Newsletter-21

409 MISCELLANEOUS by the Chamber may be appealed at the Court of Sports Arbitration (“CAS”), the CAS rejected the appeal filed by Galatasaray 2 . Future of FFP Rules The FFP Rules are highly discussed in both the sports and the economic world. In particular, the anti-competition effects of these rules are criticized; for example, a challenge brought by football play- ers’ agent, Daniel Striani, and fan groups linked to Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain against the UEFA’s FFP Rules in 2013. The claimants argued that these rules did not comply with the EU Compe- tition Law because the FFP Rules may: • restrict investment in a club by no longer allowing them to operate at a loss, • lock in the power of the already wealthy clubs that have losses supported by a wealthy owner, • cause reductions of the transfer amounts and of the number of players under contract per club, and also the deflation- ary effect on the level of players’ salaries that may block the competition, • affect the ability to earn agent fees from players’ wages and transfer fees 3 . The Court of First Instance in Belgium imposed an interim or- der blocking the FFP Rules, and referred the case brought by several claimants to the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) 4 . The UEFA ap- pealed the decision, and the ECJ rejected the case against the UEFA, and decided on the continuation of implementing the FFP Rules 5 . 2 Please see: http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release_4492. pdf (access date: 06.12.2016). 3 Please see: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/may/06/agent-legal-threat- uefa-financial-fair-play (access date: 06.12.2016). 4 Please see: http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/33240826 (access date: 06.12.2016). 5 Please see: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jul/22/eu-supreme-court- rejects-ffp-challenge-uefa (access date: 06.12.2016).