Aufatmen im deutschen Profifußball. Das Bundesarbeitsgericht hält die Befristung von Spielerverträgen – nach wie vor

Judgment of the Mainz Labor Court
A ruling by the Mainz Labor Court dated March 19, 2015 (ref.: 3 Ca 1197/14) caused considerable excitement in professional sports, especially in the Bundesliga. We also reported on this in our blog. What happened? The Mainz labor court had upheld the lawsuit filed by goalkeeper Heinz Müller against the limitation of his existing employment contract with Bundesliga club 1. FSV Mainz 05. The labor court followed the player's opinion that the limitation of his contract was ineffective in the absence of a material reason within the meaning of the Part-Time and Fixed-Term Employment Act. The club unsuccessfully argued that such time limits were standard practice in professional sports.

Judgment of the Rhineland-Palatinate State Labor Court
As expected, the judgment of the Mainz Labor Court did not become legally binding. Rather, the club appealed and the dispute moved to the next round. And the tide actually turned. The appeal court, the Rhineland-Palatinate State Labor Court, now ruled in favor of the association (judgment of the Rhineland-Palatinate LAG dated February 17, 2016, Ref.: 4 Sa 202/15). The limitation of player contracts, which is common in professional football, is justified due to the factual reason of the “characteristic nature of the work performance” in accordance with Section 14 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 4 TzBfG.
Judgment of the Federal Labor Court
But even with this decision by the appeal court, there was still no legal certainty for the club and players and the other clubs watching this case like a hawk. The LAG Rhineland-Palatinate allowed the appeal to the Federal Labor Court, whose decision was eagerly awaited. As can be seen from press release 2/18 from the Federal Labor Court, the Federal Labor Court has now confirmed the judgment of the LAG Rhineland-Palatinate made in favor of the association. The Federal Labor Court also considered the limitation of the footballer Müller's employment contract to be effective (BAG judgment of January 16, 2018, Ref.: 7 AZR 312/16). The limitation was justified due to the nature of the work in accordance with Section 14 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 No. 4 TzBfG. In the commercialized and publicized sport of top-class football, a licensed player is expected and owed top sporting performance in interaction with the team, which he can only achieve for a limited time. This is a special feature that generally justifies a legitimate interest in limiting the employment relationship.
This means that the serious consequences feared by the clubs, comparable to those of the Bosman decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) from 1995, according to which professional football players within the EU could change clubs for free after the end of their contract, have been averted for the time being.
Further links on the topic: Press release 2/18 from the Federal Labor Court