足球合同中单边续约选择条款的合法性问题——来自格雷米奥案的启示

Validity of Unilateral Option Clause in Footballer's Contract:Enlightenment from the Gremio Case

单边续约条款与保留条款、选择条款一样是球员运动生命的控制机制,在性质是合同上的形成权,具有拘束球员意思自治的法效果,因而常因违反国际足联规则的基本原则而被认定无效。然而,格雷米奥案是最近的一起国际体育仲裁院裁定单边续约条款具有合法性的案例,本案的法律推理过程,重申了国际体育仲裁院在单边选择条款合法性判断上的个案审查义务,凸显其审慎地维持着合同稳定性与球员自由流动之间的平衡。本案的裁决产生了戏剧性效果:俱乐部虽然赢得了在单边续约选择条款合法性判断上的支持,但是却未因此获得任何违约赔偿,成为一场零和游戏。本案带给俱乐部、球员和足球主管机构的启示是,当事人应当严格按照国际足联规则所确定的合同法基本原则行事,足球主管机构应摒弃在标准球员合同中使用单边续约选择条款,同时注意对破坏合同稳定性的行为进行体育制裁。

The unilateral option clause in footballer ＇ s contract is a right of formation in its very nature, which has a binding effect on footballer＇ s autonomy and generally not accepted due to the violation of the legal framework and principle of FIFA regulations. However, the latest Gremio case is another and the second CAS-decision which CAS declared the unilateral extension option valid. The case＇ s legal reasoning process is another representation to its jurisprudence on a case by case basic when assessing the validity of the unilateral option clause and also a highlight show that CAS prudently keeps the balance on the contractual stability and player mobility. The case award creates a dramatic ＂zero sum＂ situation. The club is awarded no compensation despite of option extension clause is found to be valid and binding by CAS. The lessons are that players and clubs should fully abide by the legal principle and framework of FIFA regulations, and for football authority concerned they should avoid use the unilateral option clause when drafting a standard player contract and give the appropriate sport sanctions when contractual stability is compromised.