TRANSFER REGULATIONS OF FIFA FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE CLUBS

The enforcement of payment claims under the law of the FIFA – contract loyalty as a regulatory problem

in: Prawne problémy sportu pilkarsskiego

Legal problems of football sports

Ed. Andrzeij J. Szwarc

Poznan 2013

Contribution:

International Conference on the topic “Legal problems of football”

(Poznan, 10-13 may 2012)

The topic: transfer regulations of FIFA from the point of view of the clubs or: the enforcement of payment claims under the law of the FIFA – contract loyalty as a regulatory problem -Lawyer Christof Wieschemann, Bochum, Vice President International Sports Lawyers Association

Subject of discussion relating to the transfer regulations of FIFA in the young past first and foremost was the case-law of the Court of arbitration for sport CAS contract stability and the assessment of damages for breach of contract. This discussion characterized by a supposed interest contrast between players and clubs, where the FIFA here by the regulatory approach is here in the first place has the interest of the clubs on the allowable binding of the player in looking.

The much further practical problem is that the sanctity of contracts especially for transfer contracts, thus their unconditional willingness to meet contractually established obligations between clubs with each other or in relation to the players. The practice shows that clubs often fail with their demands for payment of a transfer fee or a damages, because it cannot be or are too late to enforce. Here, the transfer rules are patchy, impeding the enforcement of claims. The missing sanctions produce also no compulsion to behave, which FIFA does not meet regulations of their function as a control instrument in the future Treaty faithful.

The speaker highlights from two fields of problem areas and gives recommendations for the guidance of clubs.

Outline

1. The initial situation: contract stability and sanctity of contracts under the law of the FIFA
2. A) reciprocal obligations under a transfer agreement as a starting point

(1) regulations for the protection of contractual stability

(2) rules to the exchange ratio of the participating clubs

(3) frequency of the violation of obligations

1. (B) the enforcement of payment claims against clubs by coercive measures under the law of the FIFA
2. (C) the enforcement of payment claims against clubs by contractual arrangement

(1) intermediate duty

(2) assignment of a future transfer revenue

1. (D) impossibility of enforcement in claims and rights
2. (E) coercive measures in the form of transfer lock
3. Change of the FIFA transfer statute to enforce payment demands a transfer contract
4. A) need for the change of the FIFA transfer statute
5. B) legal base
6. (C) current state of the law

III. outcome

1. The initial situation: contract stability and sanctity of contracts under the law of the FIFA

Within the Conference theme “Legal problems of soccer sport” the contribution is “FIFA transfer rules from the point of view of the player” systematically associated with the contribution of Mr Lucien Valloni and Omar Ongaro’s contribution through the system of FIFA for the resolution of transfer disputes. The comparison to the post by Lucien Valloni has the appeal to formulate contrary positions of players and clubs, and to discuss. The post, however, undertakes the attempt to represent common interests of all parties and to work out that the FIFA has transfer status in the current formulation of significant weaknesses, to enforce a universal understanding of the “Sanctity of contracts”.

1. A) reciprocal obligations under a transfer agreement as a starting point

A transfer of footballer are logically not only two parties, namely giving Club and players involved, but also the host Club. While the legal relationship between player and Club is quite extensively regulated, lack of regulation of the substantive relationship between the participating clubs.

(1) regulations for the protection of contractual stability

As far as individual contents of the FIFA regulations for the status and transfer of players (FIFA transfer regulations) became the subject of (Association) judicial decisions and thus legal acknowledgements, concerned this the article 13 lately mainly et seq., that over titelten with “Maintenance of contractual stability between professional players and clubs” in a chapter are, and in particular article 17, which deals with the consequences of a “termination without just cause”. Although article 17 the words beginning “A party raises a contract without good reason, the following provisions are applied”, which would allow, that the norm to an objective balance between Club and player is committed. An analysis of the wording as well as the in the meantime this case law allows but recognize that the provisions in respect of interest of the Association focuses on a fulfilment of contractual obligations over the entire period by the player. It has its reason in the history of the transfer regulations. The Commission of the European communities after the Bosman ruling because of the unsatisfactory state[1] in September 1998 on the complaint of the Belgian player Union and Sport et Libertés initiated an examination procedure on the previous transfer statute in long tough negotiations with the “Brussels Treaty” of the 05.03.2001[2] a consensus between the Commission, Mario Monti, Viviane Reding and Anna Diamantopoulou on the one side and Sepp Blatter for FIFA and Lennart Johannsson for which UEFA on the other hand was found, which should reduce the hitherto applicable state of binding of the players at a Club on a conducive measure first and foremost. The parties did not have a deeper interest to regulate the legal relationships of all involved in the transfer.

(2) rules to the exchange ratio of the participating clubs

The exchange ratio between the transferor Club and Club increasingly on is regulated only in so far as it is necessary for the issuing of a player’s eligibility to play for a transfer and issue the international transfer certificate. However, content and enforcement of payment claims under a transfer agreement are not covered by the various statutes. Only in article 17 paragraph 2 sentence 2 is of note, that the new Club for compensation in the meaning of a claim due to a contract breach of the player next to the player as jointly and severally liable.

What are your obligations is a transfer agreement?

The aim and the necessary content resulting from the target is essential for the design of the Treaty. According to article 5 of the FIFA transfer ‘ statutes a player for a Club is only eligible to play, if he is registered in a Federation and this Association for a particular Club. The transfer of a player from one club to another has therefore the exclusive objective to ensure the eligibility to play for the new Club. The administrative procedures for the registration of a player after a transfer between different national associations is in articles 5 et seq. FIFA transfer regulations and in particular in annex 3 and annex 3a to the FIFA transfer regulations. According to article 8.1 of annex 3 and article a player who is registered for a club, who belongs to a Union, can only play for a Club of other association 1 Annex 3a, if the former Association has issued an international transfer certificate. The transfer certificate is issued on request, when the National Association of the former Association of this has received the confirmation, that the contract between the former Association and the professional players was expired or repealed in mutual agreement. The details of the procedure should be not subject to this investigation. Basically, it is however assumed that the consent of the old Association for the issuing of the international share certificate is required for the registration of the player’s new Club.

As a result of the necessary content of a transfer agreement, namely the obligation of a club with the player to pick up the employment contract and give the approval for the issue of the international certificate of release and of the host society’s obligation to pay the compensation for agreed.

(3) frequency of the violation of obligations

Reliable figures, how often the issuing Club only delayed his claim formulated in the transfer agreement on payment of a transfer fee against the host Club or not can enforce are not published to the knowledge of the author. But, you can try to approach the problem by the other side.

The FIFPRO has 2012 in the investigation “FIFPro Black Book Eastern Europe” as an example from the perspective of the player represented the fulfillment of contractual obligations by the clubs in some countries of Eastern Europe and within the contractual time limits receive their salary among others asked what percentage of players.

Figure 1 FIFPro black book Eastern Europe 2012 page 25 “delay”

Only 41.4% of the surveyed players said to receive their salary on time, but they had to wait up to three months in 65.5% of the cases and at least 31.5% of cases more than six months.

Not only the fact that late payment is almost the norm, but also the reason is interesting.

Figure 2 FIFPro black book Eastern Europe 2012 page 26 “reasons for delay”

With only a few exceptions, the players as the reason stated lack of availability of money at the Club as the reason of the delay in payment. Other than one on the basis of the discussions in the legal public about the Bosmann[3]-, Webster[4]-, Metuzalem[5]– and Sylva[6]Suspect decision could, the legal practice is therefore less determined by legal battles, in which a player denied the fulfilment of its contractual obligations, but where are the clubs unable to meet their payment obligations. Self-serve by FIFA statistics on the number of procedures mentioned in the Commission on the status of players and in the Chamber for the settlement of disputes in the years from 2005 to 2011, the kindly Marco Villiger, FIFA Director legal, has provided Affairs Division the author, can be recognize within the period of time an increase in the number of cases to 267 percent.

Statistics players’ status and governance 2005-2011
Deciding bodies: players’ status Committee and the dispute resolution Chamber and their included single judges; Sub Committee
	Cases received	Cases opened	Cases closed	Decisions passed	Appealed decisions DRC	Appealed decisions PSC
2005	1291	1289	1072	482	25%	24%
2006	1530	1142	1114	343	28%	not available
2007	1436	1118	1056	430	21%	21%
2008	1520	1133	1020	309	18%	24%
2009*	2349	1997	1387	563	18%	17%
2010	3057	3599	3216	1749	8%	23%
2011	3452	2938	3499	2167	4%	9%
* In October 2009 new regulations on the status and transfer of players entered into force establishing
new rules relating to minor players and the tasks of the Sub-Committee

The brief review of decisions published on the Internet site of FIFA, which may be of course selective, in turn suggests that both Chambers in the heavyweight division in addition to issues of training and solidarity contribution payments with labour disputes are involved, which in turn have in the majority of claims for remuneration of players to the subject.

You can see this, that lack of capital at the clubs to meet its payment obligations has become a central problem of modern football. Reasonably, you can insinuate that expressed this lack of economic potential not only in the ratio of the clubs to their players, but also the inability of the clubs to meet accepted payment obligations of compared to other clubs. This is consistent with the professional experience of the author. All known or even mentioned by the author processes where dealt with others the enforcement of the payment entitlements of a club against one, it was public that the debtor had of course also overdue liabilities to players.

1. (B) the enforcement of payment claims against clubs by coercive measures under the law of the FIFA

As a result the question of how payment claims of the issuing association against the host Club to enforce rules and regulations according to the system of FIFA. This is to imagine that Club growing up and Club giving off belong to different Member associations of FIFA, because otherwise a responsibility of FIFA is not justified.

For the decision of possible substantive legal issues in a dispute of the parties the authority FIFA arises first from article 22 f.) FIFA transfer Statute, the competence of the Commission for the status of players emerges from article 23 paragraph 1 FIFA transfer regulations. The decision which is subject to article 63 paragraph 1 FIFA statutes of the appeal to the Court of arbitration for sport (CAS), where here first and foremost is the execution of a payment claim titled at the end of the process of interest.

According to article 64 paragraph 1 FIFA statutes are obliged the confederations, members and leagues of FIFA the CAS as independent judicial authority to recognise, and to ensure that their members, as well as the players affiliated to them and officials integrate the decisions of CAS. According to article 66 of the FIFA statutes are violations of these rules in accordance with the FIFA disciplinary rules

be punished. Central provision for the enforcement of a decision of the FIFA or the CAS is to article 64 of the FIFA disciplinary rules which ready is a graduated system of threat and establishing different sanctions for the case, that a party is a sum of money, she are sentenced to pay, wholly or partly withholds. At the request of the creditor threatens FIFA – and sets also if necessary – first a fine, a renewed last grace period for the payment and then a reminder and an indication of a points deduction or the relegation to a lower division is done for non-payment or does not respect of the decision before this last deadline. In addition, a transfer lock may be pronounced. The corresponding Association the Club lets this deadline pass unused, is urged to implement the threatened sanctions in the Act (article 64 paragraph 2 FIFA disciplinary code).

An effective way of the enforcement of payment entitlements to be given seems so at first glance. In practice, there are still considerable difficulties that resulting mainly from the high workload of FIFA as well as the CAS. Although has the FIFA according to the above table can significantly shorten the travel times and improve the acceptance of decisions, it is still to be reckoned with some years of proceedings. In 2010, the author acquired a procedure, originally a Czech football club against a Romanian football club had already started in the year 2008 at the FIFA. The request came from December 1, 2008. The decision of the single judge of the Commission on the status of players was issued on April 5, 2011. The reasons were delivered to the variance. Immediately launched an appeal could be brought only to the CAS without delay ‘already’ in January 2012 at the immediate conclusion, as agreed by the parties on an installment plan comparison. Otherwise, the procedure would have further delayed to notification of the decision and the justification. It is not surprising that the Romanian debtor has not complied with his obligations assumed in the agreement to the due date in March and court settlement required the enforcement. Because FIFA again to give payment has in the context of enforcement, one may assume, that it has to expect the defaulting Club in Romania for the first time in the summer of 2012, with penalties for the breach of contract, he has committed in the summer of 2008. It should be noted that the disputed sum for the Czech Association its annual budget accounts for a third just on the edge. Enforcement here is a blunt sword, that contains in particular not incentive, contract-faithful to behave – or better, not contractual obligations cannot be fulfilled simply discourages himself.

1. (C) the enforcement of payment claims against clubs by contractual arrangement

(1) intermediate duty

Questionable is whether the risk of subsequent defaults can be mitigated by appropriate contractual agreement.

As shown above, the issuing association against payment of the transfer fee the obligation to terminate the work contract with the player and give the approval for the issuing of the international transfer certificate takes over.

It would be close so formulated that the host Club is subject to a wholesale with his payment and the issuing association gives approval only after receipt of payment so as to the contract. In practice, this procedure is relatively rare and have closed for purely practical reasons, if the conclusion of the transfer agreement and the application on registration of the player immediately before the end or on the last day of the registration period, because then the payment is not able to bring about. In part, this is also result of economic compulsion because the clubs earn their revenue evenly throughout the year, but selectively in January and in the summer to fall transfer expenses. Even a gutwilliger Club will try in liquidity management to stretch the payment deadline. It is however also true after experiencing just clubs with lower capital strength and liquidity in the reputation, standing to pay higher transfer payments, which increases the incentive to make with uncertain clubs transfer transactions.

It must also be noted that a complete legal protection is not to reach even by such a contractual construction. Even the issuing association due to the missing payment should refuse that the approval for the issue of the international certificate of release, so the host Club had still the possibility the judge of the Commission on the status of players according to article 23 paragraph 3 FIFA status in conjunction with annex 3 article to request the issuance of a provisional registration 2 paragraph 6, which usually is granted , if only rarely within the designated period of sixty days (annex 3a article 8.2, annex 3a article 2 paragraph 6). The payment entitlements under the transfer agreement are reserved then the possibly lengthy proceedings after provisional registration. The agreement of a wholesale requirement with regard to the payment is therefore recommended, does not solve the problem but alone.

(2) assignment of a future transfer revenue

Due to the still not-inconsiderable length of proceedings to the establishment and the possible need for the Club, which owes compensation to finance themselves, it not infrequently happens that the Club offending with the payment of the transfer fee further transferred the players and this in turn generates transfer revenue without to expunge the liabilities to the original association with these.

There is the example of a German Club, which initially was awarded a player a season against payment a “hire” a Turkish Club for the duration. At the end of the season was the Leigebühr still not paid and has already filed a claim with FIFA. Nevertheless, transferred the German Club the player at this time against a higher transfer fee the players at the Turkish Club, which the players in turn within the same registration period the transfer fee but sold to another Turkish Club, not at the German club related to the repayment of its debt. Even if the requirement of the German Club is called, it is not recoverable, because the Turkish Club is more insolvent and is threatening to descend in the second League for sporting reasons.

To think about would be so, whether by agreement in the first transfer Treaty can at least the proceeds of a new transfer is used for the repayment of liabilities when the original team, or enforcement can be operated in the claim for payment of the debtor against a third Club established by the second transfer agreement but at least ensure.

The assignment of a claim for payment of a future transfer proceeds by the host Club at the original Club would be legally possible.

Statuary with could an assignment of such but article 17 paragraph 2 sentence 1 FIFA transfer regulations preclude whose content the right to compensation can not be transferred to third parties. The systematic context of the provision it is can assume but, that only the compensation payment in accordance with a compensation pursuant to article 17 paragraph 1 is meant FIFA transfer Statute and not a transfer fee.

A strict prohibition of assignment there as far as only in article 29 paragraph 1 of FIFA players agent rules, but only the transfer of compensation payments to player agents, but not clubs a previous transfer agreement is prohibited according to the. As far as so not article 18bis paragraph 1 of the FIFA transfer regulations is touched, after a Club may enter no contracts that the possibilities give another party to affect his independence, his politics or his team’s performance, in employment or transfer matters nothing precludes an effectiveness of assignment, which show the third Club would be in the case of a new transfer. Such an agreement may be therefore only strongly recommended.

1. (D) impossibility of enforcement in claims and rights

Not possible, however, enforcement in the claim for payment of the debtors Association against the third Club is, the original Club at the time of the second transfer should already obtained a title have, as is possible and common for foreclosures in claims and other rights in civil law. The procedure of execution of decisions of FIFA as well as the CAS, 64 FIFA are finally regulated and is based exclusively on the threat or fixing of sanctions, to try to influence the debtor will resolution, to meet its obligations to prevent the sanctions in article disciplinary regulations. The limitation of the levy of execution on the imposition of sanctions without the opportunity of attachment in claims is at least then factually not comprehensible, if the claims to be those that arise in the FIFA transfer system and subject to its control. For this purpose requires an amendment of the type 64 FIFA disciplinary code.

1. (E) coercive measures in the form of transfer lock

Within the framework of the sanctions to be imposed in the context of enforcement the FIFA can continue pursuant to § 84 paragraph 1 c.) last sentence of the FIFA a transfer lock impose disciplinary regulations, but not the original Club can prevent the (further) transfer of his former player, but when FIFA is prohibited by the national association concerned, to register any new players during the transfer period for the respective Club. Indirectly is through such a transfer prohibition also in the rights of all players intervened, at the concerned association either an employment contract sign and want to meet, or ends their contract of employment, or is dissolved prematurely and that in the future when another Club want to practice their profession. These players have in turn against No Association legal or civil law norms violated so that an interference in their rights, in particular in their general personality right from article 28 of the Swiss Civil Code applicable in the majority of cases, or in their right to free movement within the European Union in accordance with article 45 of the Treaty of Lisbon cannot be justified and therefore is illegal. A transfer ban, that adverse effect on a player’s freedom of movement has, regardless of whether it is based on a contract, where the player is not involved, or due to a provision, would be unlawful and that is not possible. This procedure does not enforce payment demands at least.

1. Change of the FIFA transfer statute to enforce payment demands a transfer contract

Statuary with a change of the different FIFA would be first desirable, even legally necessary for the reasons to be discussed later statutes.

An innovation in the administrative procedures of FIFA makes such a change now even practicable.

At the latest since the introduction of the FIFA transfer matching system (TMS) (annex 3 to the FIFA transfer Statute), on the basis of an Internet-based database all details of transfer including

-agreed transfer sum,

-Payment deadlines,

-a possible rate plan and the

-Payments made to date

for the professional football clubs of all affiliated associations since 1 October 2010 required to enter is, namely, the FIFA has structured information about the liabilities entered on the occasion of a transfer.

Article 1 paragraph 2 of the annex is as follows:

„The TMS distinguishes clearly between the different payments relating to international transfers of players. All payments must be replayed in the system, since only the money that moves related to these transfers, can be traced back without gaps. At the same time the system that will be transferred to a physical player and not a fictional player for the purpose of money laundering guarantees.”

Obvious that’s already done to commit to complement the information to be transmitted by means of a corresponding declaration of participating clubs, the participating clubs whether and to what extent payments on the agreed transfer fee and so the creditor is already satisfied.

In the event that at the time of implementing a new transfer for the entry in the FIFA transfer matching system payment claims from a previous transfer are still not satisfied, the host, third Club who is involved, the renewed transfer can be obliged by insertion of a new provision in the annex 3 of the FIFA statute transfer to make payment in the amount of remaining and registered in the TMS remaining debt not to the direct contractual partner , but to the original Club.

Disputes involved clubs, whether still liabilities from a transfer contract and to carry out is an appropriate entry in the TMS, would be those referred to in article 22 f.) the case-law of the FIFA and here according to article 23 paragraph 1 FIFA transfer Statute of the Commission on the status of players drops to. These changes of the FIFA transfer statute would at least ensure that the original issuing Association receives his agreed compensation, when the player again enters the Club.

1. A) need for the change of the FIFA transfer statute

Still wondering why a change in the FIFA statute from the perspective of players and Club, the unsatisfied claims currently not can enforce transfer, should be not only desirable, but necessary for legal reasons is still unanswered.

This requires first an appeal on the decision of the European Court of Justice in terms of MECA-Medina and Majcen MECA. [7]

1. B) legal base

Here, the ECJ has again noted that each rule also such sporty character of the legal control on the scale of the Treaty establishing the European Community (Treaty of Lisbon) is governed by and is to check on the basis of subsequent testing system:

• Review of the total context in which the rule is established and their effect unfolds in particular their competition-neutral objective;
• The question whether the restrictive effects associated necessary associated with the pursuit of the above objectives and
• whether it suitable, necessary and proportionate is in regard to these objectives in the strict sense.

The essence is not new: the limitation of the scope of the EC TREATY (Lisbon Treaty) can go no further, as the purpose of the sports rule and the “characteristics of sport” (specificity of sports) it requires [8].

What goals FIFA thus actually pursued must track follows and also for the questions of contractual stability, or the continuing sanctity of contracts and their protection system, the need to define of.

Contractual stability is a sports association as determined solely by the economic interests of the Club and that’s why only competition affecting banned in the previous sense, which involves only the protection of the interest of the clubs on a contractual binding of their players. This is not that “sports-related” objective, that alone a sports association may pursue.

The task of the World Confederation of football goes, however, first and foremost towards ensuring the game operation, the credibility of the sport itself and, as Differencrziel ensure the game operation, protect of the predictability of the clubs for a necessary period of time, usually only a few years. In pursuit of the Upperobjectives it is not only legitimate, but necessary that contractually established obligations, are respected by the players, both by the clubs, but also because these contractual obligations in turn are the basis of economic planning of the participating clubs and thus a proper operation of the game. It is evident that that can also regularly in the running game a competition clubs due to bankruptcy failed, in part because they in turn claims failed to timely realize, which leads to distortions within the game operation.

1. (C) current state of the law

To promote not only contractual stability and sanctity of contracts as a universal good, namely ensuring a proper game operation and credibility of sport would be also on the scale of the case-law of the European Court of Justice – depending on concrete structure – a compound that is appropriate, necessary and proportionate to achieve a sport-related.

The question arises whether this in permissible manner already et seq., 17 objective FIFA transfer statute through which to safeguard the stability of Treaty by article 13 in particular by article.

The protection of only the Contractual stability can go no further in the context of the standard-setting competence of the Football Association, as the purpose of the provision, namely the backup game operation and the credibility of the competition as top targets this require this. The latter argument may justify a contract protection by two or three years. A sanctioning of a breach of contract can be justified if this sanction what obligation regardless whether by player or Club and regardless is affected every breach of the contract, but only, collected. Otherwise, only contract of the player and not contract loyalty of each party is enforced through the system of sanctions. To enforce universal sanctity of contracts the system would be inappropriate and therefore illegal, however, within the meaning of the case-law of the European Court of Justice.

The possibility of sanctioning a breach of contract by a player as per article 17 § 3 FIFA transfer statute is known. So, the question whether the FIFA foresees also a sanction of a breach of contract by a Club is to clarify.

The author has already demonstrated that it is lack of payments of the clubs, in which the violation of the principal obligation of the clubs[9]represent a far more common case of breach of contract, as a player attempting to force a transfer in advance. The breach of contract of the clubs is obliged also to pay damages in amount of fulfillment and entitles the player depending on the duration and amount of payment delay to the immediate termination of the contract[10], Association side immediately sanction-free but remains.

Sanctions against clubs can be found only in two places. Article 17 paragraph 3 FIFA transfer Statute after the inducement of a player by a club to break of the contract with the old Club for the building to Club as punishment may have a temporary transfer ban entail, sanctioned but no breach of contract in the strict sense. Protection goods of this norm is not the fulfillment of an own contractual liability of the Association, can be punished according to the standard, but the existence of the contract of a player to another Club.

And also the process of the imposition of sanctions in the context of enforcement under article 64 of the FIFA disciplinary code serves not the protection of contractual obligations, because also so not a breach of contract a Club is sanctioned, but only the fact that he not followed a power bid of the Association or one of his dishes.

Basically, it is to determine that the breach of a contract by an association, is same whether a contract with his own players, or with another Club, after the right FIFA not sanctioned. The system of sanctions in relation to the player currently is unsuitable and therefore illegal to enforce universal sanctity of contracts. Should have it on stock, needed a supplement with equivalent sanctions against defaulting clubs.

III. outcome

The protection of economic interests of all parties, clubs, such as player is so far inadequately taken into account in the right of FIFA. Duration of proceedings and enforcement are inadequate and produce no compulsion to act true to the contract on the parties.

A suitable, necessary and appropriate means is to protect sanctity of contracts as a universal good for a sports association, to ensure the operation of the game and the credibility of the sport and to provide planning certainty for the parties involved.

The previous regulations about the protection of contractual stability in accordance with article 13 et seq., art. 17 FIFA transfer statute are not suitable to the pursuit of these objectives, because they sanction a breach of contract a player, but not the much more common case of contract breach by clubs only. That’s why significant doubt on your legality.

Should the interest of clubs contract stability also continue to effectively enforced to, already due to legal reasons of the complement of the FIFA requires statutes, after its contents equal the breach of contract by a club, in particular in terms of its payment obligations, whether against a player, or another Club, association law in the same meadow is sanctioned as the breach of contract a player will be sanctioned. Further there are more effective ways of compulsory enforcement of payment claims. Only by sanctity of contracts as such in the long term is effectively enforceable in order to ensure the economic basis of modern football.

It follows the following proposal:

Insertion of new article 6 ABS. 1 in the annex 3 to the FIFA transfer Statute:

Results in a transfer according to the entry in the TMS, that the issuing association against a third Club has more liabilities in connection with a previous transfer of the same player, so can the FIFA General Secretariat instruct the host Club at its reasonable discretion at the request of the third Association, to pay the fee agreed for the transfer of the player, not the issuing Club, it’s the third Club. According to §§ 22 decides disputes arising out of this regulation at the request of one of the parties, f), 23 paragraph 1 FIFA transfer statute competent organ usually within a period of 30 days from the submission. Until the decision, the contested claim is arestiert.

Insertion of a new letter e) in art 64 paragraph 1 FIFA disciplinary code:

Who (…) contains in a sum of money of another party, he (…) has been sentenced to pay (…):

1. (e) (only for clubs) and after the entry in the TMS (annex 3 to the FIFA transfer Statute) entitled to payment of a transfer fee against a third Club, can instruct the FIFA at the request of the holder of the legal institutions, which amounting to pay the transfer fee by the third Club. The third Club can be instructed to provide services not to the debtor, but the creditors payment included in.

Insertion of a new sec. 66a FIFA disciplinary code:

One of which is named persons an obligation under a contract, which punished 17 FIFA transfer statute is not with article, in article 3 of this regulation with a fine or with one which is in the article of no.10,11,12 mentioned sanctions hurt. In determining the sanction, the competent court in accordance with article 39 has to take into account paragraph 4 also the consequences of the violation for the injured party.

[1] by the 5.12.1995, ECJ, EUZW 1996,82 et seq.

[2] IP/01/314 date: 06/03/2001, available at http://europa.EU Rapid-press release

[3] by the 5.12.1995, ECJ, EUZW 1996,82 et seq.

[4] Heart of Midlothian v / Webster & Wigan Athletic FC CAS 2007/A/1298, 2007/A/1299, 2007/A/1300 in the English original text printed in causa sport 1/2008, 3ff.

[5] Shaktar Donetsk v / Metuzalem Matuzalém da Silva & Real Zaragoza SAD & FIFA CAS 2008/A/1519, CAS 2008/A/1520

[6] TAS 2009 / A / 1960 Trabzonspor c. LOSC Lille Métropole & TAS 2009 / A / 1961 LOSC Lille Métropole c. Trabzonspor & T.,.

[7] Judgment of the 18.7.2006, Sprint 2006, 195 ff.

[8] See Hoppe / Fawcett, causa sports 3/2008, on his way to the sidelines?, S. 251ff, 253, judgment & H. a. judgments Walrave, paragraph. 9, Donà, paragraph. 15, Bosman, paragraphs. 76 and 127, Deliège, paragraph. 43, and Lehtonen, paragraph. 34.

[9] Galatasaray SK v. Frank Ribéry & Olympique de Marseille CAS 2006/A/1180 of 24 April 2007

[10] Galatasaray SK v. Frank Ribéry & Olympique de Marseille CAS 2006/A/1180 of 24 April 2007