Why did the Limburg Lions player agreement qualify as an employment contract?

The player had signed agreements for periods of one or two years since 1 August 2014. From 2016, his remuneration was €1,850 net per month, together with a car. 

In December 2022, the parties agreed that he would continue for the following season on the same terms. He then suffered a serious knee injury during a practice match in January 2023. 

The club subsequently stated that it would not renew the agreement because of the injury. It offered a substantially lower-paid assistant-coaching role instead. The player accepted that the relationship had ended but claimed employment-related payments. 

The foundation argued that sporting activities were not productive work in the employment-law sense. It also relied on its lack of profit motive. 

The court rejected those arguments. Playing, training and related activities contributed directly to the foundation’s purpose of promoting top-level handball.

The court identified a connected system of control: 

• participation in matches and training was required; 

• the club determined schedules and the organisation of activities; 

• absence and additional leave required approval; 

• performance, evaluation and progress discussions were held; 

• the contract contained payment deductions connected with absence or performance; 

• injury provisions allowed the club to prescribe rehabilitation-related obligations and alternative activities; 

• other handball activities required permission. 

The club could exercise authority through its appointed coach. It did not need to issue every instruction through the board itself. 

The player could report that he was unable to attend, after which the club could arrange another player. He could not freely select another professional to discharge his own obligations.

The contract described the payment as covering several categories of costs. However, the player’s actual sports-related expenses were far below the annual total paid. 

The club also withheld wage tax and social-security contributions and provided annual statements, earlier payslips and an employer’s statement. 

The player had a regular entitlement to monthly remuneration and did not invest in the clothing and materials supplied by the club. Restrictions prevented him from freely playing for other clubs. 

The court expressly rejected the suggestion that possible termination for poor performance was entrepreneurial risk. Losing a contract is a risk faced by many contracting parties, including employees. 

The player had also started a separate business. That did not change the character of his playing relationship on the facts before the court.

The court found successive employment contracts from August 2014. Under Article 7:668a BW, an indefinite employment contract had arisen. 

It awarded: 

• €2,068.08 gross in unpaid June 2023 salary; 

• the statutory increase and interest; 

• €6,146.79 gross as a transition payment; 

• €39,293.52 gross as fair compensation; 

• litigation costs. 

The full June salary award reflected the player’s justified expectation arising from the club’s previous practice of continued full payment during lengthy injuries. 

The fair compensation concerned unlawful termination. The player chose compensation instead of asking the court to annul the dismissal. 

For Freelancers, the judgment shows why personal expertise, a separate business or an unusual contract title cannot establish independence alone. 

For clients, including foundations and associations, it identifies practical warning signs: control over personal attendance, appraisal, sanctions, restricted outside work and remuneration that functions as salary. 

A classification file should explain: 

• who determines activities and schedules; 

• whether attendance requires permission to change; 

• whether replacement is controlled by the client or the professional; 

• how pay and expenses are calculated; 

• which commercial risks the professional actually bears; 

• whether other clients can be served; 

• how illness and termination operate; 

• whether successive contracts trigger employment-law consequences. 

The decision does not mean that every athlete, coach or paid club member is an employee. It does not make all sports rules employer authority or all expense reimbursements wages. 

It concerned this player’s contractual and practical relationship. He was not presented as an established freelance supplier, and the case should not be described as a finding of deliberate tax evasion. 

Its wider value for a freelance misclassification catalogue lies in the treatment of control, expenses, personal performance and commercial risk. 

• Assess the working relationship regardless of the contract’s title. 

• Apply the same classification discipline to foundations and associations. 

• Separate documented expenses from payment for work. 

• Distinguish client-arranged cover from a usable substitution right. 

• Review appraisal, attendance approval and sanctions as indicators of authority. 

• Examine commercial risk beyond the possibility of losing the contract. 

• Check successive-contract rules after employment is established. 

• Review status before reducing injury payments or ending the relationship.