Download Summary of the judgment in case C-325/08

C-325/08 Olympique Lyonnais v Olivier Bernard and Newcastle United FC,
judgment of 16 March 2010
The Court of Justice clarifies the limits of the justifications which Member
States may legitimately invoke in support of certain measures restricting
freedom of movement of young sportsmen.
Mr Bernard, a young football player in the "espoirs" team of Olympique Lyonnais,
refused the offer of a professional contract for one year made by this club and
concluded a contract of the same type with the English club Newcastle United FC,
whereas under the Charter for "joueurs espoirs" applicable in France he should have
signed his first professional contract, at the end of his training, with the club which had
trained him. Olympique Lyonnais then took legal proceedings seeking an award of
damages against Mr Bernard and Newcastle United FC equivalent to the remuneration
which this player would have received over one year if he had signed the contract
proposed to him by the club.
The Court of Cassation, as final court of appeal, referred questions to the Court of
Justice on the scope of the principle of freedom of movement for workers and the
possible restrictions which national measures can impose in a situation like the
present.
After confirming its case-law that a salaried professional player of a sports team is a
worker within the meaning of European Union law and that collective agreements such
as the Charter for "joueurs espoirs" are covered by the Treaty, the Court finds that the
obligation imposed by the Charter on the "joueur espoir" to conclude his first
professional contract with the club which has trained him is a restriction on freedom of
movement for workers.
Stressing the importance of sport in the European Union in view of its social and
educational function, the Court notes that such a restriction could be justified by the
objective of encouraging the recruitment and training of young players, provided that
it is actually capable of attaining that objective and is proportionate.
In this case, the Court asserts that a scheme which provides first refusal in recruiting a
young player to the football club which has trained him, together with a right to
compensation if the young player prefers to sign his first professional contract with
another club, is acceptable in so far as it encourages the clubs to provide training for
young players.
With regard to the requirement to respect the principle of proportionality, the Court
states that the compensation provided for if the young player signs a contract with
another club must be calculated on the basis of the costs borne by the original club in
training both future professional players and those who will never play professionally.
On the other hand, the rules at issue in the main proceedings, which provide for the
payment of damages which are calculated not in relation to the training costs incurred
by the club, but in relation to the total loss suffered by the club, go beyond what is
necessary to encourage the recruitment and training of young players and cannot
therefore be justified.
July 2010
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/legal_service/arrets/08c325_en.pdf