The Super League puts Fifa and Uefa on the ropes after a ruling in Spain: ‘They abused their dominant position’

UEFA and Fifa They claim “the discretion to prohibit participation in alternative competitions and impose unjustified and disproportionate restrictions”, which infringes articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)The Superior Court of Justice (TSJ) of Madrid reported this Monday.

In this way, the judge partially upholds the lawsuit presented by the ESLC, the organization that announced in 2021 the creation of a European Super Leagueagainst Uefa and Fifa, which from the first moment announced that they would exclude the clubs and players participating in the new project from their competitions.

Read here: Yoreli Rincón spoke loudly and openly about a possible veto in the National Team: ‘I cannot give up something that you are not a part of’

The court, whose sentence can be appealed before Section 28 of the Provincial Court of Madrid, orders the two governing bodies of football “to cease the sanctioned anti-competitive conduct” and prohibits “its future repetition”, in addition to condemning them “to remove “immediately all the effects of anti-competitive actions that occurred before or during the duration of this procedure, which began on April 18, 2021.”

It was then that the ESLC announced the launch of the Super League, promoted in principle by the Spanish clubs. Real Madrid, Barcelona and Atlético de Madrid, the Italians Milan, Inter Milan and Juventus and the English Liverpool, Manchester City, Chelsea, Manchester United and Tottenham.

The ruling released this Monday is in line with the resolution of the Court of Justice of the European Union to which the same court addressed, raising a preliminary ruling prior to holding the hearing.

Articles 22, 70, 71, 72 and 73 of the Fifa Statutes, article 6 of the Fifa International Matches Regulations and articles 49 and 51 of the UEFA Statutes are incompatible, the Spanish court agrees, with articles 101 and 102 of the TFEU on the legal and jurisprudential framework of the competition market in the European Union.

These articles of the TFEU are also violated by “the statements issued by Fifa, Uefa and other entities, including the federations and leagues of England, Italy and Spain, some of whose clubs were part of the project, on April 18, 2021, in relation with the pan-European international competition project,” explained the TSJ.

The ruling upholds the request of the ESLC (a private law company domiciled in Spain) “because the actions of the defendants (UEFA and FIFA) were not aimed solely at preventing the development of a certain project, but at avoiding the implementation of a third-party competitor and modification of the monopolistic system of the organization of competitions, since,” he adds, “the same defense has been maintained throughout the procedure even when the Super League project has declined or at least it has been accepted that it is not will be developed in the terms initially proposed”.

Also: ‘Juanfer’ Quintero launches enigmatic message with a farewell flavor in Racing de Argentina: future in Colombia?

This denotes, the ruling adds, “that the initial acts connected with the opposition to the modification of the competition authorization system by third-party competitors.”

The only clubs left from the initial project are Real Madrid, FC Barcelona and Porto. Although in principle it was going to be a closed competition for 20 clubs, with the founding teams, some guests and others who would be classified annually by their performance, it was later presented as an open competition, with 64 participants, promotions and relegations, and also with a women’s tournament for 32 clubs.

The ruling points out that “while the Super League, in the terms initially raised in the lawsuit, that is, according to the initial project,” has already been discarded by its promoters, “the petitions in relation to it must also decline.”

But “there is no room for imposing a prohibition or restriction in the abstract; that is, imposing a future prohibition on any other project or modification of the one already presented,” he says. “To admit otherwise would mean accepting a kind of prohibition or shielding of any football competition project that was presented by the plaintiffs, which is not acceptable.”