The Romanian sports world has been discussing intensively, recently, about fines and the freedom to provide services, in the context of the imposition of the “minimum 40% Romanians in the team” rule. Although the Costaș, Negru & Asociații team has written on this topic before[1], we consider it necessary to return to the topic, pointing out the main milestones of this debate.
A. Current regulatory framework
First of all, in order to understand the source of the problem, the domestic legal framework, represented by the following normative acts, must be studied:
a) The application instructions of the Order of the Minister of Sports no. 500/2022[2] [art. 6, 7]. These instructions provide:
– the “40% Romanians in the team” rule (according to art. 6 of the Instructions, it applies to official national sports competitions for seniors and youth, and the weight is related to the total number of participating athletes who can perform on the field during a match, for each team;
– the weighting was to be determined by the national sports federations, starting with the 2022-2023 competitive season.
b) Regulation of application of Law no. 69/2000 (issued in 2001)[3], which contains general provisions regarding the supervision and control exercised by the Ministry of Sports over sports structures, legal entities under public or private law (art. 33 – 38).
c) The application instructions of the Order of the Minister of Sports no. 84/2023[4], which regulates a detailed procedure for carrying out the control provided by the Regulation on the application of Law no. 69/2000 and for the application of contraventional sanctions, in accordance with art. 91 of Law no. 69/2000.
d) Law no. 69/2000[5], which regulates contraventions such as the one provided for in art. 88 lit. h) – failure to fulfill, by the established deadlines, the previously ordered measures, as well as the legal requests of the Ministry of Sports.
e) Government Decision no. 1441/2022[6], which updates the amount of fines from Law no. 69/2000. Thus, for example, for the contravention of art. 88 lit. h) from Law no. 69/2000 the fine is from 5,000 to 15,000 lei for individuals and from 15,000 to 37,500 lei for legal entities.
B. Brief observations on the existing regulatory framework
According to the declared intentions of the minister of sports, in this normative framework it is intended to implement the “40% Romanians in team sports” rule, including under the constraint of contravention fines. This is also the reason why, after more than 20 years after the issuance of the Regulation on the application of Law no. 69/2000 a control procedure was regulated in detail.
In terms of regulations, the minister of sports stated only one intention, that in team sports there should be at least 40% Romanian athletes, but he did not establish a rule, but asked the national sports federations to create such a rule. And it is natural for it to be so because, even if sports activity cannot be carried out outside the law, it benefits from a set of specific, own rules. In other words, in principle, the federative authority and the normative power of the sports rule can be imposed on the affiliated persons, and their non-compliance is likely to be sanctioned[7].
Thus, as a preliminary, we will note the following:
– If national sports federations have implemented the “40% Romanians in the team” rule, they are competent to verify compliance with the rule and apply sanctions for non-compliance; at the same time, national sports federations are legally responsible for the legality of the rule in question.
– If the national sports federations have not implemented the “40% Romanians in the team” rule, the Ministry of Sports can decide to penalize them, justifying that the sports movement must comply with state rules.
The above distinction is useful to understand that, in the absence of a regulation at the level of the specialized sports federation, natural persons and legal entities in the field of sports, other than federations, cannot be penalized. This conclusion is also reached by reading art. 88 lit. h) from Law no. 69/2000: sports federations can be sanctioned contraventionally if the Ministry of Sports proves that it addressed legal requests to them and they did not comply. The issue can generate a distinct discussion: is it legal – by reference to European legal norms, for example, for a sports minister to impose on federations a restriction on the freedom to provide services to athletes?
Finally, a note about the control procedure established by the Application Instructions from Order no. 84/2023. According to art. 17 of the Instructions, the control procedure involves, after carrying out the control and drawing up the control documents (notice of finding and/or the minutes of finding and sanctioning the contraventions), a super-formality: the presentation to the Minister of Sport, for approval, of the finding note, together with the record of finding and sanctioning the contravention. In our opinion, this is a simple internal information procedure, without any legal effect on the control documents.
C. The lack of clarity of the norm and the impossibility of its practical application
As we showed above, the Minister of Sports expressed, through Order no. 500/2022, the desire to have more Romanian performance athletes present in the teams engaged in the official national sports competitions. However, the “hot potato” was passed to the national sports federations, which should have detailed the application conditions.
First of all, art. 6 of the Instructions is unclear. Performance athletes can be equally amateurs and professionals [art. 14 para. (1) from Law no. 69/2000], and the professional organization of sports, in the form of professional leagues, is rather the exception in Romania. Therefore, it is difficult to understand which athletes should be subject to the restriction that the sports minister has in mind.
Secondly, as I have shown previously, art. 6 of the Instructions talks about the participation weight which “cannot be less than 40% of the total number of participating athletes who can perform on the field during a match, for each team”. Hence, more legitimate questions:
– Does the weighting concern the athletes who are on the game sheet (for example, 5 athletes out of 12) or the athletes who must actually be on the field (for example, 2 athletes out of 5 of each team)?
– Do Romanian athletes have to actually perform in the competition?
– Is it mandatory to keep Romanian athletes on the field for a certain number of minutes or for the duration of the entire game, in the same weight of at least 40%?
– How to interpret the phrase “that can evolve on the field”? For example, if a football team can enter 18 athletes on the game sheet, but a maximum of 16 can perform in a match (11 starters + 5 athletes who replace the starters), the percentage of 40% is related to 18 (7 Romanian athletes) or at 16 (6 Romanian athletes)?
– If the percentage of 40% means 7.2 athletes, will the team have to have 7 or 8 Romanian athletes?
– Are naturalized athletes considered Romanian athletes or foreign athletes?
The national sports federations reported these problems and, as a general rule, did not comply with the request of the minister of sports and did not implement the “40% Romanians in team sports” rule. Some federations, such as the Romanian Basketball Federation, have expressly justified the position adopted by the lack of significant details regarding the regulation that the Ministry of Sports wants.
D. Have the Romanian sports federations implemented the provisions of art. 6 of the Instructions adopted by the Order of the Minister of Sports no. 500/2022?
Our analysis reveals that national sports federations have rather regulated their own restrictive rules, even if they were developed and justified more recently and by reference to the Instructions in Order no. 500/2022. This is the case of the Romanian Volleyball Federation, the Romanian Handball Federation and the Romanian Basketball Federation. The Romanian Rugby Federation also applies a limitation on the number of foreign players, and the Romanian Football Federation applies a complex system of limitations modeled after UEFA.
D1. Romanian Volleyball Federation
The Romanian Volleyball Federation instituted some restrictions even before the publication of Order no. 500/2022. Thus, art. 43 of the Regulation on the Organization of Volleyball Activities “allows” for a number of players with citizenship other than Romanian to be part of the teams, under the conditions established by the Board of Directors.
Most recently, according to the information available on the Federation’s website, the matter was settled following the General Assembly of June 14, 2022. We will note the following:
– A team participating in Division A1 must use at least two players trained in Romania in the “game formula”, for the entire duration of the match, regardless of position. The “playing line-up” is the line-up made up of the six players on the field and listed on the referee’s sheet at a given time plus the libero.
– In Division A2, it is mandatory to have at least 4 Romanian players on the field at all times, including the libero player.
– For the national championships of Juniors, Cadets and Hopes, the transfer of athletes of other than Romanian citizenship is not accepted.
– There is also a financial obstacle, in the sense that the fee for the transfer of players of a nationality other than Romanian is 1,500 euros/player in Division A1 and 1,000 euros/player in Division A2.
– In addition, in the composition of the technical management of a team participating in Division A1 there must be at least one coach with Romanian citizenship (head coach or second coach).
– Violation of the rule is severely penalized, possibly leading to the loss of the set in which the rule was not respected by 0-25 or the loss of the match by 0-3, even by both teams.
D2. Romanian Handball Federation
According to the Regulations for the conduct of the National Men’s Handball League for the 2022-2023 competitive season, art. 4.2, the teams registered in the National League are obliged to have at least 40% players of Romanian nationality on the field during the game, at the competitions organized by the Romanian Handball Federation (championship, Romanian Cup, Romanian Supercup), as follows:
– 7 players on the field – at least 3 of Romanian citizenship;
– 6, 5 or 4 players on the field (as a result of the eliminations) – minimum 2 of Romanian citizenship.
Disqualified players can only be replaced by other Romanian players.
Failure to comply with the obligation to permanently use the minimum number of three players of Romanian nationality is sanctioned with pecuniary penalties that gradually increase between 3,000 lei (the team’s first offense) and 5,500 (offence no. 25).
In addition, the teams registered in the National League have the obligation to have at least one Romanian coach registered in the game report (art. 4.5).
Identical rules are also provided for the National Women’s Handball League, for the 2022-2023 competitive season.
D3. Romanian Basketball Federation
The Romanian Basketball Federation has established several times and independently of the provisions of the Order of the Minister of Sports no. 500/2022, own restrictions.
Thus, according to the specific Regulations for the National Men’s Basketball League 2022 – 2023, published on the federation’s website, each participating team will have the right to transfer and register on the L18 (expanded team) a maximum of 7 foreign players, of which on the L18 (the team for each match) a maximum of 6 foreign players will be entered (art. VII point 26). Also, according to art. VII point 26.2, a maximum of one nationalized player can be used in national competitions.
There is a special “court passport” rule: junior players of other citizenships who have been legitimized and have been active in at least three national junior championships (complete and consecutive seasons) organized by the Romanian Basketball Federation obtain the right to play as Romanian players .
In the National Men’s Basketball League, in the 2022-2023 season, each team must play with at least two Romanian players on the court in the first two quarters and with at least one Romanian player on the court in the last two quarters (art. VII point 29)[8].
The applicable sanctions are a technical foul on the coach for the first offense and a technical forfeit for the second offense. Losing the game by 2-0 can be dictated after the end of the game, and the game can be lost by both teams, if both have violated the rule of the Romanian players.
In addition, according to art. VI point 23, the team can have between 2 and 4 coaches, of which at most one can be foreign.
Similar rules are included in the specific Regulations for the National Women’s Basketball League, the 2022-2023 competitive season. Thus, according to art. VII, in the first phase of the competition and in the play off, each team has the right to transfer and register in the L20 a maximum of 6 foreign players (with a maximum of two non-European), who will be able to be registered in the L12 for each game. In the second phase and play-out, each team can use a maximum of two foreign players in L20 and L12. The rule for the presence of Romanian female players on the court and the sanctions associated with non-compliance with the rule are identical to those in the National Men’s Basketball League.
D4. Romanian Rugby Federation
According to art. 16.9 of the Regulations for the Organization of Rugby Activity, teams from the Super League and National Senior Division championships will be able to enter in the arbitration report and/or the official announcement a number of 23 players, of which, necessarily, a number of 13 players of Romanian nationality.
D5. Romanian Football Federation
The Romanian Football Federation did not implement the restriction provided for by Order no. 500/2022. This federation, however, has regulated a complex system of rules within art. 45 of the Regulation on the Organization of Football Activity. A distinction is thus made between:
– Players trained at national level – players who, regardless of citizenship, have been registered and have participated in sports competitions for a club in Romania for at least 3 years (consecutive or not) in the period between 12 and 21 years. Players of Romanian nationality are also considered trained at the national level, regardless of the date of registration at a club in Romania and/or the duration of participation in football competitions in Romania.
– Players trained at club level – players who, regardless of citizenship, have been legitimized and have participated in competitions for the same club for at least 3 years (consecutive or not) between the ages of 12 and 21.
– EU players – players who are citizens of some member states of the European Union (Community players).
– Non-EU players – players who have the citizenship of a state that is not a member of the European Union and/or with which there is no agreement on the free movement of persons.
Starting from this distinction, the rules established by the Romanian Football Federation are as follows [art. 45 point 7 letter a) – f)]:
– Women’s football teams have the right to use a maximum of 3 non-EU players on the field at the same time and have the obligation to enter in the referee report at each official game a minimum of 7 nationally trained players.
– League 1 teams have the obligation to enter a minimum number of 6 nationally trained players in the referee report and to effectively use, throughout the games, a nationally trained U21 player, eligible for the national team.
– League 2 teams have the right to use a maximum of 2 non-EU players on the field at the same time and are obliged to enter a minimum of 10 nationally trained players in the referee report for each official game.
– League 3 teams have the right to use a maximum of one non-EU player on the field at the same time and are obliged to enter in the referee report at each official game a minimum of 12 nationally trained players.
– The junior teams participating in the competitions organized by the Romanian Football Federation have the right to use a maximum of 2 non-EU players on the field at the same time and are obliged to enter in the referee report at least 15 players trained at national level.
– The teams from the other senior or junior categories participating in the competitions organized by the Romanian Football Federation have the right to use a non-EU player in the field and are obliged to include in the refereeing report at least 11 players trained at national level.
The penalty for non-compliance with the non-EU player rules is forfeiture of games.
E. An ignored principle: the freedom to provide services
Within Title IV of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the free movement of persons, services and capital is regulated. Thus, according to art. 45 TFEU:
– the free movement of workers is guaranteed within the Union;
– free movement implies the elimination of any discrimination based on nationality between the workers of the member states, in terms of employment, remuneration and other working conditions;
– the free movement of workers implies, among other things, the right to accept genuine offers of employment and the right to stay in a member state to carry out a paid activity in accordance with the laws and administrative acts that regulate the employment in work of the workers of that state.
Art. 49 TFEU guarantees the right of establishment, including access to independent activities and their exercise, under the conditions defined for nationals by the legislation of the country of establishment.
Finally, according to art. 56 TFEU, restrictions on the free provision of services within the Union regarding nationals of Member States established in another Member State than that of the beneficiary of the services are prohibited[9].
In other words, by reference to these rules, the restrictions proposed by the Minister of Sports by Order no. 500/2022 and the restrictions applied in particular by the Romanian Handball Federation, the Romanian Volleyball Federation and the Romanian Basketball Federation are ab initio incompatible with European law.
Exceptions to the rule are always strictly construed. Thus, for example, art. 45 para. (3) allows limiting the freedom of movement of workers, but only for justified reasons of public order, public safety and public health. However, such reasons were not invoked either by the Minister of Sports or by the federations that regulated the matter and cannot, in our opinion, be supported by arguments.
In fact, at the European level, the problem was clarified in 1995, in the famous Bosman affair[10]. The Court of Justice established in this context that Community law applies to sports, except in particular situations. Any limitation on the number of Community players that a club team can field is punishable. The regulations of national football federations and UEFA which limited the number of foreign professional footballers to participate in competitions organized under their auspices constituted discrimination based on nationality, contrary to EU law. Through this ruling, the Court of Justice of the European Union has finally demonstrated that professional sport is an economic activity subject to regulation at European level, just like any other business carried out on the territory of the Union, when the athlete is “professional” or “semi-professional “.
With the decision in the Bosman case, sports bodies had to recognize their status as entities covered by the rules of European law in terms of the European Union’s desire to ensure a free (common) market and non-discriminatory treatment for all economic operators. More precisely:
– the transfer rules were reformed, so that professional footballers entering the last six months of their contract can validly sign a contract with another club; under these conditions, when the contract expires, the athlete becomes free from the contract and can transfer without the new club paying any transfer allowance;
– the nationality clauses have been eliminated, as far as the players coming from the member states of the European Union are concerned; consequently, nowadays a football club (and generally any sports club) can field as many professional players from the European Union as it wants[11].
Later, through the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, other nationality clauses were repudiated. The Court thus assessed that the regulation of the German Handball Federation which limited the number of players who were not nationals of some member states of the Union or of the European Free Trade Association (at that time composed of Switzerland, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) was contrary to the rule of non-discrimination in the matter of freedom of movement of workers provided by art. 39 para. (2) TEC and assumed by the Community through the Association Agreement with Slovakia (agreement signed in Luxembourg on October 4, 1993)[12].
In the same sense, in the Simutenkov case[13], the Court held that art. 23 para. (1) of the Association Agreement with the Russian Federation can be legally invoked by Russian citizens legally employed in a member state of the European Union. The rule of equal treatment mentioned by this provision thus establishes a precise obligation that can be invoked by an individual in order to remove a discriminatory provision likely to be applied to him (in concreto, the rules of the Spanish football federation which limited the number of extra-Community footballers that could be used in a match to three for the Primera Division and to two for the Segunda Division)[14].
Therefore, our estimation is that any citizen of another member state of the European Union will challenge a restriction of the type thought by the Minister of Sports through Order no. 500/2022 or implemented by some sports federations will obtain judicial satisfaction, as a result of the priority application of European law.
F. Nationality Rule vs. Home Grown Players Rule
It seems obvious to us that, regardless of the reasons cited (for example, the need to have high-performance Romanian athletes to help national teams qualify and achieve good results in international team competitions), the path taken is wrong.
Thus, in the current context, in which Romania is a member country of the European Union, with all the obligations assumed, a nationality rule cannot survive. That is precisely why the “40% Romanians in team sports” rule was, in our opinion, born dead. The Minister of Sports and the national sports federations that regulated in the sense of Order no. 500/2022 therefore assumes all related risks.
Instead, it should be noted that at the European level, instead of the Nationality Rule, a so-called Home-Grown Players Rule has been developed.
Thus, in 2005, UEFA proposed the application of the 4 + 4 rule: starting from the 2008-2009 competitive season each club was required to have, in the group of 25, four players trained by the club and four players trained by other clubs within the same national associations.
In 2008, FIFA proposed the 6 + 5 rule: a club team must start a match with a minimum of 6 players who would be eligible for the national team of the country the club is from.
At the level of the European Commission and the European Parliament, during some debates in 2008, the UEFA regulation was supported, while the solution proposed by FIFA was considered directly discriminatory.
It should be noted that rules of national sports federations that require the presence of a minimum number of club-grown players in a team (home-grown players rule) exist. For example, in the English professional football championship (Premier League) such a rule has been applied since 2015: at least 8 players from the group of 25 must be brought up by the club, regardless of age or nationality. Otherwise, the number of players in the first team is reduced (for example, in the 2021 – 2022 season, Liverpool had an A-list with only 24 players, of which 7 were brought up by the club). For a player to be considered “club grown” it is necessary that he has trained for at least three seasons at a professional club in England or Wales before turning 21 years of age.
Similar detailed rules, as we have shown, are currently also applied by the Romanian Football Federation.
G. Court of Justice of the European Union, pending cases C-680/21
However, it should be noted that this rule (home-grown players rule) is currently being discussed at the European Union level, in the case C-680/21, UL, SA Royal Antwerp Football Club v. Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL, intervener: Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA).
Thus, on 2 February 2005, UEFA’s Executive Committee adopted rules requiring professional football clubs participating in UEFA club competitions to enter a maximum number of 25 players on the playing list, among which there will have to be a minimum number by JFL (locally trained players). These players are defined by UEFA as players who, regardless of their nationality, have been trained by their club or another club within the same national association for at least three years between the ages of 15 and 21. On 21 April 2005, the so-called “JFL” rule was approved by UEFA’s 52 member associations, including URBSFA, at the Tallinn Congress. As of the 2008/2009 season, UEFA Regulations state that clubs participating in one of its competitions must enter a minimum of 8 locally trained players on a maximum 25-man roster. Of these 8 players, at least 4 must have been trained by the club in question.
On 13 February 2020, UL brought an action before the Cour belge d’arbitrage pour le sport (Belgian Court of Arbitration for Sport, Belgium) seeking, inter alia, to find that the JFL rules established by UEFA and the URBSFA are in breach of Art. 45 TFEU, as well as awarding compensation for the damage caused to UL.
By order of 15 October 2021, the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Court of First Instance Francophone in Brussels) addressed the following preliminary questions to the Court of Justice:
1) Art. 101 TFEU must be interpreted in the sense that it opposes the plan regarding the «JFL» adopted on 2 February 2005 by the UEFA Executive Committee, approved by the 52 UEFA member associations at the Congress in Tallinn on 21 April 2005 and put enforced by regulations adopted by both UEFA and its member federations?
2) Articles 45 and 101 TFEU must be interpreted in the sense that they oppose the application of the rules regarding the registration and alignment on the match sheet of locally trained players, standardized by articles P335.11 and P.1422 of the Federal Regulation of the URBSFA and resumed in article B4.1[12] of title 4 and article B6.109 of title 6 of the new URBSFA Regulation?”
UL, Royal Antwerp, URBSFA, UEFA, the Belgian, Greek, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian and Swedish governments, as well as the European Commission submitted written observations. UL, Royal Antwerp, URBSFA, UEFA, the Polish, Romanian and Swedish governments as well as the Commission attended the meeting held on 15 November 2022.
On March 9, 2023, Attorney General Maciej Szpunar presented his conclusions before the Court of Justice of the European Union, these being those that art. 45 TFEU must be interpreted in the sense that it opposes the application of rules regarding locally trained players, as adopted by the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) and the Union royale belge des sociétés de football association (URBSFA), according to which, in order to participate in the relevant competitions, clubs must list a minimum of 8 locally trained players out of a maximum of 25 players, to the extent that such locally trained players may come from another club within the national football association concerned.
The General Advocate appreciates that the requirement to train a certain number of players locally is justified, considering legitimate objectives such as encouraging the recruitment and training of young players or maintaining a balance between clubs, preserving a certain equality of chances and the uncertainty of results. But, at the same time, he appreciates that such a restriction does not have an adequate character. Thus, if a club from a major national league can “buy” up to half of the JFL, the objective of encouraging this club to train young players would be compromised (par. 68 of the Conclusions). Therefore, while he considers the requirement to list a pre-defined number of JFLs to be justified, the Advocate General does not see the reasoning – from a training perspective – for extending the definition of JFL to players outside a particular club, but from within the national league concerned.
In conclusion, the Advocate General proposes to the Court of Justice to hold that the challenged provisions are not coherent and therefore not adequate to achieve the objectives of training young players and improving the competitive balance of the teams, insofar as among the JFL that must to appear on a list may include players who do not come from the club in question. This means that the URBSFA provisions are not adequate as a whole, while those of UEFA are only partially adequate.
In our opinion, to the extent that the Court of Justice of the European Union will validate these conclusions, the European and national rules will have to be modified. The most affected will be the clubs that have significant financial means and do not use them for the development of young players, but prefer to acquire the best on the market from the other clubs that develop young players.
This article was prepared, for the blog of the civil society of lawyers Costaș, Negru & Asociații, by av. Dr. Cosmin Flavius Costaș, coordinator of the Sports Law practice.
Note: In part, the issues addressed in this article were discussed in Debateria Juridice.ro – We are Romanians. At least 40% of the date of March 8, 2023, which was attended by av. Sabin Gherdan, university professor Dr. Cristian Jura, av. Marian Mihail and associate professor Dr. Cosmin Flavius Costaș.
Photo source: Romanian Olympic and Sports Committee
Costaș, Negru & Asociații is a civil society of lawyers with offices in Cluj-Napoca, Bucharest and Arad, which offers assistance, legal representation and consultancy in several practice areas through a team composed of 18 lawyers and consultants. Details regarding legal services and team composition can be found on the website https://www.costas-negru.ro. All rights for the materials published on the company’s website and through social networks belong to Costaș, Negru & Asociații, their reproduction being permitted only for informational purposes and with correct and complete citation of the source.
[1] The “40% Romanians” rule in team sports: immediate reality or utopia?, article published on July 11, 2022 on the blog of the civil society of lawyers Costaș, Negru & Asociații, available at: https://costas-negru.ro /rule-40-Romanians-in-team-sports-immediate-reality-or-utopia/.
[2] Order no. 500 of June 23, 2022 regarding the approval of the Instructions for establishing the participation of Romanian performance athletes, at the senior and youth level, in a weight of at least 40% of the total number of female athletes participating in official national sports competitions, in team sports, published in M. Of. no. 686 of July 8, 2022.
[3] Regulation of September 13, 2001 implementing the provisions of the Physical Education and Sports Law no. 69/2000, published in M. Of. no. 578 of September 14, 2001.
[4] Order of the Minister of Sports no. 84 of February 9, 2023 for the approval of the Instructions for the control of compliance with laws and other normative acts in the field of sports and for the verification of sports activities, the mode of operation and administration of sports structures, in accordance with the statutes, regulations and legal provisions in force and of the documents used in the activity of supervision and control in the field of sports, published in M. Of. no. 156 of February 23, 2023.
[5] Law no. 69/2000 of physical education and sport, published in M. Of. no. 200 dated 9 May 2000.
[6] Government Decision no. 1441 of November 19, 2022 regarding the updating of the limits of fines provided for in art. 89 para. (1) from the Law on physical education and sport no. 69/2000, published in M. Of. no. 1181 of December 9, 2022.
[7] For details, S.I. Put, C.F. Costaș, Dreptul sportului, Ed. Hamangiu, Bucharest, 2021, p. 91-93.
[8] According to an open clause, this rule changes when the rules of application of the Order of the Minister of Sports appear with reference to the weight of Romanian players in the senior and youth teams, but also if the Ministry of Sports brings clarifications to these aspects, with references strict in each sport, with all teams in the National Men’s Basketball League expected to comply.
[9] For details and distinctions, P. Craig, G. de Búrca, European Union Law. Commentaries, Jurisprudence and Doctrine, ed. VI, Ed. Hamangiu, Bucharest, 2017, see p. 886-951.
[10] CJEU, judgment of 15 December 1995, case C-415/93, Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association ASBL vs. Jean-Marc Bosman, Royal Club Liégeois SA vs. Jean-Marc Bosman and others and Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) vs. Jean-Marc Bosman, ECLI:EU:C:1995:463. For a broader commentary, with doctrinal and jurisprudential references, see: S. Deleanu, G. Fábián, C.F. Costaș, B. Ioniță, European Court of Justice. Commented decisions, Ed. Wolters Kluwer Romania, Bucharest, 2007, p. 269-284. Also see S.I. Put, C.F. Costaș, Dreptul sportului, Ed. Hamangiu, Bucharest, 2021, p. 97-99.
[11] S. Deleanu, G. Fábián, C.F. Costaș, B. Ionita, op. cit., p. 282. In fact, as a result of the negotiations between the European Commission and the presidents of FIFA and UEFA, on July 6, 2001, the Executive Committee of FIFA adopted a new system for the international transfer of players (payment system for some training allowances for the transfer of players up to the age of 23; solidarity mechanisms for the redistribution of amounts to amateur clubs that ensure the training and education of players; limitation of transfer periods in each competitive season; contract periods of a minimum of one year and a maximum of 5 years; the establishment of an arbitration court for the settlement of disputes related to transfers, etc.).
[12] CJEU, judgment of May 8, 2003, Deutscher Handballbund eV vs. Maros Kolpak, ECLI:EU:C:2003:255.
[13] CJEU (Grand Chamber), Judgment of April 12, 2005, Igor Simutenkov vs. Ministerio de Educación y Cultura and Real Federación Española de Fútbol, ECLI:EU:C:2005:213.
[14] For all these aspects, see S.I. Put, C.F. Costaș, Dreptul sportului, Ed. Hamangiu, Bucharest, 2021, p. 166-170.
