APPENDIX 1
THE BOSMAN CASE:
Sequence of events:
JUNE 1990: Jean-Marc Bosman gets into a dispute with his Belgian Club, FC Liege. They reduce his salary by 60%. Bosman wanted to transfer for the French club Dunkerque but his current club wanted a huge transfer fee, Bosman was dropped by FC Leige.
AUGUST 1990: Bosman sues for damages against FC Liege and the Belgian Football Association.
NOVERBER 1990: A Belgian court permits Bosman to transfer to the French Club free of charge. The Belgian Football Association appeals.
MAY 1991: The Court of Appeal decides that Bosman has the right to transfer.
JANUARY 1992: Bosman returns to Belgian and his application for unemployment benefit is rejected.
MARCH 1995: The appeal to UEFA (United European Football Association) by FC Liege and the Belgian Association fails.
JUNE 1995: Bosman claimed 1 million dollar damages at the EU- tribunal in Luxembourg.
NOVEMBER 1995: UEFA issues an open protest letter in favour of Bosman. FIFA (International Federation of Football Association) supports UEFA.
The Football world before Bosman.
The Bosman case changed the nature of player's transfers in the EU. Prior to the Bosman saga, football clubs had considerable employment control over their players. The players were registered with the clubs, when a player was moving or transferring from club to another it was the registration document that was exchanged between the clubs involved. In most transfers a fee was demanded from the club which held the registration document of the player concerned. The transfer fee, and also the inability of players to move freely between employers as and when the liked, marked them out as different from many other sort of employees.
Until 1960's players in England had to put in a transfer request if they wanted to move clubs. If the club refused to allow a player to move, the player would be tied to the club as long as his wages were maintained at least to the level of his previous contract.
This type of 'TRANSFER SYSTEM' meant that the Employment lives of players were CONTROLLED by the clubs. The knock on effect of this was that the player's mobility and wages was limited and Top players often had to spend most of their careers home clubs which often experienced little success.
However this was challenged and changed in the late 1960's with the help of a leading case of an English player 'George Eastham (Eastham Case). The facts of this case were that Eastham expressed a move to 'Newcastle United' from his club, 'Ards' in Northern Ireland. Despite his repeated requests for transfer, the club simply refused his request. Eastham eventually left the game after appealing to the football league. Newcastle effectively owned him one year later. Arsenal F.C and Newcastle F.C agreed a fee for Eastham, but the player took the case to the High Court, in order to test the 'retain and transfer system'.
The ruling of the High Court found that the 'retain and transfer system' was 'unreasonable restraint of trade'. If the clubs did not re-hire their player on a further contract, then if the players decide, should be able to leave for free. However, football clubs could still exercise the option to re-hire the player at the end of his contract, thus the 'freedom' was still very limited.
In the 1970's the 'Freedom of Contract' arrived. These meant players could exercise their right to leave clubs, at the end of their contracts. If the club offered the player new 'terms' that were at least as attractive as the old one's, then the selling club was entitled to a 'transfer fee'. If a fee could not be agreed by the clubs involved then a tribunal would decide a fee. Again this restricted the complete free movement of players.
Also the Nationality clause in the UEFA regulation stated that in all official matches (Championship national or European cup matches) a club may NOT field more than three players who are nationals of other member states.
This system lasted until the ground-breaking 'JEAN-MARC BOSMAN' case in 1990's.
THE JEAN-MARC BOSMAN FACTS:
Jean Bosman was a Belgian professional footballer who proved that it is not, only the most outstanding gifted players who make the headlines, especially in today's complex legal climate. Bosman made headlines that spelled bad news for football clubs, individual shareholders and the economy around the European Union. This had the opposite effect on individual players, especially those players who were nearing the end of their contract.
Mr Bosman played professional football for a Belgian football club, FC Liege, who were than a first division club in the Belgian league.
His dispute 'arose' out of a conflict in 1990 between him and his club, FC Liege. His contract expired on the 30th June 1990; his salary at the time was of BFR 75,000 per month. In April 1990, RC Liege offered Mr Bosman a new contract with a basic salary, which was reduced to BFR 30,000 per month. This salary was the minimum provided for in the statutes of the Belgian Football Association. Mr Bosman refused to sign the contract and subsequently was placed on the transfer list. The transfer fee was set at BFR 11,743,000. Since no club had expressed, an interest in offering Bosman a contract, Bosman himself contacted a French club US Dunkerque, which was a second division club. The club engaged Bosman by a contract on 30th June 1990 which had a basic salary of BFR 90,000.
US Dunkerque and RC Liege had already reached agreement on the terms of the players (temporary) transfer on the 27th June 1990. RC Liege was to transfer the player to US Dunkerque for one season in return for payment of BFR 1200,000 compensation, payable on receipt of the transfer certificate from URBSFA(1).
At the same time US Dunkerque was granted an irrevocable option for the player's permanent transfer for a further BFR 4800 000.
Both contracts --- the one between Mr Bosman and US Dunkerque and the one between RC Liege and US Dunkerque, were however subject to the condition that they would become void if the Belgian Association's transfer certificate did not reach the French Football Federation by 2nd August.
Because it had doubts as to US Dunkerque ability to pay, RC Liege failed to apply to URBSFA (1) to issue the certificate, subsequently both contracts lapsed. As early as 31st July RC Liege further more suspended Mr Bosman and thereby prevented him for the time from playing in the new season. Thus by not playing, Bosman had no income.
Mr Bosman took his case to the Belgian Court, arguing that the transfer rules and nationality clauses were contrary to 'Community Law' which prevented his transfer to a French Club, US Dunkerque. After serious of court proceedings the case was referred, by the Belgian Courts to the Court of Justice to rule on the question concerning the compatibility of the transfer rules and the nationality clauses with ARTICLE 39 (ex 48) OF THE TREATY OF ROME, which guarantees FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT OF WORKERS between Member States of the European Community, and with ARTICLES 81and 82 (ex 85 and ex 86 of the same Treaty.
Bosman claimed that the defendant was in breach of contract and the 'Transfer System' and the 'Nationality Clause' violated 'Articles 39, 81 and 82 (ex48, 85 and 86) of the Treaty (2). I.E. it was ILLEGAL.
(1) Union Royale Belge Des Societes De Football Association (URBSFA).
(2) Article 39 States: " Freedom of movement shall involve the obligation of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration, and other working conditions:.
So when the UK acceded the Treaty of Rome in 1972 it was to incorporate Community Law ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Bosman claimed that the defendant was in breach of contract and the 'Transfer System' and the 'Nationality Clause' violated 'Articles 39, 81 and 82 (ex48, 85 and 86) of the Treaty (2). I.E. it was ILLEGAL.
(1) Union Royale Belge Des Societes De Football Association (URBSFA).
(2) Article 39 States: " Freedom of movement shall involve the obligation of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration, and other working conditions:.
So when the UK acceded the Treaty of Rome in 1972 it was to incorporate Community Law into the national law. (3)
One of the fundamental principles of the European Community that nationals of the European Community Countries should be able to work or purse self-employed activities anywhere in the community, on an equal footing with nationals of every other EEC country, and free from discrimination on the grounds on nationality.
Certain provisions in the EEC Treaty can be directly enforced by individuals to the European court for a particular government's failure to meet the Treaty obligations (Article 39) (ex 48 EC).
Workers from other EEC countries should enjoy the same social and tax treatment as nationals of the country in which they are working.
The free-movement principle applies to most groups of workers in the community including sports, this was tested in two previous case in the 1970's of Walrave and Dona, the court held that field of sport comes under the community law in so far as it constitutes an economic activity, and that the activities of professional footballers are gainful employment, so that Community Law is applicable.
The Court did not make a decision on Article 81 and 82 (ex 85 and 86) but held that under Article 39; (ex 48) it acted as a barrier to the 'free movement' of people. So therefore the 'transfer system' and the 'nationality' rule did violate Article 39(see appendix 2) and therefore had to be banished.
Free movement of people in the European Union began with free movement of labour, but has gradually evolved to cover self-employed people, students, pensioners, and EU citizens in general. The European Community Treaty itself provides for protection against discrimination between national of Member States.
(3) Section 2 (1) of The European Communities Act 1972 provides that : all such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising by or under the Treaties, and all such remedies and procedures from time to time provided for by or under the Treaties, as in accordance with the Treaties are without further enactment to be given legal effect or used in the United Kingdom shall be recognised and available in law and be enforced, allowed and followed accordingly.
Freedom of movement for persons is a reality in the EU law, for all workers. In accordance with Article 40 of the EC Treaty.
Freedom of movement for workers is based on Regulation 1612/68 which states that the "mobility of labour within the community must be one of the means by which the worker is guaranteed the possibility of improving his living and working conditions and promoting his social advancement".
Also to simplify administrative procedure for obtaining residence permits.
So the freedom to take another job in a member state should not be jeopardised by special requirements concerning entry into and residence within member states. Provided that he pursues this effective and genuine activity the motives of the individual are not to be taken into account. (See appendix 1-5)
Football is now a multi-million pound business. The astronomical fees paid for football's top players, and the revenue generated by the sale of television rights, have attracted the attention of competition authorities in the EU.
Any grant of exclusive rights, whilst it may be commercially attractive, is at risk of being held to infringe Article 81(4) and the grant as a consequence being void.
The EC believe that competition is best stimulant of economic activity as it guarantees the widest possible freedom of action to all. Also it prevents the introduction within the internal markets of any new obstacles to trade by individuals, undertakings and Member States.
(4) Article 81 (ex 85) provides prohibited arrangements:
A) Directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling price or any other trading conditions;
B) Limit or control production, markets, technical developments or investments;
C) Apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them
At a competitive disadvantages;
D) Share markets or sources of supply;
E) Make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary
Obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the
Subject of such contracts.
Therefore any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, renumeration and other labour conditions must be abolished.
So how did 'Transfer System' and the 'Nationality Clause' violate Articles 30(ex 48)?
It acted as a barrier to the 'free movement' of people for employment, so if a player wanted to play for a particular team and in turn the team wanted the player to play for them, provided his contract had expired, he still could not move without an agreement on a fee. Therefore the only thing that was preventing him from exercising his right to move to a club where there was an employment opportunity was money. The obligation of having to agree on a fee inhibited a player's ability to move freely.
The non-national rule also violated Article 48 by limiting the number of foreigners a club could field at one time; the rule was actually discriminating against foreign players. This discrimination decreased, a player's employment opportunities to play elsewhere. While these opportunities should be decreased for lack of talent or experience, it should not be due to being born in a different Member State. These rationales were used by the ECJ in making its decision.
So from the Bosman case it led to the ECJ ruling that to free movement of footballers' between clubs within the EU countries, with no fee payable when the player's contracts have expired. The new ruling has also meant that players are allowed to discuss and negotiate their own deals with a new employer when their previous contract has expired. The outcome of this, of course, is that top players are in a very powerful position with their own clubs -- and with potential buyers - when their contracts are nearing an end.
The "Free movement of Workers" a crucial part of the European Community gives freedom to move around to any Member State for the purpose of employment and to be employed their under the same conditions as a national of the Member state.
The rights established are:
a) Freedom of movement, and (b) Equal treatment.
So whatever an English person can do, a Dutch person must be able to do.
Footballers fall in that definition of workers, Article 39 (ex 48) applicable to them.
So previously, when a player's contract expired and a transfer was sought this 'blocked' the player and therefore constituted an obstacle for freedom of movement.
Also equal treatment was restricted by nationality clause; this also infringed Article 39 (ex 48).
The Transfer System is null and void because it is:
* Contrary To Article 39 EC.
* Contrary To Article 81 EC (ex 85).
* Contrary To The Principle That People Are No Merchandise.
* Contrary To the Freedom of Labour.
THE EFFECT OF BOSMAN RULING:
The Bosman decision had a great impact on the world of sport, in particular, football. The ruling applied to sports people whose mobility was restricted by a third party. The first football club to feel the effect of this ruling was Celtic FC in 1996 as they sought a transfer fee midfielder, John Collins, who was out of contract and signed for As Monaco. The case went to FIFA, The world Football Governing Body, who concluded that the Bosman ruling applied to the transfer since both clubs were members of the national football associations located in the European Union (6). Celtic lost their claim; the decisions had sound legal bases (7).
Every other week we see the effect the Bosman ruling has bought, loss of valuable income for football clubs, it has been estimated that over £98 million immediately following the ruling. Clubs took advantage of the open market and many bought overseas players, which lead to increased costs, because the ruling only applies to out of contract players, a fee is still paid by clubs to buy players who are still in contract. This can be seen by the vast amount of money which is still being paid by clubs to buy top players (8)
The bargaining power from Post-Bosman is probably gained by top players; they can demand huge increased salaries (9). Whilst some players are exercising their rights to see out their contracts to get a free transfer, contrary to the wishes of their club who may be desperate for a sale (10).
(6) The European Commission has also confirmed that the Bosman ruling applies to the John Collins transfer and that a transfer fee is not payable (reported in the THE HERALD, 18 April 19970).
(7) cf the views of P.Spink, "Post-Bosman Legal Issues" (1997).
(8) The former Arsenal striker, Nicholas Anelka, transferred to Real Madrid for £21 Million in July 1999, and Luis Figo transferred from Barcelona to Real Madrid for a fee of £37 Million, smashing all previous records.
(9) A good example of this is when Manchester United in 1999, re-sign their captain Roy Keane. The Club eventually broke their wage structure in order to keep the player.
(10) An obvious example is Paul Ritchie of Hearts who made it clear at the beginning of the 1999/2000 season that he would not sign a new contract with his current club at the end of his contract, cash strapped Hearts were desperate to sell for a fee, Ritchie subsequently moved to Bolton on a three-month contract worth £50,000 before agreeing a transfer to Rangers and then he moved to Man City for £500,000 in 2000/01.
The larger clubs are growing bigger by expanding business activities including having their own TV stations and floating on the Stock Exchange to increase revenue, whilst smaller clubs struggle to survive. Pricewaterhouse-coopers reports that the spiralling wage bill of clubs will lead to smaller clubs unable to match and struggle to survive, which will have a devastating effect on the economy(11).
Post-Bosman smaller clubs acted as feeder to the bigger clubs, this has clearly be effected as smaller clubs have scrapped reserve teams due to reduced income and the realisation that they are unlikely to gain any transfer fee.
Also smaller clubs are offering less contracts compared to pre-Bosman (12).
Even though the under-24 rule, currently in force in the United Kingdom, ensures smaller clubs receive compensation fro developing young players, the present structure has a limited shelf-life under community competition law and the new UK Competition Act 1988.
(11) Compare, for Example Aston Villa's wage bill in of £22 million in 2000 with Walsall FC in the same year of £2 Million, reported in the match 2000...
The magazine noted that the retail turnover of Liverpool FC £53 Million this was more then the entire second division clubs in the English league. For the season 1999/2000.
(12) According to the Professional Footballer's Association almost 25% of the of the 3,000 professional footballer's registered to play in England found themselves unemployed and out of contract at the end of the 2000/01 season " a game of two halves", The Guardian 2001.
SO BENEFITS FROM THE BOSMAN RULING?
There are positives from the Bosman ruling, firstly football clubs can benefit from it because clubs can sign new players who are 'contract free' without paying a fee. Also the increase in player mobility, for example in 1993 only 11 international were involved in transfers in the English Premier League from the EC, however since post-Bosman, their was over 200, an increase of 1800%. This raised complaints that foreign imported players had stifled the development of home grown talent (13).
Also players are able to negotiate their own pay packages with in most cases, increased benefits. For example former Liverpool player 'Steve McManaman' negotiate his own wage package with his new club, Real Madrid, this meant a wage rise from £12,000 with Liverpool to a reported £60,000 with Real.
The move of Sol Campbell to Arsenal FC meant that the London club's wage structure was smashed, again because no transfer fee was payable. The top players receive higher signing-on fees and much higher wagers all because of 'non-existence' transfer fees.
This had lead to the shattered dreams of the FIFA'S president, who wanted to at least six players on the pitch should be eligible for selection by the national team for the country where the championship is being played (14).
Also the English Premier League now can see world's top footballers on view, and they can provide good role models for young players. Also lower division clubs can also benefit, for example, "Torquay United a few years ago had a two foreign players which had not transfer fees attached, had a very successful year."(15).
(13) In 2000, the UK employment committee heard evidence that the influx of foreigners is damaging the development of British talent, in response to concerns over the government's relaxation of work permits requirements in respect non-EU players. Work permits are to be granted for the length of the player's contract rather then year by year (The Daily Telegraph August 2000).
(14) The Italian coach recently voiced his concern about the effect of the Bosman ruling on the availability and quality of players for the national team. "In Italy because of the high wages on offer that has increased imports of players. Trade barriers across Europe being pulled down the Bosman ruling is biting harder then ever". The Italian coach was referring to the English football club Chelsea who regularly field a team comprising nine or ten foreign players. (CBS Soccer lives Website March 2000).
(15) Torquay united chairman (CBS Football Website 1999).
Who suffers from bosman ruling?
The game in the widest sense could be said to suffer because of the bosman ruling. This is because transfer fees used to be paid directly to the club. Majority of money was then re-invested in the playing talent and ground improvement and better facilities for the supporters. Also shareholders wealth could have increased from the capital value increase of the clubs concerned. Youth systems would be invested into which in turn would give increase employment opportunities for the local communities. The money remained in the game to develop further players and thus help the maintain the infrastructure of the game itself.
However the new arrangements me that top players and their agents pocket a large amount of money which previously was transfer money. Players are forced to ask for higher wages to offset the expense of agents. Another large income source is the 'Television rights' which vast majority goes into players salaries rather club profits - or money to re-invest back into the football business.
The effect of lost revenue has mainly affected smaller clubs as argued by many directors and chairmen of clubs. The rising of wages and no transfer fees! For example, Derby County FC had its wage bill increased from £2 million in 1997 to £3.5 million in 1999(16).
The increase in wages and operating costs are hitting most clubs in particular the smaller clubs because they increase wages to remain competitive and in doing so decrease profits margins- that is, if profit at all. So with fewer and fewer £pounds it becoming difficult to attract top players and only a handful of clubs can afford top salaries sought by foreign players. Subsequently less talent will result in a decrease in performance quality. If this trend continues over the years, clubs will start to lose fan interest and may ultimately fold.
Interestingly over the last few years, lower division clubs who at one time survived from transfer fees received for players from bigger clubs,, the transfer from the lower divisions to the Premier League as fallen by 42%(17).
(16) Source: Annual reports Derby County FC -1997 and 1999.
(17) Source: MR Williamson: Chairman for the Football League Association.
Another example we see as that the three lower division had surplus of £25 million on their transfer dealings in 1995-96 and that figure dropped to £14 million in 1999 and that fell away to £1 million in 2001(18).
We can see that clubs, especially in the lower end of the market are struggling and top few clubs are getting stronger (19). This will in most cases, result in clubs folding away. So if clubs start to fold away, the effect on the local economy would be drastic because football clubs play a very important role in many communities, so if teams left, unemployment would increase. The vendors, security guards, administrative staff and even some players would be without jobs. This would create a vacuum in the economy. The effect of this would be that those who have made redundant and cannot find work in their town or city, thus they would move to find work and taking families with them. The population declining and unemployment prospects at a low, this in turn may deter other people from moving to the community to settle permanently. So unemployment on the increase more people on benefits and less people paying into the tax system.
The aggregate effect on the economy would be troublesome. With fewer teams in the league, fan base on the decrease, leading to a decrease in attendance, TV revenue and merchandise. The effect of this would be that the football business is contributing a less to the economy - a direct conflict with the EU's objective of enhancing the economy. If this trend occurs in a number of communities then the overall unemployment rate rise. Certainly, a high unemployment rate is not a trademark of a prosperous economy.
Although these are merely hypothetical, they are greatly feared in many communities around the country.
(19) Three quarters of all fees paid by the UK Premier League clubs in 2000/01 went to other clubs in the SAME league and not to smaller clubs (Source Football Trust 2000/01
Two third's of the money spent on transfers in the first division clubs in the UK were paid to other clubs in the same division and 91% of such expenditure was given to clubs in the top two division only. (Source: Football Trust)
The psychological effect can also be a very crucial and should not be dismissed. Clubs are seen to identify people of the community they belong to. For example if Manchester United were to fold and were to leave, the community's sense of belonging and pride would be shattered, as they have always been known by their clubs throughout the UK and EUROPE.
So if there is no club then that community would just be known as northern city. Also the bond created between the people of Manchester would be lost, as the rich and poor get together to watch them play on Saturday in the local pub, cheering and jeering the club. If the club is taken away then locals of the community have nothing to discuss and no longer have a common point to discuss. The effect of this could shatter the community's psyche.
Many critics argue that the bosman ruling will setback the talent of the local's because big clubs will be able to snatch talent from abroad for 'free' thus less time spent on this system, the opportunity for recruiting local boys decreases(20).
(20) In 1993 the 22% players in the Premier League were foreign players, this figure jumped to over 60% I in 2000/01 season. Boxing Day 2000, Chelsea made history by becoming the first English club to field 'all-foreign' starting eleven.
The opposite view - no harm to the economy by the abolition of the transfer market?
As legal expert maintains that the transfer system is contrary to employment legislation. As club owners and directors believe to the defence of the transfer market that the sporting sectors should be governed by different rates from those applicable to other economic sectors.
From a leading economist (21), football is unique in that two clubs are needed in order to make a match, the product and in that the quality of the product is dependent on the balance of the strength between those clubs. As it is argued that the transfer system provides financial compensation to smaller club as feeders of player talent to the bigger one.
However this point creates doubts from an economical analysis (21). He argues that, "if we take the dynamics of the market mechanism into account, it shows that the abolition of the transfer market has no harmful effect on the financial position of the smaller clubs. The loss experienced by the smaller clubs will be compensated by a lowering the salaries which they pay the players at present.
One of the consequence of the transfer market in so far it functions efficiently and leads to an equilibrium price for players talent, is that the smaller clubs use their income from transfer to overpay their players in relation to their to the talent and productivity.
By the transfer system being abolished it will lead to player's financial reward being more in proportion to their productivity, I.E. lower salaries in smaller clubs and the bigger clubs with higher salaries.
The consequence of this is that strength between big and small clubs will not change fundamentally and the distribution of the player talent will remain the same. This effect will apply both at national level between English Clubs and a European level.
(21) Debraj: Development Economics Princeton University Press.
CONCLUSION:
Clearly the Bosman ruling has had a massive impact on the sport and the player loyalty. The richest clubs continue to buy the best players, and the scope to buy now is global. In 2003, the high profile signings in the Premier League have come from Senegal, China, Japan, Nigeria and Turkey. Players are freer to move club to club - and across national boundaries- then any time in the game's history. Many players prefer the English Premier League because of the wages are still compete well with those top clubs abroad. So it is good to be a top player in Europe. However there are problems which also come when players and agents angle and agitate for moves. Ronaldo's determination to leave Inter in 2002 rankles with the fans that saw him being paid nearly two years while he fought injury in Milan.
Foreign stars have promoted the Premier league well. They have added the glamour and excitement. Its world-wide profile, and TV audience has been increased. These new arrivals have made the English footballers to rethink their approach. Also the fan base has increased by the arrival of foreign players. Although the English national team is still quite poor.
Everyone and every company must learn to adapt to the new world order.
The transfer fee system involves an infringement of a player's fundamental right to change clubs at the end of his contract. So why cling on to a system which violates the fundamental rights of workers?
APPENDIX (1-5)
) Case 66/85 Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden - Wurttemburg the ECJ suggested that the essential characteristics of a worker are some one who performs services for another during a certain period of time under the direction of another in return for remuneration.
2) Ruling in Laymen Terms.
The ruling in the Bosman saga is that the transfer fee for players with expired contract aborted and clubs may not ask for such a development fee of any kind. In addition, clubs may use as many players as they wish as long as they come any 'Member State'.
3) In Walgrave (1974) judgement it was held that Article 48 not applies to the action of public authorities but also extends to private rules regulating gainful employment.
4) In Dona (1976) the court pointed out that sport, in so far as it constitutes an economic activity, is subject to Community Law.
5) Kempf v Staatssercretaris van justitie (case 139/85)
Kempf was part-time worker as a teacher in The Netherlands from 1981-1982. During this time see was in receipt in supplementary benefits, in 1981 November she applied for a Dutch residence permit. She was refused on the grounds as not being a favoured 'EC Citizen' since her income was not sufficient. He case was challenged and then referred to ECJ and the question whether a part-time worker, such as Kempf, whose income was below subsistence level, and hid not have any other means of financial support, was a 'Worker' entitled to benefit under the Community Law.
The courts decision was that he was. It was held of the fundamental freedoms and must, as such, be defined broadly.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
) Deloitte and Touche (2001) Annual Review of Football Finance.
2) Sport and the Law: William.J.Stewart.
3) The European Community Website
4) The Independent Supports Association (Accounting for Footballers and Football clubs).
5) Gardiner .S (2003) Sports law Bulletin.
6) Football League (2002) Report of the Committee.
7) Brummet, R.L (1990) 'Human Resource Measurement.
8) Contract of Employment: IDS Research.
9) The Bosman case: Roger Blanpain and Rita Inston.
0) Trade & Sports Article: Blair Downey.
1) Harverson, Patrick (1990) 'Fair share ruled out for football fans' Financial Times.
2) Williams J et al (2000) Premier League National Fan Survey.
3) Lanfranchi, P & Taylor (2001) Moving with the Ball.
4) A Social Policy for Europe: Barnard, Catherine (1995).
5) Labour Law: Steven Anderson.
6) Employment Law in context: Brian Willey.
7) Law and the Business of Sport: David Jones. (1999)
8) The Guide to Human Rights : Derek O'carroll (2002).
INTRODUCTION:
The BOSMAN SAGA and the decision by the ECJ on the 15th December 1995 which concluded a legal battle by a footballer JM BOSMAN against the world of football.
Bosman entered legal arena with intention to make the Transfer fee system and the Nationality clause, illegal and null and void.
The research looks into what the decisions was, and what Community Law it was violating!
Football is an organized by way of a monopolistic world cartel (FIFA), which is itself made up of national associations, in principle one per country. Players, whether they are professional or amateur, are registered with a particular club.
The transfer fee lies in the fact that a player cannot change clubs unless both clubs concerned are in agreement and in general a transfer fee is paid and the contract of employment will come to end the former club.
Bosman's contract expired and he rejected his new contract with his club, thus is suspended and was deprived of his livelihood.
The decision was delivered on the 20th September 1995 that the Transfer system and the nationality clause are null and void as being in violation of European Community Law.
The judgement was immediate and direct binding effect.
The research also looks the effect of post-Bosman in terms of the effect on Football clubs, local talent and the lost opportunities, the risk of clubs folding and the effect on the local community and the economy.
Who benefited and who lost-out from the decisions.
Whether the decisions was good for football and the community on a wider spectrum.
