Skip to main content

From Bosman to Bernard C-415/93; [1995] ECR I-4921 to C-325/08; [2010] ECR I-2177

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: ASSER International Sports Law Series ((ASSER))

Abstract

The Bosman (Full citation: Case C-415/93 Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL v Jean-Marc Bosman, Royal club liégeois SA v Jean-Marc Bosman and others and Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) v Jean-Marc Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921) proceedings involved a reference from the Court of Appeal, Liège in Belgium seeking a preliminary ruling on two questions raised by a Belgian-born professional footballer, Jean-Marc Bosman, and relating to the compatibility with EU law of certain player transfer rules then applying in European professional football. The questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) by the Court of Appeal, Liège for a preliminary ruling were as follows: Articles 48, 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome of 25 March 1957 to be interpreted as (i) prohibiting a football club from requiring and receiving payment of a sum of money upon the engagement of one of its players who has come to the end of his contract by a new employing club; (ii) prohibiting the national and international sporting associations or federations from including in their respective regulations provisions restricting access of foreign players from the European Community to the competitions which they organise? In answer, the CJEU held that Article 48 of the EEC Treaty (free movement of workers) precluded the application of rules laid down by sporting associations, under which a professional footballer who is a national of one Member State may not, on the expiry of his contract with a club, be employed by a club of another Member State unless the latter club has paid to the former club a transfer, training or development fee. It also held that Article 48 of the EEC Treaty precluded the application of rules laid down by sporting associations under which, in matches in competitions which they organise, football clubs may field only a limited number of professional players who are nationals of other Member States. The impact that the Bosman judgment has had on the legal, administrative and financial landscape of professional football in Europe has been profound and is accounted for in this chapter with reference inter alia to recent case law, such as the Bernard proceedings, (Full citation: Case C-325/08 Olympique Lyonnais SASP v Olivier Bernard and Newcastle UFC [2010] ECR I-2177) and also the continuing debate on efforts to promote “homegrown” players in professional football.

Stefaan Van den Bogaert, Professor of European Law and Director of the Europa Institute.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921.

  2. 2.

    From the wealth of analysis, see, for instance, Dubey 2000; O’Keeffe and Osborne 1996; Thill 1996; Van den Bogaert 2005; Weatherill 1999, 346–350 and the four contributions (of respectively Ilesic; Weatherill; Van den Bogaert and Infantino and Mavroidis) in Poiares Maduro and Azoulay 2010, 475–506.

  3. 3.

    Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch [1974] ECR 1405, para 4. Discussed generally at Chap. 3 of this volume.

  4. 4.

    Case 13/76 Donà v Mantero [1976] ECR 1333, para 12.

  5. 5.

    Van Staveren 1989, 67.

  6. 6.

    Request for a preliminary ruling, presented by an ordonnance of the ‘Procura della Repubblica italiana de Salerno’, Case 46/79 Criminal proceedings v Gennaro Brunetti, 28 April 1979, OJ C 107/14.

  7. 7.

    Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, para 33.

  8. 8.

    Interestingly, for the purposes of those clauses, nationality was defined in relation to whether the player could be selected to play in a country’s national or representative team. See Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, para 25.

  9. 9.

    Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, paras 99 and 100.

  10. 10.

    Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, para 106.

  11. 11.

    Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, para 107.

  12. 12.

    Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, para 108.

  13. 13.

    Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, para 109.

  14. 14.

    Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, para 110.

  15. 15.

    Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, Opinion of Advocate-General Lenz, paras 226 et seq.

  16. 16.

    Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, para 120.

  17. 17.

    Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921 para 131.

  18. 18.

    Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, para 134.

  19. 19.

    Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, para 133.

  20. 20.

    Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, para 135.

  21. 21.

    On the “specificity” of sport in an EU context see generally Parrish and Miettinen 2008.

  22. 22.

    See generally Weatherill 2003; Van den Bogaert and Vermeersch 2006 and Bogusz et al. 2007.

  23. 23.

    Case C-51/96 and C-191/97 Deliège [2000] ECR I-2549, para 42.

  24. 24.

    Case C-51/96 and C-191/97 Deliège [2000] ECR I-2549, para 64.

  25. 25.

    See further Van den Bogaert 2000.

  26. 26.

    Case C-176/96 Lehtonen et al. v FRSB [2000] ECR I-2681, para 53.

  27. 27.

    Case C-176/96 Lehtonen et al. v FRSB [2000] ECR I-2681, para 54.

  28. 28.

    Case C-519/04 P Meca-Medina [2006] ECR I-6991.

  29. 29.

    Case C-519/04 P Meca-Medina [2006] ECR I-6991, para 42.

  30. 30.

    Case C-519/04 P Meca-Medina [2006] ECR I-6991, para 43.

  31. 31.

    Case C-519/04 P Meca-Medina [2006] ECR I-6991, para 45.

  32. 32.

    Case C-519/04 P Meca-Medina [2006] ECR I-6991, para 55.

  33. 33.

    Meca-Medina is discussed generally at Chap. 9 of this volume.

  34. 34.

    White Paper on Sport, COM(2007) 391 final.

  35. 35.

    For a detailed analysis see Van den Bogaert 2005, Chap. 5.

  36. 36.

    Case C-325/08 Bernard [2010] ECR I-2177.

  37. 37.

    Case C-325/08 Bernard [2010] ECR I-2177, paras 35–37.

  38. 38.

    Case C-325/08 Bernard [2010] ECR I-2177, para 39.

  39. 39.

    Case C-325/08 Bernard [2010] ECR I-2177, paras 48–50.

  40. 40.

    See further Van den Bogaert 2010.

  41. 41.

    The protected period amounts to a period of two or three years after the signing of the contract, depending on whether the player was over or under 28 years old at the time of signing the contract.

  42. 42.

    CAS 2007/A/1298-1300 Webster, Hearts & Wigan Athletic FC.

  43. 43.

    CAS 2008/A/1519-1520 Matuzalem, FC Shakhtar Donetsk (Ukraine) & Real Zaragoza SAD (Spain).

  44. 44.

    Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch [1974] ECR 1405, para 8. See also Case 13/76 Donà v Mantero [1976] ECR 1333, para 14 and Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, paras 76 and 127.

  45. 45.

    Case 13/76 Donà v Mantero [1976] ECR 1333, paras 14–15 and Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, paras 76 and 127.

  46. 46.

    Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, paras 115–120.

  47. 47.

    Case C-438/00 Deutscher Handballbund eV v Kolpak [2003] ECR I-4135.

  48. 48.

    Case C-438/00 Deutscher Handballbund eV v Kolpak [2003] ECR I-4135, para 58.

  49. 49.

    Case C-438/00 Deutscher Handballbund eV v Kolpak [2003] ECR I-4135, paras 53–57.

  50. 50.

    See the contemporaneous case notes by Dubey 2005 and Van den Bogaert 2004.

  51. 51.

    Case C-265/03 Simutenkov v Ministerio de Educación y Cultura and RFEFl [2005] ECR I-2579.

  52. 52.

    An “Expert Opinion” by the Institute for European Affairs in Dusseldorf concluded that the “6+5 Rule” could be seen to be compatible with EU Law. The report is available online at http://inea-online.com/download/regel/gutachten_eng.pdf. Accessed 31 July 2012.

  53. 53.

    See further TMC Asser Institute et al. 2010.

References

  • Bogusz B, Cygan A, Szyszczak E (eds) (2007) The regulation of sport in the European Union. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubey JP (2000) La libre circulation des sportifs en Europe. Bruylant, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubey JP (2005) Case note on Kolpak. Common Market Law Rev 42:499–522

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Keeffe D, Osborne P (1996) L’affaire Bosman: un arrêt important pour le bon fonctionnement du Marché Unique Européen. Revue du Marché Unique Européen 1:17–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrish R, Miettinen S (2008) The sporting exception in European Union law. TMC Asser Press, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Poiares Maduro M, Azoulay L (eds) (2010) The past and future of EU law—the classics of EU law revisited on the 50th anniversary of the Rome Treaty. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Thill M (1996) ‘L’arrêt “Bosman” et ses implications pour la libre circulation des sportifs à l’intérieur de l’Union Européenne dans des contextes factuels différents de ceux de l’affaire “Bosman”. Revue du Marché Unique Européen 1:89–117

    Google Scholar 

  • TMC Asser Institute et al (2010) Study on the equal treatment of non-nationals in individual sports competitions, Tender No EAC/19/2009. Commissioned by the European Commission, Directorate-General for Education and Culture, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bogaert S (2000) The Court of Justice on the Tatami: Ippon, Wazari or Koka. Eur Law Rev 25:554–563

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bogaert S (2004) And another uppercut from the Court of Justice to nationality requirements in sports regulations. Eur Law Rev 29:267–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bogaert S (2005) Practical regulation of the mobility of sportsmen in the EU post Bosman. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bogaert S (2010) De zaak Bernard: het Hof van Justitie van de EU laat opleidingsvergoedingen toe in het Voetbal. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Europees Recht 8:265–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bogaert S, Vermeersch A (2006) Sport and the EC Treaty: a tale of uneasy bedfellows? Eur Law Rev 31:821–840

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Staveren H (1989) Proceedings of the 18th colloquyum on European law: sport and the law. Council of Europe, Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (1999) “European Football Law” in Collected courses of the Academy of European Law, vol VII, Book I. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 339–382

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2003) ‘Fair Play Please’: recent developments in the application of EC law to sport. Common Market Law Rev 40:51–93

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefaan Van den Bogaert .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Van den Bogaert, S. (2013). From Bosman to Bernard C-415/93; [1995] ECR I-4921 to C-325/08; [2010] ECR I-2177. In: Anderson, J. (eds) Leading Cases in Sports Law. ASSER International Sports Law Series. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-909-2_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships