To read Union Royale Belge des Societes de Football Association (ASBL) v Bosman (C-415/93), click here.
The Bosman ruling of 1995 quite simply revolutionised football, and its impacts remain consistent with the modern day era. Pre-1995, clubs were under no legal obligation to allow players to leave as a free transfer to join a new club once their contract with their current club expired. In step, Jean-Marc Bosman. The Belgian midfielder was playing for RFC Liege through the years of 1988-1990, making 86 appearances and scoring 3 goals. Upon the conclusion of his contract, Bosman sought to sign for French club Dunkirk in 1990.
The Belgian side valued Bosman at around £500,000; a price deemed excessive in the eyes of Dunkirk. Consequently, a deal could not be agreed between the two clubs, and negotiations collapsed, leaving Dunkirk without their wanted player; Liege with an unhappy player; and worst of all, a player who saw his wages cut by 75% to a reported £500 and not getting any game time for the foreseeable future.
Bosman, quite rightly one would agree, was not at all happy. His response consisted of bringing forward three court cases before the European Court of Justice (CJEU). Bosman took Liege, the Belgian FA and even UEFA to court, arguing that the organisations had acted in restraint of trade, pointing to Article 17 of FIFA’s regulations on the status and transfer of players.
The Court's Findings
5 years later, in December 1995, the CJEU ruled that the actions of those against Bosman had acted restrictively against the freedom of movement of workers as well as the direct effect of what is now Article 45 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), formerly Article 39 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community. The Article in question is as follows:
1. Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Union.
2. Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment.
3. It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health:
(a) to accept offers of employment actually made;
(b) to move freely within the territory of Member States for this purpose;
(c) to stay in a Member State for the purpose of employment in accordance with the
provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State laid down by law,
regulation or administrative action;
(d) to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that
State, subject to conditions which shall be embodied in regulations to be drawn up by
the Commission.
4. The provisions of this Article shall not apply to employment in the public service.
The ruling from the Court completely modernised and evolved the transfer system in football. Now, players were allowed to move to new clubs at the end of their contract without their departing club receiving a transfer fee. Players could also now agree a pre-contract with their new club, if their contract had 6 of less months remaining. It can be said with the ruling, there is the dawn of player preference and players having more control over their professional careers as opposed to greater club control.
Future Effect on Clubs
Whilst at first glance it may appear clubs have been disadvantaged by the decision, there are are both positives and negatives. The decision made by the Court has ultimately led to three distinct changes in the transfer world of football.
1 - Increase in Player Wages
With the new ruling, clubs looking for new players no longer had to be concerned about a transfer fee when looking to make a signing of a player on pre-contract or post its expiry. Players also were no longer bound by their existing club. With this combined, player wages have rocketed since the decision; seemingly growing every year. In 1992, John Barnes, Liverpool legend, was the first player to be on £10,000 per week. Fast forward a decade, and post-Bosman ruling, Sol Campbell was the first player to be on a wage of £100,000 in his move across North London to Arsenal (per SJA). This inflation has continued through each transfer window, as plethoras of players have opted to pursue their footballing careers elsewhere via this new route.
2 - Growth of Player Agents
With greater wages and a greater cash influx between players and clubs has seen a rise in player agents. Effectively, these agents sort all legal necessities and attend negotiations in order to achieve the appropriate financial package deal for their client, whilst also taking a cut of commission for themselves. Player agents are prevalent throughout all football leagues, some significantly larger, who deal with the larger, and more complex deals. These described ‘super agents’ have net worths of over $50 million. Agents such as Mino Raiola and Jorge Mendes earn substantial amounts from securing such deals, as seen in Paul Pogba’s transfer to Manchester United, where Raiola earned a reported £25 million from the deal (per Republicworld). The rise and power of the agent has stemmed from the Bosman ruling, as alluded to be Sir Alex Ferguson himself (per Sky Sports), as their greater cash injection into footballer wages is a gold mine for such agents.
3 - Widened the Gap Between Smaller Clubs and European 'Powerhouses'
The bridge between smaller clubs and the European ‘big boys’ has too been widened massively. The divide in wealth amongst these clubs are so clear; it is fairly simple. Less contractual restrictions mean greater player preference. Thus, the lack of transfer fees in some instances thus give way to a larger wage budget, increasing attraction, ultimately meaning the best players play for the best clubs. These talented footballers were no longer bound by their existing club, so in essence, the players could move wherever they wanted after the contract ended, and those clubs with greater financial security reaped the benefits. An example of the arguably biggest ‘Bosman transfer’ is Robert Lewandoski’s move across Germany, from Borussia Dortmund to Bayern Munich in a deal that cost, well, nothing. For a striker who had scored 28 goals in his final season, and 74 goals for the black and yellows over a spell 4 years (per Wiki). Yet, in application of the Bosman ruling, Bayern Munich were able to pick him up on a free, but his wages were a reported £250,000 a week (per sportskeeda), another example of wage increases during the 21st century.
Other Impacts of the Bosman Ruling
On top of all of this, the ruling also outlined that quotas on the number of foreign players at a club were now illegal. Before the Bosman ruling, a ‘3+2’ rule applied in European competitions, meaning a team could field no more than 3 foreign players in their squad for European fixtures. But following the ruling, UEFA struck down this restriction. From a mere 13 foreign players in the Premier League’s inception in 1992 (per mailonline), to 62.6% of the league now made up of foreign players (per transfermarkt), this emphasises the magnitude but importance of the Bosman ruling. Furthermore, it is reflective of the modernisation and evolution in football, as the value of players and clubs soar, and various new records are broken, as seen when Chelsea fielding the first ever non-British side only 4 years after the ruling (per express) to when Mark Schwarzer became the first foreign footballer to make over 500 Premier League appearances (per sportmob).
Conclusion
The Bosman ruling has not just changed transfers in football, but it revolutionised the sport to a colossal extent. The overlap between sport and law often goes unnoticed, but it is the role and supremacy of the EU and its courts that has had a major influence on the sport. It is unquestionably a landmark case in both the European Court’s history in terms of the free movement of workers in the EU as well as the world of football.
There is no doubt any slight altercation to this case may have massively changed football in terms of the sport as well as legal landscape surrounding it. If Bosman had not taken the matter to the Court of Justice, where would we be today? Equally, on a more recent note, with the U.K. now having completed the Brexit process, could we potentially see any further changes to this ruling? Or will the laws and requirements around the Bosman ruling remain applicable in the years to come?
Comments