EU lawyer: “Superlega, UEFA can sanction clubs that set it up”
[ad_1]
The conclusions filed by Advocate General Athanasios Rantos on the Super League follow the path of EU rules and clarify that the rules of FIFA and UEFA, while requiring prior authorization for any new competition, are compatible with EU competition law. The supporter clubs of the Superlega are free to set up their own independent football competition, but cannot simultaneously continue to participate in football competitions organized by FIFA and UEFA without the consent of the latter.
The monopoly of UEFA and Fifa
The Fédération internationale de football association, a Swiss private law body, is the world executive body of football whose purpose is to promote football and organize its international competitions. Similarly, UEFA, a Swiss private law entity, on the European side. Fifa and UEFA hold the monopoly for the authorization and organization of international professional football competitions in Europe. Following the announcement of the establishment of the Super League (“whose project consists in organizing the first annual European closed or semi-open football competition”), FIFA and UEFA published a statement in which they expressed their refusal to recognize this new entity and warned that any player or club participating in the new competition would be expelled.
The legal question
The European Super League Company, a company incorporated under Spanish law made up of prestigious European football clubs, deeming that the behavior of FIFA and UEFA must be classified as anti-competitive and incompatible with EU competition law as well as with the provisions of the FEU Treaty relating to the fundamentals, she turned to the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Madrid. In turn, this judge asked the Court to rule on compliance with EU law and in particular with the provisions relating to competition law (Articles 101 and 102 of the FEU Treaty) as well as with fundamental freedoms (Articles 45, 49, 56 and 63 of the FUE Treaty) of the FIFA and UEFA statutes.
The Advocate General’s Proposals
In his opinion on case C-333/21, in any case non-binding, Advocate General Athanasios Rantos proposes that the Court answer the questions brought to its attention on the restrictions on the freedom of competition, on the possibility that FIFA and Uefa or the federations or national leagues threaten sanctions against affiliated clubs intending to participate in new competitions and on the rules that assign FIFA and UEFA the exclusive marketing of rights relating to international competitions, clarifying that “this model is legitimate as it is inherent and proportionate to the achieve the legitimate objectives related to the specificity of sport that UEFA and FIFA pursue”.
European sport
The Advocate General therefore reiterates the specificity of sport, included in Article 165 TFEU by the Treaty of Lisbon, as it is linked to a “European sporting model”, characterized by a pyramidal structure with, at its base, amateur sport and, at the top, professional sport, in order to promote open competitions, accessible to all by virtue of a transparent system in which promotion and relegation maintain a competitive balance and favor sporting merit. Finally, the latter is based on a financial solidarity regime, which allows the redistribution and reinvestment of the revenues generated by events and activities, from the top to the lower levels of sport.
Article 165 TFEU aims to highlight the particular social and educational nature of sport, capable of justifying a difference in treatment under competition law of the sporting sector with respect to the general provisions of articles 101 and 102 TFEU which apply to any activity economic. The Advocate General points out that the mere fact that the same body simultaneously performs the functions of regulator and organizer of sporting competitions does not in itself imply an infringement of EU competition law.
[ad_2]
Source link
