Guest Editor's Introduction
| DOI | 10.1177/1023263X1502200201 |
| Date | 01 April 2015 |
| Published date | 01 April 2015 |
| Subject Matter | Guest Editor's Introduction |
172 22 MJ 2 (2015)
GUEST EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION
A D*
e Bosman ruling is not just a nother ruling of the Cour t of Justice of the EU (CJEU), it is
by far the most well-known dec ision of the Court outside of the Euro-bubble.1 In the UK
the phrase ‘a Bosman’ is commonly u sed to qualify the f ree move of a football player to a
new club at the end of his contract. Beyond its anchori ng in the English idiom, Bosman
stands ou t as a shared Europ ean reference. Howeve r, it is o en – misle adingly – credited
for all the ill s and wrongs of football. In a ny case, it is part and pa rcel of the European
(even worldwide) public debate on football and its regulation. If a Europe an public sphere
is to emerge at some point, the heated public discussion that was triggered in Europe by
Bosman is probably an avant-goût of it. erefore, 20 years a er t he ruling, t he least a
European sports law yer and academic can do, is to acknowledge ones indebtedness and ,
to some extent, gratitude for th is ruling.
One aspect that needs to be emphasized is that Bosman is not an i nstrum ent with t he
paramount objective to deregu late the football market or the world of sport in genera l.It
is not, as many on the side of the Sports G overning Bodies (SGBs), and FIFA and UEFA
in particu lar, have portrayed it, a decision aimed at dest roying the tra nsnational legal
system (also known as lex sportiva) they had put in place to coordinate the organiz ation
and unfolding of transnational sporting competitions. On the contrary, SGBs have the
possibility to justi fy their ru les and regulations. As Ste phen Weatherill rightly pointed out
long ago, the only requirement SGBs have to ful l to ensure that their regul ations comply
with EU law is to explai n convincingly why t hey are needed.2 us, a constructive (and
positive) perspective on Bosman stresses its const itutional over its deregulatory fu nction.
Private regulations adopted by private powers, which are not particula rly renowned for
the quality of t heir governance, need to be subject to checks and bal ances. A er Bosman,
the EU free movement rights and compet ition law have impersonated such a check on
(or counter-power to) the rules privately adopted and enforced by SGBs. In fac t, it is here
that the true, long-last ing legacy of Bosman lies.
* Senior Research er in International and Eu ropean law, ASSER Instit ute, e Hague.
1 Case C-415/93 Union royale belge des so ciétés de football ass ociation ASBL v. Jean-Marc Bosman, Roya l
club liégeois SA v. Jean -Marc Bosman and othe rs and Union des ass ociations euro péennes de foot ball
(UEFA) v. Jean-Marc Bosman, EU:C:1995:463.
2 ‘ e ECJ has col lapsed the idea that there are pu rely sporting practice s una ec ted by EC law despite
their economic e ect, but it ha s not refused to accept that sport is sp ecial. Its message to governing
bodies – expla in how!’, S. Weatherill, European Sports Law (T.M.C. Asser Press, 2007), p.353.
To continue reading
Request your trial