Editor’s note: Mario Vigna is a Senior Associate at Coccia De Angelis Vecchio & Associati in Rome, Italy. His main practice areas are sports law, commercial law, and IP law. He also has extensive experience in the Anti-doping field, serving as Deputy-Chief Prosecutor of the Italian NADO and as counsel in domestic and international sports proceedings. He is a frequent speaker at various conferences and workshops. He was not involved in either of the cases discussed below.

I.               Introduction 

Gambling in football is a popular and potentially lucrative activity. It also raises numerous issues. When faced with the issue of gambling, the European Court of Justice (now Court of Justice of the EU) determined that gambling was economic activity per se, notwithstanding gambling’s vulnerability to ethical issues, and thus could not be prohibited outright.[1] With the legality of gambling established, it was left to the proper legislative bodies (national legislatures, national and international federations, etc.) to regulate gambling in order to guard against fraud and corruption. Gambling was not going to disappear; the dangers inherent to gambling would require attention. 

Given the amounts of money sometimes at stake, it is unsurprising that fraud and corruption are constant threats in football gambling. Match-fixing, i.e. wherein participants in a match deliberately attempt to secure a specific result to allow certain gamblers to obtain favorable rewards, is one prominent form of such corrupt activity. FIFA and UEFA, as well as other relevant bodies, have attempted to regulate match-fixing to protect the integrity of football competitions. After all, illicit gambling not only enables unjust enrichment on behalf of the corrupt gamblers and their accomplices; illicit gambling undermines the trust that spectators have in an activity and can lead to a decline in interest as a result.

The Italian Football Federation (FIGC) has adopted a strict liability approach to deter and punish match-fixing. Under the operative rules, clubs and federations whose agents or members engage in match-fixing activity are liable for match-mixing regardless of whether the club or federation itself knew of or condoned the conduct. Unfortunately, two relatively recent appeal decisions—Novara and Pro Patria—have handicapped this strict liability regime by allowing clubs to escape or reduce their liability on account of dubious mitigating circumstances. These decisions have undermined the efficacy of strict liability as a doctrine, and consequently diminish the efforts against match-fixing.

This blog post argues first that strict liability is effective in deterring match-fixing activity so long as adjudicatory bodies enforce it with appropriate rigidity. In fact, the doctrine of strict liability is widespread, in sports law and other fields, precisely because it can be effective. Next, this post critiques the decisions in Novara and Pro Patria, contending that both decisions misapply the principle of proportionality and erroneously recognize certain circumstances to mitigate against liability. As a corrective to these two decisions, this post concludes by outlining an effective application of strict liability and highlighting important regulatory efforts that out to be adopted. And while the discussion herein focuses on Italian football, the ideas explained are widely applicable across all sports and throughout all levels of competition. 

II.             Italian Law, Rules, and Regulations Against Match-fixing in Football

On the eve of the 2006 World Cup, which Italy won, Italian investigators uncovered efforts involving several major football clubs aimed at rigging referee selection for matches. This scandal became known as Calciopoli and implicated clubs from both Serie A and Serie B (respectively the first and second divisions in Italian football). Subsequent investigations in 2011 and 2015 led to additional scandals concerning clubs competing in Serie B and Lega Pro (the third division of Italian football), among them Scommessopoli (Bet City), Last Bet, Dirty Soccer, and Treni del Gol. Match-fixing, it was revealed, was a real problem in Italian football.

The FIGC, as the national football federation, maintains regulatory and disciplinary authority over all Italian football competitions and activity. To address the problem of match-fixing, the FIGC employs a set of regulation that deems match-fixing activity improper and sanctionable under a strict liability principle. Article 4 of the FIGC Code of Sport Justice (CSJ) states:

2. Clubs are strictly liable for disciplinary purposes for the actions of their managers, members and the individuals set forth in art. 1, par. 5

[…]

5. Clubs are presumptively liable for the wrongdoing committed for their benefit by any person. Liability is excluded when it is clearly or reasonably doubtful that the club participated in the wrongdoing or ignored it. [2]

Thus, clubs are liable for match-fixing even if they are not intimately aware of or complicit in the match-fixing efforts that benefit the club; liability is found once someone associated with the club—a player, an agent, etc.—engages via their acts or omissions in match-fixing activity. Match-fixing is explicitly prohibited in Article 7 of the CSJ[3], which also provides that strict liability applies for match-fixing and is punishable subject to the degree of fault borne by the club.[4] Here, it is important to note that under Article 7 the adjudicating body has discretion to assess a club’s degree of fault and reduce accordingly the corresponding sanction(s). This discretion is important; it is, however, in making use of this discretion that the appeal bodies erred in Novara and Pro Patria.

III.           Novara and Pro Patria: Setting the Wrong Precedent

The FIGC Code of Sport Justice applies strict liability to clubs for match-fixing but allows for consideration of mitigating circumstances to reduce the sanction(s) if appropriate. The problem is that currently there is no standard for what qualifies as appropriate mitigating circumstances. Novara and Pro Patria highlight this problem. In both cases, Italian football clubs—Novara Calcio and Aurora Pro Patria—were sanctioned for match-fixing, but later had those sanctions reduced on appeal on the basis of mitigating factors. This blog post contends that those reductions were ill-informed. If strict liability is to work as a deterrent and truly discourage match-fixing, acceptable mitigating factors against strict liability require greater scrutiny than provided in these two cases.

A.    Novara Calcio

An investigation by the Italian media, coined Scommessopoli, uncovered one of the largest match-fixing schemes in Italian footnall history. Scommessopoli was a wide-ranging, multi-dimensional enterprise; players were involved, as were Italian and foreign criminal groups—in total, the investigation alleged that at least twenty-two clubs and sixty-one people participated in match-fixing efforts. One of the individuals involved, Cristian Bertani, played for Novara Calcio, a club in the Italian Serie B. According to the findings of the National Disciplinary Commission, Bertani conspired with a foreign gambling group and a local criminal group to fix matches. Consequently, the National Disciplinary Commission sanctioned Bertani’s club Novara Calcio under the strict liability regime in effect. Novara Calcio was fined EUR 35,000 and received a four-point deduction from the league table.[5]

The club appealed the decision to the FIGC Court of Justice. On appeal, the court reduced the deduction to three points and eliminated the fine entirely:

“[The reduced sanction] leads to a more accurate assessment of the overall conduct of the Appellant of all the activity carried out by the club, whether in a preventative or subsequent manner, specifically aimed at fighting the phenomenon of illicit sports or eliminating the consequences… In this sense, recalling among others, the approval by Novara Calcio of the first organizational model of the legislative decree no. 231/2001 related to the Code of Ethics; earning the ISO 9001:2008 certification of quality, being the first football association to earn it; having contracted since February 2012 the professional services in order to study the betting quota over the matches played by the club, bringing a discipline scheme over those studies thanks to an Antifraud Code in April 2012 “[6]

In essence, the Court reduced the sanctions on account of the club’s implementation of self-protection tools in accordance with the organizational model set forth in the Legislative Decree no. 231/2001. The problem with this decision, however, is that the efforts in question were taken after the incident. The Court treated this post-incident measures as mitigating circumstances, even though these measures were not operative when Bertani attempted to fix matches.

Such allowance of post-incident mitigating factors is inappropriate and undercuts the effort to prevent match-fixing. Indeed, only the prior adoption of an adequate organizational model against match-fixing by a club should (potentially) mitigate against strict liability. Two requirements should be satisfied: (1) prior adoption, and (2) adequate measures. Legislative decree no. 231/2001 and Italian jurisprudence both distinguish between superficial adoption of an organizational model—which is insufficient by itself—and the adoption of an organizational model with demonstrated sufficient, concrete measures to prevent wrong-doing. Only the latter satisfactorily deters potential wrong-doing, and only the latter should (potentially) shield against strict liability so long as a club can prove its preventative efforts were adequately effected. With Novara Calcio, the problem was that the adoption of an organization model was merely superficial, in addition to being after-the-fact, and that the club did not have to prove that the adopted measures were or would be effective in combatting match-fixing.

B.    Aurora Pro Patria 

In 2015, the Catanzaro Police Department arrested more than forty individuals for alleged participation in match-fixing in matches of the Italian 4^th Division. Three arrestees were former members of the club Aurora Pro Patria—two players and one coach—accused of match-fixing activities while employed by Pro Patria. All three were found guilty in the ensuing proceedings. Thus, under the doctrine of strict liability, Pro Patria received a seven-point deduction as a sanction for the conduct of its employees.[7]

Pro Patria appealed the ruling and sanction. And like the Novara case, the sanction was reduced: 

Having found the defendant liable, it cannot but follow the confirmation of the strict liability held by the association (Club). As marked by the vast jurisprudence, indeed, the referred liability cannot be avoided but graduated in the presence of circumstances that would see to deserve special consideration.

… the thorough preventative activity put in action by Aurora Pro Patria, that even when they were not obliged to, they still adopted the model of conduct as set out in the rule Legislative Decree no. 231/2001, they imposed a Code of anti-fraud and have entered into a contract with Federbet [a monitoring company] by which said company will check the flux of the bets related to the activity of the club, we determine that, given the relevant circumstances, the sanction against the association (club) must be reduced…”[8]

The Court reduced the sanction to a three-point deduction. Although the appeal court affirmed strict liability, it undercut its potency by accepting as mitigating circumstances factors that were not in place when the unlawful conduct occurred. The appeal court was in some ways excusing a violation, at least partially, for efforts the responsible party undertook to not commit the same violation again in the future. The efforts had no impact on the violation that already took place.

C.    Problems Posed by the Novara and Pro Patria Rulings 

After being charged with match-fixing, both Novara and Pro Patria hired monitoring companies that supposedly help prevent, or at least detect, potential match-fixing activity. These post-facto efforts were deemed by ruling bodies compelling enough to reduce sanctions imposed for match-fixing. This precedent of reducing on account of mitigating circumstances occurring after the match-fixing activity occurred poses two issues.

First, the precedent undermines the strict liability regime by allowing the reduction of a club’s liability where it fixes the problem ex post facto, thereby providing clubs with a loophole to escape with minimal harm. Second, the precedent does not consider the actual efficacy of the hired monitoring companies or their methods. Without a regulatory framework and established standards for monitoring companies and certification of their services, i.e. no way of assessing whether the hired companies actually make any difference when it comes to the prevalence of match-fixing, nothing separates effective monitoring from the appearance or claim of monitoring.

IV.           A Better Way of Evaluating Mitigating Circumstances

An adjudicatory body rightfully must consider the particular context of each case. Accurate and fair decisions acknowledge that not all cases concerning similar issues deserve equal treatment. Mitigating circumstances are an important aspect of any fair legal system. With Novara and Pro Patria, however, the appeal bodies erred by giving weight to certain post-incident mitigating circumstances that had no bearing on the issue at hand. Further, allowing the hire of a monitoring company to mitigate a club’s liability introduces a separate issue, i.e. the efficacy of the monitoring company and its services. Both appeal decisions reduced the capacity of strict liability to deter match-fixing. If a strict liability regime is to be effective in combatting match-fixing, then clear standards for evaluating mitigating circumstances in cases like Novara and Pro Patria are necessary.

Before proposing a way forward, it is important to first try and understand why the appeal decisions reduced the sanctions in the cases at hand. Inherent to the appeals’ justification is the doctrine of proportionality, or the notion that any punishment must fit the crime and cannot be more extreme than is warranted. In Novara and Pro Patria, it seems that the appeal bodies thought that the clubs’ liability for the conduct of their employees should be limited. In other words, while the appeal bodies certainly assigned liability to the clubs, they were unwilling to allow that liability to support too onerous sanctions.

This, of course, misses the point of strict liability in the first place. Strict liability is used to assign liability notwithstanding immediate fault because the liable party is best positioned to absorb the liability and/or work to prevent the wrongful conduct. Punishments for strict liability in match-fixing, if reduced to minimal amounts, do little to nothing to promote clubs to actively prevent match-fixing. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) re-affirms this point:

With regard to the alleged disproportionality of the Decision, the Panel first of all wishes to stress that the fight against match-fixing is considered to be extremely important for the purpose of preserving confidence in and the integrity of sport.[9]

Part of the proportionality calculus must be the severity of the wrongdoing concerned. Match-fixing is, arguably, the greatest wrong in sports. Therefore, hefty punishments should not violate proportionality. 

The Novara and Pro Patria appeal decisions also over-value the post-incident preventative actions (which is an oxymoron!). The treatment of post-incident actions as mitigating circumstances suggests future offenders will be able to correct wrongful conduct after-the-fact simply by hiring a company that claims to monitor match-fixing activity. Even if a club were to hire a monitoring company prior to any wrongful conduct, the mere signing of a contract with a monitoring company is generally a questionable preventative measure. Clubs that employ monitoring companies and are then subsequently charged with liability for match-fixing should only have sanctions (and thus liability) reduced if they prove to the court that the monitoring company undertook actual and sufficient efforts to monitor and prevent match-fixing.

Merely employing a monitoring company without any regard for the efficacy of its services is an inadequate escape route from strict liability. After all, these companies are unregulated and unaccredited; there is no guarantee that the companies do any work, or that any work the company performs is effective. At a minimum, then, a club must demonstrate that in conjunction with a monitoring company it undertook significant and adequate measures to prevent match-fixing by its employees and agents.

A standard for monitoring companies is important in light of the Novara and Pro Patria rulings, which will support a booming (and unregulated) market for monitoring companies. Clubs may now look to symbolically contract with these companies to escape liability if/when they are accused of match-fixing. The football community should not allow such a deregulated and opaque market to emerge.

V.             Conclusion

Match-fixing poses one of the most elemental dangers to professional football—it damages the credibility of the sport and could potentially damage the market. The doctrine of strict liability discourages a club’s participation in match-fixing activities, and incentivizes clubs to put into place measures that ensure their employees abide by anti-match-fixing regulations. Judges and tribunals must not lose sight of the broader picture when determining sanctions in match-fixing cases. In light of the Novara and Pro Patria decisions, this blog post offers a way forward to maintain strict liability’s capacity to effectively combat match-fixing: (1) post-incident efforts should not be considered as mitigating circumstances, and (2) monitoring companies and their services must meet a certain standard if they are to absolve, partially or fully, a club from its liability.

Strict liability can be effective so long as courts and tribunals do not unduly handicap it. Match-fixing is still a prominent threat in football and in sports in general. Now is not the time to weaken the most effective tool (strict liability) available to combat match-fixing. While the preceding discussion focuses on Italian football, the lessons are universal for all sports, at all levels.

[1] Case Her Majesty's Customs and Excise v. Gerhart Schindler and Jôrg Schindler, C-275/92 Judgement of 24th March 1994 [1994] ECR 1-01039.

[2] Unofficial translation from Italian: “Responsabilità delle società 1 […]; 2. Le società rispondono oggettivamente, ai fini disciplinari, dell'operato dei dirigenti, dei tesserati e dei soggetti di cui all’art. 1 bis, comma 5; 3 […]; 4 […] 5. Le società sono presunte responsabili degli illeciti sportivi commessi a loro vantaggio da persone a esse estranee. La responsabilità è esclusa quando risulti o vi sia un ragionevole dubbio che la società non abbia partecipato all'illecito o lo abbia ignorato; 6 […].”

[3] “Committing, by any means, acts to alter the development or outcome of a match or competition or to assure any advantages in the ranking constitutes a sporting wrongdoing.” Unofficial translation from Italian: “1. Il compimento, con qualsiasi mezzo, di atti diretti ad alterare lo svolgimento o il risultato di una gara o di una competizione ovvero ad assicurare a chiunque un vantaggio in classifica costituisce illecito sportivo.”

[4] Art. 7, par. 4: It is considered the strict liability of a club in the sense of art. 4, par. 5 and the fact is punishable subject to the degree of fault, with the sanctions foreseen in art. 18, par. 1 sections (g), (h), (i), (l), and (m). Unofficial translation from Italian: “Se viene accertata la responsabilità oggettiva o presunta della società ai sensi dell'art. 4, comma 5, il fatto è punito, a seconda della sua gravità, con le sanzioni di cui alle lettere g), h), i), l), m) dell’art. 18, comma 1.” The sanctions consist, broadly speaking, in the deduction of points, to be sent to the bottom of the table, to be disqualified from the competition, to have a tittle taken away or the barred from participating in a specific competition.

[5] The sport prosecutor had sought a six-point deduction.

[6] Unofficial translation from Italian: “A ciò conduce una più attenta valutazione della complessiva condotta della reclamante, di tutta la attività da questa posta in essere, invero tanto in via preventiva che successiva ed espressamente finalizzata a combattere il fenomeno degli illeciti sportivi ovvero ad eliminarne le conseguenze… In questo ambito vanno riassuntivamente richiamati, tra gli altri interventi, l’approvazione da parte del Novara Calcio del primo modello organizzativo ex decreto legislativo n. 231/01 e relativo Codice etico; l’approvazione nel gennaio del 2012 di un nuovo modello organizzazione e di gestione; il conseguimento nel marzo ancora di quest’anno di certificazione di qualità ISO 9001:2008 come prima società calcistica in Italia; l’aver affidato nel febbraio 2012 a soggetto professionale lo studio dell’andamento delle quote di scommesse legate alle partite che avrebbe giocato il Novara da quel momento alla fine del campionato, successivamente deliberando di continuare l’opera di monitoraggio delle partite; disciplinando infine tale sistema con l’adozione di un Codice Antifrode.”

[7] The sport prosecutor sought a twenty-point reduction as an exemplary punishment and to increase its deterrent effect.

[8] Federazione Italiana Giouco Calcio; COMUNICATO UFFICIALE N. 48/TFN – Sezione Disciplinare (2015/2016), p. 81.

[9] CAS 2013/A/3297 Public Joint-Stock Company “Football Club Metalist” v. UEFA & PAOK FC, award of 29 November 2013. (Case about match-fixing and sanctions under UEFA rules.)

Editor’s Note: Saverio Spera is an Italian lawyer and LL.M. graduate in International Business Law at King’s College London. He is currently an intern at the ASSER International Sports Law Centre. 

This blog is a follow up to my previous contribution on the validity of Unilateral Extension Options (hereafter UEOs) under national and European law. It focuses on the different approaches taken to UEOs by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) and the Court of arbitration for sport (CAS). While in general the DRC has adopted a strict approach towards their validity, the CAS has followed a more liberal trend. Nonetheless, the two judicial bodies share a common conclusion: UEOs are not necessarily invalid. In this second blog I will provide an overview of the similarities and differences of the two judicial bodies in tackling UEOs.

The emergence and function of the Portmann criteria

Since their first appearance in a case widely known as the South American Bosman for the impact it had on the whole system of contracts established by the Uruguayan Football Association, the so-called ‘Portmann’ criteria are often referred to in decisions on the validity of UEOs.^[1] In short, these criteria provide that:

1. the potential maximum duration of the employment relationship must not be excessive;
2. the option has to be exercised within an acceptable deadline before the expiry of the current contract;
3. the original contract has to define the salary raise triggered by the extension;
4. the content of the contract must not result in putting one party at the mercy of the other, and;
5. the option has to be clearly emphasized in the original contract so that the player can have full consciousness of it at the moment of signing.^[2]

These five requirements, proposed by Prof Wolfgang Portmann, were meant to represent the standard UEOs had to meet in order to be considered valid and biding upon the players. More precisely, in order not to constitute an excessive self-commitment that would result in a violation of Swiss ordre public.^[3] They emerged in the course of the South American Bosman as Prof. Portmann’s report was presented by Atlético Peñarol in the (unsuccessful) attempt to uphold the validity of the unilateral option the club had used in its employment contracts. From that moment on, the Portmann criteria became a recurrent theme in decisions by the DRC and the CAS. However, these criteria have been used over the years in a rather incoherent fashion and their importance in the assessment of UEOs is not unequivocal.

Thereafter, in its first decision, the DRC used the criteria to assess the validity of an UEO.^[4] But then it drastically drifted away from them. Actually, in the ensuing decisions the DRC did not refer to the five conditions at all. In some instances it limited itself to recall its established jurisprudence finding the validity of UEOs disputable since they give the stronger party in the employment relationship the power to unilaterally extend or terminate the contract.^[5] In another occasion, the DRC expressly dismissed the binding effect of the Portmann report, underlining that it only constitutes a non-binding recommendation.^[6]

Furthermore, interestingly, in the appeal proceedings of the Atlético Peñarol case the CAS did not mention the Portmann report in its evaluation of the UEO. The Panel only referred to it in the part of the award that assessed the question of the applicable law and noted that Prof Portmann’s starting point was radically different from that of the Panel, as he deemed Uruguayan law applicable to the dispute, while the Panel applied Swiss law/the RSTP.^[7] Having said that, the CAS also seems to have departed from its initial approach, but in a rather different way than the DRC. In an early award of 2007, the CAS refused to give too much weight to the Portmann report and focused its reasoning on other circumstances.^[8] Yet, the ensuing awards did not follow suit on this approach. In its more recent awards, the CAS held that the criteria constitute soft guidelines and often de facto relied on them to reach its conclusion on the validity of an option.^[9] In one occasion, the CAS even added to the list of requirements two criteria, “emanating from recent developments in the FIFA DRC and CAS jurisprudence”, namely (i) the proportionality between the extension and the main contract and (ii) the desirable limitation of the number of extensions to one.^[10]

Regarding the relevance of the Portmann criteria, it seems that the only shared trait between the DRC and the CAS is that both have drifted away from their approach. Though, in quite opposite ways. 

Increase in salary as a sine qua non condition for the validity of UEOs

The question of the increase of the player’s salary is considered central, by both the DRC and the CAS, in deciding the validity of UEOs.

In fact, an improvement of the player’s salary is considered by the DRC as a possible ‘validating’ circumstance since the first published decision on the issue.^[11] The FIFA Chamber placed particular emphasis on the necessity to offset the unequal bargaining power that UEOs give to football clubs. To do that, a significant economic gain for the player must be envisaged in the contract as a result of the extension. In the view of the DRC, this is a necessary but sometimes not sufficient condition for the validity of a UEO, since the specification of the financial terms of the renewal in advance “necessarily cannot take into account, neither by the player nor the club, the possible enhancement of the player’s value, and hence earning power, over a two year period”.^[12]

In its awards on the matter, the CAS contends that the player must derive a clear economic advantage from the exercise of the option.^[13] Thus, the increase in salary is the only requirement that is fully embraced by both the DRC and the CAS. It is interesting to note, however, that in only one occasion did the CAS explicitly mentioned that “[e]ven if the financial terms had to be specified in advance, they necessarily take no account of the possible enhancement of a players value – and hence earning power – over a five year period e.g.: if he becomes an international player during that time”.^[14] It is also worth noting that, at least in one award, the CAS concluded that an increase in salary has to be evaluated only in relation to the previous economic conditions of the player’s contract and not in relation to the salary he could earn somewhere else.^[15]

In light of the above, it is safe to conclude that an UEO coming with a substantial increase in salary for the player has good chances to be deemed valid by the DRC and the CAS. To this end, a few additional observations are relevant. Firstly, how much is enough? Unfortunately, no clear guidelines can be derived from the case law. Secondly, it is practically impossible to predict the increase in value of a football player over a long-term period. Consequently, what can be considered a reasonable increase in salary at the signing of the contract might be deemed insufficient a few years later. Lastly, and probably most importantly, this approach might overlook the fact that an increase in salary is not always the only element a footballer takes into account in his career, as sometimes more personal considerations might push a player to move to a different club in another country. For instance family reasons might play a significant role in such a decision. Furthermore, football players might often consider more convenient for the development of their careers to give up on an increase in salary in order to have the chance to move to a club with more playing opportunities. An increase in salary, even substantial, should not be the altar on which a footballer’s fundamental freedom of movement and, ultimately, of choice is sacrificed.

The player’s behaviour

The player’s stance has often been evaluated by the DRC in particular as a concurrent element in determining the validity of an UEO. The main argument is that a certain behaviour of the player, such as keeping training and playing official matches with the club, implies a tacit acceptance of the extension. Once again, the DRC and the CAS are not entirely on the same line. The DRC jurisprudence gives more weight to this aspect, while the CAS has mentioned that particular attention has to be paid to “the player’s conduct during the period leading to the negotiation of the alleged extension clause” only in one single case.^[16]

With regards to the circumstance that the player has played in official matches as a consequence of the extension, the DRC showed a swinging trend. In one instance, it deemed it not relevant.^[17] Yet, in a subsequent decision (the only one by the DRC upholding the validity of an UEO to date), the fact that the player had kept taking part in training sessions and playing official matches for the club after the extension had quite a different impact on the reasoning of the Chamber.^[18] More recently, the DRC stated that the fact that the player trained with the club for a month after the alleged renewal does not imply his tacit acceptance of the unilateral extension.^[19]

The applicable law

As seen in the first part of this blog, each national jurisdiction interprets the validity of UEOs differently. Consequently, the choice of applicable law can play a major role in the outcome of a case, although the issue arises mainly when the dispute is brought before the CAS. The matter is complicated by the fact that CAS panels have a certain degree of discretion in deciding the law applicable to a dispute, and by the circumstance that even when they apply the same law they might reach different conclusions. With regard to the latter point, let us take into consideration two cases in which the CAS has established Greek law as the applicable law. In one occasion the Panel deemed “appropriate to mitigate the letter of Greek law by the spirit of general principles”, as its content concerning UEOs was considered inconsistent with “general principles of labour law”^[20] and consequently dismissed the appeal of the club. In another one, instead, the Panel concluded that the dispute had to be decided according to FIFA Regulations and Swiss law on a subsidiary basis, “with the important exception of any issues related to the Contract […] which shall be decided in accordance with Greek law”.^[21] Therefore, given that in Greece unilateral options allowing clubs to automatically extend employment contracts are legal, the Panel upheld the validity of the clause.^[22]

A radically different approach was taken by the CAS in the Atlético Peñarol case discussed above. In the absence of an express choice of law of the parties, the Panel deemed the FIFA Regulations and, subsidiarily, Swiss Law applicable. It is worth recalling the reasoning of the Panel, as it could pave the way to a reasonable solution for the UEOs issue. The arbitrators noted that the application of art. 187 of the Swiss LDIP gives wide freedom of choice to the parties, who can even require the arbitrators to decide ex aequo et bono, i.e. without any reference to specific State laws. This means that art. 187 LDIP allows, a fortiori, to refer to rules that transcend the particular State laws, such as sports regulations. The Panel stressed that sport is a phenomenon that naturally crosses borders, and thus it is necessary to ensure uniform legal standards. Only if the same terms and conditions apply to everyone who participates in organised sport, is the integrity and equal opportunity of sporting competition guaranteed. In practice, the FIFA Statutes and Regulations provide such uniform rules. Additionally, the arbitrators underlined that the application of Uruguayan law would lead to a result incompatible with the minimum standards of protection of employees provided by Swiss labour law. Hence, the CAS concluded that the Uruguayan system of UEOs is not compatible with the FIFA Regulations. Furthermore, the Panel noted that these options effectively bypass the basic principles of the FIFA regulations, which “very particularly protect the interests of training clubs through training compensation and the solidarity contribution […] It is not possible that this protection of the contents of a contract between clubs and players can be bypassed in order to serve only the interests of one party, in this case the club, which does not itself have to make a commitment. So the Panel considers that the unilateral contract renewal system is not compatible, in its very principle, with the legal framework which the new FIFA rules were designed to introduce”.^[23] In other words, the Uruguayan system seemed to reintroduce, through the backdoor, the system that was abolished with the reforms of the FIFA Regulations 1997, 2001 and 2005.^[24]In such a system the player is bound to a contract negotiated at a moment of his career when he did not have a strong bargaining power. Which is to say, the player is left at the mercy of the club. The arbitrators stressed that only the most talented players can escape this mechanism, when the club receives an important transfer offer for their services.^[25]In that occasion, the player will hardly refuse the transfer knowing that, doing otherwise, he will be bound to the club because of the UEO in his contract.

Conclusions: The way forward

We have seen in part 1 of this blog that we lack a coherent regulatory framework for UEOs at the national level. This second part has also shown that things are not much clearer at the DRC and the CAS, as the two bodies, while agreeing on the existence of certain criteria, take different approaches on the assessment of each of them (except for the increase in salary). Furthermore, the outcome of a case can be heavily dependent on the applicable law. Consequently, the future validity of UEOs is uncertain, given that no uniformity can be found in the CAS jurisprudence.

The uncertainties related to the applicable law issue are manifold. Upholding the validity of national law, although granting some advantages in terms of foreseeability, presents two main drawbacks. First of all for the clubs which draft the contracts and cannot predict to what extent this law will be deemed applicable by the CAS and, consequently, are unable to draft the contract with all the necessary information desirable in respect to UEO clauses.^[26]Secondly, and most importantly, this approach overlooks the fact that football is a global phenomenon, and the transfer market a transnational one, which requires uniform rules at the international level.

The conclusion reached by the Panel in the Atlético Peñarol case is a fair starting point in the quest for more certainty in the matter. The undisputable merit of that award was to clearly highlight (i) the unequal nature of a clause that is accepted by the player at the early stages of his career and (ii) the necessity to have a body of regulations that can be understood and predicted by the entire international football family.[27] Let us conclude, therefore, that only the universal application of a set of regulations, such as the FIFA RSTP, would ensure legal rationality, predictability and, significantly, “the equality of treatment between all the addressees of such regulations, independently of the countries from which they are”.^[28] A fortiori, when at stake is the fundamental freedom of movement and choice of footballers, the need to rely on a uniform body of principles and rules, a lex sportiva, universally applicable without discrimination becomes crucial.

However, applying the FIFA Regulations in a standardised way still leaves a problem unsolved. This body of rules is in fact silent on the very issue of UEOs. FIFA could tackle the issue in a variety of ways, for instance by codifying in the RSTP a revisited version of the Portmann criteria. Suggesting precise reforms to FIFA goes beyond the purpose of this blog, but one thing is sure: in the face of the extreme uncertainty that surrounds the validity of these clauses, having one single body of rules expressly targeting the issue and universally applicable would be of great help to all the parties involved.

[1] The case concerned the contracts of two Uruguayan players, Carlos Heber Bueno Suárez and Christian Gabriel Rodríguez Barotti with the Uruguayan football club Atlético Peñarol. Pursuant to their contracts, the professional services of Bueno and Rodríguez could be extended unilaterally by the club for two years, provided that their salary would increase in accordance with the National Consumer Price Index. At the end of the season, and after being suspended and deprived of the possibility of playing for four months, the players signed for the French club Paris Saint Germain, and refused the club’s unilateral extension. See TAS 2005/A/983 & 984, Club Atlético Peñarol v. Carlos Heber Buen Suárez, Christian Gabriel Rodríguez Barotti & Paris Saint Germain, award of 12 July 2006. In fact, the framework has slightly changed over the last few years in South America. In Argentina, for instance, the 2009 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) n. 557/09, signed by the Association de Futbol Argentino (AFA) and the Union of Amateur and Professional Football Player provides the current guidelines. In this context, contracts of athletes who have reached the age of 21 can be extended once for one year only, provided that a salary increase of 20% is guaranteed as a consequence of the extension. Extension options for players older than 21 shall be considered null and void, even in the circumstance that AFA has registered the contract, and consequently the player is to be declared a free agent and thus free to sign a contract with another club (see Colucci, Hendricks, Regulating Employment Relationships in Professional Football, A Comparative Analysis, European Sports Law and Policy Bulletin 1/2014, 26). See also Juan de Dios Crespo Pérez’s commentary of the case in A. Wild (ed.) CAS and Football: Landmark Cases (2011), 118. 

[2] F. de Weger, The Jurisprudence of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber, 169.

[3] Prof Portmann considered South American law the law applicable to the substance of the matter. Nevertheless, according to the author, in order to be considered valid, the option not only had to be consistent with local employment law, Collective Bargaining Agreements and regulations of the relevant national association, but it also had to respect mandatory rules of Swiss law and Swiss ordre public. Although he considered the principle of parity of termination rights not part of ordre public per se (and, therefore, the circumvention of that right that these clauses entail not problematic in itself), he stressed that an excessive self-commitment of one of the parties to a contract could indeed result in an infringement of Swiss and international ordre public.

[4] In the unpublished decision 12 January 2007 (see F. de Weger, The Jurisprudence of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber, 169), the DRC made reference to the five elements of the Portmann report to conclude that the option was not valid because, among other considerations, the notice period was too short.

[5] See decision 30 November 2007 n. 117707 and decision 7 May 2008 n. 58860.

[6] See decision18 March 2010 n. 310607, where the DRC interestingly pointed out that the inequality derives from the fact that the player, given the circumstances of contractual inferiority existing at the time he signs his first contract, either accepts the contract with the UEO or gives up on playing football with that team.

[7] TAS 2005/A/983 & 984, Club Atlético Peñarol v. Carlos Heber Buen Suárez, Christian Gabriel Rodríguez Barotti & Paris Saint Germain, award of 12 July 2006, para. 66.

[8] CAS 2006/A/1157, Club Atlético Boca Juniors v. Genoa Cricket and Football Club S.p.A., Award of 31 January 2007, para. 16. The Panel had “great difficulty in following Dr Portmann’s reasoning, and in accepting the validity and enforceability of a unilateral option”. The arbitrators deemed more important, instead, to put emphasis on the general assumption that a person, and a fortiori a minor who had just moved with his family to another country, cannot be required to perform a contract for personal services against his or her will.

[9] The CAS held recently that “these criteria may be taken into consideration and are important, but […] they are not absolute rules, the failure of which would determine the absolute invalidity of the option clause”, in CAS 2014/A/3852, Ascoli Calcio 1898 S.p.A. v. Papa Waigo N’diaye & Al Wahda Sprts and Cultural Club, award of 11 January 2016, para. 86.

[10] More precisely, a Panel held “the need to not accord too much weight and value to the Portmann criteria at the expense of the very important specifics and circumstances behind each individual dispute” CAS 2013/A/3260, Grêmio Foot-ball Porto Alegrense v. Maximiliano Gastón López, Award of 4 March 2014, para. 76, see also para. 68-69.

[11] In Decision 22 July 2004, the DRC noted that because the player’s economic conditions remained substantially unaltered in the renewal, the option was invalid.

[12] See Decision 23 March 2006, para 14. In this case, the DRC deemed that a monthly increase of less than € 1.000 of the player’s salary could not be seen as a significant economic gain for the player.

[13] See CAS 2004/A/678, Apollon Kalamarias F.C. v. Oliveira Morais, award of 20 May 2005, para. 21 and TAS 2005/A/983 & 984, Club Atlético Peñarol v. Carlos Heber Buen Suárez, Christian Gabriel Rodríguez Barotti & Paris Saint Germain, award of 12 July 2006, para. 93. See also CAS 2005/A/973, Panathinaikos Football Club v. Sotirios Kyrgiakos, Award of 10 October 2006 and CAS 2013/A/3260, Grêmio Foot-ball Porto Alegrense v. Maximiliano Gastón López, Award of 4 March 2014, para. 77.

[14] CAS 2004/A/678, Apollon Kalamarias F.C. v. Oliveira Morais, award of 20 May 2005, para 21.

[15] See CAS 2005/A/973, Panathinaikos Football Club v. Sotirios Kyrgiakos, Award of 10 October 2006, para. 23. In which the Panel considered inappropriate to compare between the salary of the extended contract from the Greek club and the salary the footballer would have received at a club in the Scottish league (the Rangers FC) since “it is well known that football clubs operating in richer markets are able to offer a higher income to players”.

[16] CAS 2013/A/3260, Grêmio Foot-ball Porto Alegrense v. Maximiliano Gastón López, Award of 4 March 2014, para. 70.

[17] See Decision 13 May 2005. Here the DRC also pointed out the non-decisiveness of the acceptance by the player of a payment of €1,950 after the extension as a result of the new contract.

[18] See Decision 21 February 2006, in which the DRC noted that: (i) the player had waited almost five months after the beginning of the extension to bring the case before the FIFA.

[19] See Decision 31 July 2013.

[20] CAS 2004/A/678, Apollon Kalamarias F.C. v. Oliveira Morais, award of 20 May 2005, para 24. The Panel dismissed the appeal of the club even though its contract with the player seemed to be drafted in conformity with Greek Sports Law, which – pursuant to Law 2725/99 – allows for the unilateral renewal of the contract provided that (i) the overall duration of the contract, including the extensions, does not exceed five years and that (ii) the financial terms are agreed at the signing of the initial contract.

[21] CAS 2005/A/973, Panathinaikos Football Club v. Sotirios Kyrgiakos, Award of 10 October 2006, para.10.

[22] The Panel, which considered “inappropriate to apply substantive Swiss law to the contract as it has no connection whatsoever with Switzerland (para. 8), made reference to the same Law 2725/99.

[23] TAS 2005/A/983 & 984, Club Atlético Peñarol v. Carlos Heber Buen Suárez, Christian Gabriel Rodríguez Barotti & Paris Saint Germain, award of 12 July 2006, paras. 81-83 (the translation is of the author).

[24] Ibid., para. 80.

[25] Ibid., para. 79.

[26] Ibid.

[27] J-S Leuba, R Fox, J de Dios Crespo Pérez, G L Acosta Perez and F m de Weger, ‘Contractual Stability: Unilateral Options’, in A. Wild (ed.) CAS and Football: Landmark Cases (2011), 119.

[28] Ibid.