It is based in Switzerland and that country has submitted itself to the rulings of the European Court. They had to, as they're surrounded by the EU and would face very big problems if they didnot.
A month ago the Swiss council decided not to accept or reject that provision (among others) while seeking a public consultation on the matter. And the Swiss are well aware of what kind of big problems can occur being a surrounded neutral country, yet they've manged so far.
Switzerland has to accept not based on court rulings but the fact that they signed into agreements in order to have access to the common market. Norway falls into the same category as they are not EU members but have to agree to conditions to have access to the common market. Likewise, EU courts have long ruled that orders given by Swiss-based federations have to be upheld as part of the freedom of movement and the establishment of standards. There's more to legal rulings than Bosman.
Yup. The ISU, based in Switzerland, was sentenced by the European Court about a practice that was done in a country outside of Europe. European Commission - PRESS RELEASES - Press release - Antitrust ... europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-5184_en.htm Vertaal deze pagina 8 dec. 2017 - The ISU now has to comply with our decision, modify its rules, and ... the Commission, especially in the case of practices at international level. So no, it's all our laws apply to all sports federations based in Switzerland. No exceptions and when it considers EU citizens, the long arms of the EU stretch all over the globe.
And if so, does it do it for other professions like basketball players and eye doctors? If it's only for soccer players that would seem rather odd.
It may not actually work for every other country in the world. It's just assumed that it does. One of the issues I see are youth 'clubs' in some underdeveloped nations 'developing' a youngster then selling them on to increasing levels in Europe, getting solidarity cuts along the way. Where does the money go? Into individuals' pockets at each step.
Laws aren't "cultural things" like that. Especially in the EU. To carve out some special soccer exception where the organization that trained you in your youth continues to get a piece of your hyde if you stay in that career is the anomaly.
Anyone who wants to study a slightly outdated paper on how international and domestic transfers work Google cons_studytransfersfinal_rpt.pdf
Well, as the document puts it, they are a "derogation from normal employment practices" that limits labor movement and and can thus be problematic from a labor point of view. "[T]he question of sport’s specificities and the justification for derogation from normal employment practice" becomes something debatable, and that most likely would occasionally be revisited. That "they must be justified by overriding reasons in the public interest" and "[t]hey must not go beyond what is necessary for that purpose" sound like fairly high bars, ones that one could understand if some future court (or a court in a different jurisdiction such as the US) decided they did not meet.
There probably are somewhere, but in general the difference was the point--are the special arrangements for sports justified? There's plenty of room to argue that they are not.
A lot of business, educational, and medical professionals got scholarships for their education. Just like players who attended soccer academies for free. I don't see what the difference is. If a UCLA trained and degreed scholarship Physicist moves from Columbia University to Stockholm, shouldn't the Swedish university pay training compensation to UCLA and the instructor/researchers public (free) high school?
There is a documentary on that stuff. Clubs selling kids to agents to get financing. But also look at the billion dollars or so Brazilian clubs have made in the last decade selling their players. There will be people who find loopholes and way to abuse any system.
Hyperbole? 3rd party ownership runs rampant in South America. Brazilian (pretty much most SA Clubs) clubs aren't receiving all of that transfer money either, and most of what they do receive goes to pay down debt. A large portion of those transfer fees go to the agents and various player rights holders. Hell according to this: https://www.lek.com/insights/why-arent-brazilian-football-teams-dominant-players-international-arena The combined revenue of ALL of the teams in Brazil's top flight barely topped $1B.
Yes, as big clubs rob small clubs from their talents they need to survive and invest in. So the little clubs, often amateur clubs, investing in their staff, grounds etc. could disappear as a result of the leach practices of the big clubs, which is a threat to the existance of soccer in Europe as a cultural heritage and the base on which soccer is built in Europe. So the Court did tell in it's verdicts that for this greater cause in specific cases these arrangements are justified. To give an example of Feyenoord. Just last year we payed about 70,000 €€ to the former club of a 16 year old goalie talent as a compensation paymentfor the development he received there. Eye doctors on the other hand pay, either personally or via gouvernment funding of universities, for their education. It's not like those universities educate them for free to contract them later in their hospital. So the comparison isnot valid.
To get insight about what investment goes into kids in Dutch/European academies that get threatened by big money clubs leaching on those academies and thus endangering the future of soccer: For those interested in the experience of a Yank parent with a son in the Dutch AZ Academy: LONG THREAD1/ It has been five months since my son @aethanyohannes has joined AZ Alkmaar U15 youth academy in the Netherlands. My experience as a parent watching his develpmt in a first class Academy is a humbling experience. Some have asked how he was doing. Here it goes.. pic.twitter.com/D2QkUykkRU— Daniel Yohannes (@D_Yohannes) January 13, 2019