“FIFA and UEFA rules on prior authorization of club football competitions, such as the Super League, violate Union Law.” With this forcefulness, the European justice system ruled this Thursday on the legal fight that the major international football associations are maintaining against the Super League, the parallel competition project that most of the major European clubs tried to launch two years ago. “The powers of FIFA and UEFA are not subject to any criteria that guarantee their transparent, objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate nature,” says the statement from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the ruling that has been released. .
The highest community justice body defends that club football competitions and the exploitation of the rights they generate (soccer or merchandising) are, “clearly, economic activities.” “Consequently, these activities must respect the rules on competition and freedom of movement, despite the fact that sport, as an economic activity, presents certain specific characteristics, such as the existence of associations endowed with regulatory, control and sanctioning powers. ”, they continue to say.
But these “specific characteristics” must be exercised proportionally. Because “when a company in a dominant position has the power to determine under what conditions potentially competing companies can enter the market, this power, taking into account the risk of conflict of interest that it generates, must be accompanied by criteria that guarantee its transparent nature. , objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate,” he explains. “Well, the powers of FIFA and UEFA are not subject to any criteria of this nature. Consequently, FIFA and UEFA are abusing their dominant position,” they conclude emphatically.
All this explanation leads the judges to rule that “the authorization, control and sanctioning rules, given their arbitrary nature, must be classified as unjustified restrictions.” The court clarifies that since the preliminary questions posed by the commercial judge of Madrid, Manuel Ruiz de Lara, are generic, they do not clarify whether “a competition like that of the Super League project should not necessarily be authorized.” However, they are saying that the rules with which he was banned violate community law.
“We have won the right to compete. UEFA's monopoly is over. Soccer is free. Now the clubs will no longer suffer threats and sanctions. They are free to decide their own future. For fans: we are going to broadcast all Super League matches for free. For the clubs: the income of the clubs and the payments in solidarity with football are guaranteed,” declared Bernd Reichart, CEO of A22, promoter of the Super League, as soon as he learned of the ruling.
The legal battle between the Super League, currently made up of Real Madrid and Barcelona, began shortly after the project was announced in April 2021. Two days later, the Commercial Court No. 17 of Madrid issued a precautionary order to FIFA and UEFA to refrain from sanctioning the dozen clubs that made up the initial project (to the two that are still part, we must add Atlético de Madrid, Inter, Milan, Juventus, Arsenal, Liverpool, Tottenham, Chelsea, Manchester City and Manchester United) and their players. It was based on the view that both international organizations held a monopoly position and doubts as to whether the situation was compatible with Community law.
At this point, the head of the court, Manuel Ruiz de Lara, submitted six preliminary questions to the highest judicial body of the Union, the CJEU. The position taken on the case corresponded to the attorney general of the EU, a kind of advisory body of the court that rules before the judges, was then a jug of cold water for the aspirations of the Super League: “The rules of FIFA and UEFA that make the creation of any new competition subject to prior authorization are compatible with Union competition law. Taking into account the characteristics of the planned competition, the restrictive effects derived from the prior authorization system are inherent and proportionate to achieve the legitimate objectives pursued by UEFA and FIFA associated with the specific nature of the sport,” said lawyer Athanasios Rhantosbased on its interpretation of article 165 of the EU Treaty.
This position was a serious blow to the aspirations of the project led by the president of Real Madrid, Florentino Pérez. Although the opinions issued by the EU attorneys general are not binding, in the vast majority of cases the positions they issue are subsequently ratified by judges. However, a few months later, in another case about law and sport in the EU, another lawyer provided a different point of view. In the case of Antwerp against the Belgian football federation and UEFA, Polish lawyer Maciej Szpunar saw article 156 differently and concluded that based on it it cannot be justified that a private entity, any sports federation, can restrict key freedoms in the EU such as Competition. This last opinion has prevailed, seeing that in the case of Antwerp, the position of the sports federations has also been hit.
The decision of the CJEU to rule in plenary session on these two cases – plus the demand for two Dutch skaters against the International Skating Union for violating community regulations on Competition on the same day – leads one to think that this court aspires to establish the general framework in which European sport will be conducted from now on; and the scope of the role of federations. Regarding the case of the skaters, the CJEU has finally agreed with them by estimating that the sanction they received from the federation was “disproportionate.”
You can follow EL PAÍS Deportes in Facebook and xor sign up here to receive our weekly newsletter.
#European #justice #rules #FIFA #UEFA #violate #community #law #veto #soccer #Super #League