FIFPRO, the international footballers’ union, goes on the attack against FIFA, with a long statement in which it attacks the international body for the decision to have created the World Cup for clubs.
“The players’ unions believe that these decisions violate the rights of players and their unions under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as potentially violating EU competition laws. The English Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA) and the Union Nationale des Footballeurs Professionnels (French Footballers’ Union), with the support of FIFPRO Europe, are calling on the Brussels Court of Commerce to refer the case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ ) with four preliminary questions.
The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights guarantees workers and their trade unions several fundamental rights. These include the prohibition of forced or compulsory labor, freedom of employment, the right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements, the right to healthy working conditions and the right to an annual period of paid leave. These rights are governed by Articles 5, 15, 28 and 31 of the Charter.
Players and their federations have consistently highlighted the current football calendar as overloaded and unworkable.
However, FIFA, as evidenced in recent representations from international unions and leagues, has failed to engage or negotiate meaningfully and has unilaterally continued a program of competition expansion despite opposition from players’ unions. This included the decision to proceed with a newly expanded FIFA Club World Cup.
The new tournament will see 32 clubs and their players take part in this new competition in the United States from mid-June to mid-July 2025. Once preparation periods and travel are included, the tournament is likely to last up to six weeks. of additional work to add to an already busy schedule.
The role of FIFPRO Europe and its members is not to favor or oppose one competition over another. However, in the broader context of the global football calendar, the new FIFA Club World Cup is seen by players and unions as a turning point.
For players most in demand for both club and national team matches, the right to a guaranteed annual break has become virtually non-existent, with the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup taking place in the only time of year theoretically available of the players. take such breaks.
The players’ unions believe that such FIFA decisions violate the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFREU), without any serious justification. Ultimately, the players’ unions believe that the purpose of this new competition is to increase the wealth and power of football’s global governing body, without due consideration for the impact on the players involved or other stakeholders in the game. inside professional football.
Furthermore, the players’ unions believe that, in light of the European Court of Justice ruling on the “European Super League”, such unilateral and discretionary decisions – which are not the result of clear, objective, transparent, non-discriminatory and democratic legal frameworks – constitute “restrictions of competition by object” within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU.
FIFA considers it normal to unilaterally and abusively occupy an area which – in a modern and open governance – naturally falls within the competence of the social partners and therefore of the negotiation of collective agreements between players’ unions and employers’ organisations.
The member unions of FIFPRO Europe ask the Brussels Court of Commerce to refer this crucial issue to the European Court of Justice through four preliminary questions, the substance of which can be summarized as follows:
FIFA, by unilaterally and discretionally imposing an international match calendar and, more specifically, a new competition entitled “FIFA Club World Cup 2025”, violates the rights that workers and trade unions derive from the CFREU and EU competition law ? More specifically, does the unilateral imposition of such decisions on players violate the right under Article 28 of the CFREU for such players to collectively bargain terms and conditions of employment, through their unions?
Relevant in this case is the “Diarra v FIFA” case, in which the European Court of Justice is expected to issue a ruling in the coming months. FIFPRO Europe (which joined the proceedings together with Lassana Diarra) argues that the regulation of the professional football labor market must result from collective agreements between the social partners and not from the unilateral imposition by FIFA of a “transfer system “fundamentally incompatible with freedom of work and human dignity
The member unions of FIFPRO Europe are represented before the Commercial Court in Brussels by the law firm Dupont-Hissel.
The appeal asks the Belgian Court to refer four questions to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. The four questions concern:
Whether the rights guaranteed to workers and their trade unions by the EU Charter of Rights, in particular Articles 5, 15, 28 and 31, prohibit FIFA from scheduling the 2025 Club World Cup at a time that traditionally represents the “ window” in which players could take an annual break and against the formal representations of the players/workers unions.
Whether the unilateral imposition of such decisions on players violates the rights under Article 28 of the Charter for such players to collectively bargain their terms and conditions of employment.
Whether the right to healthy working conditions, guaranteed by Article 28, is violated by FIFA’s decision to impose a significant additional workload through the 2025 Club World Cup.
Whether FIFA’s unilateral decisions regarding the calendar of international matches and the 2025 Club World Cup give rise to “restrictions of competition” within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU”.
At the bottom of the press release, the statements of David Terrier, president of FIFPRO Europe: “Since all attempts at dialogue have failed, it is now up to us to ensure that the fundamental rights of the players are fully respected, bringing the matter before the European courts and therefore to the European Court of Justice. It is not about stigmatizing a particular competition, but about denouncing both the underlying problem and the straw that broke the camel’s back.”
