Athlete investment contracts, unconscionability, and consumer protection: an eu-us comparative analysis between the arce case and big league advance (bla) model

This article explores the legal and ethical implications of long-term commercial contracts involving young athletes, focusing on the recent Arce judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The ruling significantly advances the application of EU Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumers contracts within the sports ecosystem, particularly regarding the classification of “raising star” athletes as consumers and the fairness of long-term remuneration clauses. Emphasising clarity, transparency, and good faith, the Court of Justice sets important criteria for assessing such agreements, especially when minors are involved. The analysis covers the U.S. context, assessing similar investment models and the so-called Name, Image and Likeness (NIL)-based deals, with attention to the Big League Advance business model and related litigation. These cases highlight regulatory gaps on both sides of the Atlantic concerning third-party control over athlete careers. The Authors advocate for harmonised safeguards and oversight to ensure that these contracts are appropriate to support the sports development of athletes, legally sound, and ethically justifiable.