What does the CJEU ruling on the Super League mean? All the key points
After the European Superleague Company, S.L. (ESLC), announced the creation of the Superleague on 21 January 2021, FIFA and UEFA issued a joint statement expressing their refusal to recognise such a competition and warning clubs and players that, should they participate in it, they would be excluded from competitions organised by FIFA and UEFA.
Javier Vázquez Salleras, partner of the Intellectual and Industrial Property Department of RocaJunyent, has written an article for Diario Sport analysing the ruling of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union, dated 21 December 2023.
The ESLC filed a legal action before the 17th Commercial Court of Madrid with the aim of declaring the illegal and harmful nature of these advertisements, as well as the conduct by means of which FIFA, UEFA and the Federations that make up these bodies could cause the content of the advertisements to materialise.
In these circumstances, Commercial Court no. 17 of Madrid decided to stay the proceedings and to refer six questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling. In the first five questions, it asked the CJEU to interpret Articles 101 and 102 of the TFEU, relating to the prohibition of anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominant position, in order to be able to rule on the compatibility with these two articles of a set of rules adopted by FIFA and UEFA.
After making a number of preliminary observations and assessing the various questions referred for a preliminary ruling, the CJEU held that the fact that the associations responsible for football at world and European level (i.e. FIFA and UEFA) constitute an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU, as well as a decision by an association of undertakings having as its object the prevention of competition within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU, constitutes an abuse of a dominant position.
The CJEU also considers that such rules can only be exempted from the application of Article 101(1) or be considered justified in the light of Article 102 TFEU if it is demonstrated, on the basis of convincing arguments and evidence, that all the conditions required for this are met.
On the other hand, the CJEU considers, with regard to the question concerning the interpretation of Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU of the rules on rights deriving from sporting competitions, that those articles:
- They do not object to rules adopted by the associations responsible for football at world and European level.
- They do object to such rules in so far as they attribute to these same associations exclusive responsibility for the marketing of the rights in question.
Finally, as regards the question referred for a preliminary ruling concerning freedom of movement, the CJEU considers that Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding rules by which the associations responsible for football at world and European level.
It is now for the referring court, that is to say, the commercial court, to rule on the substance of the dispute, taking account of the judgment of the CJEU.
Access to the full article (available in Spanish)
Published in
You may also like
