According to a decision handed down by a European Court of Justice, Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and regional confederation Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) used their market dominance and abused their leverage when they sought to prevent several of their top clubs from joining the proposed Super League.
Both organizations’ rules that require their approval for any competitions amongst competitive clubs from different national associations was found to be contrary to the European Union’s freedom of movement and competition laws (similar to American antitrust laws).
In late 2020, the Spanish European Superleague Company proposed a new league to be comprised of Europe’s top clubs – including Real Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus, and others- which would essentially replicate UEFA’s popular Champions League tournament with a permanent, “closed” league structure. FIFA and UEFA immediately condemned the league and threatened to sanction any player or club taking part in the Super League and that they would no longer be eligible for any of their competitions – including the Champions League and FIF Club World Cup
The Super League initially sued FIFA and UEFA in Spain’s Commercial Court in Madrid; however, the Spanish court deferred and instead referred the case to the European Court of Justice as it was a matter of European, not Spanish, law.
From the ruling, the European court found that the rules give FIFA and UEFA “the power to authorize, control and set the conditions of access” for “any potentially competing undertaking,” and therefore determine the level of competition in the market. However, threatening to impose sanctions on clubs and players who participate in the Super League went too far and instead served as an “anticompetitive” mechanism that sought to “prevent them outright, by limiting access for any newcomer.”
The court did not go so far as to evaluate whether FIFA and UEFA rules were justified in the public interest – similar to the American concept of “Rule of Reason” – and cited that there was no framework for their rules to ensure they were “transparent, objective, precise, non-discriminatory and proportionate” and not just a mechanism to prevent competition. The sanctions’ intention to also limit media rights to the new league may also cause harm to the public as well, in the Court’s opinion.
The case now shifts back to the Spanish Commercial Court based on the EU court’s guidance.
The ruling has given some renewed hope to the proponents of the Super League. However, many of the clubs that initially had shown interest in the emerging league have since backed off under the threat of backlash amongst fans and supporters, in addition to the leagues and federations. European soccer – or “football” – has been a model of an “open league” concept where teams can progress or regress through different levels within their country’s league structure based on merit. In England, this has allowed tiny Luton Town FC to win its way into the Premier League where it is competing against the likes of Liverpool, Chelsea and Manchester City. However, this has also been part of the argument lodged by the most powerful clubs that they are subsidizing smaller clubs in their national leagues and their real competition is against other “power clubs” across Europe. The Super League sought to establish an American-style “closed league” structure where the clubs can own the league and select who should be a part of it. Such a permanent league would be a threat to UEFA’s wildly popular Champions League tournament.
To review the ruling in this case in the European Court of Justice of the European Union, see European Superleague Company SL v. FIFA and UEFA ( C-333/21).
Andrew Bondarowicz is a former NFLPA Agent, sports business executive and Sports Law professor with almost 20 years in the sports industry. Founder of Fanteractive.com, where this article first appeared.
