Case C-325/08

Olympique Lyonnais SASP

v

Olivier Bernard

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France))

(Article 39 EC – Freedom of movement for workers – Restriction – Professional football players – Obligation to sign the first professional contract with the club which provided the training – Player ordered to pay damages for infringement of that obligation – Justification – Objective of encouraging the recruitment and training of young professional players)

Summary of the Judgment

1.        Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Provisions of the Treaty – Scope

(Art. 45 TFEU)

2.        Freedom of movement for persons – Workers

(Art. 45 TFEU)

1.        Article 45 TFEU extends not only to the actions of public authorities but also to rules of any other nature aimed at regulating gainful employment in a collective manner. A professional football charter of the national football federation falls within the scope of that article if the charter has the status of a national collective agreement.

(see paras 30, 32)

2.        Article 45 TFEU does not preclude a scheme which, in order to attain the objective of encouraging the recruitment and training of young players, guarantees compensation to the club which provided the training if, at the end of his training period, a young player signs a professional contract with a club in another Member State, provided that the scheme is suitable to ensure the attainment of that objective and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain it.

It is true that such a scheme is a restriction of freedom of movement for workers guaranteed within the European Union by Article 45 TFEU, since it is likely to discourage players from exercising their right of free movement and makes the exercise of that right less attractive, even though it does not formally prevent the player from signing a professional contract with a club in another Member State. However, such a scheme can, in principle, be justified by the objective of encouraging the recruitment and training of young players, the prospect of receiving training fees being likely to encourage football clubs to seek new talent and train young players. Moreover, the costs generated by training young players are, in general, only partly compensated for by the benefits which the club providing the training can derive from those players during their training period. In those circumstances, the clubs that provided the training could be discouraged from investing in the training of young players if they could not obtain reimbursement of the amounts spent for that purpose when, at the end of his training, a player enters into a professional contract with another club. In particular, that would be the case with small clubs providing training, whose investments at local level in the recruitment and training of young players are of considerable importance for the social and educational function of sport.

However, such a scheme must be actually capable of attaining that objective and be proportionate to it, taking due account of the costs borne by the clubs in training both future professional players and those who will never play professionally. A scheme under which a ‘joueur espoir’ who signs a professional contract with a club in another Member State at the end of his training period is liable to pay damages calculated in a way that is unrelated to the actual costs of the training is not necessary to ensure the attainment of that objective.

(see paras 35-37, 41, 43-45, 49-50, operative part)