Editor’s note: Kester Mekenkamp is an LL.M. student in European Law at Leiden University and an intern at the ASSER International Sports Law Centre.

On 17 February 2016, the Landesarbeitsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz delivered its highly anticipated decision in the appeal proceedings between German goalkeeper Heinz Müller and his former employer, German Bundesliga club Mainz 05.[1] The main legal debate revolved around the question (in general terms) whether the use of a fixed term contract in professional football is compatible with German and EU law. 

In first instance (see our earlier blog posts, here and here), the Arbeitsgericht Mainz had ruled that the ‘objective reasons’ provided in Section 14 (1) of the German Part-time and Fixed-term Employment Act (Gesetz über Teilzeitarbeit und befristete Arbeitsverträge, “TzBfG”), the national law implementing EU Directive 1999/70/EC on fixed-term work, were not applicable to the contract between Müller and Mainz 05 and therefore could not justify the definite nature of that contract.[2] In its assessment the court devoted special attention to the objective reason relating to the nature of the work, declining justifications based thereupon.[3] Tension rose and the verdict was soon labelled to be able to have Bosman-like implications, if held up by higher courts.[4]

The Landesarbeitsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz has however taken a different road, one going in the (radically) opposite direction, by deciding that the contested fixed term contract period between a Bundesliga football club and a professional player can in fact be justified based on the objective reason of the nature of the work.[5] This case is an example of how the successful reliance on EU law ultimately depends on the interpretation of a national implementing measure by the competent national courts.[6]

This blog post will try to provide an insight in the court’s reasoning, addressing the four main arguments raised in the judgment. Followed by some point of criticism, making comparisons with the ruling in first instance, as well as the Dahmane v KRC Genk case.[7]  

The reasoning of the court

The Landesarbeitsgericht turns to the concept of the specificity of the work (“Eigenart der Arbeitsleistung”) in the second part of its decision.[8] It thereby immediately stresses that every ‘employment relationship’ has its particularities, which thus prohibits a broad interpretation of the nature of the work. It elucidates:

It therefore must be a specificity, the nature of which transcends in an exceptional way the particularities inherent to every (normal) employment relationship, wherein also industry specific features have to be considered.[9]

Thus, for the justification of Section 14 (1) (4) TzBfG to apply, it has to be a special ‘employment relationship’, which in an extraordinary way transcends the particularities inherent to any normal form of employment. The court follows by stating that the employment relationship between a Bundesliga club and a professional football player is characterized by specific features rendering it such special status.[10] The following arguments are substantiating this claim: 

1. Extraordinary high degree of uncertainty 

At the time of concluding the contract, there is an extraordinary high degree of uncertainty regarding the timespan the player can be employed successfully in the pursuit of the club’s sporting and thereto related economical goals.[11]

In the field of professional football, however, there are special features which lead to a degree of uncertainty significantly exceeding the one present at the conclusion of other employment contracts.[12]

The court substantiates this by referring to the possibility of injuries, leading to potential constraints on the player’s future performance. The latter is in any case dependent on many factors and thus only partially predictable. Other unforeseeable circumstances are put forward by the court that may affect the player’s use and performance in a team. It depends in particular on the manager’s tactical approach, the changes therein and the player’s adaptability to those changes. Group dynamics can negatively influence the individual performance. Moreover, in their constant strive for improvement, clubs take on new players, which may cause a previously valuable player to be no longer suited to the raised performance level of the team and the associated increased sporting objective of the club. This leads the court to believe that there is a legitimate interest for the club to use fixed term contracts.[13]

2. The particular need for a balanced age structure of the professional squad

A legitimate interest, to limit the contracts of professional players, derives from professional football’s immanent nature of the particular need, guided by the sporting goal, for a balanced age structure of the squad.[14]

From this a legitimate interest to use fixed term contracts can be derived. For reasons of competitiveness, clubs are constantly striving to “refresh” their squad. They achieve this by signing young players, introducing skilled players from their own youth department in the first team and possibly endow them with a professional contract. The court states that if professional players would have indefinite contracts, this would inevitably lead (in a certain time) to an immense inflation and total oversizing of the squad, which for most teams then would no longer be financeable.[15]

3. The public’s need for variety

Taking into account the public’s variety-need in assessing the legality of a fixed-contract is justified in light of the increasing commercialization of professional football and it having many similarities with the entertainment industry.[16]

Referring to case law in the area of theatre and stage arts, the court considers sports fans’ need for variety to be a specific feature of professional football. This aspect, in view of the increasing commercialization of professional football, further justifies the use of definite contracts. Fans of course want excellent performing players and crowd favourites (“Publikumsliebling”) to stay with the club on a long-term basis, yet this cannot be foreseen at the time of the conclusion of the contract. The court is however adamant that fans strive for variety with regard to the composition of the team as such.[17]

The public expects the club’s management to, from time to time, if not in every transfer window, improve and thus change the team by attracting new players.[18]

Thus, according to the court, the public expects the club’s management to attract new players and thus periodically change the composition of the team. Likewise it notes that, when concluding a contract, clubs and players need to start from the assumption that fans want change and, hence, want to see different players over time.[19] 

4. The player’s interests

Even from the player’s perspective, according to the court, the use of fixed term contracts is beneficial.

From the player’s side it is to be considered, that by the orderly conclusion of fixed-term contracts that cannot be terminated, the player’s risk of losing his job is, at least temporarily, lifted.[20]

Again referring to the imminent threat of possible injury, the court puts forward that a fixed term contract protects players particularly against early termination of the employment contract by personal compulsory redundancy. Furthermore, it is the court’s view that the ending of fixed term contracts creates room for possible subsequent transfers, deemed in the football player’s interests.[21]

Next, the court shortly addresses the typically extraordinary amount of remuneration paid in professional football (in the Bundesliga annually amounting to an average of 1.5 million euros). It takes note of the aim of EU Directive 1999/70/EC, being the improvement of the situation of weak and thus socially vulnerable workers and to prevent the emergence of a ‘precariat’ of always only temporary salaried workers. It subsequently notes that, in balancing the interests, the exceptionally high remuneration completely changes the scale in application of Section 14 TzBfG, however unfortunately without giving any further guidance.[22]

In an overall consideration of all these circumstances the court finds that the fixed term contract signed between Müller and Mainz 05, and thus the use of fixed term contracts in professional football in general, corresponds to the view of a sensible and reasonable contractual partner.[23] 

Und Jetzt? Some points of criticism

The Landesarbeitsgericht seems to have felt the need to soothe the debate that has arisen after the ruling in first instance. In direct opposition to the Arbeitsgericht Mainz, it has concluded that the contested fixed term contract period between a Bundesliga football club and a professional player can in fact be justified based on the objective reason of the nature of the work.[24] The protective stance in favour of the player provided by the Arbeitsgericht, together with the bulk of that court’s argumentation, has now been abandoned. Although the rationale given by the Landesarbeitsgericht for its ruling, especially the first and second argument (being for large parts in consensus with a commentator of the first instance ruling),[25] seems convincing to this author. Altogether, it still leaves room for further debate. 

On the one hand, with regard to the extraordinary high degree of uncertainty, the Landesarbeitsgericht even could have gone further by developing an argument based, not on the uncertainty of successful performance, but on the inevitability of a decline in physical performance.[26]

On the other hand, the court’s claim that the use of definite contracts is in the player’s own best interest seems rather circular, when it states that the ending of definite contracts at clubs makes room for subsequent transfers.[27] It moreover does not explain the precise influence of the high remuneration received in professional football in the balancing of interests under Section 14 TzBfG.[28] This author would have also liked some further elaboration on the courts assumption of the fans’ variety-need.[29]

Perhaps most importantly, by separating these ‘special employment relationships’ in professional football from normal employment, the Landesarbeitsgericht seems to have taken away the protective shield of labour law from the hands of the players/workers (supported in the ruling in first instance) and placed it right back at the feet of the clubs. It may be that the system of fixed term contracts is the most suitable in addressing the particularities of professional football,[30] and yes, the court has provided some valuable arguments for granting a justification based on the nature of the work. Still, the court must tread warily not to give clubs a carte blanche established on this special status of sport. Because, what would be the limits of this autonomy and how would these limits be policed?

In a previous Belgium case, the Dahmane v KRC Genk case (see our earlier blog post), the outcome was somewhat different. There, the Belgian court had to rule on a player’s unilateral termination of his labour contract with his club. In relation to this matter, the court decided, first, against a differentiation between football players and other professional athletes, and second, against a differentiation between professional athletes and normal workers. According to the Belgian court sport does exhibit certain particularities, however a perceived ‘specific nature of sport’ was not a decisive factor leading it to deviate from other labour relationships.

This reasoning is more in line with the Arbeitsgericht’s view in first instance regarding the question of the nature of the work. Be that as it may, the Landesarbeitsgericht does not concur, leaving us with yet another twist in this ongoing debate since the Bosman ruling. Can we speak of this perceived separate creature, being football or sport, and should this have a special status? And, if so, what should be the implications of this special status in relation to (EU) (labour) laws? These questions are far from settled.

[1] Landesarbeitsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz: Urteil vom 17.02.2016 – 4 Sa 202/15 (Appeal decision Heinz Müller case)

[2] FIFPro Press Release,Müller case is a wake-up call for football, 8 April 2015

[3] P. Drabik, Compatibility of fixed-term contracts in football with Directive 1999/70/EC on fixed-term work: the general framework and the Heinz Müller case, Int Sports Law J (2016).

[4] “Successful lawsuit threatens time-limited contracts in football” http://www.dw.com/en/successful-lawsuit-threatens-time-limited-contracts-in-football/a-18341045.

[5] Landesarbeitsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz: Urteil vom 17.02.2016 – 4 Sa 202/15 (Appeal decision Heinz Müller case), II.1.b

[6] P. Drabik, “Compatibility of fixed-term contracts in football with Directive 1999/70/EC on fixed-term work: the general framework and the Heinz Müller case”, Int Sports Law J (2016), p. 153, 157

[7] A.R. 2009/AH/199 (6 may 2014), Dahmane v KRC Genk

[8] Appeal decision Heinz Müller case, II.1.b

[9] “Es muss sich daher um eine vertragstypische, die jedem Arbeitsverhältnis innewohnende Besonderheit in einem außergewöhnlichen Maß übersteigende Eigenart handeln, wobei jedoch auch branchenspezifische Merkmale bzw. Gesichtspunkte zu berücksichtigen sind“ Ibid, II.1.b

[10] Ibid, II.1.b

[11] Ibid, II.1.b.aa

[12] “Im Bereich des Profifußballs bestehen indes Besonderheiten, die dazu führen, dass das Maß dieser Ungewissheit das insoweit bei Abschluss sonstiger Arbeitsverträge gegebene Unsicherheitsrisiko erheblich übersteigt“, Ibid, II.1.b.aa

[13] Ibid, II.1.b.aa

[14] “Ein berechtigtes Interesse, die Verträge der Lizenzspieler zu befristen, ergibt sich auch aus der dem Profifußball immanenten Eigenart der besonderen Notwendigkeit einer ausgewogenen, der sportlichen Zielsetzung gerecht werdenden Altersstruktur des Spielerkaders“ Ibid, II.1.b.bb

[15] Ibid, II.1.b.bb

[16] “Die Berücksichtigung des Abwechslungsbedürfnisses des Publikums bei der Befristungskontrolle ist im Hinblick auf die zunehmende Kommerzialisierung des Profifußballs, der mittlerweile vielerlei Ähnlichkeiten mit der Unterhaltungsbranche aufweist, gerechtfertigt“ Ibid, II.1.b.cc

[17] Ibid, II.1.b.cc

[18] “Das Publikum erwartet von der sportlichen Leitung des Vereins, dass diese von Zeit zu Zeit, wenn nicht sogar in jeder Transferperiode, die Mannschaft durch Verpflichtung neuer Spieler verbessert und damit zugleich auch verändert“ Ibid, II.1.b.cc

[19] Ibid, II.1.b.cc

[20] “Auf Seiten des Spielers ist zu berücksichtigen, dass diesem durch den Abschluss eines befristeten, ordentlich unkündbaren Arbeitsvertrages zumindest vorübergehend das Risiko des Verlustes seines Arbeitsplatzes genommen wird“ Ibid, II.1.b.dd

[21] Ibid, II.1.b.dd

[22] Ibid, II.1.b.dd

[23] Ibid, II.1.b.ee

[24] Ibid, II.1.b

[25] Piotr Drabik, “Compatibility of fixed-term contracts in football with Directive 1999/70/EC on fixed-term work: the general framework and the Heinz Müller case”, International Sports Law Journal (2016), 15; 3-4, page 156

[26] As advocated in: Ibid, p. 152, 156,

[27] Appeal decision Heinz Müller case, II.1.b.dd

[28] Ibid, II.1.b.dd

[29] Ibid, II.1.b.cc

[30] As advocated in: Piotr Drabik, “Compatibility of fixed-term contracts in football with Directive 1999/70/EC on fixed-term work: the general framework and the Heinz Müller case”, International Sports Law Journal (2016), 15; 3-4, page 153