High Court Of Justice: Chancery Division Before MR. JusncE WiLBERFORCE His LoRDSHIP began the Ihearing of this action by Mr. George Eastham. of Benton Park Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, profes- sional player of association football, against Newcastle United Football Club, Limted, of St. James's Park, Newcastle upon Tyne, the Football Association, Ltd.. of Lancaster Gate, London. W.2, the Football League, Ltd., of Cllifton Drive South, St. Anne's, Lytham St. Anne's. and Mr. W. E. Hurford. Mr. R. R. McKenzie. Mr. G. S. Seymour, Mr. W. B. Taylor, Mr. R. J. Rutherford, Mr. W. McKeag. and Mr Charles Mitten, all of St James's Park, Newcastle upon Tyne. The plaintiff claims against Newcastle United Football Club. Ltd., a declaration that an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants of June 22, 1959. is not binding on the plaintiff as being illegal and/ or alternatively in unlawful restraint of trade; against the Football Association, Ltd., a declaration that the rules of the defendants relating to retention and transfer of professional players of football inolud- ing the plaintiff, are not binding on the plaintiff as being in unreasonable restraint of trade, and/or alternatively illegal -and/ or alternatively ultra vires; against the Football League. Ltd., a declaration that the regulations of the defendants rclating to retention and transfer of players of pro- fessional football, including the plaintiff. are not binding on the plaintiff as being in unreasonable restraint of trade and/oralter- natively illegal and/or alternatively ultra vires. Against Mr. Hurford. Mr. McKcnzie, Mr. Seymour, Mr. Rutherford and Mr. McKeag the plaintiff olaims a declaration that their refusal 'to release the plaintiff from the retention list of Newcastle United Football Club or alternatively to place the plaintiff on the transfer list was unreason- able and ultra vires: and against those defendants (directors of Newcastle United Football C4ulb) and Mr. Mitten (its mana- ger) he claims damages for conspiracy. Mr. Gerald Gardinter, Q.C., and Mr. Dopugias Lowe appear for the plaintiff; Sir E. Milner Holland, Q.C., and Mr. A. C. Sparrow for Newcastle United Football Club Ltd., and for the personal defen- dants: Mr Raymond Walton, Q.C., and Mr. Midhael Fox for the Football Associa- tion, Ltd., and Mr. E. I. Goulding, Q.C., and Mr. S. L. Newcombe for the Football League, Ltd. RETAIN, TRANSFER AND TERMS MR. GARDINER said that the action was a test action to obtain a determination of the question whether the retain and transfer system operated by the Football League and its member clubs was in accordance with law or contrary to law, and whether the general terms on which professional footballers were cmployed in England were in accordance with law or-as the plaintiff contended-were illegal, void and ultra vires. "It is submitted on behalf of Mr. East- ham tha.t they are terms which contain suoh restraints on the ability of professional footballers to earn the livolihood as-and here I borrow a phrase of a member of Parliament-would have been rejected with scorm by any intelligent apprentice in the Middle Ages." Counsel said that in this trade-this case was concerned only with commercial foot- ball and a professional footballer was a skilled worker-all the employers had com- bined into a number of rings. The two con- centric rings in this case were the Foot- ball Association and the Football League. which embraced a number of professional football clubs. The association was the governing authority for the game in England. The league's representatives on the board of the association were small in number, but in Practice this was a case where the tail wagged the dog. The reason was that the money in football nearly all came from the, Football League. Professional footballers were faced with the interlocking rings of the association and the league, which imposed upon them the situation in which when they got employ- ment in England. they had to enter into a standard form of contract. The contract imposed rigorous conditions as to the extent to which the footballers must obey orders, living where they were told to live and so on. It had also imposed a maximum wage. and it was not possible to obtain a con- tract of employment for a longer period than 15 months. No complaint would be made about those matters if they stood alone. There was also the registration system. Every professional footballer had to be registered, and he could not play for a club in respect of which he had not been registered. THE RING Another point was the retainer system. Under the ring a club who last employed a player had a right to say whether they retained him Unless the club were pre- pared to transfer him, he was bound to keep with the same employer whether he wanted to or not. or whether or not another club wanted him. because the rings would put out of business any other employer who employed him. It might be said that he could go elsewhere, but similar rings operated in Scotland. Wales. and Ireland. Another characteristic was the transfer system. It would be unthinkable that, for example, a watchmaker could sell his skilled watch repairer 'like a chattel. But football transfer fees had been as high as more than ?100,000, and the average life of a footballer was something like seven years in a trade where there was the risk of accidents. It was Mr. East-ham's case that in English law once his employment was over he was under no obligation other than such res- traints as were necessary for the protection of his employer. These restraints could relate to no more than the protection of trade secrets and the prevention of canvass- ing of customers. The legal restraints certainly could not cover competition and certainly not prevent an employee making use of training or skill he had acquired in his previous employment. In addition to the claim against the association and league that these powers were illegal, there was a claim against the Newcastle United directors adleging conspiracy. That was only an agreement to do something un.lawful or to do some- thing lawful b-y unlawful meanrs, remernber- ing always the conspiracy was to dominate with the object of or in contemplation oE injiury to the plaintiff. It was submitted that there was a conspiracy on either or both footin,gs. MR. EASTFAM Counsel said that in 1952 at -the age of 16 Eastham played for Ards in Northem Ireland. Once you signed a contract you were tied to the ring for life.' as far as commercial footbaU was concerned. Eastham was transferred in 1956,to New- castle United for ?9,000 and during the next three years gradually became unhappy. By the end of 1959 Eastham had married and had a child and wanted to live in the south. His request for a transfer was refused. When the 1959 contract came to an end on June 30, 1960, he was placed on the retained list The clubs cannot make a Player re-sign a new contract and players are at liberty to refuse to sign on again. Owing to the ring. no club could employ him again. He took a job in the south of England outside football as he refused to go on working in Newcastle. He appealed to' the Football League against the refusal to put him on the transfer list Of course a player was not likely to get much change out of the league under the rules. He was told that he had appealed under the wrong rule. When he again appealed under the rules. the rule was one under which the league was bound to adjudicate. The league just did not adjudicate on the appeal. The writ was issued in October, 1960. And the action was maintained by the Players Union. Players were not members of either the Football League or the Football Associa- tion, but for certain purposes they were called members. In the form of agreement they undemtook to observe the rules of the association and league. Either 'hody could impose fines or suspension and prevent a footballer earning a living. The league or association sat as a fiorm of court martial, and one form of misconduct for which a player could be punished was for taking legal proceedings against his employer. George Eastham never re-signed for Newcastle United and was transferred to Arsenal for a fee of ?47,500 and he had accepted em!ployment with that clubr. A player could be sold by cl,ubs for first ?9,000 and then ?45,000, and perhaps ?100.000. "PAID SLAVES" Counsel.-I regard this as a system from the Middle Ages. It is really treating men like cattle, and really the position is that they are paiid slaves. Transfer fees paid are more than a player can earn during the whole of his playing life. It is rather like transferring shares in a company, or any other inanimate property. Counsel said that the Football Associa- tion 'had done a power of good for amateur football and footbailers and everyone hoped that they would lons continue to do so. Counsel said it was strenuously contested by the defendants that the restrictions complained of went any further than was reasonably necessary. The hearing, whiah is expected to last for more than a fortnight, was adjourned. Solicitors.-Messrs. Bower, Cotton & Bower: Messrs. Harris, Cbetham & Co.; Messrs. Johnson, Weatherall & Sturt; Messrs. Doyle, Devonshire & Co. HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE: CHANCERY DIVISION FOOTBALL LEAGUE SYSTEM: TEST ACTION EASTHAM v. NEWCASTLE UNITED FOOTBALL CLUB. LIMITED and i OTHERS