European Sports Law and Policy Bulletin THE BERNARD ... - Slpc.eu

124 Rob SimonsVery interesting in this regard is also the Meca Medina judgment of theEuropean Court of Justice from 2006. In its decision, the Court of Justice made animportant legal point by rejecting the theory of the existence of «purely sportingrules», falling a priori outside the TFEU (and therefore its articles 101 and 102 10 )and affirming to the contrary that each sporting rule should be studied case bycase in the light of the provisions of articles 101 and 102 TFEU. 11So the question whether European law applies to sports activities can beanswered affirmative. However, already in 2001 an agreement was reachedbetween FIFA and the European Commission where it was said that «it is nowaccepted that EU and national law applies to football, and it is also now understoodthat EU law is able to take into account the specificity of sport (...)». 12 Provisionsin the FIFA Regulations like contract stability, transfer windows, trainingcompensation and regulations concerning minors, which in principle infringeEuropean law, were allowed as being «specific».In conclusion, to some extent sports federations have their own autonomyto set up rules within the «specificity of sports». Before the Meca Medina judgment,these rules were not subject to EC law since they were for «purely sporting interest».However, as determined in Meca Medina by the European Court of justice; «ifthe sporting activity in question falls within the scope of the Treaty, the conditionsfor engaging in it are then subject to all the obligations which result from thevarious provisions of the Treaty. It follows that the rules which govern that activitymust satisfy the requirements of those provisions, which, in particular, seek toensure freedom of movement for workers, freedom of establishment, freedom toprovide services, or competition». 133. Freedom of movement and the protection of minorsIn the Bernard case it was decided that even though the concept of trainingcompensation forms a violation of article 45 TFEU, the infringement is justified bythe objective of encouraging the recruitment and training of young players. This isnot the first time the Court has assessed sports regulations to the freedom ofmovement provisions. The most famous example in this regard is the 1995 Bosmancase where the transfer system at the time, which required a club to pay a transferfee for a player whose contract with another club had expired, was declaredincompatible with the EU freedom of movement of workers.When it comes to minors and the freedom of movement of workers,important to emphasize is that in order to be able to rely on this right the youngster__________________10At the time of the Meca Medina judgment, the competition law provisions were laid down inArticles 81 and 82 EC. In the TFEU, these articles were renumbered to Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.11Wathelet Report, Sport governance and EU legal order: present and future 2007, 25.12Press Releases RAPID, Commission closes investigations into FIFA regulations on internationalfootball transfers, Brussels, 5 june 2002.13Case C519/04 P, David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen v. Commission, ECR 2006 I-6991, atpara. 28.