Volume 27, Issue 3 (12-2023)
Abstract
As for the buy-out clause, if the player pays the buy-out fee, he/she can terminate the contract prematurely without specifying any cause. The current research principally aims to analyze the legal nature of the buy-out clause and what are its legality conditions in FIFA regulations and Iranian law. Regarding the nature of the buy-out clause, different perspectives have been raised. From a perspective, the buy-out clause can be classified as a liquidated damage clause and is subject to prohibition of exorbitant and unfair liquidation damage provision. According to another perspective, the nature of the buy-out clause is a contractual right. The buy-out fee is in consideration for the exercise of contractual rights. Currently, the latter opinion is preferred by FIFA. Under Iranian law, basically, the nature of buy-out is valid and acceptable, but according to the Iranian Football League’s new charter of registration of employment contracts for the season 2023-2024, the use buy-out clause in the contract of Iranian players is prohibited. The findings of the present study with the analytical-descriptive approach indicate that the nature of the buy-out clause is a conditional opt-out right. Termination by this method should be deemed to be based on the parties’ (prior) consent. The player can trigger the buy-out clause and terminate his/her contractual relationship unilaterally and prematurely upon the unconditional and complete payment of the buy-out fee.
Arastoo Naeej, Faezeh Moghtadaee, Maryam Ebne-Torab,
Volume 31, Issue 4 (11-2024)
Abstract
Government intervention in employment contracts is a complex and significant issue. On one hand, freedom of contract and mutual agreement between parties are fundamental principles that support individuals' economic and social independence. On the other hand, a lack of government intervention in these contracts can lead to exploitation of workers, inadequate wages, and social inequality. In determining the optional terms of an employment contract, the principle of freedom of will prevails, allowing parties to agree on specific terms. However, for mandatory terms that are considered imperative rules, the will and agreement of the parties are not valid. Labor laws are the primary factor limiting freedom of contract in employment. Another basis for government intervention in employment contracts is the principle of justice and fairness. This principle ensures that the terms of the contract do not infringe on workers' rights and that they receive fair wages. Additionally, parties to an employment contract must adhere to good morals and religious principles, and any agreement contrary to these is void. To promote social justice, alleviate poverty, and create a balance between workers and employers in determining working conditions, the government, based on the principle of "no harm or causing harm," has enacted laws to protect workers. These laws are mandatory, and any agreement contrary to them is unenforceable. Therefore, the government, as the governing authority, plays a pivotal role in determining certain terms of employment contracts. The necessity of government intervention in setting working conditions is justifiable from both legal and religious perspectives.
