Two things, both struck down on the same article of the EEC Treaty. On 15 December 1995 the Court of Justice ruled on players out of contract. A club in another member state may not be barred from signing one because it has not paid a to the old club. It also struck down limits on how many players from other member states a club may field.
The reasoning was not about sport. guaranteed freedom of movement for workers, and a professional footballer is a worker, so rules laid down by sporting associations do not get an exemption from it. The court did restrict how far back the judgment reached: fees already paid, or payable under obligations predating the judgment, could not be reclaimed, except by those who had already gone to court.
The case reached the Court of Justice from the Cour d’appel de Liège, referred in October of 1993 and decided in December of 1995, more than two years later. Its full title lists three sets of proceedings against Jean-Marc Bosman: by the Belgian football association, by Royal club liégeois, and by UEFA. The questions concerned freedom of movement for workers, competition rules, transfer fees and nationality limits.
The first part of the ruling is the famous one. Article 48 of the EEC Treaty precludes rules laid down by sporting associations on players out of contract. Under those rules a footballer who is a national of one member state could not join a club in another unless that club paid a transfer, training or development fee to the old one.
The second part is less quoted and arguably as consequential. Article 48 also precludes rules under which football clubs may field only a limited number of professional players who are , in matches in competitions the associations organize. The quota system went at the same time as the transfer system.
The third part limits the damage to the past. The of Article 48 cannot be relied upon for claims about a fee already paid, or still payable under an obligation arising before the judgment. The exception covers those who had already brought proceedings, or raised an equivalent claim under national law, before that date. One caution about reading this card as history: a judgment states a legal position, and what the transfer market did afterward is a separate question.
wat. When your contract ends, you are free to go. That had to be settled in court.
wat wat
A player out of contract had still belonged to a club in practice. The ruling made the end of a contract mean what it says, which moved the balance of power in football permanently.
How do we know?
The Court of Justice’s judgment in Case C-415/93, answering questions referred by the Cour d’appel de Liège, sets out the three parts of its ruling in its operative section.
What is still unknown
A judgment, not an analysis of its effects. It establishes the legal position on two specific rules and says nothing about what happened to transfer markets or wages afterward.
Learn something?
Where to next
Where do the eyes go when you take a penalty under pressure?football
Is the crowd really the twelfth player?football
Can a regular warm-up prevent almost four in every ten injuries?football