The legal background of the conflict between the FFF and the LFP

Understanding the dispute between the LFP and the FFF requires addressing:

- the respective prerogatives of the LFP Board of Directors and the FFF Executive Committee;

- its legal foundations;

- the legal problems posed to the Council of State.

On July 9, 2015, the Board of Directors of the Professional Football League (LFP) endorsed its decision, voted on May 21, 2015, to go from three annual climbs and three descents, between Ligue 1 and Ligue 2, to only two: “meeting on July 9, 2015, the LFP Board of Directors confirmed its decision of May 21, 2015, to switch to two ascents and two descents between Ligue 1 and Ligue 2 at the end of the 2015-2016 season, and to modify article 511 of its regulations accordingly.”

This decision is part of a desire to encourage investments, which are supposed to be less risky, in the presence of only two relegations per season. On July 23, 2015, the Executive Committee of the French Football Federation (FFF) amended the decision of the LFP Board of Directors, by depriving it of any effect, because it was “contrary to the best interests of football and, in any event, to the statutes and regulations”.

On July 25, 2015, the LFP, through its president, Frédéric THIRIEZ, announced its desire to initiate, in summary proceedings, for excess of power before the Council of State. On July 27, 2015, the Office of Referrals of the Council of State affirmed that “the LFP has successfully submitted its request and the decision will be taken on August 13 from 10:00am”. The Union of Professional Football Clubs (UCPF), an employer organization created in 1990 in order, in particular, to represent professional football employers, is joining the interim measure initiated by the LFP. Understanding the dispute requires answering several questions: what are the prerogatives of the FFF Executive Committee? What are the responsibilities of the LFP Board of Directors? On what legal grounds does the FFF reform the decision of the LFP Board of Directors? Why is the Council of State competent to resolve this dispute? What are the legal problems posed to the Council of State?

Five points must therefore be addressed:

- the prerogatives of the FFF Executive Committee (1);

- the responsibilities of the LFP Board of Directors (2);

- the legal bases for the decision of the FFF Executive Committee to reform the decision of the LFP Board of Directors (3);

- the principles governing the competence of the Council of State for the resolution of this dispute (4);

the legal problems raised by the Council of State (5).

The prerogatives of the FFF Executive Committee

Title 2 of the FFF's statutes, entitled “administration and operation”, states, in its preamble, that the FFF includes three bodies that contribute to its administration and operation: the Federal Assembly, the Executive Committee and the High Authority for Football: the Federal Assembly, the Executive Committee and the High Authority for Football

The prerogatives of the Executive Committee are set out in article 18 of the FFF statutes: “it decides on all issues of greater interest to football and on all cases not provided for in the statutes or regulations”.

The third paragraph of this article states that the Executive Committee “shall consider requests for revocation in accordance with the provisions of article 13 of the rules of procedure”. The reformation of a decision therefore requires the initiation of a request for revocation, a procedure subject to article 13 of the FFF's internal regulations, which refers to article 199 of the FFF General Regulations.

Article 199 of the FFF General Regulations states that the request for revocation must be sent to the Secretariat of the Executive Committee “within a maximum of ten days, following the date of notification or publication of the contested final decision”. In this case, on 16 July 2015, a request for revocation was sent to the secretariat of the FFF Executive Committee following the decision, dated 9 July 2015, of the LFP Board of Directors. On 23 July 2015, the FFF Executive Committee decided on this request by invoking article 5 of the Agreement concluded between the FFF and the LFP, the purpose of this agreement, pursuant to Article L.132-1 of the Sports Code, to delegate the management of professional football to the LFP: “With the exception of disciplinary decisions, the Executive Committee may take action, in accordance with Article 13 of the Internal Regulations of the FFF, in order to possibly reform them, of all decisions taken by the Assembly and by the elected or appointed bodies of the LFP, which he would consider contrary to the best interests of football or to the statutes and regulations”.

Consequently, under the above provisions, the Executive Committee is entitled to reform a decision of the LFP Board of Directors if it considers it contrary to the best interests of football or to the statutes and regulations.

The responsibilities of the LFP Board of Directors

Article 24 of the LFP statutes sets out, but is not limited to, the duties of the LFP Board of Directors: to ensure respect for the legality and application of the statutes and regulations of the League; to establish the internal regulations of the League in order to propose them for adoption by the General Assembly and to establish the administrative regulations of the League and to establish the administrative regulations of the League and the regulations of the competitions it organizes etc. Article 24 of the statutes of the LFP thus provides, explicitly the ability for the LFP Board of Directors to establish the regulations of competitions that it organizes. However, in this case, the Board of Directors, meeting on May 21 and July 9, 2015, amended article 511 of its competition regulations, contained in the provisions relating to the French Ligue 1 and Ligue 2 Championships.

Before this modification, paragraph 1 of article 511 of this regulation provided that “at the end of the season, the last three in Ligue 1 are relegated. The top three players in Ligue 2 are promoted provided that they meet the conditions for participation in Ligue 1 set out in Title 1 of the administrative regulations”. Consequently, the LFP Board of Directors does not exceed its prerogatives by modifying article 511 of the competition regulations insofar as article 24 of its statutes allows it to do so. The legal bases for the decision of the FFF Executive Committee to reform the decision of the LFP Board of Directors, after recalling its prerogatives, set out above, the FFF Executive Committee invokes the decision of the FFF Federal Assembly of 20 June 2015 which provides for a “revision of the number of ascents and descents between Ligue 2 and the National, starting with the 2016/2017 season”. As a reminder, under article 11 of the FFF's statutes, the FFF Federal Assembly “decides, on the proposal of the Executive Committee, on all questions relating to competitions managed by the L.F.P. and affecting the best interests of football and the Federation's sports policy”.


The FFF Executive Committee relies on eight legal arguments to reform the decision of the LFP Board of Directors dated 9 July 2015: the principle of non-retroactivity of regulatory decisions insofar as they take place after the start of the 2015/2016 season; the principle of equality before the law enshrined in article 6 of the 1789 Declaration of Human and Citizen Rights in that the methods by which it was adopted promote only clubs in Ligue 1 and in that this decision was taken at the expense of clubs of Ligue 2; the principle of legal certainty enshrined in article 16 of the Declaration of Human and Citizen's Rights of 1789 in that it does not necessarily provide for a transitional measure since the 2015/2016 season has already begun and has an immediate and irremediable impact on the situation of Ligue 2 clubs; the decision of the FFF Federal Assembly dated 20 June 2015; the fact that the decision of the Board of Directors of LFP is based on the purely financial interests of Ligue 1 clubs only, while the Council of State considers that it is up to the LFP to act “in the general interest of these competitions”, namely “the Ligue 1 championship and the Ligue 2 championship”, the non-compliance of this decision with article 6 of the LFP statutes in that it does not defend the material and moral interests of professional football as a whole; the non-compliance of this decision with article 24 of the LFP statutes which provide that the Council of Administration of the LFP must respect the “social purpose” of the League, “legality” and “the application of the statutes” and League regulations”; and, the non-compliance with article 1 of the FFF statutes in that it tends to break the link between Ligue 1 and Ligue 2 clubs, between the FFF and the LFP and between professional football and amateur football. The FFF Executive Committee concludes by considering the decision of the LFP Board of Directors “contrary to the best interests of football and, in any event, to the statutes and regulations”.

Consequently, the sanction is the reformation of the decision of the LFP Board of Directors, which results in the deprivation of any effect of the decision, and not its cancellation, a legal sanction involving the retroactive annihilation of a legal act.

The principles governing the competence of the Council of State for the resolution of this dispute

Under article L. 131-14 of the Sports Code, in each sports discipline, only one approved sports federation receives delegation from the Minister in charge of sports, the purpose of the sports federations being “the organization of the practice of one or more sports disciplines” (article L. 131-1 of the Sports Code). In terms of football, only the FFF has the delegation of the Minister in charge of Sports. While the acts of simply approved national federations are private in nature, subject to the judicial judge, the delegated sports federations, although they are legal persons governed by private law, participate directly in the performance of a public administrative service because of the mission of organizing competitions that has been entrusted to them. The administrative judge is therefore competent in the presence of a dispute concerning decisions taken by delegated sports federations in the context of their public service mission of organizing competitions when they reveal the use of public authority prerogatives (CE, Sect., November 22, 1974, “Fédération des industries française d'articles de sport” (FIFAS), No. 89828; CE, Sect., December 19, 1980, “Hechter c/ Groupement” of professional football”, no. 11320).

Once the jurisdiction of the administrative judge has been established, it is appropriate to address the distribution of jurisdiction of first instance within the administrative order between the administrative courts and the Council of State, this distribution being of public order, which means that the parties to the dispute cannot derogate from it. Under the fourth paragraph of article R. 311-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice, the Council of State is competent to hear as a first and last resort “appeals against the administrative decisions of collegial bodies with national jurisdiction.” In this case, sports federations are considered to be collegial bodies with national jurisdiction. Consequently, the Council of State is competent to rule, as a first and last resort, on the dispute between the FFF and the LFP.

The legal problems posed to the Council of State

Interim proceedings, or emergency procedures, were created by Act No. 2000-597 of 30 June 2000.In this case, attention should be paid to the summary proceedings brought, namely the summary suspension, provided for in article L. 521-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice, according to which: “When an administrative decision, even one of rejection, is the subject of an application for annulment or reformation, the summary proceedings judge seized, of an application to this effect, may order the suspension of the execution of this decision, or of some of its effects, when the urgency justifies it and It refers to a means capable of creating, in the current state of investigation, serious doubt as to the legality of the decision”. The Council of State may therefore suspend the FFF's decision if: the request to the administrative judge to cancel or amend the administrative decision is prior or simultaneous; the urgency is justified; there is a serious doubt as to the legality of the decision exists; and the decision has not been fully implemented. In the present case, the first condition is met insofar as the request for annulment was sent to the Council of State through the appeal for excess of power, which is a contentious appeal for the annulment of an administrative act. With regard to the condition of justification of urgency, it could be considered as fulfilled in view of the characterization, by the Council of State, of the emergency situation in the presence of sports regulations adopted by the federations (CE, 1 February 2001, “Association hockey club de Brest les Albatros”, no. 229355). It is, however, difficult to anticipate the decision of the interim relief judge based on previous case law insofar as it assesses the emergency condition in light of the immediate impact of the contested decision on the situation and interests of the applicant. The third condition, relating to the demonstration of the existence of a serious doubt as to the legality of the decision, is the keystone of this dispute: it should determine the outcome of the dispute.

It is commonly accepted that serious doubt is not created when the disciplinary body applies federal regulations: this is particularly the case when the federation decides to replay a match interrupted by projectile throws on the field (CE, ord. Ref., October 10, 2005, “Maximoise Sports Association”, no. 285276). However, an application for the suspension of a penalty for a lost match was granted by a summary judge, on the ground that the plea alleging that the penalty should be imposed simply because the referee had considered that the playing field was feasible, was such as to create serious doubt as to the legality of the contested decision (EC, 13 December 2006, “Fédération française de football”, no. 292245). Finally, it will be up to the Council of State to rule on the absence of total execution of the FFF decision. Consequently, the outcome of the dispute is essentially based on the demonstration by the LFP of the urgency and the existence of serious doubt as to the legality of the decision of the FFF Executive Committee. Whatever the outcome of the dispute, there will be only one loser: the image of French football.

Source: Legavox.fr [/column]