In a highly anticipated decision for football on the continent, the European Court of Justice has said UEFA and FIFA are guilty of abusing their dominant position.
In a landmark ruling, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has argued FIFA and UEFA broke EU law by blocking the Super League and "abused their dominant position" in the sport.
"The FIFA and UEFA rules making any new interclub football project subject to their prior approval, such as the Super League, and prohibiting clubs and players from playing in those competitions, are unlawful," the court said. "There is no framework for the FIFA and UEFA rules ensuring that they are transparent, objective, non- discriminatory and proportionate."
The court did, however, add that the ruling did not mean the Super League would be approved.
Who brought the case and what was it about?
Case C-333/21 was brought by the Spain-based "European Super League Company" and the sports marketing agency "A22," backed by Real Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus.
They had argued UEFA was in breach of European law by abusing its market dominance of competitions to ban the creation of an alternative continental football competition, the European Super League.
"UEFA organizes the competitions and at the same time can reject other competitions – that's a conflict of interest," A22 boss Bernd Reichart explained.
What do the parties involved think?
In a statement responding to the ruling, UEFA said: "This ruling does not signify an endorsement or validation of the so-called ‘super league’; it rather underscores a pre-existing shortfall within UEFA's pre-authorization framework, a technical aspect that has already been acknowledged and addressed in June 2022.
"UEFA is confident in the robustness of its new rules, and specifically that they comply with all relevant European laws and regulations."
In a statement responding the ruling, sports marketing agency A22, which represents those clubs still in favor of a Super League, said:
"The UEFA-monopoly is over. Football is free. Clubs are now free from the threat of sanction and free to determine their own futures."
A22 CEO Bernd Reichart said new proposals for a Super League would be announced today, reported to be a midweek competition for both men's and women's football.
Promoters later announced plans for a '64 club' tournament with promotion and relegation with fans able to view live matches for free on a new digital streaming platform.
Is the ruling a shock?
Unusually, the ECJ judges have ruled contrary to a prior non-binding recommendation made by an "advocate general."
Back in December 2022, Advocate General Athanasios Rantos of Greece had concluded that the actions of UEFA and FIFA were indeed compatible with European law. Not only that, he actually said the status quo should be strengthened.
He said that, although the Super League ought to be allowed to start its own operations in principle, the clubs should not be able to demand simultaneous participation in the associations' competitions if they refused to give their consent.
The exclusions from competitions for Super League clubs and their players envisaged by UEFA, FIFA and national associations would therefore be legally compliant, according to Rantos.
Unusually, however, the court has reached a different conclusion, potentially due to a lack of clarity over the ruling following several postponements or different advocate general now being in charge.
How did we get here?
In April 2021, 12 clubs announced their intention to establish a European football Super League that would run alongside the UEFA Champions League and the continent's domestic competitions.
However, the vociferous opposition of fan groups, numerous national football associations and the European Club Association (ECA) quickly led to the plan being put on ice. European football's governing body UEFA announced that it would look into the possibility of barring the clubs behind the Super League concept from its competitions, including the Champions League.
The Madrid-based court then referred the case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg, the highest judicial authority in Europe, which has now ruled in those clubs' favor.
What happens next?
As mentioned above, the ruling merely concerns the legality of UEFA's market position within European Law. It does not necessarily give a European Super League the green light. The Grand Chamber judgement’s interpretation of EU law will now be passed back to a Madrid commercial court to make a decision, after the Spanish jurisdiction made the referral in 2021.
Is there even still appetite for a new European Super League?
Since the original breakaway attempt in April 2021, the European and global football landscape has changed somewhat.
Partly in an attempt to appease the Super League rebels, UEFA has signed off on a reformatted Champions League competition which will get underway next year. The traditional pre-Christmas group stage featuring several mini-leagues of four teams each is to be replaced by a "Swiss model" which will see all participating clubs compete in one single league table, playing more games against each other, before the majority of them progress to a knock-out stage.
In England meanwhile, the Premier League has just announced a new domestic television rights deal worth a record €7.73bn ($8.46bn) to its clubs. Any new Super League competition proposed by A22 would have to be seriously lucrative to convince the top English clubs.
Furthermore, English football’s new "independent regulator" established by the UK government partly in response to the original Super League breakaway attempt, is set to forbid clubs from joining unapproved competitions under its licensing conditions.
Elsewhere in Europe, it has also been reported that CVC, the private equity firm which has recently invested in France's Ligue 1, inserted a compensation clause into the deal to cover the eventuality of a French club participating in a new Super League.
What about German football?
In Germany, club ownership structures also constitute a major obstacle. Indeed, the Federal Competition Regulator (Bundeskartellamt) recently concluded that the so-called 50+1 club ownership rule, which stipulates that members retain majority voting rights in clubs and thus prevents majority takeovers, does not contravene German competition law.
However, the ECJ's ruling that UEFA's dominant position within the European market effectively constitutes a monopoly that could encourage opponents of the 50+1 rule to take a similar case to the European Court.
Nevertheless, Bayern Munich CEO Jan-Christian Dreesen said after the ruling a European Super League would be "an attack on the importance of national leagues", before reaffirming "the door to the Super League remains closed at Bayern."
Source: Dw
Comments