Oberlandesgericht Bremen, 2 U 67/14, SV Wilhelmshaven v. Norddeutscher Fußball-Verband e.V, 30 December 2014

  • Antoine DuvalEmail author


At the very end of 2014, the Oberlandesgericht (OLG) Bremen rendered an important judgment in the dispute opposing a German club, the SV Wilhelmshaven e.V., to its regional association, the Norddeutscher Fußball-Verband e.V. The decision, which has been appealed to the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), was not as commented as the nearly simultaneous judgment of the OLG München in the Pechstein case. Nonetheless, it entails important considerations regarding FIFA’s training compensation system and its private enforcement mechanism of CAS awards and FIFA decisions. In this commentary, I will first summarize the facts and the procedure of the case, and then discuss its impact on the compatibility of FIFA’s training compensation system with EU law. Finally, I will show how this ruling might put into question the internal enforcement system established by FIFA to bypass the traditional procedure of recognition of international awards.


CAS FIFA EU law Sports law Bosman Training compensation Lex sportiva 


  1. Andreff W (2006) International labour migration. In: Andreff W, Szymanski S (eds) Handbook on the economics of sport. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 325–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakker M (2008) The training compensation system. Int Sports Law J (1–2):29–36Google Scholar
  3. Bernstein L (1992) Opting out of the legal system: extralegal contractual relations in the diamond industry. J Legal Stud 21:115–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burger L (2012) For the first time, the supreme court sets aside an arbitral award on grounds of substantive public policy. ASA Bull 30:603–610Google Scholar
  5. De Weger F (2008) The jurisprudence of the FIFA dispute resolution chamber. T.M.C. Asser Press, The HagueCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Drolet J-C (2006) Extra time: are the new FIFA transfer rules doomed? Int Sports Law J (1–2):66–73Google Scholar
  7. Duval A (2015) The CAS and EU law: chronicle of an encounter. Maastricht J Comp Eur Law 22:224–255Google Scholar
  8. Duval A, Van Rompuy B (2016) Protecting athletes’ right to fair trial through EU competition law: the Pechstein case. In: Paulussen C et al (eds) Fundamental rights in international and European law: public and private law perspectives, Springer, T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 245–278Google Scholar
  9. Egger A, Stix-Hackl C (2002) Sports and competition law: a never-ending story? Eur Comp Law Rev 23:81–91Google Scholar
  10. García B (2007) UEFA and the European union: from confrontation to co-operation? J Contemp Eur Res 3:202–223Google Scholar
  11. García B (2011) The 2001 informal agreement on the international transfer system. Eur Sports Law Policy Bull 2:17–29Google Scholar
  12. Haas U (2014) The enforcement of football-related arbitral awards by the court of arbitration for sport (CAS). Int Sports Law Rev 14:12–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heermann P (2014) Landgericht Bremen kann FIFA-statuten nicht materiell-rechtlich prüfen. CausaSport (2):181–183Google Scholar
  14. Hendrickx F (2010) The bernard-case and training compensation in professional football. Eur Labour Law J 1:380–397Google Scholar
  15. Irving J (2002) Red card: the battle over european football’s transfer system. Univ Miami Law Rev 56:667–725Google Scholar
  16. Levy R (2012) Swiss federal tribunal overrules CAS award in a landmark decision: FIFA vs Matuzalem. Int Sports Law J (3–4):35–38Google Scholar
  17. Lindholm J (2010) Case C-325/08, Olympique Lyonnais SASP v. Olivier Bernard and Newcastle United UFC, judgment of the court of justice (Grand Chamber) of 16 March 2010, not yet reported. Common Market Law Rev 47:1187–1197Google Scholar
  18. Meier P (2015) Ein Urteil mit Sprengkraft? CausaSport (1):62–68Google Scholar
  19. Orth J, Stopper M (2015) Entscheidungsvollzug in der Verbandspyramide und Ausbildungsentschädigung. Zeitschrift für Sport und Recht (2):51–56Google Scholar
  20. Pijetlovic K (2010) Another classic of EU sports jurisprudence: legal implications of Olympique Lyonnais v Olivier Bernard and Newcastle UFC (C-325/08). Eur Law Rev 35:857–868Google Scholar
  21. Steingruber A-M (2012) Matuzalem: CAS award set aside on the ground of public policy. Int Sports Law J (3–4):39–44Google Scholar
  22. Weatherill S (2003) “Fair Play Please!”: recent developments in the application of EC law to sport. Common Market Law Rev 40:51–93Google Scholar
  23. Weatherill S (2010) The Olivier Bernard case: how, if at all, to fix compensation for training young players? Int Sports Law J (1–2):3–6Google Scholar
  24. Zylberstein J (2010) The Olivier Bernard judgment: a significant step forward for the training of players. Eur Sports Law Policy Bull 1:51–68Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.T.M.C ASSER Institute for European and International LawThe HagueThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations