On 21 December 2023 the EU Court of Justice ruled that FIFA and UEFA rules requiring prior approval of club competitions are contrary to EU law. It does not endorse the Super League as a project.
On Thursday 21 December 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment in Case C-333/21, European Superleague Company. It answers the questions referred to it by the Commercial Court of Madrid in the dispute between the company promoting the Super League and the two federations. Its reach may extend beyond football, because the logic of the ruling applies to other sports federations that both regulate and organise competitions.
Where the case came from
Twelve European clubs, among them three Spanish ones, Atlético de Madrid, FC Barcelona and Real Madrid, wanted to set up a new competition, the Super League, through the Spanish company European Superleague Company. FIFA and UEFA, private-law associations headquartered in Switzerland, objected to the project and threatened to sanction clubs and players taking part. The company sued both before the Commercial Court of Madrid, arguing that their rules on approving competitions and exploiting media rights are contrary to EU law, and the court put questions to the CJEU, among other things because of the monopoly FIFA and UEFA hold in that market.
What the Court says
The Court recalls that organising club competitions and exploiting their media rights are economic activities and must therefore respect competition rules and the freedoms of movement, even though sport has particular features, such as the existence of associations with regulatory, control and sanctioning powers. It adds that where a dominant undertaking can decide the conditions on which potential competitors access the market, that power must be subject to transparent, objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria. FIFA’s and UEFA’s powers are not, and so they abuse their dominant position.
Because of their arbitrary nature, the rules on approval, control and sanctions are also unjustified restrictions on the freedom to provide services. And the rules giving FIFA and UEFA exclusive control over the commercial exploitation of the rights to those competitions restrict competition, harming clubs, media companies and, ultimately, fans and television viewers, by preventing new and innovative competitions. It is for the Madrid court to check whether those rules could nevertheless benefit other football stakeholders, for example through a solidarity-based redistribution of revenue.
What the Court does not say
The Court stresses that this does not mean a competition such as the Super League must necessarily be approved. Since it was asked in general terms about the FIFA and UEFA rules, it does not rule on the specific project. UEFA said the same day that the judgment is not an endorsement or validation of the so-called Super League and points to a gap in its prior-authorisation framework, which it says it corrected in June 2022. Bernd Reichart, chief executive of A22, the project’s promoter, said it had won the right to compete and that UEFA’s monopoly was over. These are readings by the parties; the Court does not endorse them.
The same day the Court delivered two other sports rulings: it confirmed that the International Skating Union’s rules on prior authorisation of skating competitions (Case C-124/21 P) infringe EU law because they lack guarantees of transparency, objectivity, non-discrimination and proportionality, and it held that UEFA and Belgian football association rules on locally trained players (Royal Antwerp, C-680/21) could be contrary to the free movement of workers and to competition law, leaving it to the Belgian court to verify.
A preliminary ruling does not settle the dispute: it is for the Madrid court to decide the case in line with the judgment, which also binds other national courts before which a similar question arises.
Clubs, organisers, sponsors and holders of broadcasting rights, whose authorisations and penalties depend on federation rules, should review which federation rules affect them, on what criteria they are applied and whether they provide for appeals. Ask your adviser how this applies to your case.
The ruling does not pick a winning competition: it requires whoever controls the market to decide with clear, reviewable rules.
This article is general information. It is not legal, tax or investment advice, and it does not take anyone’s particular circumstances into account.
