## Facts

- Jean-Marc Bosman, a Belgian professional footballer, played for Royal Club Liégeois SA (RFC Liège) in Belgium’s first division.
- After his employment contract expired in 1990, Bosman sought to sign with USL Dunkerque, a French club.
- Under football association transfer rules, even an out-of-contract player could not be registered by a new club unless the new club paid the former club a transfer/training/development fee and obtained a transfer certificate.
- Dunkerque did not pay the fee demanded by RFC Liège, and RFC Liège refused to issue the transfer certificate, preventing the move.
- Bosman’s wages were significantly reduced after RFC Liège demoted him from the first team.
- Football association rules also included “nationality clauses” limiting the number of players who were nationals of other Member States that clubs could field in certain competitions.
- Bosman challenged the transfer and nationality rules as unlawful restrictions on the free movement of workers under the EEC Treaty.

## Issues

1. Whether EEC Treaty Article 48 (free movement of workers) precludes rules requiring a transfer/training/development fee for an out-of-contract professional footballer to be employed by a club in another Member State.
2. Whether Article 48 precludes nationality-based limits on the number of other-Member-State nationals a club may field in league or cup matches.
3. Whether the challenged rules also violate EEC Treaty competition provisions (Articles 85 and 86).

## Decision

- The ECJ held that professional football falls within EU law insofar as it is an economic activity involving employment relationships.
- The ECJ held that Article 48 applies to rules issued by private sporting associations when those rules affect access to employment and employment conditions.
- Article 48 precludes transfer rules that prevent an out-of-contract player from being employed by a club in another Member State unless the new club pays a fee to the former club.
- Article 48 also precludes nationality clauses that limit the number of other-Member-State nationals a club may field in national league or cup competitions.
- The Court recognized that aims such as competitive balance and youth training can be legitimate, but concluded the contested rules were not necessary or proportionate to achieve those aims.
- Because the case was resolved under Article 48, the Court did not need to base its outcome on competition-law holdings under Articles 85 and 86.
- The national court was to apply the ECJ’s interpretations to the dispute and determine the consequences for the parties.

## Legal Principles

- EU free-movement rules apply to sport when the activity is economic, including paid professional team sport.
- Treaty provisions on free movement of workers reach private regulatory rules that govern market relationships between clubs but affect workers’ employment opportunities.
- Measures that deter or hinder a worker from taking employment in another Member State are restrictions on free movement even if formally nationality-neutral.
- Conditioning cross-border employment of an out-of-contract worker on payment by a prospective employer to a former employer constitutes an unlawful restriction under Article 48.
- Nationality clauses limiting the fielding of other-Member-State nationals are incompatible with Article 48 because they discriminate on nationality.
- Claimed sporting or cultural justifications cannot narrow the Treaty prohibition on nationality discrimination, and accepted objectives must be pursued by measures that are necessary and proportionate.

## Conclusion

The ECJ ruled that EU free-movement law bars both post-contract transfer-fee systems that block cross-border hiring and nationality-based quotas on EU players in club competitions, requiring national courts to disapply such rules in disputes involving professional football employment within the EU.


Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Ass’n ASBL v. Bosman, Case C-415/93, [1995] E.C.R. I-4921 (ECJ 1995)