Victory for the Super League: EU Justice believes that it is an abuse for FIFA and UEFA to punish the founding clubs

Victory for the Super League, at least partial. The FIFA and UEFA rules that make any project for a new club football competition, such as the Super League itself, subject to prior authorization and that prohibit clubs and players from participating in it under penalty of sanctions, are illegal.. This was ruled this Thursday by the Court of Justice of the EU after a long evaluation of the case, after a Madrid Commercial Court referred a question to Luxembourg to know if the decisions of both private entities were in line with the principles community legal regulations.

Both associations abuse their dominant position and impose arbitrary criteria, according to the ruling published today. The European magistrates, however, do not enter into the specific case of the Super League. “A competition like that of the Super League project should not necessarily be authorized. Having been asked questions of a general nature about the rules of FIFA and UEFA, the Court of Justice does not rule, in its ruling, on this specific project,” the document says.

The ruling is very harsh on the powers and prerogative of the two great bodies of world football. “The powers of FIFA and UEFA are not subject to any criteria that guarantee their transparent, objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate nature.”. Likewise, the rules that give FIFA and UEFA exclusive control over the commercial exploitation of the rights derived from these competitions may restrict competition, taking into account the importance that the latter have for the media, consumers and the public. viewers,” says the statement made public today by the High Court.

With its decision, the High Court ignores and refutes the arguments of the U's general counsel, who a year ago argued that the clubs have complete freedom to create their own competition outside the UEFA and FIFA ecosystem, but that they cannot continue. participating in the usual competitions without the prior authorization of those federations.

The Madrid court that started the process had serious doubts about the powers of FIFA and UEFA given that both have a monopoly position in their market.. The Court of Justice considers this Thursday in its ruling that the organization of club football competitions and the exploitation of broadcasting rights are, clearly, economic activities. Consequently, “these activities must respect the rules on competition and freedom of movement, despite the fact that sport, as an economic activity, presents certain specific characteristics, such as the existence of associations endowed with regulatory, control and sanctioning powers. “. The Court of Justice also notes that, in addition to having these powers, FIFA and UEFA themselves organize football competitions.

The magistrates consider that when a company in a dominant position has the power to determine under what conditions potentially competing companies can enter the market, this power “must be accompanied by criteria that guarantee its transparent, objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate nature.” and yet, it considers that “the powers of FIFA and UEFA are not subject to any criteria of this nature” so the only thing left to do is determine that both associations “are abusing their dominant position” and their authorization rules, of control and sanctions, “given their arbitrary nature, they must be classified as an unjustified restriction on the free provision of services.”

No decision on the Super League

That said, however, the CJEU clarifies an important point: “a competition like the Super League must not necessarily be authorized”. Maybe yes or maybe not, but “having been asked general questions about the rules of FIFA and UEFA, the Court of Justice does not rule, in its ruling, on this specific project.”

What the Court of Justice does do is emphasize that the rules of FIFA and UEFA relating to the exploitation of broadcasting rights “can harm European football clubs, all the companies operating in the markets of the broadcast media and, finally, to consumers and television viewers, by preventing them from benefiting from new potentially innovative or interesting competitions”. But with that interpretation, that analysis and those clues, it is now up to the Commercial Court No. 17 of Madrid to verify whether these rules can, nevertheless, benefit the different interest groups of football, for example, through a solidarity redistribution of the income generated by these rights.