The Final Whistle For International Football?

• Author: Darragh K. Connell
• Position: BCL III, UCD
• Pages: 1-15

THE FINAL WHISTLE FOR INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL?

Darragh K Connell*

A INTRODUCTION

The 2006 World Cup final between France and Italy was tipped by

pundits to be the greatest contest in international football for years. In

contrast with the action on the field,1 the epic battle for the very existence of

international football itself is still yet to be fought. However, instead of taking

place in one of Germany’s many modern stadiums,2 this historic contest will

be held inside the panelled doors of the European Court of Justice.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is set to rule on whether the

International Football Federation (FIFA)’s rules on the compulsory release of

players for international matches comply with EU legislation on competition

and free movement of workers. This impending ruling stems from a case3

brought against FIFA before the Charleroi Commercial Court in March 2006

by Royal Sporting Charleroi FC and G-14, the representative body of Europe's

18 most powerful football clubs. The Belgian Court rejected G-14’s claim for 1

860 million in damages against FIFA for the costs incurred, over the past ten

years, of putting players at FIFA’s disposal to play in national teams and their

subsequent unavailability if they suffer injury.4 However, as to the question of

the fundamental legality of a number of FIFA’s rules on the compulsory

release of players for international duty the Belgian Court decided to refer the

issue to the European Court of Justice under Article 234 of the EC Treaty.

This article examines the principle issues and possible consequences of

the ECJ’s impending verdict whilst also scrutinizing the impact of previous

ECJ decisions on the ‘beautiful game’. The article will also examine the

evolving interventionist approach that the ECJ is likely to take when faced

with a governing body’s justificatory internal sports regulations in light of a

recent judgment in Meca-Medina and Majcen v Commission.5

B THE FACTS OF CHARLEROI

In November 2004, Abdelmajid Oulmers was badly injured while

playing in an international friendly match for Morocco against Burkina Faso.

The subsequent legal dispute arose by virtue of the fact that Oulmers was

contracted to the Belgian first division club, Royal Sporting Charleroi FC. The

1

* BCL III, UCD.

1 Italy won the final beating France on penalties in an eventful extra time.

2 Germany hosted the 2006 World Cup.

3 Case C-243/06 SA Sporting du Pays de Charleroi, G-14 Groupment des Clubs de Football

Européens v Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) [2006] 49 OJEU C

212/11.

4 —— ‘ECJ to rule on second landmark case in football’ EurActive <http://www.euractiv.com/

en/sports/ecj-rule-second-landmark-case-football/article-155382> (29 February 2008).

5 Case C-519/04 Meca-Medina and Majcen v Commission [2006] ECR I–6991.