority decision. In this way, the sports associations can also exercise an indirect influence on the third member of the arbitral panel competent to deal with a specific dispute. The trust of the parties in the independence and impartiality of an arbitral tribunal is eroded when there are reasons to fear that the judge facing them has been designated specifically in regard of the specific case at hand. Thus, it is necessary to take measures to combat the sheer possibility and suspicion of a manipulation of the designation of the judge.

109 - bbb) There is no rational justification for such an imbalance in favour of the sports associations 

110 - Contrary to the arguments of the ISU, a shared interest of the sports associations and the athletes cannot justify such an imbalance, as especially in disputes between athletes and sports associations no shared interest can be identified, to the contrary opposing interests are facing each other. In this regard, the fact that sports functionaries were often athletes in the past is also not a sufficient guarantee to ensure that the interests of the athletes are adequately protected.

111 - The circumstance that in a dispute between an international sports association and an athlete, the national sports association decides to support the athlete – as it was the case here in front of CAS - is not sufficient to challenge the fundamental homogeneity of the interests of the sports association. Surely, the national sports association concerned might have a specific interest that their own successful athlete be cleared, but other national sports associations do not share this interest so much that from a general point of view one can assume a homogeneity of the interests.[…]

112 - Finally, the argument of the ISU regarding the lack of organisation of the athletes that would hinder their participation in the drafting of the CAS arbitrators list must be rejected. If it would be impossible to involve athletes in the drafting of the list then athletes should be freed from their duty to nominate an arbitrator from the list, and be authorized to pick the arbitrator they wish – possibly under the condition of abstract qualification requirements.

113 - ccc) The reason why athletes accept to subject their disputes with sports associations to an arbitration tribunal, the composition of which is mainly determined by sports associations, is solely linked to the monopoly position of the sports associations. If the athlete could participate to the World Championship while agreeing to the competence of a neutral arbitration tribunal, we can safely assume that only this arbitration clause would be agreed upon to the detriment of the arbitral tribunal structurally favourable to the sports associations.

114 – Omitted

115 - ddd) The departure from arbitration agreements that would have been signed under normal conditions of competition strips Pechstein from her fundamental right of constitutional rank, flowing from the rule of law principles, to access to national courts and to a legally mandated judge (Art. 101 Abs. 1 Satz 2 GG). Hence, the arbitration agreement goes beyond the intensity threshold required for the recognition of an abuse of dominant position. 

116 - eee)[…] German law specific considerations to the notion of abuse of dominance not directly linked to the sporting context.

117 - (4) No need to discuss the other arguments raised by Pechstein against the CAS. […]

118 - cc) The arbitral convention is contrary to the ban on abuses of dominant position ((§ 19 Abs. 1, Abs. 4 Nr. 2 GWB) and therefore null and void on the basis of § 134 BGB. [...]

119 - c) The contradictory behaviour of Pechstein cannot justify refusing to grant her access to the ordinary courts.

120 - Based on its wording the arbitration clause covers a wide scope of potential disputes. The fact that Pechstein claims damages in front of the ordinary courts does not stand in contradiction with the fact that she challenged the doping sanction in front of CAS.  Even if the appeal to CAS would constitute a, legally doubtful, recognition of its competence to deal with the doping sanction, it would not entail that this recognition extends to every potential other dispute between the parties.

121 - Moreover, it has not been demonstrated by the ISU, nor is it clearly understandable, why, based on good faith, it could legitimately rely on the expectation that Pechstein would refer other disputes to CAS. Indeed, the fact that the arbitral convention underlying CAS competence is the result of an abuse of a dominant position by the ISU speaks out against any such legitimate expectations.

122 - 4. The fact that Pechstein signed, in the framework of the arbitral procedure involving her doping sanction, the Order of Procedure from the 29 September 2009, does not constitute an arbitration clause barring access to the ordinary courts, as it was in any case only referring to the specific dispute before CAS. Thus, it cannot constitute a valid arbitration agreement covering other disputes.

123 - III. Pechstein’s complaint is partially admissible. […]

124 – 128 Omitted

129 - B. As far as the complaint is admissible it is not yet ready for decision. Contrary to the view of the first instance court, the complaint cannot be discarded on the basis of the res judicata effect of the CAS award.

130 - I. It is true that the procedural relevance of a foreign arbitral awards, in particular its res judicata effect, does not necessitate a particular recognition process; but, this implies that the fundamental conditions for the recognition be fulfilled, which is not the case in the present instance.

131 - II. The recognition of the CAS award – which would anyway only be possible if CAS would constitute a proper arbitral tribunal – would go contrary to the public order. Consequently, the CAS award cannot be recognized due to § 1061 Abs. 1 Satz 1 ZPO in relation with Art. V par. 2. b) of the New York Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards from the 10^th June 1958.

132 - 1. An arbitral award violates the ordre public, and is thus not recognizable, when it leads to an outcome that is obviously incompatible with the fundamental principles of German law, and therefore breaches the prime foundations of the German legal order. However, not any decision potentially contrary to German mandatory laws constitutes a violation of the ordre public. 

133 - Fundamental provisions of competition law are part of the ordre public exception to the recognition of arbitral awards in the sense of Art. 5 par.2 b) New York Convention (CJEU, 4 June 2009, C-8/08 - T-Mobile Netherlands BV u.a./Raad van hestuur van de Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit; CJEU, 13. July 2006 - C-295-298/04 - Vincenzo Manfredi/Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni SpA;  CJEU 1. June 1999 - C-126/97 - Eco Swiss China Time Ltd/Benetton International; [...])

134 - 2. Thus the CAS award cannot be recognized

135 - a) In the present case the ISU was barred by § 19 Abs. 1, Abs. 4 Nr. 2 GWB from imposing the arbitration agreement onto Pechstein. The recognition of an award based on an agreement contrary to competition law would perpetuate the abusive conduct of the ISU, which would be contrary to the objective underlying the ban on abusive practices imposed by the competition rules. This is further confirmed by the fact that Pechstein disposes, on the basis of § 33 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GWB, of a right to require the ISU to remedy the consequences of the forced arbitration clause. This includes the fact that the ISU cannot rely on the CAS award issues on the basis of this arbitration agreement.

136 - Omitted

137 - b) The question whether with Pechstein’s appeal to CAS or her signing of the Order of Procedure a new arbitration agreement was concluded can stay unanswered.  Indeed, this would also constitute a perpetuation of the abuse of a dominant position by the ISU. Pechstein had no other credible option available to obtain the right to participate to the Winter Olympics taking place between the 12 and 28 February 2010 in Vancouver, but to appeal to CAS on the basis of the arbitral agreement of the 2 January 2009.  A recourse to the Swiss courts was in light of their jurisprudence, as confirmed later by the ruling of the Swiss Federal tribunal on the CAS award, not particularly promising. Similarly, a request for an order to be authorised to participate to the Olympics in front of the German courts can hardly be deemed a reliable alternative mean due to the uncertainties related to the assessment of their international competence in that matter.

138 - III. Due to the impossibility to recognize the CAS award, German Courts are not bound by its findings in their evaluation of the legality of the doping sanction in order to assess the legitimacy of Pechstein’s damage claims. 

[1] The concept of « Ein-Platz-Prinzip » is specific to German law and qualifies the fact that sports associations are monopolists by nature.

Editor’s Note: Saverio Spera is an Italian lawyer and LL.M. graduate in International Business Law at King’s College London. He is currently an intern at the ASSER International Sports Law Centre.

In the football world the use of unilateral extension options (hereafter UEOs) in favour of the clubs is common practice. Clubs in Europe and, especially, South America make extensive use of this type of contractual clauses, since it gives them the exclusive possibility to prolong the employment relationship with players whose contracts are about to come to an end. This option gives to a club the right to extend the duration of a player’s contract for a certain agreed period after its initial expiry, provided that some previously negotiated conditions are met. In particular, these clauses allow clubs to sign young promising players for short-term contracts, in order to ascertain their potential, and then extend the length of their contracts.^[1] Here lies the great value of UEOs for clubs: they can let the player go if he is not performing as expected, or unilaterally retain him if he is deemed valuable. Although an indisputably beneficial contractual tool for any football club, these clauses are especially useful to clubs specialized in the development of young players.^[2] After the Bosman case, clubs have increasingly used these clauses in order to prevent players from leaving their clubs for free at the end of their contracts.^[3] The FIFA Regulations do not contain any provisions regulating this practice, consequently the duty of clarifying the scope and validity of the options lied with the national courts, the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) and the CAS. This two-part blog will attempt to provide the first general overview on the issue.^[4] My first blog will be dedicated to the validity of UEOs clauses in light of national laws and of the jurisprudence of numerous European jurisdictions. In a second blog, I will review the jurisprudence of the DRC and the CAS on this matter.

Even though the DRC’s and the CAS’s view on UEOs matter most prominently in daily practice, it is impossible to entirely ignore the positioning of national laws and EU law vis-à-vis the legality of UEOs. In fact, as we will see later, arguments derived from national law also play a fundamental role in the assessment of the UEOs by the CAS. A comparative analysis of the UEOs validity under national laws is extremely difficult to conduct, as these clauses are relatively rare outside of football and the few rulings of lower level national courts are difficult to access. In an ordinary employment contract, deprived of the specificities of the sporting context, it is hard to fathom the utility for the employer to have the power to extend the contract unilaterally at his or her will. Due to the operation of the transfer market, football players are in a peculiar employment condition, hardly comparable to that of any other employee. The investments clubs make on training footballers and their transfer value contribute to this unique employment relationship to the extent that footballers are considered intangible assets for the clubs.^[5] Given the difficulty of comparing hardly comparable situations, the only way to proceed to a comparative overview is to attempt to produce comparative snapshots, which, due to the limited amount of space, are necessarily incomplete.

In Switzerland: It’s unenforceable

It is ironical that in a liberal country like Switzerland, where contractual freedom is interpreted widely, the validity of UEOs under national law is doubtful. Although there are no provisions concerning UEOs in Swiss labour law, we can conclude that under Swiss law these clauses are most likely unenforceable.^[6] In Switzerland such an option would be deemed to infringe employment law and thus considered invalid when incorporated in employment contracts. According to Art. 335a para. 1 of the Swiss code of Obligations^[7] there must be formal parity between employer and employee concerning terminations of contracts. UEOs clauses would circumvent this provision by creating disparity between the parties, as they confer to one party the unilateral possibility to prolong the contract. The Swiss Civil Court, although in disputes arising outside the realm of football, has in the past denounced the circumvention of the provisions. It imposed the equality of treatment between employer and employee concerning the conditions of termination of an employment contract. In one case regarding a two year contract for services abroad, which included the possibility of tacit renewal and the right for the company to recall the employee in Switzerland, the Court stated that the right to recall the employee granted unilaterally to the employer gave him a more favourable position than the employee with regard to the termination of the fixed-term contract. This situation, stressed the Court, is contrary to the purpose of then Art. 336 para. 2 CO, which aims to grant equivalent protection to the parties.^[8] A next case involved a trilateral service contract between an employee, an employer (Meco Mechanical Corporation) and a beneficiary (the government of the then United Arab Republic, a short-lived political union between Egypt and Syria). The contract included a right to early termination granted to the beneficiary. The Court, nonetheless, stated that this right is contrary to “Article 347 (3) of the Swiss Code of Obligations, which prohibits the agreement between different periods of notice for the employer and the service provider. This prohibition cannot be circumvented by making the right of termination or the automatic termination of the employment relationship conditional upon a condition which is unilaterally dependent on the will of the employer. Such a condition would allow the employer to terminate the contract at a point in time at which the service provider could not.”^[9]

It should be noted that the principle of parity between the parties is not considered part of the Swiss ordre public. Consequently, if a case has to be decided on Swiss territory according to a foreign law that allows for the use of unilateral extension options, Swiss law cannot prevent the application of such clauses. However, if the clause leads to over extensive commitment on the side of the employee, it might be considered an infringement of the ordre public and, thus, be deemed null and void. 

In Germany: It’s complicated

According to a first ruling of the Labour Court of Ulm, some UEOs are considered null and void. It concerned a one-year agreement (valid from 1 January 2007 to the end of season 2007/2008) between the club and the player, which contained an UEO giving the club the right to extend the contract for one more year. ^[10] The Court held the option invalid. More precisely, the Court considered the unilateral option ineffective. Based on Art. 307 para. 1 BGB, provisions in general terms and conditions should be considered invalid if they unduly penalize the contractual partner and are not accompanied with appropriate compensatory measures. In the present case, the Court found that the unilateral option clause served only the purpose of providing the employer with an additional income in the form of a transfer indemnity. In these conditions, the UEO amounts to a disproportionate restriction of the freedom to work enshrined in Art. 12 of the Grundgesetz (German constitution).^[11]

Nonetheless, a few years after the decision of the Labour Court of Ulm, the German Federal Labour Court held (implicitly) another UEO clause for valid.^[12] The Court dealt with the option only incidentally, as the case mainly revolved around the validity of the resolution agreement signed by the parties. The player, 15 years old at the time, and the club had originally concluded a contract for a period of four years (from 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2010) with the option granted to the club to unilaterally extend the relationship for another year (until 30 June 2011). Sometime after having joined the club, the player started suffering psychological pressure due to a series of personal circumstances and expressed the desire to terminate the contract prior to its natural expiry. The parties then signed a resolution agreement, pursuant to which the club agreed to a resolution in return of a payment of € 40,000. The decision was focused on the validity of that agreement, it only briefly scrutinised the extension option and considered it compatible with the framework of § 15 Abs. 4 TzBfG (or of § 624 BGB for free employment), due to the fact that the length of the contract respected the maximum binding time of five years.^[13] The Court emphasised, in fact, that this is the threshold a fixed-term employment contract has to observe in order to avoid curtailing excessively the employee’s personal freedom and added that the standard is consistent with the principle of freedom of work and of choice of work enshrined in Art. 12(1) of the Basic Law.^[14]

In the Netherlands: It’s probably ok

It takes a bit of legal extrapolation to conclude that any jurisdiction plainly authorizes UEOs, given that none of those examined for the purpose of this blog has a labour legislation in place which expressly supports the validity of UEOs. However, in the Netherlands, where the national labour legislation does not contain any provisions on UEOs, the only known (private) decision to date recognized the validity of such clauses under Dutch law. In the dispute between the Tunisian football player Hatem Trabelsi and his club Ajax Amsterdam the unilateral option included in the contract was deemed to be valid and binding.^[15] The ruling found the option compatible with the dismissal system provided by labour law in combination with contract law.^[16]

In Belgium, Spain, Austria and Italy: It depends on the collective bargaining agreement

A very common framework among jurisdictions seems to reflect the specificity of sport in that it makes footballers’ employment contracts sort of double-layered agreements regulated by employment legislation on the one side and by Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) on the other. In this context, the various legislations delegate to CBAs the duty to outline the details of footballers’ employment conditions, among which one often finds the requirements for UEOs to be validly included therein.

In Belgium, player contracts are mainly regulated by provisions of employment law, in particular by the Act of 3 July 1978 on employment contracts (the Employment Contracts Act).^[17] Yet, with regard to option clauses, the Football Collective Agreement of 15 February 2016 states that, although in general these options are not valid, they are not considered to be unilateral under certain conditions. According to Art. 15 of said agreement, if the clause (i) is agreed upon in writing at the outset, (ii) provides a total duration, extension included, of the relationship of maximum 5 years, and 3 years for under 18 players and (iii) provides for a certain increase in salary (at least 15% of the fixed remuneration and 5% of the match- or selection premium, or 20% of the fixed remuneration, whereby the increase does not need to exceed the amount of 20.000 Euro), it might be considered valid and binding as not unilateral.

In Italy, the employment aspects of sports are regulated by the Law 91/1981. This special legislation, according to which some of the dispositions applicable to subordinate employment do not apply in the sporting context,^[18] was enacted to reflect the peculiarities of the employment relationship in sport.^[19] This legislation does not include any express provision covering UEOs, but – while generally stating at art. 5 that the duration of the fixed-term contract cannot exceed five years - it relies on the CBA for specific contractual requirements. Art. 2 para. 2 of the CBA states that “option agreements are permitted both in favour of the Club and the Player, on the dual condition that a specific consideration is provided in favour of the party who grants the option and that the limit of the overall duration of the Contract, such overall duration consisting of the sum of the duration provided plus any extension represented by the option […], does not exceed the maximum duration provided by law”. The “specific consideration” of the English version is translated from “corrispettivo specifico” which means that, aside from the five-year ceiling, the condition for the UEO to be valid is an increase in the salary of the player.

In Austria these clauses are not invalid as such, but they have to meet the requirements laid down in Section 6(4) of the Collective Agreement for football players of the Austrian Football League (KV-ӦFB), as amended on 1 July 2014. It reads as follows: “The granting of an option to be exercised by a unilateral declaration is only permissible if each party of the contract is granted equal rights and the exercise of the option is linked to equivalent conditions for both parties […]. The date of conclusion of the contract shall be decisive for the assessment of equivalence”.^[20] The Austrian Supreme Court recently upheld the decision of the lower courts in a dispute regarding the validity of an extension option contained in a football player’s contract.^[21] The one-year agreement, valid from 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015, contained an option that granted the club the possibility to extend the contractual relationship for two more years, until June 2017, as long as the club exercised it by 31 May 2015.  On October 2015 the player remitted his salary payments to the club and referred the case to the Tribunal to question the validity of the option. Both the Court of first instance and the Court of Appeals considered the agreement ineffective as the clause did not meet the requirements of Section 6 (4) KV-ӦFB. The ground on which the two courts reached this conclusion was the lack of equivalency of rights under the agreement, as (i) the increase in salary (of 15%) was not proportionate to the length of the extension; (ii) at the time of signing the contract, the contractual conditions for an extension were not defined.[22] The Supreme Court held that the assessment of the lower courts could not be disputed and reiterated that Section 6 (4) KV-ӦFB is unequivocally clear in requiring the granting of equivalent rights to both parties of the contract for an UEO to be acceptable. Equivalence, the Court continued, that has to be assessed at the date of conclusion of the contract.

In Spain the main source of law regarding the employment relationships of professional athletes is the Royal Decree 1006/1985. Regarding the duration of the contract, art. 6 of RD 1006/85 provides that (i) sportsmen contracts are always fixed-term contracts, (ii) the extensions of these contracts, which shall always be definite as well, can be achieved through subsequent agreements between the parties when the contract is about to expire. Paragraph 3 of this provision admits different possibilities of extension in so far as the Collective Bargaining Agreement provides so.^[23]  On the matter, the current Collective Bargaining Agreement defer in turn to the RD 1006/85, as Art. 14 provides that “by mutual agreement between the Club and the Footballer, the contract may be extended, in the terms established in the second paragraph of article 6 of Royal Decree 1006/1985, of June 26”. At the moment, therefore, it seems that extension options in Spain need to be agreed with the player.

In the UK: Likely not

Sometimes circumstances other than the CBA can play a role. The United Kingdom and the Premier League, for instance, represent a unicuum in the panorama of the jurisdictions under scrutiny in the sense that, although here – as in other countries – the employment relationship is governed by national law, collective agreements and the rules of the Football Association (FA),^[24] two specificities place this system in a peculiar position. First of all, in the United Kingdom collective agreements are not legally enforceable. It is true that the terms of a collective agreement may be binding and enforceable between the parties of an employment relationship if these have been incorporated into the individual contract.^[25] However, a court may nonetheless conclude that the term is not enforceable. Secondly, no single overarching collective agreement encompasses the employment relationship between clubs and players in the Premier League. There are, instead, a series of collectively negotiated agreements, such as the Standard Players’ Contract.^[26] In an early decision that challenged the English ‘Retain and Transfer System’ as an unlawful restraint of trade, the High Court placed emphasis on the inequality of bargaining power in a professional football player’s relationship with a club, stating that “in the football industry players commonly enter into their first contract either while they are under 21 or shortly afterwards, and that wherever they may subsequently go, within the Football League, there is only one form of contract they can sign. The Court must be careful to see that contracts made in these circumstances are justifiable in the interests of both parties”.^[27]

That said, although there is no CBA in place that can enlighten us about the validity of UEOs, a satisfying answer could nonetheless be found in the Courts’ rulings concerning contracts in the (to some extent) comparable context of the music industry. The profession of the musician resembles in various aspects that of the football player. As for footballers, musicians’ contracts are linked to their performance, in terms of copies of albums sold, concert tickets sold, royalties from the ads etc. The more a musician is perceived to be promising, the more lucrative the contract he can get from the record company will be. Just as sports professionals, musicians often begin their career in their prime age. In order to get a foot in their respective highly rewarding industries, sportsmen and musicians might agree to contractual clauses without fully understanding the consequences or, more likely, even if they do fully understand the implications of such contracts they may feel they have no option but to sign them if they want their career to start or progress.^[28] This similarity allows us to draw some useful comparisons from the case law of UK courts regarding musicians.

For instance the House of Lords declared void an agreement between a young and unknown musician by the name of Tony Macaulay and the publishing company Schroeder Music Publishing Co Ltd, which contained a clause extending to 10 years the original five-year undertaking of the company.^[29] When he signed the contract, the musician was aged 21. The agreement provided that the duration of five years would have been extended to 10 in case the royalties for the first five years exceeded £ 5,000. In the words of Lord Reid “if the respondent’s work became well known and popular he would be tied by the agreement for ten years”.^[30] In consideration of the duration of the contract and the fact that the payment received by the author was minimal unless his work was released, which was not an obligation for Schroeder Music according to the contract, Lord Reid was of the opinion that the publishers’ appeal had to be dismissed. His reasoning was grounded on the consideration that “if contractual relations appear to be unnecessary or to be reasonably capable of enforcement in an oppressive manner, then they must be justified before they can be enforced”.^[31] Lord Diplock deemed the contract unenforceable due to its substantial unfairness and emphasised the need to accord protection to “those whose bargaining power is weak against being forced by those whose bargaining power is stronger to enter into bargains that are unconscionable”.^[32] For the same reason, the English Court of Appeal struck down as void a publishing agreement between the already established band Fleetwood Mac and the publisher which tied the band to the company for a five year period plus the possibility to extend the relationship for another five years.^[33] The court held that the publishing agreement gave the company “a stranglehold over each of the composers”^[34] and found the contract fundamentally unfair to the group.

These two decisions give us an insight on how under English law, where – it is important to bear in mind – as a general rule the letter of the contract prevails, clauses of these kind tying professional musicians have been considered null and void because of the disproportionate contractual power between the parties. A conclusion that was confirmed even when the band concerned was not unknown. It is easy to see how such reasoning could be applied to UEOs in professional football.

Under EU law: It should be fine

The last unknown is the position of EU law with regard to UEOs. In many ways, UEOs are contractual mechanisms used to attenuate the consequences of the Bosman ruling.  Indeed, they give the club the opportunity to prolong an employment contract without the consent of a player, and therefore to obtain compensation in case the player wishes to move to another club. However, the striking difference with a Bosman situation is that this contractual set-up is not mandated by the private regulations of the football federations or leagues. Instead, it is negotiated ab initio between the contractual parties, and hardly ever imposed by a collective agreement. Thus, as long as the original free will of the player is not constrained by private rules, which in fact might be the case in a closed labour market where the clubs can act as an oligopoly and (implicitly) coordinate their behaviour, one could argue that the free movement of a player is restricted only by his or her own free will.  In its more recent Bernard ruling, the CJEU came close to dealing with an UEO, but here again the forced prolongation of the contract was imposed by the French collective bargaining agreement in force at the time of the dispute and not negotiated on an individual basis between the parties. Therefore, it is relatively unlikely that EU law could be successfully invoked to challenge the validity of UEOs, unless those are at least identified as a collective practice or informal rule applied by clubs against the will of players.

Conclusion: A European legal mess

Notwithstanding the hardly avoidable incompleteness of the above comparative sketch, a short conclusion on the validity of UEOs in light of national and European law is in order. First of all, it is clear that no single answer prevails Europe-wide. The brief analysis carried out shows that each of the jurisdictions scrutinised approaches the topic differently. The only uniformly shared regulatory trait is that national legislators have not regulated the matter. Instead, we had to look for potential answers in the jurisprudence of local courts, more often than not extrapolating from cases outside of the realm of football. Furthermore, legislators commonly delegate to CBAs the duty to define the employment conditions of professional football players. In short, the legality of UEOs is usually dependent on the interpretations of local courts or the decisions of local social partners. However, where UEOs are deemed valid, it is always under stringent conditions such as a strict limit to the overall duration of the extended contract and the provision of a substantial increase in salary. Hence, the validity of UEOs hinges on the rather subjective evaluation of the overall fairness of a specific UEO in the context of a specific contract. Whether this is also true of the jurisprudence of the DRC and the CAS when confronted to UEOs will be the subject of our next blog.

[1] The reference is obviously to young players older than 18, as in respect of contracts of minors art. 18 FIFA RSTP is crystal clear in prohibiting the signing of contracts longer than three years.

[2] D. F.R. Comparie, G. Planás R.A. and S-E. Wildermann, Contractual Stability in Professional Football: Recommendations for Clubs in a Context of International Mobility, 2009, p.27. The authors point out that, although transfer fees constitute an important part of every clubs’ financial income, some clubs, particularly those with smaller broadcasting revenues, rely on them to a great extent. Usually, clubs which cover their costs mainly through transfer fees tend to build a good youth development, because being able to sell the players when they are valued the most is financially crucial for them.

[3] F. de Weger, The Jurisprudence of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber, Asser Press, 2016, p. 164.

[4] The few existing contributions on this question are F. De Weger, The Jurisprudence of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber, Asser Press, 2016, pp 163- 191 and W. Portmann, Unilateral option clauses in footballers’ contracts of employment: an assessment from the perspective of international sports arbitration,Sweet Maxwell Int Sports Law Rev, 2007,  7(1):6-16.

[5] See UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations (2015 Edition), which, at ANNEX VI (B)(ix), includes players as intangible assets among the assets that need to be disclosed for balance sheet requirements and, at ANNEX VII (C)(1), sets out the minimum accounting requirement “for player registrations carried out as intangible fixed assets as set out in Articles 47, 48 and 52”.

[6] For a similar view, see Jan Kleiner, Der Spielervertrag im Berufsfussball, Schulthess, 2013, at pp. 891-900.

[7] Art. 335a para 1 Swiss Code of Obligations reads as follows: “Notice periods must be the same for both parties; where an agreement provides for different notice periods, the longer period is applicable to both parties”.

[8] BGE 108 II 115.

[9] BGE 96 II 52. The original German version reads as follows: “Eine solche Schranke bildet insbesondere Art. 347 Abs. 3 OR, der die Vereinbarung verschiedener Kündigungsfristen für den Dienstherrn und den Dienstpflichtigen verbietet. Dieses Verbot kann nicht dadurch umgangen werden, dass das Kündigungsrecht oder die automatische Beendigung des Dienstverhältnisses von einer Bedingung abhängig gemacht wird, deren Eintritt einseitig vom Willen des Dienstherrn abhinge. Eine solche Bedingung würde es dem Dienstherrn erlauben, den Vertrag schon auf einen Zeitpunkt zu beenden, auf den der Dienstpflichtige das nicht tun könnte. Ein bedingtes Kündigungsrecht und eine bedingte automatische Beendigung des Dienstverhältnisses dürfen nur vereinbart werden, wenn und soweit der Eintritt der Bedingung vom Willen der Parteien nicht abhängt oder beide Parteien ihn in gleicher Weise herbeiführen können“.

[10] ArbG Ulm, judgment of 14 November 2008 – 3 Ca 244/08.

[11] Ibid., para. 37. The original German version reads as follows: “Nach § 307 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BGB ist eine formularmäßige Vertragsbestimmung unangemessen, wenn der Verwender durch einseitige Vertragsgestaltung missbräuchlich eigene Interessen auf Kosten seines Vertragspartners durchzusetzen versucht, ohne von vornherein auch dessen Belange hinreichend zu berücksichtigen und ihm einen angemessenen Ausgleich zu gewähren. Die Feststellung einer unangemessenen Benachteiligung setzt eine wechselseitige Berücksichtigung und Bewertung rechtlich anzuerkennender Interessen der Vertragspartner voraus. Bei diesem Vorgang sind auch grundrechtlich gestützte Rechtspositionen zu beachten. Zur Beurteilung der Unangemessenheit ist ein genereller, typisierender, vom Einzelfall losgelöster Maßstab anzulegen. Im Rahmen der Inhaltskontrolle sind dabei Art und Gegenstand, Zweck und besondere Eigenarten des jeweiligen Geschäfts zu berücksichtigen. Zu prüfen ist, ob der Klauselinhalt bei den typischen Interessen der beteiligten Verkehrskreise eine unangemessene Benachteiligung des Vertragspartners ergibt (vgl. BAG Urteil vom 18.03.2008 9 AZR 186/07 Rn. 19, NZA 2008, 1004 ff.). § 6 a Spielervertrag gibt nur dem Arbeitgeber das Recht, den Vertrag um ein Jahr zu verlängern. Will der Spieler den Arbeitgeber nach Ablauf der Laufzeit des Vertrages wechseln und übt der Arbeitgeber sein einseitiges Optionsrecht für die Vertragsverlängerung rechtzeitig aus, führt das dazu, dass ein aufnahmebereiter Arbeitgeber eine Freigabe des Spielers durch den bisherigen Arbeitgeber nur gegen Zahlung einer Transferentschädigung erhalten wird. Durch die Transferentschädigung reduziert sich die Aufnahmebereitschaft von neuen Arbeitgebern und die Verdienstmöglichkeit des Arbeitnehmers bei neuen Arbeitgebern. Der Kläger verursacht dem neuen Arbeitgeber bei einem ablösefreien Wechsel weniger Kosten. Der budgetierte neue Arbeitgeber kann dem Kläger in diesem Fall eine höhere Vergütung zahlen. Die einseitige Optionsklausel dient nur dazu, dem abgebenden Arbeitgeber eine zusätzliche Einnahme in Form einer Transferentschädigung zu verschaffen. Sie behindert damit erkennbar die Berufsfreiheit des Arbeitnehmers nach Artikel 12 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Grundgesetz, wonach alle Deutschen u. a. das Recht haben, die Arbeitsstätte frei zu wählen. Das Interesse des Beklagten an einer Einnahmequelle aus einem Spielertransfer hat hinter dem grundgesetzlich geschützten Interesse des Klägers an der Berufsfreiheit zurückzutreten”.

[12] BAG, judgment of 25 April 2013, 8 AZR 453/12.

[13] Ibid., para 32.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Dutch KNVB Arbitration Tribunal, 4 June 2004 n. 1022.

[16] M. Colucci and F. Hendricks, Regulating Employment Relationships in Professional Football. A Comparative Analysis, European Sports Law and Policy Bulletin 1/2014, p. 254.

[17] Ibid., 39.

[18] To sports contracts do not apply Art. 4, 5, 13, 18, 33, 34 L. 300/1970, regulating, among others, medical assessments and dismissals and Art. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 L. 604/1966. To fixed term contracts, the provisions of L. 230/1962 do not apply.

[19] Colucci, Hendricks, Regulating Employment Relationships in Professional Football. A Comparative Analysis, European Sports Law and Policy Bulletin 1/2014, 201 – 202.

[20] The original German version reads as follows: “Die Einräumung von durch einseitige Erklärung auszuübenden Gestaltungsrechten (Optionsrechten) ist nur zulässig, wenn sie jedem Vertragsteil gleichwertige Ansprüche einräumt und auch die Art der Ausübung des Optionsrechtes für beide Teile an gleichwertige Bedingungen geknüpft ist (z.B. einseitige Vertragsverlängerungsmöglichkeit durch den Klub bei bereits vorab festgesetzter Gehaltserhöhung für den Spieler oder sonstiger gleichwertiger Verbesserungen für den Spieler, wobei stets die besonderen Umstände des Einzelfalles [Alter des Spielers, Dauer der Vertragsverlängerung] zu berücksichtigen sind). Für die Bewertung der Gleichwertigkeit ist der Zeitpunkt des Vertragsabschlusses maßgeblich”.

[21] OGH 28.10.2016, 9 ObA 88/16f

[22] Ibid., The original German reads as follows: “Das Erstgericht gab dem Klagebegehren statt. Es kam zu dem Ergebnis, dass die Optionsvereinbarung unwirksam sei, weil sie nicht den Voraussetzungen des § 6 KV-ÖFB entspreche. Den Vertragsteilen würden durch diese Vereinbarung keine gleichwertigen Ansprüche eingeräumt. Der „Sideletter“ zum Spielervertrag, der ein höheres Gehalt für die Verlängerungszeit regelte, sei nicht statutengemäß unterfertigt worden und daher nicht wirksam geworden; darüber hinaus sei diese Gehaltserhöhung im Verhältnis zur Dauer der Verlängerung auch nicht angemessen. Das Berufungsgericht gab der Berufung des Beklagten dagegen keine Folge. Auf die Frage des rechtswirksamen Zustandekommens der im „Sideletter“ vorgesehenen Vereinbarung komme es hier nicht an, weil § 6 Abs 4 des KV-ÖFB die Gleichwertigkeit der Ansprüche beider Vertragsteile bereits zum Zeitpunkt des Vertragsabschlusses fordere und die dem Beklagten im Spielervertrag eingeräumte Option daher dem Kollektivvertrag widerspreche. Bei Abschluss des Vertrags sei nicht festgesetzt worden, mit welchen Verbesserungen der Kläger im Fall der Verlängerung rechnen könne; eine Lösungsbefugnis des Klägers sei auch nicht vorgesehen. Außerdem sei die Option wegen ihrer Dauer (Verlängerung doppelt so lang wie das befristete, eigentliche Vertragsverhältnis) nicht als gleichwertig anzusehen. Wenngleich das Interesse eines Fußballvereins an einer einseitigen Verlängerungsmöglichkeit insbesondere im Nachwuchsbereich plausibel sei, dürfe sich der Verein nicht vom Risiko der sportlichen Entwicklung des Spielers zu dessen Lasten (weitgehend) befreien. Hier sei die Option wegen der doppelten Länge der ursprünglichen Vertragsdauer schließlich auch im Fall einer Erhöhung des Entgelts um nur 15 % (wie im „Sideletter“ vorgesehen) nicht als ausreichend gleichwertig anzusehen“.

[23] Art. 6 RD 1006/1985 reads as follows: “La relación laboral especial de los deportistas profesionales será siempre de duración determinada, […].Podrán producirse prórrogas del contrato, igualmente para una duración determinada, mediante sucesivos acuerdos al vencimiento del término originalmente pactado. Solamente si un convenio colectivo así lo estableciere podrá acordarse en los contratos individuales un sistema de prórrogas diferente del anterior, que en todo caso se ajustará a las condiciones establecidas en el convenio”.

[24] L. O’Leary, Employment and Labour Relations Law in the Premier League, NBA and International Rugby Union, T.MC. Asser Press, 2017, p.204.

[25] Ibid., p.99.

[26] ibid., p.208.

[27] Eastham v Newcastle United Football Club [1964] Ch 413, p. 428, cited in in Leanne O’Leary, Employment and Labour Relations Law in the Premier League, NBA and International Rugby Union (2017), 5.

[28] S Gardiner, M James, J O’Leary and R Welch with I Blackshaw, S Boyes and A Caiger, Sports Law – Third Edition (2006), 494.

[29] [1974] 3 All ER 616

[30] Ibid.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Ibid.

[33] [1975] 1 All ER 237.

[34] Ibid., 238.