This is part two of the blog on the Willem II and MVV State Aid decisions. Where part one served as an introduction on the two cases, part two will analyze the compatibility assessment made by the Commission in two decisions.

The compatibility of the aid to MVV and Willem II (re-)assessed

Even though it was the Netherlands’ task to invoke possible grounds of compatibility and to demonstrate that the conditions for such compatibility were met, the aid granted to both Willem II and MVV was never notified. The Netherland’s failure to fulfill its notification obligation, therefore, appears to be at odds with the Commission’s final decision to declare the aid compatible with EU law. Yet, a closer look at the Commission’s decision of 6 March 2013 to launch the formal investigation shows that the Commission was giving the Netherlands a ‘second chance’ to invoke grounds that would lead to a justification of the measures. In paragraph 74, the Commission itself reached the conclusions that the clubs in question faced financial difficulties, consequently indicating that the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines might apply. In fact, the Commission even suggested possible compensatory measures, which are very much related to “the peculiar nature of professional football”[1]. These suggested compensatory measures included:

- limiting the club’s number of registered players for a season or several seasons;

- accepting a cap on the relation between salaries and turnover;

- banning the payment of transfer fees for a certain period;

- offering additional expenditure on “pro bono” activities to the benefit of the community and training of amateurs.[2]

Furthermore, it invited the Dutch authorities “to provide all useful information allowing the Commission to decide whether the aid measures can be considered compatible with the Guidelines”.[3]

The observations and information submitted by the Netherlands between March 2013 and July 2016 proved more than sufficient for the Commission to carry out its compatibility assessment. As was insinuated in the decision to launch a formal investigation, the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines proved fundamental to this assessment.  

Willem II and MVV as firms in financial difficulties

This first condition of the Guidelines was easily complied with. As regards Willem II, in the accounting year 2008/2009, it made a loss of €3.9 million on a turnover of €11.4 million. Meanwhile, its own equity decreased from €4.1 million to €200.000. The losses increased to €4.4 million on a turnover of €9.9 million for the 2009/2010 season, while its own equity decreased further from €200.000 to minus €2.1 million.[4]

MVV clearly was financially not doing much better. As the Commission itself summarizes in the MVV decision, “in 2008/2009, MVV made a loss of €1.1 million and its own equity was minus €3.8 million. By March 2010 additional losses amounting to €1.3 million had occurred and the own equity had dropped to minus €5.17 million. In April 2010, MVV was no longer able to pay salaries and other current expenditure and was on the brink of bankruptcy.”[5]

Another consequence of being in financial difficulties relates to the licensing system put in place by the Dutch football federation KNVB. As is explained in paragraph 11 of the decision to open a formal investigation, one of the obligations for clubs under the current system is submitting three financial reports a year to the KNVB. On the basis of these reports clubs are scaled in three categories (I: insufficient, II: sufficient, III: good). Clubs in category I may be obliged to present a plan for improvement in order to reach categories II or III. If the club fails to comply with the plan, sanctions may be imposed by the KNVB, including an official warning, a reduction of competition points and – as ultimate sanction – withdrawal of the licence.[6] At the time the State aid was granted, both Willem II and MVV were scaled in the insufficient category I.  

Willem II and MVV as small enterprises or medium-sized enterprises

This particular assessment is important for the two conditions below, i.e. the introduction of restructuring plans and compensatory measures. Depending on the size of the firm (or enterprise), different conditions apply. Willem II employed 53 people in 2012 and had an annual turnover of €11.4 million in 2008/2009.[7] Pursuant to the Annex of the Commission Recommendation concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, Willem II just managed to be considered a medium-sized enterprise.[8]

MVV, on the other hand, is considered a small enterprise. In the season 2009/2010 it had 38 employees and in the season 2010/2011 it had 35 employees. Its turnover and balance sheet total remained well below €10 million in both years.[9] 

Restructuring plans

Though not initially communicated to the Commission, both rescue measures were subject to certain restructuring conditions. In principle, these consisted of reducing personnel costs, by introducing new managements, selling players, and signing players free of transfer payments. In the case of Willem II, in the two years following the rescue measure personnel costs were reduced by 30%.[10] The effects of MVV’s restructuring plan were even better, since it managed to book profits for the three seasons following the aid and was scaled in the highest category (III) by the KNVB in the beginning of the season 2011/2012.[11] 

Compensatory measures

For the compensatory measures it is important to take into account point 41 of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines. Under this provision, small enterprises, such as MVV, are not required to take compensatory measures. However, this exception did not apply to Willem II. The Commission noted more expenditure of Willem II for public benefit by the training of amateurs and a reduction of the number of registered players from 31 to 27. Similarly, no transfer payments were made during the restructuring period.[12] Potentially as a result of this, Willem II was relegated to the second league in 2011 and again in 2013. In the end, the Commission concluded that “the compensatory measures required by the Guidelines were taken, which had the effect of weakening Willem II's competitive position in professional football”.[13] 

Aid limited to a minimum

Since the aid measures rescued both football clubs from bankruptcy without creating equity surplus, the Commission believed the amount of aid granted limited to what was necessary. Furthermore, the Commission highlighted that the restructuring plans were to a large extent financed by external contributors just as the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines requested. Private entities had agreed to lend €2.25 million to Willem II for the restructuring, which is well over the 40% of €2.4 million (the total amount of State aid granted) required for medium-sized enterprises under the Guidelines.[14] In the case of MVV, several private creditors decided to waive (part of) their debt, which amounted to €2.25 million. This amount is more than 25% of the €5.8 million granted by the Netherlands, the minimum requirement for a small enterprise like MVV.[15] 

One time, last time

The Commission believes this condition to be fulfilled, as the Netherlands specified that Willem II and MVV did not receive rescue or restructuring aid in the ten years before the aid measures, nor will it award any new rescue or restructuring aid to the clubs during a period of ten years.[16] 

Conclusion

At the time of writing, the non-confidential versions of the positive decisions regarding State aid granted in favour of the Dutch professional football clubs FC Den Bosch and NEC Nijmegen are not published. Nonetheless, this does not prevent us from drawing the following lessons from the Willem II and MVV decisions.

First of all, these decisions show that there is no need to draft sector specific guidelines for State aid to professional football clubs in difficulty. The Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines are all the Commission needs in order to carry out the compatibility assessment. This approach is radically different when compared to the Commission’s decisional practice for the State aid to sport infrastructure cases between 2011 and 2013.[17] Only after the Commission dealt with ten different cases, was its approach (to a large extent) codified in Article 55 of the 2014 General Block Exemption Regulation.[18]

In this regard it is important to highlight that the Commission seems to take into account “the peculiar nature of professional football”[19] when assessing the compatibility of State aid measures under the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines. For example, it showed demonstrated its awareness of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations[20] as well as national (KNVB) licensing rules when assessing the compensatory measures taken by Willem II. Moreover, it clearly endorsed the decision taken by the club not to make transfer payments during the restructuring period, since this prevents the club from spending money it might not have, while simultaneously limiting the club’s competitiveness on the field.

A further lesson that can be drawn from these decisions is that, in my opinion, the threshold to ‘pass the compatibility test’ under the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines is quite low. With regard to the condition that the club needs to be in financial difficulties in order to get the State aid, it is clear that granting State aid to professional football clubs in financial difficulties is one of the most (if not the most) common form of State aid in the sector. This was the case for the five Dutch clubs scrutinized by the Commission, as well as the three clubs from Valencia of which the non-confidential version of the decision still needs to be published. Other clubs like FC Twente and Sporting de Gijón have also received State aid over financial difficulties, even though the Commission did not investigate these measures (yet).[21] In other words, a majority of the cases are assessable under these Guidelines.

The condition that the beneficiary football club needs to stick to a restructuring plan in order to receive the State aid is key. As is elucidated in the two decisions, the restructuring plans consisted of selling players, reducing the costs of wages and not paying transfer fees for new players for a period of three years. In my view, these conditions are rather proportionate when considering that the clubs in question were on the verge of bankruptcy prior to the State aid measures. In fact, one could argue that FIFA’s transfer ban imposed on FC Barcelona for international transfers of minors, or excluding FC Dynamo from the next UEFA club competition for which the club would otherwise qualify in four seasons (i.e. the 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19 seasons) for breaching UEFA’s FFP Regulations,[22] are harsher than the restructuring conditions accepted by the Commission.

The same can be said about the need to take compensatory measures. The measures taken by Willem II (reducing the number of employees and players, and reducing the cost of wages to 48% of the turnover) could be considered a direct consequence of the abovementioned restructuring plans. The only additional compensatory measure taken by Willem II was increasing expenditure of the club for the training of amateurs, though the decision does not specify what this implied in practice.

Perhaps the only condition that could be problematic for some football clubs is the “one time, last time” criterion. Under this condition, the public authorities cannot rescue Willem II and MVV again until at least 2020. Although Willem II and MVV are currently in category III and II on the KNVB’s scale respectively, falling back to category I before 2020 could have dramatic consequences.

Be that as it may, now that the Commission’s approach for the assessment of State aid to professional football clubs in financial difficulties is out in the open, public authorities and football clubs alike should use this knowledge to their own advantage. They should remember that the Commission is willing to accept rescue aid and that the restructuring conditions are far from impossible to match. One can even wonder whether a club like FC Twente would have turned to Doyen when it was facing financial difficulties, if it had been aware of the conditions imposed by the European Commission for receiving compatible State aid under the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines.

[1] Commission Decision on State Aid SA.40168 of 4 July 2016 implemented by the Netherlands in favour of the professional football club Willem II in Tilburg, para. 50.

[2] Commission Decision SA.33584 of 6 March 2013 – The Netherlands Alleged municipal aid to the Professional Dutch football clubs Vitesse, NEC, Willem II, MVV, PSV and FC Den Bosch in 2008-2011, para. 80.

[3] Ibid, para. 77.

[4] SA.40168, para. 45.

[5] Commission Decision on State Aid SA.41612 of 4 July 2016 implemented by the Netherlands in favour of the professional football club MVV in Maastricht, para. 13.

[6] SA.33584, para. 11.

[7] SA.40168, para. 9.

[8] A firm is not considered a small enterprise i fit has more than 50 employees and an annual turnover of more than €10 million. See footnote 27.

[9] SA.41612, para. 9.

[10] SA.40168, para. 48.

[11] SA.41612, para. 52.

[12] SA.40168, para. 51. Indeed, according to www.transfermarkt.de, Willem II only paid a mere €20.000 for the signing of Kevin Brands in July 2012.

[13] Ibid.

[14] SA.40168, para. 52.

[15] SA.41612, para. 54.

[16] SA.40168, para. 55 and SA.41612, para. 61.

[17] Commission Decision of 9 November 2011, SA.31722 – Hungary - Supporting the Hungarian sport sector via tax benefit scheme; Commission Decision of 2 May 2013, SA.33618 Uppsala arena; Commission Decision of 15 May 2013, SA.33728 Multiarena in Copenhagen; Commission Decision of 20 March 2013, SA.35135 Multifunktionsarena der Stadt Erfurt; Commission Decision of 20 March 2013, SA.35440 Multifunktionsarena der Stadt Jena; Commission Decision of 18 December 2013, SA.35501 Financement de la construction et de la renovation des stades pour l’EURO 2016; Commission Decision of 2 October 2013, SA.36105 Fuβballstadion Chemnitz; Commission Decision of 20 November 2013, SA.37109 Football stadiums in Flanders; Commission Decision of 9 April 2014, SA.37342 Regional Stadia Development in Northern Ireland; and Commission Decision of 13 December 2013, SA.37373 Contribution to the renovation of ice arena Thialf in Heerenveen.

[18] For a deeper analysis of whether sport-specific guidelines are necessary, see Oskar van Maren, “EU State Aid Law and Professional Football: A threat or a Blessing?”, European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 15 1/2016, pages 31-46. To find out how sector-specific rules for State aid are usually articulated, see Ben Van Rompuy and Oskar van Maren, “EU Control of State Aid to Professional Sport: Why Now?” In: “The Legacy of Bosman. Revisiting the relationship between EU law and sport”, T.M.C. Asser Press, 2016.

[19] SA.40168, para. 50.

[20] In paragraph 51 of SA.40168, the Commission referred to a UEFA rule, which holds that the cost of salaries should not exceed 70%.

[21] For more information of the precarious financial situation of these two clubs, see our previous blogs: “Unpacking Doyen’s TPO Deals: FC Twente's Game of Maltese Roulette”, and “TPO and Spanish football, friends with(out) benefits?”.

[22] For more information on the FC Dynamo case, see our blog “UEFA’s FFP out in the open: The Dynamo Moscow Case”.

The European Commission’s decisions of 4 July 2016 to order the recovery of the State aid granted to seven Spanish professional football clubs[1] were in a previous blog called historic. It was the first time that professional football clubs have been ordered to repay aid received from (local) public authorities. Less attention has been given to five other decisions also made public that day, which cleared support measures for five football clubs in the Netherlands. The clubs in question were PSV Eindhoven, MVV Maastricht, NEC Nijmegen, FC Den Bosch and Willem II.

Given the inherent political sensitivity of State aid recovery decisions, it is logical that the “Spanish decisions” were covered more widely than the “Dutch decisions”. Furthermore, clubs like Real Madrid and FC Barcelona automatically get more media attention than FC Den Bosch or Willem II. Yet, even though the “Dutch decisions” are of a lower profile, from an EU State aid law perspective, they are not necessarily less interesting.

A few days before entering the quiet month of August, the Commission published the non-confidential versions of its decisions concerning PSV Eindhoven, Willem II and MVV Maastricht (hereinafter: “MVV”). The swiftness of these publications is somewhat surprising, since it often takes at least three months to solve all the confidentiality issues. Nonetheless, nobody will complain (especially not me) about this opportunity to analyze in depth these new decisions.

In the case of PSV, the Dutch State argued successfully that the measure implemented by the city of Eindhoven was in line with the so-called ‘Market Economy Investor Principle’ (MEIP), thereby not constituting a selective advantage to PSV. In other words, the measure did not fulfill the criteria of Article 107(1) TFEU and was not considered State aid. The aid measures granted by the cities of Tilburg and Maastricht to Willem II and MVV respectively were considered compatible State aid under Article 107(3)c) TFEU. Interestingly enough, in the Willem II and MVV cases, the Dutch authorities also argued that the respective measures did not confer any selective advantage to the clubs, but they failed to convince the Commission.

A comparison between the PSV decision on the one hand, and the other “Dutch” decisions on the other, taking into account the definition and operation of the MEIP in the (professional) football sector, will be left for a future blog. This two-part blog, instead, will focus on the compatibility assessment under Article 107(3)(c) done by the Commission in the Willem II and MVV cases and explain why it considered the State aid measure justified.

Part one will serve as an introduction on the two cases. It will provide background information on the compatibility assessment. In part two, the compatibility assessment conducted by the Commission in the two decisions will be analyzed. As will be argued, the conditions set out by the Commission can serve as a blueprint for all public authorities within the EU willing to grant State aid to football clubs in financial difficulties.  

Background

Willem II

In 2004, the municipality of Tilburg and football club Willem II concluded a contract, by which Tilburg became the owner of Willem II’s stadium and the club obtained a lease for the use of the stadium.[2] The annual rent of the stadium was established at €1 million, based on a depreciation period of 30 years, investment costs and an interest rate of 5.5%.[3]

In May 2010, Willem II found itself on the verge of bankruptcy. The municipality was quick to realize the potential negative effects a bankruptcy could have for Tilburg. These negative effects consisted of (1) the loss of rental income; (2) the absence of a tenant for the stadium; (3) the absence of professional football in Tilburg; and (4) the necessity to demolish the stadium and all the costs it would entail.[4] As a result, on 31 May 2010 the municipality decided to lower the rent to €905,000 per year and to decrease the variable costs. Both measures were taken with retroactive effect till 1 July 2004, which resulted in Willem II receiving a total of €2.4 million from the municipality.[5]

Tilburg’s rescue operation of Willem II was never notified to the Commission.[6] Instead, a citizen informed DG Competition shortly after the measure was implemented by means of a letter. This prompted the Commission to send a request for information to the Netherlands on 14 March 2011.[7]

In response to the Commission, the Dutch authorities argued that the new rent agreement was in conformity with the current municipal calculation methods and that the basic principles of the 2004 agreement were still respected. Moreover, the costs Tilburg would suffer for letting Willem II go bankrupt would be higher than the rescue costs. Consequently, the municipality believed it acted in accordance with the so-called ‘Market Economy Investor Principle’ (MEIP).[8] Moreover, the municipality imposed a restructuring plan that aimed at restoring the club’s long-term viability. The conditions of this plan included finding a way to clean up its balance sheet and the need to respect the national football association's norms for salaries of players.[9]

In its decision to open a formal investigation, the Commission counter argued that the depreciation of the stadium’s rent was already adjusted in 2007, and would not justify the retroactive application until 2004. Additionally, the lowering of the variable costs with retro-active effects ended up to be lower than the actual maintenance costs for that period, and should therefore be considered as State aid in accordance with Article 107(1) TFEU.[10] Finally, at the time the Commission launched the formal investigation, it nourished doubts whether the aid measure could be considered compatible with the internal market pursuant Article 107(3)(c). Having received no notification of the rescue measure, the Commission was unable to carry out a proper compatibility assessment. 

MVV

In 2010, football club MVV was facing severe financial difficulties: its total debt amounted to €6.5 million, including €1.7 million to the municipality of Maastricht. As a means of aiding its local football club, the municipality decided to waive its claim of €1.7 million and bought the stadium for €1.85 million.[11] The municipality held that the purchase was done in accordance with the MEIP and that the stadium would be used for multifunctional purposes. The parties agreed that MVV would use the €1.85 million to finance preferential claims, such as taxes and pensions.[12] 

The Commission opened a formal investigation procedure, because it was unable to conclude on the basis of the available information (the rescue measures were not notified[13]) that the behaviour of the municipality had been that of the typical creditor in a market economy.[14] Firstly, it doubted whether a total remission of the claim (€1.7 million) was entirely necessary, since other creditors transformed their claim into a claim on future income from transfer payments or “only” waived 50% of their claim. Secondly, according to the Commission, the purchase price of the stadium was estimated on the basis of replacement value rather than the real market value. It further raised doubts as to whether the municipality acted in accordance with the MEIP since investing in a football stadium depending on one captive user entails a very high risk, even when claiming that you want to make it multifunctional.[15] Similar to the Willem II case, no compatibility assessment of the aid measure in favour of MVV was carried out, because the measure was not notified.[16] 

The rules on compatibility

Pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest, may be considered compatible with the internal market. Only the Commission has the competence (subject to control by the EU Courts) to determine whether or not certain aid merits derogation from the general prohibition of Article 107(1).[17] However, it is settled case law that it is up to the Member State to invoke possible grounds of compatibility and to demonstrate that the conditions for such compatibility are met.[18] Due to its own wide discretion to assess the compatibility, the Commission has developed its own methodologies and approaches over the years, found in the decisional practice, policy documents[19] and sector specific guidelines.[20] 

The Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines

The Community Guidelines of 1 October 2004 on State aid for rescue and restructuring firms in difficulty (hereinafter: “Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines”) primarily serve as a tool for the Commission to assess similar cases in a similar way.[21] The criteria and conditions laid down in the Guidelines are mostly based on the Commission’s own experience in dealing with cases involving State aid in favour of firms in difficulty and case law by the Court of Justice of the EU. Due to the continuous developments in the area of EU State aid law, the Guidelines are regularly updated.[22] In the Guidelines, the Commission sets out the conditions under which State aid for rescuing and restructuring undertakings in difficulty may be considered compatible with the internal market. These conditions include the notification obligation for the Member State,[23] as well as demonstrating that the firm qualifies as ‘a firm in difficulty’. As is stipulated in point 11 of the Guidelines, a firm is considered to be in difficulties where the usual signs of a firm being in difficulty are present, such as increasing losses, diminishing turnover and mounting debt.

In order to rescue a firm from bankruptcy, the Member State has to show that it limits the amount of aid provided to that which is strictly necessary to keep the firm in business.[24] Section 3.2 of the Guidelines requires that the grant of the aid must be conditional on the implementation of a restructuring plan that restores the long term viability of the firm.[25] The restructuring plan needs to be approved by the Member State concerned and communicated to the Commission.[26]

The Member States granting the restructuring aid will have to limit the amount and intensity of the aid to the strict minimum of the restructuring costs necessary to enable restructuring to be undertaken in the light of the existing financial resources of the firm. This also means that the beneficiaries are expected to make a significant contribution to the restructuring plan from their own resources.[27] The Commission will normally consider the following contributions to the restructuring to be appropriate: at least 25 % in the case of small enterprises, at least 40 % for medium-sized enterprises and at least 50 % for large firms.[28]

The Guidelines also stipulate that, in case the firm in difficulty is considered a medium-sized enterprise or larger[29], compensatory measures must be taken by the Member State that grants the rescue and/or restructuring aid in order to ensure that the adverse effects on trading conditions are minimized as much as possible, so that the positive effects pursued outweigh the adverse ones.[30] These last two conditions (i.e. limiting the aid to what is strictly necessary and introducing compensatory measures) have the aim of ensuring that the State aid measure is proportionate to the objective tackled, namely rescuing and/or restructuring a firm in difficulty.

Last but not least, the so-called ‘one time, last time’ principle has to be applied. According to this principle, rescue aid should only be granted once.[31] 

In the coming days, the key part of the Commission’s decisions, the compatibility assessment, will be discussed in part two of this blog.

[1] Real Madrid (twice), FC Barcelona, Valencia CF, Athletic Bilbao, Atlético Osasuna, Elche and Hércules.

[2] Commission Decision on State Aid SA.40168 of 4 July 2016 implemented by the Netherlands in favour of the professional football club Willem II in Tilburg, para. 10.

[3] Commission Decision SA.33584 of 6 March 2013 – The Netherlands Alleged municipal aid to the Professional Dutch football clubs Vitesse, NEC, Willem II, MVV, PSV and FC Den Bosch in 2008-2011, para. 29.

[4] Ibid, para. 30.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid, para. 67.

[7] Ibid, paras. 3-4. To find out how a citizen’s letter can instigate a preliminary State aid investigation, see Ben Van Rompuy and Oskar van Maren, “EU Control of State Aid to Professional Sport: Why Now?” In: “The Legacy of Bosman. Revisiting the relationship between EU law and sport”, T.M.C. Asser Press, 2016.

[8] The essence of this principle is that when a public authority invests in an enterprise on terms and in conditions that would be acceptable to a private investor operating under normal market economy conditions, the investment is not State aid.

[9] SA.40168, para. 12.

[10] SA.33584, paras. 29-31 and 51-53.

[11] Ibid, para. 32.

[12] Ibid, para. 57.

[13] Ibid, para. 67.

[14] Commission Decision on State Aid SA.41612 of 4 July 2016 implemented by the Netherlands in favour of the professional football club MVV in Maastricht, para. 12.

[15] SA.33584, paras. 54-57.

[16] SA.41612, para. 11.

[17] According to settled case law, national courts do not have the power to declare a State aid measure compatible with the internal market. See e.g. C-354/90, Fédération Nationale du Commerce Extérieur des Produits Alimentaires and Syndicat National des Négociants et Transformateurs de Saumon v French Republic, ECLI:EU:C:1991:440, para. 14.

[18] SA.41612, para. 42; see also Case C-364/90, Italy v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1993:157, point 20.

[19] See for example Communication from the Commission COM(2012) of 8 May 2012 to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – EU State Aid Modernisation (SAM), para. 12.

[20] See for example the Communication from the Commission OJ C25/01 of 26 January 2013 on the EU Guidelines for the application of State aid rules in relation to the rapid deployment of broadband networks, paras. 32-34.

[21] In July 2014, the Commission published new Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring undertakings in difficulty, but they are not applicable to aid granted in 2010.

[22] The Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines published in 2014 are the fourth of its sort after earlier versions published in 1994, 1999 and 2004.

[23] Communication from the Commission of 1 October 2004 (2004/C 244/02) Community Guidelines on State Aid for Rescuing and Restructuring firms in difficulty, point 25(c).

[24] Ibid, point 25(d).

[25] Ibid, poins 34-37.

[26] Ibid, point 59. In this regard, it should be noted that the Commission does not need to endorse the restructuring plan.

[27] By “own resources” the Commission also understands funding from external financiers at market conditions.

[28] Guidelines on State Aid for Rescuing and Restructuring firms in difficulty, points 43-44.

[29] The Commission’s definition of Small and Medium-Sized enterprises (SMEs), as stipulated in the Annex of the Commission Recommendation concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, is also used in the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines. Pursuant to Article 2 of the SME Recommendation, a small enterprise is defined as an enterprise which employs fewer than 50 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance sheet total does not exceed €10 million, whereas a medium-seized enterprise is defined as an enterprise which employs fewer than 250 persons and which has an annual turnover not exceeding €50 million, and/or an annual balance sheet total not exceeding €43 million.

[30] Guidelines on State Aid for Rescuing and Restructuring firms in difficulty, point 38.

[31] Ibid, point 25(e) and section 3.3. In practice, this actually means that rescue or restructuring aid can only be granted once every 10 years.

Football intermediaries, or agents, are again under attack in the news. For some, corrupt behaviour has become endemic in football’s culture. It is always dangerous to scapegoat a whole profession or a group of people. Many intermediaries are trying their best to lawfully defend the interests of their clients, but some are not. The key focus should be on providing an adequate legal and administrative framework to limit the opportunities for corrupt behaviour in the profession. This is easier said than done, however. We are dealing with an intrinsically transnationalized business, often conducted by intermediaries who are not subjected to the disciplinary power of federations. Sports governing bodies are lacking the police power and human resources necessary to force the intermediaries to abide by their private standards. In this context, this blog aims to review a recent case in front of the regional court of Frankfurt in Germany, which highlights the legal challenges facing (and leeway available to) national federations when regulating the profession.

Since April 2015, the FIFA Regulations on Working with Intermediaries (“Intermediaries Regulations”) entered into force. They replaced the 2008 FIFA Players’ Agents Regulation and introduced dramatic changes to the regulation of players’ agents (for a quick introduction read our short guide here). Although seeing its first light on April Fools’ Day, the Intermediaries Regulations are not to be taken lightly. On the contrary, the new rules constitute a major turning point in the governance of player and club representation. Furthermore, the question of the compatibility of the Intermediaries Regulations with EU competition law promptly arose when the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (LG) had to rule on a challenge to the Reglement für Spielervermittlung (DFB-regulations), the national measure implementing the FIFA Regulations issued by the German Football Federation (DFB, Deutschen Fußball Bund). In its injunction of 29 April 2015 the LG found some provisions of the DFB-regulations to be contrary to Article 101 TFEU (see our earlier blog). This decision was appealed by both parties to the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (OLG), which rendered its ruling on 2 February 2016. This blog aims to analyse the decision of the OLG, while also putting it into its wider legal and social context.

I.              Back to the future: The Piau case revived

It is not the first time that the regulation of football agents/intermediaries by football federations and EU law are colliding. The previous Piau saga that started on 23 March 1998 with a complaint to the European Commission by a French agent, Laurent Piau, ended only very recently in front of the French Courts with a painful defeat for Mr. Piau. In the framework of that case, the then Court of First Instance of the EC (CFI) issued a ruling on the compatibility of the FIFA Agents Regulations with EU competition law, on appeal against the Commission’s decision to reject the complaint by Laurent Piau. In that decision, the CFI famously showed its surprise to see a private association engaging in regulatory activity without an express delegation of public power. In the words of the Tribunal, “the rule-making power claimed by a private organisation like FIFA, whose main statutory purpose is to promote football, is indeed open to question”.[1] Indeed, “[i]n principle, such regulation, which constitutes policing of an economic activity and touches on fundamental freedoms, falls within the competence of the public authorities”.[2] Yet, as many know, the world of football is special and in practice national states have very much relinquish regulatory control over it.

The CFI was pragmatic enough to recognize this unusual state of affairs. In fact, this peculiarity also enabled it to consider that the FIFA regulations, issued by a private organization, could not escape the scope of EU competition law.[3] Yet, in fine, the CFI endorsed the compatibility of the FIFA regulations with EU Competition law. It considered first that the European Commission (EC) was right in holding that it obtained the repeal of the most restrictive provisions contained in the original FIFA regulations.[4] Furthermore, the CFI supported the EC’s view that the compulsory nature of the FIFA licensing mechanism could be justified under the framework of then Article 81(3) EC [now 101(3)TFEU]. It stated that the “Commission did not commit a manifest error of assessment by considering that the restrictions stemming from the compulsory nature of the licence might benefit from an exemption on the basis of Article 81(3) EC”.[5] Finally, the CFI affirmed the applicability of Article 82 EC [now 102 TFEU] to the FIFA regulations, but concluded that “it follows from the above considerations regarding the amended regulations and the possible exemption under Article 81(3) EC that such an abuse [of a dominant position] has not been established”.[6]

Thus, based on the framework of analysis used in Piau, there is absolutely no doubt that EU competition law is applicable to the DFB-regulations (and analogically to all the other national regulations implementing the new FIFA Intermediaries Regulations).[7] The key question, however, is whether the restrictive effect on competition of those new rules can be justified. Such a justificatory framework of analysis is also broadly in line with the CJEU’s case law on competition law and sport, and in particular its Meca-Medina ruling.[8] The question of the legitimate objectives and proportionality of the new rules was rightly identified by the LG and OLG as the defining one to assess rule-by-rule the legality of the DFB’s regulations.

II.            The OLG Frankfurt and the Compatibility of the DFB regulations with EU Competition Law

The OLG’s ruling bears no clear winner or loser, as both parties can claim to have prevailed on parts of their claims. In its decision the Court clearly outlined a set of provisions that it deemed compatible with EU law, and another contrary to it. In any event, this case is again a good reminder that EU law is no golden bullet against the regulations of the Sports Governing Bodies (SGBs). Instead, their compatibility with EU law must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, bearing in mind their contexts and objectives. Nevertheless, EU law can be invoked to challenge the rationality of the SGBs’ regulations and to check any disproportionate encroachment on the economic freedom of the affected actors.

A.    The DFB rules incompatible with EU Law

In the present case, the DFB’s regulations for intermediaries faced a relatively detailed quasi-constitutional control by the OLG. The German court found that parts of the regulatory options adopted by the German federation are disproportionate to attain their objectives and therefore contrary to Article 101 TFEU. This is especially true of the rule forcing intermediaries to abide by the rules and jurisdictions of the DFB, UEFA and FIFA, and of the rule imposing a duty to provide an extended certificate of good conduct usually reserved for professions involving a risk to the integrity of minors.

In line with the decision in first instance, the OLG ruled against the provision requiring intermediaries to submit to the jurisdictions of FIFA, UEFA, DFB and its members in connection with all violations of their regulations and statutes (see point 1 of DFB Vermittlererklärung für natürliche Personen – Anhang 1, and a related notice later issued by the DFB).^[9] In the OLG’s view, it would result in an impossible situation for intermediaries, as they would be required to have a ‘reasonable’ knowledge of, at least, 35 different association statutes and face being subjected to 30 different jurisdictions.^[10] The court puts forward that it is necessary, as a prerequisite for the submission of non-members to the rules of an association and its jurisdiction, to be able, at any time to take knowledge, in a reasonable manner, of the content of the regulations, compliance mechanisms and sanctions. This possibility was not warranted in the present case. In other words, if the DFB wishes to subject intermediaries to its jurisdiction it is possible, but it would need to clearly define what such a submission would entail in terms both of the rules and procedures that would be applicable. In fact, as recognized by the European Parliament,[11] some type of disciplinary control by the national federations over the intermediaries is necessary to give some teeth to their regulations.

Furthermore, the OLG also rules that agents cannot be forced to submit an extended certificate of good conduct (erweiterten Führungszeugnisses).^[12] The OLG agrees with the appellant that this duty is impossible to fulfil as under German criminal law, such certificate can be issued only for occupations suitable to establish/result in contacts with children and young people. Yet, such a contact with minors is not at the heart of an intermediary’s profession, especially that, as we will see below, intermediaries cannot derive any financial compensation for a transfer or employment contract involving a minor, it seems thus impossible for he or she to obtain the requisite certificate.^[13]

The OLG has clearly drawn a line in the sand. There is a limit to the obligations the DFB can impose, they must be rationally possible to fulfil and connected to the objectives pursued and must not be unreasonably burdensome for the intermediaries.

B.    The DFB rules compatible with EU Law

The judgment is rather remarkable for what it considers proportionate regulation by the DFB.

First, it endorses, contrary to the LG, the proportionality of the ban on intermediary fees for transfers or contracts involving minors.[14] This ban was a very controversial part of the new FIFA regulations, as it was deemed extremely restrictive of the economic freedom of intermediaries and potentially counter-productive. [15] However, in the view of the OLG, article 7.7 of the DFB-regulations pursues a legitimate objective: the protection of minors (der Minderjährigenschutz).[16] It aims, more specifically, to prevent the transfer of underage players based solely on the economic interests of the intermediary and/or that underage players are taken to Germany without a stable employment perspective.[17] Moreover, the OLG deems this prohibition to be necessary as the other legal protections for minors provided by the German civil code are often inapplicable.[18] Finally, the court considers this prohibition to be proportionate. First, because intermediaries are not barred from being remunerated for advising minors when this advice is not requested in the framework of the conclusion of an employment contract or a transfer. Furthermore, the OLG notes that similar measures have been adopted in all other European countries and is supportive of a uniform approach to the regulation of the role of intermediaries in transfers of minors.[19] Overall, this is not a surprising assessment. The need to combat human trafficking and to fight abuses linked to transfers of minors have been repeatedly emphasised by the European institutions in their soft law.[20] Recently, the European Parliament underlined ‘the specific vulnerability of young players and the risk of them becoming victims of human trafficking’[21]. Only time will tell whether this type of draconian measure will rein such abuses. In any event, if reducing the economic incentives of intermediaries linked to transfers of minors will most probably restrict their economic opportunities, it is also likely to diminish the connected incentives for human trafficking in football.[22]

Furthermore, the OLG’s judgment also endorses the transparency requirements imposed by the DFB. More precisely, it deemed the obligation for clubs and players to disclose the contract details covering remuneration and payments to intermediaries’ enshrined in article 6.1 DFB-regulations compatible with EU competition law.[23] The legitimate aim pursued is the transparency and traceability of the market for intermediaries. Behind this objective, lies the idea that player transfers should be primarily based on sporting, rather than financial reasons. Consequently, it deems that an obligation to disclose payments connected to intermediation is necessarily linked to the attainment of this goal. This duty to disclose is also considered proportionate. For the OLG, it does not run counter the German data protection rules, nor does it constitute a disproportionate infringement in the commercial operations of an intermediary. When balancing the interest of the intermediary to keep the financial flows secret and the interest of the DFB in unveiling these flows, the OLG finds that transparency aimed at limiting the external influence of intermediaries on transfers should prevail.^[24] In the eyes of the court, the DFB has concretely demonstrated that the negotiation of transfers is linked with important fees (erheblichen Zahlungen), which are liable to trigger a transfer of a player for economic reasons, rather than sporting ones. This, the OLG argues, runs counter to the ideal of fair sporting competitions. ^[25] In general, striving for greater transparency/publicity in the intermediary market is at the heart of the regulatory shift intended by the new FIFA regulations.[26] In fact, a recent report by two Harvard based scholars argues that the lack of transparency in the transfer market is one of the main causes for money laundering and corruption in football.[27] This is reinforced by the concentration of the market for intermediaries, with a group of happy few constituting an oligopoly.[28] Besides, due to the inherently transnational operation of the market, it is extremely difficult to monitor for national authorities. Intermediaries rely on complex contractual structures (many of them have been recently exposed on the footballleaks website), juggling with national laws and arbitration clauses to reduce both their taxes and regulatory oversight. Though the transparency requirements imposed by the DFB are extremely limited (a first rough synthesis for 2015 is available here) and way bolder proposals must be put on the table,[29] this is an important step in the right direction. This quest for transparency and openness around the financial flows involving intermediaries is very much “applauded” by the European parliament.[30] In fact, if supporters and citizens, who are often in fine called to financial rescue when an overspending club is ailing, are expected to exercise a public check over the over-optimistic (and sometimes corrupt) management of clubs and the correlated extravagant fees paid to intermediaries, they must be able to rely on trustful data to conduct such a critical assessment.

Finally, and this is most interesting in light of the on-going legal battle over FIFA’s third-party ownership ban, the OLG, confirming the LG’s assessment, also recognized the legitimacy of the DFB’s ban on an intermediary having an interest in future transfer compensations.[31] Its legitimate purpose is to rein the disproportionate influence, based on personal financial incentives, of intermediaries on a player’s transfers.[32] The OLG seems to follow the LG’s view that the potentiality of obtaining a share of future transfer fees constitutes a major incentive for intermediaries to actively encourage an early termination of a player’s contract.[33] In short, the German court endorses the need to limit incentives for intermediaries to trigger contractual ruptures over their personal financial interest in a future transfer of a player. A similar logic could be applied to the proportionality assessment of the TPO ban. Indeed, this ban is also aimed at avoiding that transfers be triggered for purely financial reasons. The idea being that a club should not be in a position of dependence vis-à-vis a third-party (in practice often an intermediary) that would force it to transfer a player to satisfy its own purely economic rationale. In this regard, the OLG’s judgment is very encouraging for FIFA as it supports a logic of ‘de-financiarization’ of football. The court is very much recognizing that economic incentives should not be front-and-centre in contemporary football and that the fact that there is a clear economic dimension to sport (triggering for example the application of EU law and/or labour law) should not overshadow its other dimensions (cultural, social, ethical, educational). Conciliation is necessary, players are not amateurs anymore, transfers are possible, TV rights money can trickle down, but the rampant financiarization (and collateralization) of labour contracts seems both dangerous in terms of the economic instability it might trigger (think FC Twente) and of the unethical abuses it might incite and conceal.

Conclusion: The legal consequences of FIFA’s retreat

The new FIFA Regulations for Intermediaries are first and foremost a confession of impotence from the part of FIFA. Fifteen years after introducing a worldwide regulatory mechanism applicable to football agents, FIFA basically acknowledged its incapacity to control the profession and rein its negative externalities. The old licensing system proved unable to provide a qualitative level playing field for agents, nor was FIFA capable (or willing to invest enough resources) to truly enforce its rules. In fact, at the local level, a multitude of informal agents and practices had practically hollowed out the FIFA Regulations.[34] Yet, instead of strengthening its regulatory apparatus and enforcement mechanisms, FIFA decided to retreat and basically handed over the responsibility to regulate intermediaries to the multitude of national federations. One can be excused for doubting at first that such a re-nationalization is well suited to control an inherently transnational market.[35] Yet, there is still some room left for hope.

The re-nationalization of the Regulations will undoubtedly bring about a complex regulatory landscape with different regimes applicable in each national jurisdiction.[36] Moreover, agents/intermediaries might face an enhanced amount of red tape and administrative fees if they aim at entering each and every national market. These negative consequences can be tempered, however, by a number of things. First of all, the market for intermediaries has never been truly transnational. Sociologists have shown that it operates more as a chain of national actors rather than with truly transnational players.[37] Furthermore, the big transfer money (and thus intermediary money) in football is concentrated on a small number of national markets (mainly the European big five[38]). This means that if those markets jointly engage in a strict regulation of intermediaries it will affect disproportionately (probably positively) the profession. Due to massive TV rights revenues these national federations and leagues also dispose of the necessary (financial and administrative) resources to rigorously enforce their rules. For example, if at a European level, national federations were able to coordinate their new intermediaries regulations and provide a level regulatory field for the profession, which would involve both reducing the administrative costs to exercise it and a sharper control of its negative externalities, FIFA’s regulatory retreat would be largely compensated by a potentially more effective regulatory system.

What is the role of EU law in this regard? The Piau case is a good reminder that the CJEU is sympathetic to the need to regulate the market for intermediaries. Since then, the soft law of the European institutions (and especially the European Parliament’s position) has very much comforted this sympathy.[39] However, it would be rather naïve to believe that the EU would be able and willing to take on the task of single-handedly re-regulating such a complex transnational field. It has currently other burning priorities and crucially lacks the resources and expertise to do so. The role of EU law is rather one of a careful catalyst and counter-power, aimed at encouraging private regulations at the national or transnational level and eschewing that they go too far in scapegoating the intermediaries and in restricting their economic freedoms. In this regard, the OLG Frankfurt provided, on the basis of EU law, a rather balanced review of the DFB regulations, striking down some of the more intrusive (or arguably less rational) parts of the regulations, while recognizing the legitimacy and proportionality of others. EU law can be invoked to open up a critical discussion over the regulatory trade-offs of transnational private regulations. Not more but also not less.

[1] Case T-193/02, Laurent Piau v Commission [2005] ECR II-0209, paras. 112-115; Landesgericht Frankfurt am Main: Urteil vom 29. April 2015 · Az. 2-06 O 142/15, para. 77. On the Piau ruling see D. Waelbroeck & P. Ibañez-Colomo, ‘Case C-171/05 P, Laurent Piau, Order of the Court of Justice (Third Chamber) of 23 February 2006, [2006] ECR I-37’, Common Market Law Review 43: 1743–1756, 2006.

[2] Ibid., para. 78.

[3] “On the other hand, since they are binding on national associations that are members of FIFA, which are required to draw up similar rules that are subsequently approved by FIFA, and on clubs, players and players’ agents, those regulations are the reflection of FIFA’s resolve to coordinate the conduct of its members with regard to the activity of players’ agents. They therefore constitute a decision by an association of undertakings within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC (Case 45/85 Verband der Sachversicherer v Commission [1987] ECR 405, paragraphs 29 to 32, and Wouters and Others, paragraph 71), which must comply with the Community rules on competition, where such a decision has effects in the Community.” Ibid., para. 75.

[4] Ibid., paras 83-99.

[5] Ibid., para. 104.

[6] Ibid., para. 117.

[7] This is well recognized and explicated in the OLG’s judgment. See, OLG Frankfurt am Main, Urt. v. 02.02.2016, Az.: 11 U 70/15 (Kart), para. II.1.

[8] Case C-519/04 P David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen v Commission [2006] ECR I-6991, para. 42 ff. See further S. Weatherill, ‘Anti-doping Revisited: The Demise of the Rule of ‘Purely Sporting Interest’?’ in S. Weatherill, European Sports Law, ASSER Press, Springer, 2014, pp. 379-399 and B. Van Rompuy, The Role of EU Competition Law in Tackling Abuse of Regulatory Power by Sports Associations, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2767467.

[9] OLG Frankfurt am Main, Urt. v. 02.02.2016, Az.: 11 U 70/15 (Kart),, II.2.b.

[10] Ibid, II.2.b

[11] The European Parliament “Underscores the finding of the study that the regulations of agents established by sports federations are basically aimed at controlling access to the profession and regulating its exercise, but that these bodies have only limited supervisory and sanctioning powers, since they lack any means of control or direct action vis-à-vis sports agents who are not registered with them; nor are they entitled to impose civil or criminal penalties”. European Parliament, Resolution on players’ agents in sports, 17 June 2010, (2011/C 236 E/14), para.8.

[12] OLG Frankfurt am Main, Urt. v. 02.02.2016, Az.: 11 U 70/15 (Kart), II.3.a

[13] Ibid, II.3.a: Art. 3.2 and 3.3 DFB-regulations

[14] Ibid, II.2.a

[15] For a good critique see N. de Marco, ‘The new FA Football Intermediaries Regulations and the Disputes Likely to arise’, at §23-25.

[16] Art. 7.7 DFB-regulations

[17] OLG Frankfurt am Main, Urt. v. 02.02.2016, Az.: 11 U 70/15 (Kart), II.2.a

[18] “Die Regelung ist auch notwendig; insbesondere bieten entgegen den Darstellungen der Klägerin die Regelungen zur beschränkten Geschäftsfähigkeit Minderjähriger gemäß §§ 104 ff BGB im vorvertraglichen Feld der Anbahnung eines möglichen Vertragsschlusses keinen Schutz. Dies erlangt Bedeutung, sofern - wie vom Beklagten dargestellt - eine Mehrzahl an potentiellen Spielern angeworben, jedoch nur einer tatsächlich vermittelt wird.” Ibid, II.2.a.

[19] “Schließlich erlangt bei der Verhältnismäßigkeitsprüfung auch Bedeutung, dass im europäischen Ausland ausnahmslos Regelungen hinsichtlich des Verbots der kostenpflichtigen Vermittlung minderjähriger Spieler verabschiedet wurden, so dass eine einheitliche Handhabung im Sinne des Minderjährigenschutzes in besonderer Weise geboten erscheint.” Ibid, II.2.a.

[20] See amongst others: European Parliament, Resolution on the future of professional football in Europe, 29 March 2007, (2006/2130(INI)), paras 35-38; European Parliament, Resolution on players’ agents in sports, 17 June 2010, (2011/C 236 E/14), para.6-7;

[21] European Parliament, Resolution on players’ agents in sports, para.6.

[22] This is a truly worrying development. See A. C. Najarian, ‘"The Lost Boys": FIFA's Insufficient Efforts To Stop Trafficking of Youth Footballers’, 22 Sports Law. J. 151 2015. On the ‘muscle drain’ phenomena, see W. Andreff, ‘“Muscle Drain” in Sport and how to regulate it? A plea for a “Coubertobin” tax’ and J. Scherrens, ‘The muscle drain of African Football Players to Europe: Trade or Trafficking?’, Master Thesis 2007.

[23] OLG Frankfurt am Main, Urt. v. 02.02.2016, Az.: 11 U 70/15 (Kart), II.3.b; Art. 6.1 DFB-regulations

[24] Ibid, II.3.b

[25] “Dies widerspricht dem Grundsatz eines am fairen Wettbewerb orientierten sportlichen Wettkampfs [...]“. Ibid, II.3.b

[26] In FIFA’s own words: “The new system does not regulate access to the activity but provide a framework for tighter control and supervision of the transactions relating to transfer of football players in order to enhance transparency.” FIFA, Working with intermediaries – reform of FIFA’s players’ agents system, Background information, April 2015, p.2.

[27] M. Andrews and P. Harrington, Off Pitch: Football’s financial integrity weaknesses, and how to strengthen them, CID Working Paper No. 311 January 2016, p.68-103.

[28]“The analysis of shares highlights that the big five league players’ representation market is highly concentrated: half of the footballers are managed by 83 football agents or agencies. Our study reveals the existence of closed relational networks that clearly favors the concentration of players under the control of few agents.”R. Poli, G. Rossi & R. Besson, Football Agents in the biggest five European football markets. An empirical research report, CIES, February 2012, p.2.

[29] Andrew and Harrington suggest for example to create both a “Transfer Clearinghouse to house transfer process information” and a “centralized processes for registering and managing intermediaries”, op.cit. 27, p.96-99.

[30] The EP “[a]pplauds sport governing bodies’ efforts to bring about more transparency and supervision of financial flows.” European Parliament, Resolution on players’ agents in sports, 17 June 2010, (2011/C 236 E/14), para.11. See also European Parliament, Resolution on the European dimension in sport, 2 February 2012 (2011/2087(INI)), paras 76, 78 and 87.

[31] OLG Frankfurt am Main, Urt. v. 02.02.2016, Az.: 11 U 70/15 (Kart),, II.3.c; Art. 7.3 DFB-regulations

[32]“Zweck der Regelung ist es, einer an sachfremden, d.h. nicht sportlichen Interessen ausgerichteten Einflussnahme der Vermittler auf Spielerwechsel, insbesondere im Bereich der vorzeitigen Vertragsbeendigung, entgegenzuwirken. Die Regelung ist geboten, da dieser Zweck durch das Verbot insbesondere der Zahlung von Transferentschädigungen oder Beteiligungen an einem künftigen Transferwert eines Spielers den Anreiz zur sachfremden, finanziell motivierten Einflussnahme mindert.” Ibid, II.3.c.

[33] LG Frankfurt am Main: Urteil vom 29. April 2015 · Az. 2-06 O 142/15, paras. 83-84

[34] A finding shared by the CIES study and the Study on Sports Agents in the European Union commissioned by the EC in 2009.

[35] The European Parliament stated in its 2010 Resolution on Agents that « doing away with the existing FIFA licence system for player’s agents without setting up a robust alternative system would not be the appropriate way to tackle the problems surrounding player’s agents in football”. European Parliament, Resolution on players’ agents in sports, 17 June 2010, (2011/C 236 E/14), para. 10. The same scepticism is displayed by M. Andrews and P. Harrington, Off Pitch: Football’s financial integrity weaknesses, and how to strengthen them, CID Working Paper No. 311 January 2016, at p.98.

[36] For a preliminary rough mapping, see M. Colucci (ed.), The FIFA Regulations on Working with Intermediaries – Implementation at National Level, International Sports Law and Policy Bulletin, Issue 1-2015.

[37] This is highlighted in the CIES study of 2012.

[38] I.e. the English Premier League, the German Bundesliga, the Spanish La Liga, the Italian Serie A and the French Ligue 1.

[39] European Parliament, Resolution on the future of professional football in Europe, 29 March 2007, (2006/2130(INI)), para. 44; European Parliament, Resolution on the White Paper on Sport, 8 May 2008 (2007/2261(INI)), para. 100; European Parliament, Resolution on players’ agents in sports, 17 June 2010, (2011/C 236 E/14); European Parliament, Resolution on the European dimension in sport, 2 February 2012 (2011/2087(INI)), paras 75-78. This need for regulation is also embraced, though more carefully, by the European Commission in its White Paper on Sport, see European Commission, White Paper on Sport, COM(2007) 391, at para. 4.4. See also European Commission, ‘Commission blows the whistle over inflated football transfer fees and lack of level playing field’, 7 February 2013