EUR-Charts

Suggested solution:

a) If the rule of the football association remains the same (limitation of the number of non-EU/EEA nationals), then there is no problem and thus also no issue under EU law.

Should the rule limit the number of non-Spanish EU-nationals who can be fielded, then there is a problem that has to be assessed in the light of Art. 45 TFEU and Art. 7 of Regulation 492/2011/EU on equal treatment in relation to employment. These provisions apply because the footballer in question is a worker within the meaning of the Court’s definition in Lawrie-Blum and because the case involves a cross-border situation. Not relevant in this type of case is Directive 2004/38/EC, since the case does not involve the movement or residence of the worker or his or her family members.

More generally, note that it will depend on the circumstances of an individual case whether the footballer is a worker (Art. 45 TFEU) or a service provider (Art. 56 TFEU). In cases concerning sports other than team sports, Art. 56 TFEU will usually be relevant.

[Relevant Charts: Chapter 8, in particular Chart 8/40, further Chart 8/49]

b) The case concerns the right to market access (which includes the right to equal treatment in this market). The type of infringement at issue is discrimination on grounds of nationality. The case involves direct discrimination on grounds of nationality, since it involves unequal treatment of a non-Spanish citizen explicitly because of his nationality of another Member State.

[Relevant Charts: Chapter 8, in particular Chart 8/42]

c) Direct discrimination on grounds of nationality can be justified on the basis of the derogation grounds mentioned in Art. 45(3) TFEU only. No other derogation grounds are available. Note: the protection of human rights has been accepted as an imperative requirement (objective justification) by the Court in the context of restrictions of the free movement of goods.

[Relevant Charts: Chapter 8, in particular Charts 8/42 and 8/36]

[V.1.2]