Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association ASBL v Jean-Marc Bosman (1995) C-415/93 (known as the Bosman ruling)[1] is a 1995 European Court of Justice decision concerning freedom of movement for workers, freedom of association, and direct effect of article 39[2] (now article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) of the Treaty of Rome.

The case was an important decision on the free movement of labour and had a profound effect on the transfers of footballers—and by extension players of other professional sports—within the European Union (EU).

[5] He took his case to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg and sued for restraint of trade, citing FIFA's rules regarding football, specifically Article 17.

Nor is that conclusion negated by the case-law of the Court cited by URBSFA and UEFA, to the effect that Article 30 of the Treaty does not apply to measures which restrict or prohibit certain selling arrangements so long as they apply to all relevant traders operating within the national territory and so long as they affect in the same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of domestic products and of those from other Member States (see Joined Cases C-267/91 and C-268/91 Keck and Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097, paragraph 16).

It is sufficient to note that, although the rules in issue in the main proceedings apply also to transfers between clubs belonging to different national associations within the same Member State and are similar to those governing transfers between clubs belonging to the same national association, they still directly affect players'access to the employment market in other Member States and are thus capable of impeding freedom of movement for workers.

They cannot, thus, be deemed comparable to the rules on selling arrangements for goods which in Keck and Mithouard were held to fall outside the ambit of Article 30 of the Treaty (see also, with regard to freedom to provide services, Case C-384/93 Alpine Investments v Minister van Financiën [1995] ECR I-1141, paragraphs 36 to 38).

But even if that were so, application of those rules would still have to be such as to ensure achievement of the aim in question and not go beyond what is necessary for that purpose (see, inter alia, the judgment in Kraus, cited above, paragraph 32, and Case C-55/94 Gebhard [1995] ECR I-0000, paragraph 37).Prior to the Bosman ruling, professional clubs in some parts of Europe (but not, for example, in Spain and France) were able to prevent players from joining a club in another country even if their contracts had expired.

According to a 2021 study, the Bosman ruling increased the competitiveness of national team football because it encouraged greater talent development.

Ex-Hibernian player Paul Kane became the first UK Bosman transfer, moving from Aberdeen to Norwegian side Viking Stavanger[8] in 1996.

[10] Since Davids and McManaman, scores of other notable players became able to negotiate deals according to their market value when their contracts expired, a trend that continued into the 2000s and to this day.

In 2005, UEFA declared it was seeking to repair aspects of the ruling because it was believed to be the cause of the increasing rich-poor gap between elite and smaller clubs.

The case also alludes to the fact that Alpine Investments v Minister van Financiën provides a similar test for services, and Gebhard v Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano for establishment.