Webster ruling

The Webster ruling is a test case in association football law involving Andy Webster, a defender formerly with Heart of Midlothian football club in Edinburgh, Scotland. In September 2006 he became the first player to exploit the updated transfer regulations of FIFA, football's governing body, which stipulated that players are able to unilaterally walk away from a contract after a fixed period, regardless of the duration of the contract itself. Although the long-term effects of the decision remain unclear, it has been compared to the landmark Bosman ruling of 1995 in its potential significance.^[1][2][3]

Background

Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players

The regulations which led to the Webster ruling were enacted in response to the European Commission, who in 1998 opined that FIFA's then current football transfer system served as an obstruction to players' freedom of movement compared to workers in other industries.^[4][5] FIFA, and its European counterpart UEFA, campaigned for a special exemption for football,^[6][7] but after the Commission threatened to abolish the system, the new regulations were put in place by September 2001. Because of the complexity and potential legal ramifications for players, it was five years before Webster's test case emerged.^[8]

Article 17

Article 17 of FIFA's Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players is entitled "Consequences of Terminating a Contract Without Just Cause", and is the fifth article of Chapter IV, "Maintenance of Contractual Stability between Professionals and Clubs". It outlines the provisions which apply if a contract is terminated without just cause, and the requirement for the party in breach to pay compensation.^[9] Specifically, it states that any player who signed a contract before the age of 28 can buy himself out of the contract three years after the deal was signed. If he is 28 or older the time limit is shortened to two years.^[10][11] Article 17 was introduced in December 2004, with effect from 1 July 2005.^[12]

Webster's transfers

In March 2001, Andy Webster joined Hearts from Arbroath F.C. for a reported £75,000,^[13] plus a "sell-on clause" which entitled Arbroath to 17.5 percent of any future sum received by Hearts for him.^[14] He played regularly for the next five years, and made 22 appearances for the Scotland national football team.^[15] In July 2005, Glasgow side Rangers F.C. were credited with an interest in Webster, and the player requested permission to speak to them. This was refused, and Hearts told the player he would be part of their squad that season.^[16] However, in 2006 he became involved in a dispute with club owner Vladimir Romanov after refusing to extend his contract, and was subsequently omitted from the squad for the remainder of the 2005–06 season.^[17][18] Webster, who still had a year of his existing contract remaining, then signed for English Premiership club Wigan Athletic in August that year.^[2] The transfer was a protracted affair; it took several months before contracts were approved by FIFA, and the governing body took further time to ascertain if Webster's former club were due any compensation.^[19] The matter was further complicated by Hearts' initial refusal to release the player from their books as they sought to challenge the decision.^[20]

Despite the efforts made to sign him, Wigan did not provide Webster with a regular first team place, and in January 2007 he returned to Scotland after Rangers signed him on loan for the remainder of the 2006–07 season.^[21] Despite persistent injuries which prevented him playing, Rangers manager Walter Smith extended his loan contract to 2008, although a permanent move was not organised until June 2008 as litigation over the Hearts–Wigan transfer continued.^[22][23]

FIFA and CAS rulings on the Webster case

Hearts had initially placed a valuation of £5 million on Webster.^[24] However, because he had served more than three years of his contract he was outside of FIFA's "protected period", and any compensation due to Hearts would, per Article 17, be based primarily on the amount of Webster's salary still outstanding—a figure estimated by Webster's advisors at approximately £250,000.^[1]

FIFA's transfer arbitration tribunal, the Dispute Resolution Chamber, met on 4 April 2007 and ruled that Hearts were due £625,000, based on Webster's future wages, his earning potential, and the legal costs.^[25][26] They also found Webster guilty of breaking his contract "without just cause", although only on a technicality; he and his agent were late informing the club of his intention to leave, because of confusion over the final match of the season (Hearts had reached the 2006 Scottish Cup Final, but the time limit was calculated from the club's last league game, four days prior to the Cup match). For this he was suspended for the first two weeks of the 2007–08 season.^[1]

Hearts were quick to lodge an appeal against the ruling, disputing the figure which they said had not been unambiguously calculated.^[27][28] Webster had also indicated a desire to appeal, believing the fine against him was excessive.^[25] On 30 January 2008 the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the highest arbitration authority in sport, met in Lausanne and clarified the original ruling.^[29] They also reduced the compensation due payable by Webster to £150,000.^[2][30]

Reactions and analysis

The general assessment from commentators is that the ruling is the most significant since Jean-Marc Bosman successfully challenged the restrictions on freedom of movement for workers for footballers in 1995.^[1][31] There is also speculation that the days of record-breaking transfer fees may be at an end.^[2] High profile players like Frank Lampard, Cristiano Ronaldo, Michael Owen, Steven Gerrard and Wayne Rooney have all been cited as examples of players who could either leave their club for a relatively small amount, or increase their contract bargaining power as a result.^[2][32][33] Several other players have taken advantage of Article 17, including Tony Sylva and Jonás Gutiérrez.^[34][35]

FIFA were highly critical of the ruling; president Sepp Blatter said "the verdict in favour of the player will have far-reaching and damaging effects on the game as a whole. [It] is... a Pyrrhic victory for those players and their agents who toy with the idea of rescinding contracts before they have been fulfilled."^[36] Football clubs were also hostile; A Hearts spokesman described it as a "dark day for football clubs",^[30] while Celtic, one of Hearts' and Rangers' rivals, stated bluntly that they would sue any player who broke his contract, believing that a court of law would support them regardless of any prior arbitration decision.^[10] The European Club Association has vocally criticised the ruling on several occasions, most notably after CAS decided Real Zaragoza had to compensate FC Shakhtar Donetsk for Brazilian midfielder Matuzalém's controversial transfer in May 2009.^[37][38]

Conversely, players' organisations were highly supportive of CAS's decision. Tony Higgins, a Scottish representative of international footballers' union FIFPro, said "Article 17 gives footballers the sort of employee rights that anyone else would expect in the workplace",^[2] while Fraser Wishart, the general secretary of the Scottish players' union who had supported Webster's case, described it as "a new groundbreaking decision enabling players to enjoy greater freedom of employment."^[31]

References

External links

• "Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players". FIFA.com website 
• "Full text of the ruling of the Dispute Resolution Chamber". FIFA.com website 
• Full text of the ruling of the Court of Arbitration for Sport. CAS website 

v t e Judiciary and law of the European Union Judiciary Court of Justice of the European Union European Court of Justice (members) General Court Civil Service Tribunal European lawyer Relationship with ECHR Public Prosecutor European civil code Treaties Rome Treaty Merger Treaty Single European Act Maastricht Treaty Amsterdam Treaty Nice Treaty Lisbon Treaty Charter of Fundamental Rights Opt-outs Instruments Acquis communautaire: Regulation Directive Framework Directive Decision Recommendation Procedures Ordinary legislative procedure Consultation procedure Assent procedure Commission and Council acting alone Commission acting alone Principles and terms Subsidiarity Supremacy Direct applicability Direct effect Indirect effect Incidental effect Gold-plating Four freedoms Host state regulation Home state regulation Acquis communautaire EUR-Lex Minimum harmonisation Maximum harmonisation Home country control State liability Proportionality Principle of legal certainty Principle of conferral Preliminary ruling European labour law European Enforcement Order Regulations Council Regulation (EC) No. 1206/2001 Council Regulation (EC) No. 1348/2000 Customs Regulation 1383/2003 Regulation 261/2004 EU-Eco-regulation Commission Regulation (EC) No 2257/94 Customs Regulation 3295/94 Regulation on roaming charges in the European Union Brussels Regime CLP Regulation Regulation on Community designs European Company Statute European Union System for the Evaluation of Substances Commission Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 REACH Rome II Regulation Directives Good Clinical Practice Directive Data Protection Directive ATEX directive Battery Directive Best available technology Biocidal Products Directive Birds Directive Capital Requirements Directive Clinical Trials Directive Computer Programs Directive Conditional Access Directive Copyright Directive Copyright Duration Directive (93/98/EEC) Copyright Term Directive (2006/116/EC) Cosmetics Directive Dangerous Substances Directive (67/548/EEC) Dangerous Preparations Directive Data Retention Directive Database Directive Database right Directive 2000/43/EC on Anti-discrimination Directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive on the Promotion of the use of biofuels and other renewable fuels for transport Directive on the re-use of public sector information Directive on Electricity Production from Renewable Energy Sources End of Life Vehicles Directive CHP Directive Directive on the energy performance of buildings Directive on the enforcement of intellectual property rights Directive 2004/38/EC on the right to move and reside freely Environmental liability directive European SEA Directive 2001/42/EC European units of measurement directives Habitats Directive Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Internal Market in Electricity Directive Landfill Directive Directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions Directive on the legal protection of designs Markets in Financial Instruments Directive Measuring Instruments Directive Medical Devices Directive Posted Workers Directive Pressure Equipment Directive Rental Directive Resale Rights Directive Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive Satellite and Cable Directive Directive on services in the internal market Temporary and Agency Work Directive Trade Marks Directive European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Unfair Commercial Practices Directive Universal Service Directive Urban Waste Water Directive Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive Waste Incineration Directive Waste framework directive Water Framework Directive Working Time Directive Cases ECJ Rulings (Caselex): Allonby v Accrington and Rossendale College Apostolides v Orams Bosman Cassis de Dijon Chacon Navas v Eurest Colectividades SA Chen Ciaran Tobin Coleman v Attridge Law Costa v ENEL Factortame Francovich Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v Inspire Art Ltd Kolpak Microsoft v Commission Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA Metock Nordsee Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA Peter Paul and Others v Bundesrepublik Deutschland Procureur du Roi v Dassonville Ralf Sieckmann v Deutsches Patent und Markenamt Tanja Kreil Van Duyn v Home Office Van Gend en Loos Fraud Court of Auditors European Anti-fraud Office Accountability in the European Union European Union portal Law portal