Tommaso Galli

Titolo professionale

Il corso post laurea è strutturato in moduli teorici e pratici e fornisce una formazione giuridica, specializzante e professionalizzante, sia teorica sia pratica, nell’ambito del diritto sportivo. Il programma ha approfondito l’ordinamento sportivo nazionale e internazionale, la contrattualistica, la fiscalità, la giustizia sportiva e le responsabilità civili e penali. Ho acquisito competenze operative su contratti, procedimenti disciplinari e gestione giuridica delle attività sportive.

Pubblicazione legale

Il contributo, dopo una breve ricostruzione storica della disciplina della figura dell’agente sportivo FIFA, offre un approfondimento del FIFA Football Agent Regulations recentemente introdotto dalla FIFA e delle sue norme più controverse, analizzando le principali (e diverse) decisioni adottate dai giudici di tutta Europa alla conformità di tali norme al diritto della concorrenza.

Titolo professionale

Attestato di partecipazione al corso in materia di safeguading nello sport

Titolo professionale

Attestato di partecipazione al corso in materia di safeguading nello sport

Pubblicazione legale

Is it legitimate to include a clause, in a football employment contract, that entitles the player to receive a percentage of their future transfer fee? Would such a clause violate Article 18ter of the FIFA RSTP on Third-Party Ownership (TPO)? I recently assisted a young footballer in signing his first professional contract. During the negotiations, the Club raised this exact question when we requested the inclusion of such a clause. 🟢 Spoiler: YES, it is legitimate. A club and a player can validly agree that, in the event of a future transfer to another club, the player will receive a specific amount of compensation, whether as a lump sum or a percentage. In fact, in 2018, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee, in the cases involving SV Werder Bremen, Panathinaikos FC, CSD Colo-Colo, and Club Universitario de Deportes, ruled that such amounts promised to players constitute part of the remuneration due under their employment contracts. As a result: a player cannot be considered a “third party” in relation to their own future transfer; Therefore, such clauses do not violate FIFA’s rules on third-party ownership of players’ economic rights. The Committee emphasized that it is mainly the player who, through their work, effort, perseverance, and daily discipline, attracts the interest of other clubs — thus generating their own surplus value and development. Following these decisions, the definition of “third party” in the FIFA RSTP was amended in 2019, clarifying that a player must not be considered a third party for the purposes of Definition 14 and Article 18ter of the RSTP. ⚖️ As a result, my client now has a share in the value of his future transfer — fully compliant with FIFA regulations 📈

Pubblicazione legale

In football loan agreements, it is quite common to find clauses aimed at encouraging (or influencing?) the loaning club to field the player in a minimum number of matches throughout the season. 📈 Indeed, the loan system is designed to foster the development of players—especially young ones—and these clauses are often intended to preserve (or enhance) the player’s market value But are such clauses valid from the perspective of the FIFA Regulations? According to FIFA's judicial bodies, the answer is not straightforward. ✋🏻 Clubs must bear in mind that the parent club is not entitled to impose measures or conditions on the loaning club to secure the player's development. In other words, the loaning club must have full independence in "employment and transfer-related matters" and the player’s playing conditions must be entirely at their discretion. But what happens in practice? The FIFA Disciplinary Committee has held that it is prohibited—under Article 18bis of the FIFA RSTP—to include a penalty clause in a loan agreement that obliges the loaning club to financially compensate the parent club if the player fails to appear in a minimum number of matches. Such a clause effectively compels the loaning club to field the player regardless of sporting rationale thus undermining its autonomy. 💰Conversely, clauses providing for a performance bonus—to be paid by the parent club to the loaning club—if the player appears in a certain number of matches are considered compliant with Article 18bis. An interesting case in this regard is Arsenal FC v Cork City FC (FIFA Disciplinary Committee, 23 July 2020), where the parties agreed on both a fixed loan fee and a variable performance fee, calculated based on the number of appearances. The Committee ruled that the prospect of a reduced fee in the event of fewer appearances constitued an incentive, rather than undue influence. So, the question remains: where is the line between a legitimate incentive and prohibited influence? If a penalty clause infringes Article 18bis by constraining the loaning club's decision-making, why wouldn't a bonus clause have the same effect, especially if the club is facing financial difficulties? Can we always assume that such decisions will be made solely on sporting grounds? From my personal experience, I would say that we cannot...