WRITTEN QUESTION E-2512/97 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (22 July 1997)

Subject: Free movement of footballers

The case of the footballer Ronaldo has been covered by all the international media. In view of the fact that:

- a contract valid for several years was signed freely between Barcelona and Ronaldo.

- paragraph 6 of the contract specifies that the player himself may rescind the contract on payment of a specified amount.

- this clause does not entail obligations or restrictions and is subject only to the wishes of the player.

Can the Commission:

1. say why Barcelona and the Spanish Football Federation are refusing the transfer to the Italian Football Federation and Inter, the club chosen by Ronaldo after telling Barcelona in writing that he wanted to rescind the contract, since they claim that the clause in valid in Spain only;

2. say why FIFA, which is meeting again in July, did not immediately issue a legal and contractual judgment in defence of a contract signed by a worker who is exercising his right to continue working within the European Community and why FIFA has instead insisted on promoting an agreement between the clubs. This distorts the concept of rescinding a contract signed freely between the two parties (employer and worker) and favours a 'transfer of contract' involving wheeling and dealing between clubs, to the detriment of the worker, thereby violating both the rights of the individual employee and the law;

3. speak up in defence of a contract drawn up freely and hence valid in its entirety, since the clauses therein do not contain any restrictions and are therefore to be considered as internationally valid? Since they are valid in Spain they must be considered valid throughout the Union and hence the argument of exclusively national validity is absurd. One of the key provisions of the Treaty - the freedom of movement of workers in the 15 Member States - would thereby be forcefully confirmed.

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (11 September 1997)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that the freedom of movement for workers embodied in Article 48 of the EC Treaty does not apply to a Brazilian national wishing to move between two Member States.

An appraisal of the compatibility of a restrictive practice with the rules on competition contained in the EC Treaty, and in particular with Article 85, can be made only with full knowledge of the facts and of the economic and legal context within which that practice is taking place. Nevertheless, rules or decisions of the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) that prevent Community or third-country players from obtaining an international certificate of transfer where their contracts of employment are terminated or maintain in force within the EEA for players from third countries the international system of transfers, which the European Court of Justice has censured as regards its application to Community players, may be in breach of Article 85 if their application produces restrictive effects for clubs within the EEA. Section 1 of FIFA Circular No 616 contains the latter rule (maintenance of the international system of transfers for third-country players) and Section 2 contains the former rule (termination of a contract of employment).

On 2 July 1997 the Commission wrote to FIFA taking an essentially negative view of Section 1 of that Circular in relation to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Article 53 of the EEA Agreement) and of Section 2 in relation to Articles 48 and 85 of the EC Treaty.