The article is devoted to a comparative analysis of three key approaches to legal regulation of the status of professional athletes used in foreign jurisdictions: the priority of labor law, the priority of civil law and the hybrid approach. In the context of the growing commercialization of sports and the need for effective legal regulation, the author evaluates these approaches based on the legislation and case law of Germany, Switzerland and Japan, identifying their advantages and disadvantages for ensuring the rights of athletes and adapting them to the specifics of professional sports. The approach based on the primacy of labor law, which is typical for Germany, considers the relationship between athletes and sports organizations as an employment relationship. This guarantees athletes social insurance, paid vacations, protection from unjustified dismissal, and the right to collective bargaining. Meanwhile, this can limit the autonomy of athletes, as they are subject to the internal rules of clubs or federations, losing some of their freedom to choose the terms of cooperation. The civil law primacy approach, common in Switzerland, classifies relationships with athletes as civil law, in particular through service agreements. This allows for greater flexibility and independence in determining the terms of cooperation, allowing athletes to enter into individual agreements. However, the lack of employment guarantees, such as social security or compensation in case of injury, may leave athletes vulnerable to unforeseen circumstances. The hybrid approach used in Japan combines elements of labor and civil law, adapting to the cultural characteristics and specifics of sports. It allows a flexible response to the needs of different disciplines, but requires clear classification criteria. The analysis shows that the choice of the optimal model depends on a number of factors: the sport, the level of professionalization, economic conditions and cultural traditions. None of the models is universal, as each has its own strengths and weaknesses. The study is based on a comparison of regulations and court precedents, which allows us to formulate practical recommendations for improving the regulatory framework.
O. S. Nesterovych (Tue,) studied this question.