Skip to main content

EU Competition Law and Professional Sport: The Collective Selling of TV Rights in Europe and the Dutch Equestrian Case: How The Meca Medina ‘Test’ for Organisational Sporting Rules is Applied

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 1778 Accesses

Part of the book series: ASSER International Sports Law Series ((ASSER))

Abstract

In this chapter, first the Meca Medina ‘test’ for organisational sporting rules under the EU competition law provisions will be presented as this methodological approach is described in the White Paper on Sport Secondly, amongst the few by and large settled competition law issues—like the UEFA ‘at home and away from home’ rule (on the basis of the national territoriality principle), the ban on multiple ownership of sport clubs/teams participating in the same UEFA competition, and the assessment of ticketing arrangements for sport events—the major, typical one is that of the collective selling of broadcasting rights which will be dealt with in detail. Thirdly and finally, by way of a concrete, random example from the T.M.C. Asser Institute’s sports law advisory services it will be demonstrated how the ‘test’ was executed in the ‘Dutch Equestrian Case.’

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Project No IP/A/IMCO/ST/2005-004, Commissioned by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection of the European Parliament on the initiative of Toine Manders (MEP, September 2005, T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague, The Netherlands, in cooperation with Edge Hill College, United Kingdom and Sport2B, The Netherlands).

  2. 2.

    SEC(2007) 935, at pp. 64–69.

  3. 3.

    ‘Discussion on the Application of European Union Competition Law to the Procedures for the Assignment of Category I, Category II and International Competitions in the Netherlands—KNHS’, commissioned by the T.M.C. Asser Instituut to Prof. Dr. Richard Parrish, Director of the Centre for Sports Law Research, Edge Hill University, United Kingdom, May 2010.

  4. 4.

    Case T-313/02 (ECR 2004 II-329) and Case C-519/04 P (ECR 2006 I-699)

  5. 5.

    Wouters is a non-sporting case; Case C-309/99 (ECR 2002 I-1577), paras 97 and 110. The CFI had explicitly rejected the application of Wouters in its judgment at para 65. Cf., Weatherill 2006; also in: Weatherill 2007.

  6. 6.

    Directive 97/36/EC of 30 June 1997 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, OJ 1997 L 202/6; now: Article 14 of the Audiovisual Media Services Council Directive, No. 2010/13/EU, OJ no. L 95 of 15 April 2010, and OJ L 263 of 6 October 2010 (corrigendum). The new Article 15 of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive enhances access of viewers to events of high interest for society (including sport events): broadcasters exercising exclusive rights to such events have to grant other broadcasters the right to use extracts for the purpose of short news reports (based on the right to information of European citizens).

  7. 7.

    Case 37398, OJ 2003 L 291/25; Case 37214, OJ 2005 L 134/46; and Case 38173, OJ C 7.

  8. 8.

    Case 41/90 Höfner v Macroton ECR 1991, I-1979, para 21.

  9. 9.

    Case 118/85 Commission v Italy ECR 1987 2599, para 7.

  10. 10.

    Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch v Association Union Cycliste Internationale [1974] ECR 1405 para 4. Hereafter referred to as Walrave.

  11. 11.

    Commission of the European Communities, Commission staff working document. The EU and Sport: Background and Context, SEC(2007) 935, pp. 66–67

  12. 12.

    Case T-193/02, Laurent Piau v Commission of the European Communities [2005] ECR II-209, para 70. Hereafter referred to as Piau.

  13. 13.

    Piau, paras 112 & 116.

  14. 14.

    Case 49/07 Motoe v Ellinko Dimosio, [2008] ECR I-4863, para 23, hereafter referred to as Motoe.

  15. 15.

    Case 309/99 Wouters and others v Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten, [2002] ECR I-1577, hereafter referred to as Wouters

  16. 16.

    COMP 35.163, Notice published at OJ 2001 C169/5. See also Commission press release, 30 October 2001, IP/01/1523, ‘Commission closes its investigation into Formula One and other four-wheel motor sports’.

  17. 17.

    Joined Cases 51/96 and 191/97 Deliège v. Ligue francophone de Judo et disciplines Associeés Asb [2000] ECR I-2549, paras 67–68.

  18. 18.

    Wouters, points 97 and 110.

  19. 19.

    Case COMP/37 806: ENIC/UEFA, hereafter referred to as ENIC. See also Commission Press Release IP/02/942, 27 June 2002, ‘Commission closes investigation into UEFA rule on multiple ownership of football clubs.’

  20. 20.

    Case 519/04 P David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen v Commission [2006] ECR I-6991, hereafter referred to as Meca-Medina.

  21. 21.

    Walrave para 8.

  22. 22.

    Meca-Medina para 27.

  23. 23.

    Meca-Medina paras 45 and 46.

  24. 24.

    Commission of the European Communities (2007), ‘White Paper on Sport’, COM(2007) 391 final, s.4.

  25. 25.

    Motoe, para 53.

  26. 26.

    Motoe para 37.

  27. 27.

    Motoe para 51.

  28. 28.

    Motoe para 52.

  29. 29.

    Motoe para 53.

  30. 30.

    Commission of the European Communities, Commission staff working document. The EU and Sport: Background and Context, SEC (2007) 935, footnote 178.

  31. 31.

    Motoe para 41.

  32. 32.

    Motoe para 42.

  33. 33.

    Commission decision of 9 December 1999, Case 36851, C.U. de Lille/UEFA (Mouscron), decision not published; also see Commission press release IP/99/965 of 9 December 1999.

  34. 34.

    Case 325/08, Olympic Lyonnais v Bernard & Newcastle United, judgment of 16 March 2010.

  35. 35.

    Commission of the European Communities (2007), ‘White Paper on Sport’, COM(2007) 391 final, s.4.

  36. 36.

    Cf., clubs must have different owners when playing in the same competition, cf. the CAS award of 20 August 1999 in AEK Athens and Slavia Prague v. UEFA (CAS 98/200) (ENIC case) on this issue.

References

  • Blackshaw I, Cornelius S, Siekmann R (eds) (2009) TV rights and sport: legal aspects. T.M.C. Asser Instituut/T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2006) Anti-doping revisited—the demise of the rule of ‘purely sporting interest’? In: ECL Rev., pp 645 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2007) European Sports Law—collected papers. The Hague, pp 335–353

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. C. R. Siekmann .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 T.M.C. Asser Institute and the author

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Siekmann, R.C.R. (2012). EU Competition Law and Professional Sport: The Collective Selling of TV Rights in Europe and the Dutch Equestrian Case: How The Meca Medina ‘Test’ for Organisational Sporting Rules is Applied. In: Introduction to International and European Sports Law. ASSER International Sports Law Series. T.M.C. Asser Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-852-1_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships