July 2024 Roundup
A roundup of football law news and decisions from July 2024:
Anwar El Ghazi successful in claim against Mainz 05
Anwar El Ghazi (“AEG”) has succeeded in a claim for wrongful dismissal against Mainz 05 (“Mainz”) following Mainz’s termination of AEG’s contract on 2 November 2023 following AEG publishing social media posts in respect of Israel’s genocide of Palestinians.
As reported by BBC Sport, it is understood that Mainz owed AEG c. £1.4 million because of the wrongful dismissal.
AEG posted this message after his successful claim. AEG was supported by Nujum Sports who released this message in respect of AEG’s successful claim.
A statement released by Mainz on 16 July 2024 indicated that the club intends to appeal against the decision.
Samuel Eto’o fined
The Confederation of African Football released a statement on 4 July 2024 announcing that Samuel Eto’o, the president of Fédération Camerounaise de Football, had been fined US$200,000 for having ‘seriously violated the principles of ethics, integrity and sportsmanship as provided in Article 2 paragraph 3 of the CAF Statutes by signing a Brand Ambassador contract with a betting organisation in exchange for remuneration’.
Mr Eto’o had also been charged with match-fixing, but CAF’s statement identified that ‘there [was] insufficient proof to find Mr Samuel Eto'o […] guilty of match manipulation’.
Written reasons for the decision are unavailable.
Leicester City FC fail in PSR challenge
A Premier League (“PL”) Disciplinary Commission has dismissed Leicester City FC’s (“LCFC”) challenge that that the Disciplinary Commission has no jurisdiction to consider an alleged breach of the PL’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules (“PSR”) by LCFC during the 2022/23 season.
The Disciplinary Commission’s written reasons are available here.
LCFC’s challenge was based on (see paragraphs 2 and 24 of the written reasons): (i) LCFC not being bound by or subject to the PSR following its relegation to the English Football League (“EFL”) Championship at the end of the 2022/23 season and the definition of ‘Club’ in the PL Rules and (ii) the alleged breaches of the PSR occurring after LCFC had been relegated.
The Disciplinary Commission rejected LCFC’s first ground for the following reasons:
‘[…] on a literal interpretation of the word “Club” as defined in Rule A.1.41, LCFC is not at that point a “Club” in proceedings before a Commission (Rule W.22) or a “Club” for the purposes of compliance with the PSRS. However, such an interpretation fails to take into account the context in which the PL Rules apply, the purpose of the PSRs and the need for effective enforcement […]
The Commission considers that LCFC is a “Club” under the PL Rules appliable to the Season in which it participated and remains so despite its relegation. Such an interpretation of the personal scope of application of the PL Rules fulfils the purpose of the PSRs and the principle of fairness that underpins their application and ensures that benefits (if any) are not conferred by a breach of the PSRs, and that the rights of other clubs which may have an entitlement to compensation under Section W are preserved. A literal interpretation of the term “Club” would thwart the purpose of the PSRs and enable LCFC […] to avoid disciplinary proceedings for alleged breaches of the PL Rules which in the Commission’s view cannot have been intended by the PL clubs when they agreed the PSRs and the PL Rules […]’ (see paragraphs 43-45 of the written reasons.
The Disciplinary Commission also rejected LCFC’s second ground for the following reasons:
‘The Commission considers that, in practice, it is impossible to determine the precise point in time at which LCFC allegedly exceeded the cumulative adjusted loss threshold of £105m because the PSR Calculation is determined across a three-year period up to, and including, the end of a club’s financial year for the Accounting Reference Period in which the PSR Calculation is made. In any event, the Commission considers that it is not necessary to determine a point in time when LCFC allegedly exceeded the loss threshold and to place that point in time after LCFC was relegated, as LCFC invites the Commission to do, because the disciplinary offence in Rule E.49.2 expressly provides that a Club is “treated as being in breach” of the PSRs when the PSR Calculation results in losses in excess of £105m.
[…]
An interpretation of the temporal scope of the PSRs in this manner is consistent with the purpose of the PSRs and the principle of fairness that underpins their application’ (see paragraphs 51-54 of the written reasons.
The written reasons provide helpful guidance on how to interpret the PL’s Rules, and particularly the PSRs and section W of the PL Rules (see paragraphs 31-34 and 39).
In the PL’s statement released on 3 July 2024 announcing the Disciplinary Commission’s decision on jurisdiction, it was also announced that LCFC has appealed against the decision. LCFC also released a statement on 4 July 2024 confirming the same.
Subject to the outcome of LCFC’s appeal, directions for the determination of the charge against LCFC for an alleged breach of the PSR during the 2022/23 season will be provided by the Disciplinary Commission in due course (the Standard Directions found in Appendix 1 to the PL Rules do not apply the charge, as the Standard Directions were introduced after LCFC had been relegated from the PL).
Manchester City FC sanctioned
Manchester City FC (“MCFC”) has been fined £2,090,000 for late kick-offs and restarts during 2022/23 and 2023/24 seasons.
The Premier League’s statement dated 31 July 2024 announcing the sanction included a copy of a sanction agreement entered between the PL and MCFC (“the Sanction Agreement”), which provides a breakdown of the £2,090,000 fine.
The Sanction Agreement identified that MCFC had been sanctioned pursuant to PL Rules, rr. W.3.1 and W.3.3 (two of the disciplinary powers available to the PL Board) for 14 instances of late kick-offs or restarts from August 2022 to December 2023, in breach of PL Rules, r. L.33.
The PL Board’s summary jurisdiction is limited to fines of up to £100,000 (PL Rules, r. W.8), and it is understood that because the PL Board had sanctioned MCFC with fines of £100,000 for MCFC’s thirteenth and fourteenth breaches of PL Rules, r. L.33, the greater sanctioning powers ordinarily available to a Disciplinary Commission (see PL Rules, r. W.51) were necessary for MCFC’s eight further breaches of PL Rules, r. L.33 that occurred from January 2024 to May 2024.
PL Rules, r. W.37 permits the PL Board to enter ‘an agreement in writing with that Person in which it accepts a sanction (which may include any of the sanctions referred to at Rule W.51) proposed by the Board, provided that agreement has been ratified in accordance with Rule W.13’.
The Sanction Agreement was entered pursuant to PL Rules, r. W.37, and permitted fines above £100,000 (ranging from £125,000 to £200,000) for MCFC’s eight further breaches of PL Rules, r. L.33 that occurred from January 2024 to May 2024.
FC des Girondins de Bordeaux files for bankruptcy
On 25 July 2024 FC des Girondins de Bordeaux (“Bordeaux”) announced that it had filed for insolvency and lost its professional status. It has also been reported that Bordeaux has been relegated to Championnat National 2, the fourth tier of French football, following a decision of the Direction Nationale du Contrôle de Gestion (DNCG).
FC Barcelona lose claim against Nike
FC Barcelona (“FCB”) has reportedly lost its claim against Nike in respect of FCB’s attempt to terminate its kit-supply contract with Nike, which will remain in place until the end of the 2028 season.
FCB sought to terminate the kit-supply contract with Nike to obtain a more lucrative deal and following alleged breaches of the kit-supply contract by Nike.
Code of Conduct for Gambling-Related Agreements in Football
The FA, PL, EFL, and Women’s Super League have adopted a new Code of Conduct for Gambling Related Agreements in Football (“the Code”), effective from the 2024/25 season.
The Code is available here, and has four general principles: protection for children and vulnerable persons, social responsibility, reinvestment and integrity. The Code also includes a complaints procedure (see paragraph 5 of the Code), albeit it is unclear whether the FA or competition organisers will treat a breach or non-compliance with the Code as a disciplinary matter.
FIFA facing second legal action in respect of FIFA Club World Cup 2025
As reported in Football Law’s June 2024 Roundup, FIFPRO’s member unions the Professional Footballers’ Association (“PFA”) and the Union Nationale des Footballeurs Professionnels have, with support from FIFPRO Europe, submitted a legal claim against FIFA in respect of FIFA’s decisions to unilaterally set the International Match Calendar and, in particular, the decision to create and schedule the FIFA Club World Cup 2025.
On 23 July 2024, FIFPRO (worldwide representative organisation for professional footballers) and European Leagues (the association of European professional football leagues, including the PL and the EFL) announced that they will ‘jointly file a formal complaint to the European Commission on competition law grounds against FIFA regarding the international match calendar’.
FIFPRO and European League’s joint statement further explains:
‘The complaint will explain that FIFA’s conduct infringes EU competition law and notably constitutes an abuse of dominance: FIFA holds a dual role as both the global regulator of football and a competition organiser. This creates a conflict of interest, which, consistent with recent case law of the EU courts, requires FIFA to exercise its regulatory functions in a way that is transparent, objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate. FIFA’s conduct in respect of the international match calendar falls well short of these requirements’.
FIFA responded strongly, stating:
‘The current calendar was unanimously approved by the Fifa Council, which is composed of representatives from all continents, including Europe, following a comprehensive and inclusive consultation, which included Fifpro and league bodies.
[…]
Some leagues in Europe - themselves competition organisers and regulators - are acting with commercial self-interest, hypocrisy, and without consideration to everyone else in the world.
Those leagues apparently prefer a calendar filled with friendlies and summer tours, often involving extensive global travel.
By contrast, Fifa must protect the overall interests of world football, including the protection of players, everywhere and at all levels of the game’.
FIFA publishes first International Player Transfer Guide
FIFA has published its first International Player Transfer Guide, providing an explanation of the step-by-step process involved in making an international transfer, including detailed information on the use of the Transfer Matching System and FIFA Clearing House.
The guide is available here.
FIFA’s Bureau of the Council appoints two normalisation committees
On 23 July 2024, FIFA announced that its Bureau of Council (see Football Law’s FIFA overview for an explanation of the Bureau of the Council) had appointed normalisation committees for the Tunisian Football Association (“FTF”) and the Football Association of Maldives (“FAM”) pursuant to article 8(2) of the FIFA Statutes.
FIFA’s statement explains:
‘In the case of Tunisia, the decision was taken following consultations with CAF and in order to provide the FTF with the means to emerge from the current crisis, to revise the FTF statutes and electoral code and to hold elections in line with its new statutory framework.
The period during which the FTF normalisation committee shall perform its functions shall expire as soon as it has fulfilled all of its tasks, but by no later than 31 January 2025.
With regards to Maldives, the decision was taken following consultations with the AFC and in order to address the dire governance and financial crisis faced by the FAM.
The period during which the FAM normalisation committee shall perform its functions shall expire as soon as it has fulfilled all of its tasks, but by no later than 31 July 2025.
In both cases, the normalisation committees will consist of a suitable number of members, who will be appointed jointly by FIFA and the respective confederation. All members will be subject to an eligibility check to be carried out by the FIFA Review Committee in accordance with the FIFA Governance Regulations’.
FIFA and UEFA warning to Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio (FIGC)
FIFA and UEFA have reportedly warned the FIGC that a proposed political policy could interfere with FIFA’s and UEFA’s rules providing for the resolution of disputes away from ordinary courts of law.
The letter reportedly threatens disciplinary action being taken against the FIGC in respect of the same.
UEFA Authorisation Rules Governing International Club Competitions
UEFA has released its updated Authorisation Rules Governing International Club Competitions (“the Authorisation Rules”), which came into effect on 21 June 2024.
One notable change, as reported by Kicker and commented on by Antoine Duval, is to article 16(3) of the Authorisation Rules to reflect the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C‑124/21 P International Skating Union v Commission (“the ISU Decision”). The ISU Decision held, inter alia, that the previous Authorisation Rules’ provision for disputes in relation to the Authorisation Rules being resolved by the Court of Arbitration for Sport only, with its legal seat in Lausanne, Switzerland, did not provide an effective remedy for points of European Union competition law (see para. 192-198 of the ISU Decision).
Article 16(3) now states:
‘CAS shall primarily apply the UEFA Statutes, rules and regulations and subsidiarily Swiss law. The party filing the statement of appeal and/or a request for provisional measures, whichever is filed first with CAS, shall indicate in its first written submission to CAS whether the party accepts Lausanne, Switzerland, as seat of the arbitration or if the seat of the arbitration shall be in Dublin, Ireland, in derogation of Article R28 of the CAS Code. In the latter case, UEFA is bound by the choice of Dublin, Ireland, as seat of the arbitration and UEFA shall confirm its agreement to such seat in its first written reply to CAS. In case no seat is indicated in the first written submission to CAS, Article R28 of the CAS Code shall apply’ (emphasis added).
King’s speech shows Labour’s commitment to Independent Football Regulator
King Charles III’s speech on 17 July 2024 identified Labour’s commitment to proceed with the introduction of an Independent Football Regulator and the re-introduction of a new Football Governance Bill (“FGB”)
Football Law’s March 2024 Roundup provided a helpful summary and timeline of the FGB at that time, as introduced by the previous Conservative government in the previous parliamentary session.
This helpful article by Dr Idlan Zakaria, Associate Professor in Accounting at the University of Birmingham, explains that because the FGB ‘was not completed in the previous parliamentary session, it is not considered to be “carried over” and will therefore undergo the process from the beginning’. As Dr Zakaria also explains, this gives the new Labour government the opportunity to propose an amended FGB, which could go further than the FGB put forward by the previous Conservative government.
The PFA and the EFL released statements in support of the FGB’s inclusion in the King’s speech.
5 August 2024