Abstract
The present article discusses key problems related to suitability of the existing solidarity compensation system for the current transfer market in football. It briefly explains the origin, current wording and applicability of the FIFA solidarity framework, adopted in 2001 and consisting of ‘solidarity contribution’ and ‘training compensation’ systems, as well as its consistency with the EU law. Article demonstrates key deficiencies of the FIFA solidarity framework, resulting in the competitive imbalance between football clubs participating in organized football and lack of the efficient, systemic encouragement for training and development of youth players by football clubs. Furthermore, this article includes a review of de lege ferenda proposals aimed to eliminate major flaws of the current framework, enhance solidarity and competitive balance between football clubs as well as to reduce disproportionalities in respect to financial gratification for training clubs of professional football players.
Highlights
The concept of solidarity covers a wide range of aspects connected with the operations of the football market. It varies from the principal theme of this article, i.e., the solidarity compensation framework within the football transfer system, consisting of ‘solidarity contribution’ system (Article 21 and Annex 5 of the FIFA Regulations on Status and Transfer of Players, ‘RSTP’) and ‘training compensation’ system (Article 20 and Annex 4 of the RSTP), through other arrangements of football governing bodies (‘FGBs’), such as UEFA homegrown players’ rule and/or UEFA Financial Fair Play scheme, to rules on the collective selling of media and broadcasting rights to football competitions, tournaments and events
It presents the perception of the solidarity compensation framework from the European Union (‘EU’) law perspective, includes a brief analysis of the FIFA rules on solidarity contribution and training compensation mechanisms, and addresses key deficiencies of such a framework, preventing FGB from achieving the pursued aims: to serve as an efficient mechanism to distribute the income generated by the biggest football clubs, as well as a systemic encouragement for training and development of youth players by football clubs
Competition law),39 the potential challenge on the basis of the Articles 101 and 102 TFUE remains feasible, as demonstrated by FIFPro legal complaint against the FIFA transfer system submitted to the European Commission in 2015.40 due to the FIFA and FIFPro agreement signed on 6 November 2017—which mainly addresses amendments to the RSTP concerning abusive conduct of the parties and new rules on unilateral termination of the contract—the complaint has been withdrawn by the FIFPro,41 it appears that a potential challenge of the system based on the arguments with regard to its failure to pursue legitimate aims such as competitive balance and incentivization to train and develop young player is still an option for an individual litigant, as demonstrated in the further part of this article
Summary
The concept of solidarity covers a wide range of aspects connected with the operations of the football market. The last objective, crucial in relation to the solidarity compensation framework included in the RSTP, i.e., encouragement to recruit and train young players, has been directly accepted as legitimate in the Bosman ruling in view of the specific characteristics of the sport (football) and its considerable social importance in CJEU, case C-415/93 Union Royale Belge des Societes de Football Association and others v. Without efficient mechanisms promoting solidarity among football clubs and training of young players, FIFA would not have been able to justify and operate the transfer system of players in light of the EU law, in particular the comments made by CJEU in the Bosman and Bernard rulings.32 Such a view should be supported in the light of Commissioner Viviane Reding’s statement to the European Parliament concerning the reform of FIFA rules governing international transfers, presented in March 2001. Competition law), the potential challenge on the basis of the Articles 101 and 102 TFUE remains feasible, as demonstrated by FIFPro legal complaint against the FIFA transfer system submitted to the European Commission in 2015.40 due to the FIFA and FIFPro agreement signed on 6 November 2017—which mainly addresses amendments to the RSTP concerning abusive conduct of the parties and new rules on unilateral termination of the contract—the complaint has been withdrawn by the FIFPro, it appears that a potential challenge of the system based on the arguments with regard to its failure to pursue legitimate aims such as competitive balance and incentivization to train and develop young player is still an option for an individual litigant, as demonstrated in the further part of this article.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
