Arjen Robben’s contract with FC Bayern has again been extended by one year. But are such time limits generally legal in professional sport? Even after a BAG ruling in January, questions remain, as Jan Friedrich Beckmann explains.
The BAG ruling in the Heinz Müller case is one of the most important decisions under sports law in recent years (judgment of 16.01.2018, file no. 7 AZR 312/16). Labour court decisions in the field of professional sport are rare anyway. But among the few known proceedings, none attracted as much attention as the legal dispute between FSV Mainz 05 and its former goalkeeper Heinz Müller. Not only in the legal literature on the occasion of the “Mueller case” has one again dealt in detail with the controversial question, the admissibility of the limitation of sportsman contracts. Also the non-juristische press recognized the explosiveness of the case and feared that the Müllersche explosive complaint could bring the contract practice in the German professional sport to fall.
As is well known, however, the BAG decided against Heinz Müller on 16.01.2018 and determined that the employment contract concluded with him had been effectively limited in time. Does this mean that in future all types of employment contracts in professional sport may be limited without hesitation? That depends on whether and to what extent the reasons for the decision can be generalised. It is therefore worth taking a closer look at the background and the decision itself.
To the background: After the prevailing view in iurisdiction and literature professional sportsmen are employees. The industrial law is to be applied therefore, as it stands in a industrial law manual, ?with all legal consequences? The limitation of employment relationships is governed by the Part-Time and Fixed-Term Employment Act (TzBfG). However, the TzBfG assumes that a fixed-term employment contract should be the exception. This does not fit obviously with the professional sport: There are only temporary contracts. For example, Arjen Robben recently “extended” his contract with FC Bayern by one year.
“Character of the work performance”
The decisive norm here is § 14 TzBfG. Put simply, this provision permits a time limit in two cases: On the one hand, an employment contract can be limited to a total duration of up to two years “without objective reason” if an employment relationship with the same employee did not already exist before. In all other cases – including the Müller case – a “material reason” is required. A catalogue of factual grounds is contained in § 14 (1) TzBfG. For the limitation of employment contracts with professional athletes, only the objective reason of the “individual character of the work performance” can be considered as a rule.
On this objective reason of the ?characteristic of the work performance? also BAG in its judgement of January referred. The decisive sentence reads: “The employment contract relations between a football club of the 1st Bundesliga and a licensed player have special features which are regularly suitable to objectively justify the limitation of the employment contract”. It was already clear at the beginning of a career that the expected and owed top sporting performance would not be possible until retirement age. The time limit also prevents a distortion of competition due to the integration into an international transfer system.
Does that clarify everything? By no means. It is noticeable, for example, that the BAG does not generally speak of “professional sportsmen” or “professional footballers” in the grounds of its judgement. Instead, it almost consistently uses the phrase “licensed players of the 1st Bundesliga”. It is true that the idea that top sporting performances are only possible “for a limited period” can be easily transferred to footballers in the 2nd or 3rd Bundesliga or to handball pros. However, the formulations of the BAG mentioned above leave room for doubt as to whether the court actually wanted to establish general principles for the time limit in professional sport. Even if this is so represented in the literature: This is not completely certain.
The BAG statement does not apply to trainers and managers
Even more uncertain is what applies to trainers or managers. Examples such as Alex Ferguson or Jupp Heynckes show that top performance can be achieved completely independently of age, especially with coaches. So the FOPH’s supporting statement does not apply to them at the moment. It applies even less to the “managers” (who are often also employees): there is no doubt that they can still perform outstandingly at 50 or 60. The Müller judgement therefore does not provide any clarity here.
The decision also leaves open the question of what standard should apply for the duration of fixed-term contracts. Otherwise the BAG demands that the respective contract duration must be oriented to the factual reason for the time limit in such a way that it does not call it into question. Can I then successively give a 20-year-old talent eight two-year contracts and justify the time limit for each extension by stating that the player cannot achieve maximum performance up to retirement age? The FOPH does not address this question at all. However, it was often problematized in the literature before the Müller decision and therefore had to be known to the FOPH. His silence should therefore indicate that the FOPH does not see any problem here.
Finally, the BAG causes a further uncertainty by explicitly referring to the possibility of exceptional cases in the Müller judgment. The BAG cites the – unlikely – scenario in which a contract ends at a point in time at which the licensed player cannot switch to another club according to the transfer regulations (e.g. in April) as such an exceptional case in which a time limit can be ineffective. The BAG does not specify any other possible exceptions. It thus leaves a door open for deviating decisions. 888casino is acknowledged as the most established and successful brand in the industry and has certainly done well.
What happens next? The Müller judgement should have created sufficient clarity for the majority of cases of application. The Bundesliga clubs can therefore continue to adhere to their time limit practice in the new season. Clarification would be desirable for those cases to which the ruling cannot be applied without further ado. It could, for example, be achieved by the special case for top-level sport planned by the parties to the current governing coalition.