The Hague Court of Appeal recently ruled that an amateur footballer was in an employment relationship with the association he played for. The footballer had undertaken towards the association to play football for that association for a certain period of time (to labour to perform) and the association had committed to the footballer to pay compensation for the work performed (pay). There was also talk of a employment relationship. According to the court, the internal regulations and the club's values and standards policy left no doubt that the footballer had to follow his trainer's instructions. In addition, he was obliged to participate in training sessions.
The existence of the employment relationship towards the football club is not affected by the fact that the football club had placed the management of its staff in a foundation.
The footballer invoked, among other things, a ruling in which the Central Appeals Council (CRvB) ruled in 2013 that playing football at an amateur club did not constitute work in economic activities. That case concerned an ex-pro footballer, who was receiving unemployment benefit. This ex-pro played and trained at an amateur club, and the CRvB ruled that this was not work in the course of trade, which jeopardised the WW benefit. However, according to the court, this was a question of both fact and law that was different from whether an employment relationship existed for wage and income tax purposes.
The footballer also referred to the Besluit beleidsregels beoordeling dienstbetrekking, which states that in non-profit organisations, a relationship of authority is usually not assumed because the management of these organisations is often in the hands of volunteers and the organisation is not sufficiently professional to provide substantive guidance. The Court ruled that the existence of an employer-employee relationship does not require that the management of the association give or can give directions and instructions, but that this can be assigned or left to others (e.g. trainers).