Uefa's Homegrown player rules underfire?

The authority of the mightiest football organisations have been challenged in the last few years with some interesting court judgements that came out during this month of December 2023. Regarding FIFA, FFAR dominated much of the discussions last year. Various legal proceedings have been launched resulting in the FFAR being not or partially implemented in various countries throughout the world.

Lots has also be written on the CJEU (Court of Justice of the European Union) judgement regarding the Super League with some clubs claiming a victory and some joint statements.

I would like to focus on the case of Royal Antwerp and one of their ex-players against the Royal Belgian Football Association that could also have a big repercussions on one of UEFA's and by consequence their member associations, namely the homegrown rule.

The CJEU recently addressed the compatibility of UEFA and RBFA (Royal Belgian Football association) rules on 'home-grown players' with EU law, finding that the rules could potentially violate both the freedom of movement for workers (Article 45 TFEU) and the competition rules (Article 101 TFEU).

Freedom of Movement for Workers

The CJEU ruled that the URBSFA rules, which require professional football clubs participating in interclub competitions to include at least four players trained by Belgian clubs, prima facie infringe the freedom of movement for workers. These rules are based on a national connection, as they only benefit players who have been trained in Belgium. This could disadvantage players from other Member States who wish to pursue their career in Belgium.

The CJEU acknowledged that the objective of encouraging the recruitment and training of young professional football players is a legitimate public interest objective. However, it found that the RBFA rules may not be proportionate to achieving this objective. The CJEU noted that the rules do not distinguish between the recruitment of players trained by small clubs in Belgium and the recruitment of players already trained by large clubs elsewhere in the EU. This could discourage clubs from investing in the training of young players themselves.

Competition Rules

The CJEU also examined whether the UEFA and RBFA rules on 'home-grown players' are compatible with the competition rules (Article 101 TFEU). The Court found that these rules could potentially restrict competition by limiting the ability of clubs to recruit talented players from other clubs or countries.

The CJEU noted that the specific characteristics of professional football, such as its social, cultural, and media importance, together with the fact that that sport is based on openness and sporting merit, allow for associations such as UEFA and the URBSFA to adopt rules relating to the composition of teams, the participation of players in those teams, and the training of those players. However, the Court emphasized that these rules must be justified by legitimate objectives and must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve those objectives.

The CJEU concluded that it is for the referring court to determine, in light of all the arguments and evidence submitted by the parties, whether the UEFA and RBFA rules are compatible with the competition rules. The referring court will need to consider whether the rules have an anticompetitive object, whether they can be justified by the pursuit of legitimate objectives, and whether they are proportionate to achieving those objectives.

Overall, the CJEU's judgment raises important questions about the balance between the protection of the freedom of movement for workers and the promotion of specific objectives in the field of sport. The referring court will now need to carefully assess the relevant factors and determine whether the UEFA and RBFA rules are compatible with EU law.

The Potential Impacts in case the national courts decides that the homegrown rule infringes EU law:

Potential impacts:

• Relaxation of Home-Grown Player Rules: UEFA may be forced to relax or even abolish the home-grown player rules, allowing clubs to recruit players more freely from across the continent. This could lead to a more diverse and competitive European football landscape.

• Increased Investment in Youth Academies: Smaller clubs may invest more heavily in their youth academies to develop their own homegrown talent, as the home-grown player rules may no longer provide an advantage to clubs in bigger markets. This could lead to a broader talent pool and a more equitable distribution of talent across Europe.

• Rise of Transfer Fees: With fewer restrictions on player transfers, clubs may be willing to pay higher transfer fees to acquire top talent from abroad. This could further inflate the transfer market and raise concerns about financial sustainability in football.

• Impact on Smaller Leagues: Clubs from smaller leagues may face increased competition from bigger clubs for their best young players, leading to a depletion of talent and a weakening of their domestic leagues.

• Transformation of Football's Identity: The home-grown player rules have been a part of European football for many years, and their potential removal could have a significant impact on the sport's identity and culture. The focus on local talent and homegrown players could give way to a more globalized and transactional approach to football.

Conclusion

The CJEU's ruling on the home-grown player rules represents a significant shift in the relationship between EU law and the sport of football. It raises important questions about the balance between the protection of individual rights and the promotion of specific objectives in the field of sport. The outcome of this case can have far-reaching consequences for the future of European football, shaping the way players are recruited, trained, and valued.