1. On indirect discrimination, see, e.g., Case 152/73 Sotqiu v. Deutsche Bundespost [1974] ECR 153. On objective justification for such discrimination, see below, Part III/B/(a).
2. This should not be taken to suggest that the period up until the end of 1992 constitutes a new transitional period, during which the existing Treaty rules lapse — though cp. in this respect the concerns of Pescatore 24 CML Rev. 9–18 (1987). It is submitted that the 1992 date in this context has no formal legal significance and is instead merely a date chosen by the Commission in the exercise of its powers to enforce Community competition law.
3. The Report also considers the football transfer system unlawful: ‘[...] a latter-day version of the slave trade [...]’ On English law and the transfer system, see the leading case of Eastham v. Newcastle United [1964] Ch. 413; for a historical survey, see Grayson, Sport and the Law (Butterworths 1988) 35-7, 260-8; for analysis in the legal context, see, e.g., Treitel, The Law of Contract, 7th edn. (Stevens 1987) 349. On a separate matter, the Report also declares ‘without legal base and [...] contrary to the free movement of people’ the exclusion of English clubs from European competition as a result of the tragedy at the Heysel Stadium, Brussels in 1985. On this point, see profound analysis by Evans 102 LQR (1986)510-48.
4. Case 26/62 Van Genden Loos [1963] ECR 1 [1963] CMLR 105.
5. Case 36/74 [1974] ECR 1405, [1975] 1 CMLR 320.