By: Pablo Ibañez Colomo (Chillin’ Competition)
Pablo Ibañez Colomo delivered an analysis of recent EU competition law and sports case law at the Institut d’études européennes (ULB) earlier this week during the mardis du droit de la concurrence event.
The presentation centered on three judgments issued by the Court of Justice in December of the previous year (ISU, Royal Antwerp, and Superleague).
A key point highlighted in the presentation is that these rulings should be viewed as a corrective mechanism, addressing the relationship between governance bodies and participants in sports competitions, such as teams or athletes, at the fringes.
Economic and non-economic forces tend to foster pyramid structures in professional sports, granting governing bodies de facto quasi-regulatory roles and significant market power over participants and other stakeholders.
The Court emphasizes that these bodies must exercise their quasi-regulatory functions in a manner consistent with their level of market power. Any discretionary use or non-objective, non-transparent, and discriminatory exercise of these powers would constitute a violation of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.
However, the Court does not inherently challenge the authority of governing bodies to establish rules regarding the prior approval or eligibility of sports competitions (as seen in Superleague and ISU) or regarding the utilization of ‘home-grown’ players (addressed in Royal Antwerp).
In fact, the judgments explicitly recognize that organizing sporting activities inherently requires limitations on participants’ freedom of action in various aspects, including those mentioned above. Furthermore, the Court refrains from assessing the legality of specific practices, focusing solely on the exercise of quasi-regulatory functions by governing bodies.