The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued an award on June 28, 2013, in a case involving S.C.S. Fotbal Club CFR 1907 Cluj S.A. and two Portuguese players, Manuel Ferreira de Sousa Ricardo and Mario Jorge Quintas Felgueiras, against the Romanian Football Federation (FRF). The dispute centered on the FRF's decision to increase the minimum number of "players trained at national level" required for official matches, which the appellants argued violated EU principles of free movement of workers. The CAS panel, composed of Mr. Chris Georghiades, Mr. Bernard Hanotiau, and Mr. Fabio Iudica, addressed key legal issues, emphasizing that arbitration clauses must be interpreted in good faith and that professional football players are workers under EU law entitled to freedom of movement. The panel acknowledged that while sporting federations retain regulatory authority, their rules must comply with EU law and be proportionate to legitimate aims like competitive balance and youth development.
The appellants challenged the FRF's progressive increase in the quota of nationally trained players, arguing it disadvantaged non-Romanian EU players. The FRF's regulations required clubs to field players trained in Romania for at least three years between ages 15 and 21. The CAS panel examined whether these rules were compatible with EU law, stressing the need for a case-by-case analysis to ensure they were justified and proportionate. The FRF defended its decision, claiming it promoted youth development and aligned with UEFA's home-grown player concept, which the EU Commission had tentatively accepted. However, the panel found the FRF's rule stricter than UEFA's, raising concerns about indirect discrimination and compatibility with EU law.
The jurisdictional dispute hinged on Article 34.9 of the FRF Statutes, which the panel interpreted as granting CAS authority over disputes involving FRF Executive Committee decisions, regardless of whether the appellant was a committee member. The panel affirmed CAS's jurisdiction under Swiss arbitration law, emphasizing the principle of "Kompetenz-Kompetenz," which allows arbitral tribunals to rule on their own jurisdiction. The FRF's absence at the hearing and failure to provide timely submissions further weakened its position.
On the merits, the panel analyzed the FRF's rule under EU and Romanian labor law, which prohibit nationality-based discrimination in employment. The panel referenced key ECJ rulings, such as Bosman, which struck down transfer rules and nationality clauses violating free movement principles. While the ECJ acknowledged legitimate sporting objectives, it required rules to be proportionate and non-discriminatory. The panel concluded the FRF's rule unlawfully discriminated under Articles 18 and 45 of the TFEU and Romanian labor law, as it exceeded UEFA's framework and lacked sufficient justification. The CAS upheld the appeal, annulled the relevant FRF regulation, and dismissed other claims, reinforcing that sporting rules must comply with EU law. The decision underscores the tension between sports governance and EU legal principles, ensuring freedom of movement for workers, including professional athletes.