(AGENPARL) – gio 09 marzo 2023 Dear All,
Please find attached press release in respect of Case C-680/21 | Royal Antwerp Football Club:
Football: according to Advocate General Szpunar the UEFA rules on home-grown players are partially incompatible with EU law
Systems in which home-grown players include not only those trained by the club at issue, but also those of other clubs in the same national league, are not compatible with free movement rules
Kind regards,
Natassa Mouzouki
Press and Information Unit, Ireland / Malta
Communication Department
[cid:image002.jpg@01D5E282.B6DDC230]
[logo-en]
Rue du Fort Niedergrünewald
L-2925 Luxembourg
[curia.europa.eu](https://www.curia.europa.eu/)

Testo Allegato:
Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

PRESS RELEASE No
45
/23

Luxembourg, 9 March 2023

Advocate Generalâ??s Opinion in Case C
–
680/21 | Royal Antwerp Football Club

Football: according to Advocate General Szpunar the UEFA rules on home
–
grown players are partially incompatible with EU law

System
s in which home
–
grown players include not only those trained by the club at issue, but also those of
other clubs in the same national league, are not compatible with free movement rules

As of

the 200
8
/200
9

season,
the
Union of European Football Association
s
(
UEFA
)

has required
football
clubs to
include a minimum of
eight

so
–
called
home
–
grown players
on the
squad size limit list

that contains a

maximum
of
25 players.
Home
–
grown players are
defined as players who, regardless of their nationality, have
been
trained by their club or by another club in the same national
league

and 21.

Out of these eight players, four at least must have been trained by the club
at issue
.

On the basis of these rules, t
he

Union

royale belge des sociétés de football association

(
URBSFA
)

has adopted
essentially similar
regulations for football clubs participating in the professional football divisions
. Contrary to the
UEFA rules, however, the Belgian rules do not require that four

out of eight home
–
grown players have bee
n trained
by the club at issue.

B
efore the Brussels Court of F
irst Instance (French
–
speaking) (
Belgium)
,
UL

(a professional football player)

and Royal
Antwerp

(
a professional football club
)

argue, in substance, that

the UEFA and URBSFA rules on
home
–
grown players

infringe the freedom of movement for workers
in the EU. According to them,
those rules restrict the possibility for a

national roots, and to field
them in a match
. The same rules also restrict
the possibility for a player to be recruited and fielded by a club in
respect of which he cannot rely on such roots.

The Belgian court has referred questions in that regard to the
Court
of Justice.

In todayâ??s Opinion, Advocate General
S
zpunar recalls first and foremost that s
porting activities forming part of
economic life fall
within the scope of

the fundamental freedoms of the Treaty
.

He argues that the
rules on home
–
grown players

are likely to create indirect discrimination against nationals
of other Member States
.
Indeed, i
t is a fact of life that the younger a player is, the more likely it is that that player
resides in his place of origin. It is therefore necessarily players fr
om other Member States who will be adversely
affected by the contested rules.

Though neutral in wording, the contested provisions place local players at an
advantage over players from other Member States
.

Such an indirect discrimination may, however, be ju
stified: the Advocate General accepts the argument that the
contested provisions are, by definition, suitable to attain the objective of training and recruiting young players
. In
regard to
professional sport, the
Advocate General recalls that the
Court has
, since the seminal
Bosman

case,

already
held

that, in view of the considerable social importance of sporting activities and in particular football in the
European Union, the objective of encouraging the recruitment and training of young players
must be ac
cepted as
legitimate.

Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

Stay Connected
!

the
A
dvocate
G
eneral has certain doubts regarding the general coherence of the contested provisions,
as regards the definition of a home
–
grown player
. If, as is the case in both the UEFA and URBSFA rules, a
home
–
grown player

is n
ot only a player trained by the club itself, but also one trained by another club in the national
league,
he

wonder
s

training young players.

These doubts obviousl
y increase if the national league in que
stion is a major one
. If a club in a major national league
can â??buyâ?? up to half of
home
–
grown players
, the objective of encouraging that club to train young players would be
frustrated.

As a result, while
the Advocat
e General c
onsider
s

the requirement to include, on a
relevant list
, a predefined
number of
home
–
grown players

justified,
he fails to see the

rationale
â??

from a perspective of training
â??

of extending
the definition of a
home
–
grown player

to players outside
of a given club, but insid
e the relevant national league.

obliged, through the contested measures, to train

young players
, then overall the comp
likely to increase. Again, this aim is frustrated to the extent that clubs can resort to
home
–
grown players

from other
clubs in the same league.

The Advocate General therefore concludes that
the contested provisions are not cohe
rent and therefore not
suitable for achieving the objective of training young players
:

home
–
grown players
should not
include
players emanating from
other clubs than the
club in question
.

NOTE:

The Advocate Generalâ??s Opinion is not binding on the Court of J
ustice. It is the role of the Advocates General
Judges of the Court are now beginning their deliberations in this case. Judgment will be gi
ven at a later date.

NOTE:

A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which
European
Union

law

or the validity of a
European Union

act. The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the
national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Court
â??
s decision, which is similarly binding on
other national courts
or tribunals before which
a similar

issue is raised.

Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.

The
full text

of the Opinion is published on the CURIA web
site on the day of delivery.

Press contact: Jacques René Zammit
â??
(+352) 4303 3355

Pictures of the delivery of the Opinion are available from â??
Europe by Satellite
”
â??
(+32) 2 2964106