Players unhappy with the new Irish Rugby Football Union limits could well have the law on their side, writes lawyer Niall Collins in the Irish Independent.
"The IRFU's policy change appears designed to provide young Irish players with more opportunities and to ensure that the national team has at least two suitably experienced players in each position. However, the changes raise real, but not novel, questions of EU free movement law and employment and equality law.
"Direct and indirect discrimination -- based on the nationality of workers of EU member states, as regards their employment, remuneration and other conditions of work -- are prohibited under Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
"A directly discriminatory restriction is one which relies on nationality as the basis for disadvantageous treatment. This can only be justified under specific derogations based on considerations of public policy, public security and public health.
"An indirectly discriminatory restriction is one which has the effect of discriminating on the grounds of nationality, as opposed to having the object of so doing. Such measures can only be justified under derogation or where there are objective considerations independent of nationality, which are proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued by the rule and are reasonable and necessary. This is evident from EU cases such as Walrave & Koch, Donà v Mantero and Bosman. The issue of discrimination on the grounds of nationality was front and centre in the debate surrounding the legality of FIFA's so-called 6+5 rule, which received a negative assessment from the EU Commission and which was subsequently abandoned, and UEFA's home-grown player rule, which was given the green light by the Commission.
"More recent EU decisions in Kolpak and Simutenkov effectively extend the scope of Article 45 to non-EU nationals, through the existence of international association agreements between the EU and non-EU countries."
RSS feed
