Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

EU sports law: a uniform algorithm for regulatory rules

  • Article
  • Published:
The International Sports Law Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In applying the EU economic provisions to the regulatory rules in sport, four different categories of “sporting exception” can be discerned in the jurisprudence of the Court. They include sporting rules that do not produce any economic effect, ‘purely sporting’ rules, inherent rules, and objectively justified rules. Based on the existing parameters of the EU sports law and policy, this article advances arguments in support of discarding the nuances in the Court’s analytical approach to sporting exception. Ordinary EU law, coupled by the concept of specificity of sport that is now included in Article 165(1) TFEU, already contains the all-encompassing, uniform analytical structure apt to accommodate all categories of regulatory rules in sports. In addition, the proposed uniform framework can be often be utilised to justify the challenged sporting rules in both internal market law and competition law, thus avoiding duplication of analysis. This is enabled by the high degree of convergence in their application to the rules of private regulatory bodies.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch v. Union Cycliste Internationale and others [1974] ECR 1405, para 4.

  2. Commission White Paper on Sport, Brussels, COM (2007) 391 final, and Commission Staff Working Document, The EU and Sport: Background and Context, Accompanying Document to the White Paper on Sport.

  3. These include the rules of the game such as offside rule in football, dimensions of the tennis court, point awarded to the opponent in volleyball if a player touches the net, etc.

  4. Such as direct discrimination in selecting athletes for national representative teams in Case 36/74 Walrave [1974] ECR 1405, para. 8.

  5. Such as non-discriminatory rules governing athlete selection in Joined Cases C-51/96 and C-191/97 Christelle Deliège v. Ligue francophone de judo et disciplines associées ASBL, Ligue belge de judo ASBL, Union européenne de judo and François Pacquée [2000] ECR I-2549.

  6. Most cases fit into this category. See, for example, Case C-325/08 Olympique Lyonnais SASP v. Olivier Bernard and Newcastle United FC [2010] ECR I-2177.

  7. Commission Staff Working Document, The EU and Sport: Background and Context, Accompanying Document to the White Paper on Sport, COM (2007) 391 final, para 4.1.

  8. Geeraert et al. (2015), pp. 473–488, at p. 476.

  9. Simmons (2009), pp. 77–89, at p. 79.

  10. Individual sportsperson’s careers are short and prone to many interruptions or abrupt endings due to injuries; sports broadcasting must take place as the event occurs; sports betting is a time-restricted game of chance and skill; commercial exploitation of, for example, certain sports merchandise, is limited to a short period in which the theme affixed to the item is popular; live attendance at the stadiums is a once-in-a-lifetime event, and so on. It is essential that the personal or commercial assets are used in timely fashion - otherwise the possibility of their exploitation is lost.

  11. Articles 2(5) and 6 TFEU.

  12. Para 4.2 of the Communication, COM(2011) 12 final, 18. 1. 2011.

  13. Case C-325/08 Bernard [2010] ECR I-2177. For detailed analysis of the judgement see Pijetlovic (2010), pp. 858–869.

  14. Study on the Lisbon Treaty and European Union Sports Policy (2010). DG for Internal Policies: Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies Culture and Education, IP/B/CULT/IC/2010-028, p. 11.

  15. Case C-176/96 Jyri Lehtonen and Castors Canada Dry Namur-Braine ASBL v. Fédération royale belge des sociétés de basket-ball ASBL (FRBSB) [2000] ECR I-2681, para 53.

  16. Case C-415/93 Union Royale Belge Sociétés de Football Association and others v. Bosman and others [1995] ECR I-4921, para 106.

  17. Ibid. and Case C-325/08 Bernard, para 39.

  18. Case C-519/04 David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen v Commission [2006] ECR I-6991, para 43.

  19. Case IV/37.806 — ENIC/UEFA [2002] unpublished decision of 27 June 2002.

  20. Para 4.1 of the Commission Staff Working Document.

  21. For detailed overview of the sporting exceptions see Parrish and Miettinen (2008).

  22. Commission Staff Working Document on Sport and Free Movement, accompanying document to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions “Developing the European Dimension in Sport” COM(2011) 12 final, 18. 1. 2011, p. 7.

  23. This framework has been developed in internal market, specifically, in Case C-55/94 Gebhard [1995] ECR I-4165, and Case C-19/92 Kraus [1993] ECR I-1663.

  24. Case C-415/93 Bosman.

  25. Case 176/96 Lehtonen.

  26. Case C-438/00 Deutscher Handballbund v. Kolpak [2003] ECR I-4135.

  27. Case C-265/03 Igor Simutenkov v. Ministerio de Educación y Cultura, Real Federación Española de Fútbol [2005] ECR I-2579.

  28. See, for e.g., Case C-67/97 Bluhme [1998] ECR I-6717 (biodiversity), Case C-2/90 Commission v. Belgium (Walloon Waste) [1992] ECR I-4431 (environmental protection), Case C-19/92 Kraus [1993] ECR I-1663 (protection of public against misleading use of academic titles).

  29. For the concept of “effects on trade”, see Case C-56/65 Societe Technique Miniere v. Maschinenbau Ulm (STM) [1966] ECR 235, para 7; Case 56/64 Consten and Grundig [1966] ECR 299, para 27. See also European Commission, Guidelines on the effects on trade concept contained in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty [2004] OJ C 101/81.

  30. Ancillary restraints are restrictions on competition that are directly related to and necessary for the implementation of the legitimate aim of the main agreement or decision.

  31. For detailed treatment of the subject see Jones and Sufrin (2016).

  32. Parrish and Miettinen, op. cit. supra note 21, p. 73.

  33. Ibid. pp. 73–101.

  34. Case 36/74Walrave and Koch [1974] ECR 1405.

  35. As defined by Foster (2006), p. 421.

  36. Case 13/76 Gaetano Donà v. Mario Mantero [1976] ECR 1333, para 19.

  37. Joined Cases C-51/96 and C-191/97 Deliège [2000] ECR I-2549, para 46.

  38. Case 53/81 D.M. Levin v. Staatssecretaris van Jusitie [1982] ECR 1035, para 17 and Case 196/87 Udo Steymann v. Staatssecretaris van Jusitie [1988] ECR 6159, para 13.

  39. Case 13/76 Donà.

  40. Ibid. para 14.

  41. This will be made clear below in the Sects. 4.3 and 4.2.

  42. See, for example, Case 175/78 Regina v. Saunders [1979] ECR 1129 and Cases C-225-227/95 Kapasakalis, Skiathis and Kougiagakas v. Greece [1998] ECR I-4329.

  43. See Communication from the Commission — Notice on agreements of minor importance which do not appreciably restrict competition under Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (De Minimis Notice), OJ C-291 of 30 August 2014.

  44. See Pijetlovic (2015), pp. 215–235.

  45. Ibid.

  46. See, for example, Infantino (2006), pp. 3–4.

  47. For detailed analysis of convergence see Pijetlovic (2015), op. cit. supra note 44, pp. 215–235.

  48. Joined Cases C-51/96 and C-191/97 Deliège, para 22.

  49. Ibid. para 61.

  50. Under the “Säger formula” this would have been enough to find a breach. Para 12 of Case C-76/90 Säger [1991] ECR I-4221 provides that Article 56 required: “not only the elimination of all discrimination against a person providing services on the ground of his nationality but also the abolition of any restriction, even if it applies without distinction to national providers of services and to those of other Member States, when it is liable to prohibit or otherwise impede the activities of provider of services established in another Member State where he lawfully provides similar services”.

    See on this point Miettinen and Parrish “Inherent Rules in EC Sports Law”, presented at the Conference on Law and Popular Culture, Onati, Spain (June 2008).

  51. Joined Cases C-51/96 and C-191/97 Deliège, para. 64 (emphasis added).

  52. Ibid. para 65.

  53. Ibid. paras 67 and 68.

  54. Miettinen and Parrish, op. cit. supra note 50.

  55. Case C-309/99 J.C.J Wouters, J.W. Savelbergh, Price Waterhouse Belastingadviseurs BV v. Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten [2002] ECR I-1577.

  56. Whish (2009), p. 126.

  57. Case C-519/04 Meca-Medina. Before this case the Court has had a number of opportunities to clarify the relation between competition law and sports (notably in C-415/93 Bosman) but it has avoided this problem by deciding the cases on the basis of internal market rules. In the absence of Union legislative competence, it was only the Commission decisional practice that shed some light on the competition law issues in sports.

  58. C-519/04 Meca-Medina, para 42.

  59. See Case C-309/99 Wouters [2002] ECR I-1577 that was confirmed in C-519/04 Meca-Medina and Case C-1/12 Ordem dos Técnicos Oficiais de Contas v. Autoridade da Concorrência,judgement of the Court of 28 February 2013.

  60. Ibid. paras 43–44.

  61. Ibid. para 55.

  62. The Commission in Commission Staff Working Document, Annex I, para 2.1.6, says that “[s]uch a justification is most likely to apply where a rule is not inherent in the organisation or proper conduct of sport so as to justify the application of Wouters but where the beneficial effects of a rule outweigh its restrictive effects.”

  63. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions “Developing the European Dimension in Sport” COM(2011) 12 final, 18. 1. 2011, para 4.2.

  64. Commission Staff Working Document, The EU and Sport: Background and Context, Accompanying Document to the White Paper on Sport, COM (2007) 391 final, Annex I, para 2.4.

  65. Such as in Case C-176/96 Lehtonen.

  66. Such as in Joined Cases C-51/96 and C-191/97 Deliège.

  67. Such as in Case C-519/04 Meca-Medina.

  68. Such as in Case COMP/E3/36.85 — Lille/UEFA (“the Mouscron case”) unpublished Commission Decision of 3 December 1999. Commission Press Release IP/99/965 “Limits to Application of Treaty Competition Rules to Sport: Commission Gives Clear Signal” 9 December 1999. See also XXIXth Report on Competition Policy 1999, pp. 166–167.

  69. Several years before Meca-Medina, in ENIC the Commission directly applied Wouters inherency test in its positive assessment of the UEFA rule on multi-club ownership. See Commission Decision in Case COMP/37.806 — ENIC/UEFA. See also Commission Press Release IP/02/942 “Commission Closes Investigation into UEFA Rule on Multiple Ownership of Football Clubs”, Brussels 27 June 2002.

  70. Case C-55/94 Gebhard [1995] ECR I-4165; Case C-19/92 Kraus [1993] ECR I-1663.

  71. Ibid. paras 37 and 32, respectively.

  72. Discriminatory measures normally can only benefit from the exhaustive list of Treaty-based exceptions such as public policy, public health, and public security, but not from an open list of justifications available to non-discriminatory measures. Sport is an exception to this rule.

  73. Parrish and Miettinen, op. cit. supra note 21, p. 73.

  74. Bosman, para 106.

  75. Ibid. paras 109–113.

  76. Ibid. paras 121–137.

  77. Ibid. para 138.

  78. AG Lenz Opinion in C-415/93 Bosman, paras 269–270.

  79. Case C-250/92 Gøttrup-Klim e.a. Grovvareforeninger v Dansk Landbrugs Grovvareselskab AmbA (DLG) [1994] ECR I-5641.

  80. Case 176/96 Lehtonen, paras 47–50.

  81. Ibid. paras 51–55.

  82. Ibid. paras 56–58. It was nevertheless left for the national court to ascertain whether there were any objective reasons that could justify this difference in the transfer windows (see para 59).

  83. Opinion of Advocate General Alber in Case C-176/96 Lehtonen delivered on 22 June 1999, paras 107–108.

  84. Case C-325/08 Bernard.

  85. Ibid. paras 23–37.

  86. Ibid. para 39.

  87. Opinion of AG Kokott in Joined Cases C-403/08 and C-429/08 FAPL and others v. QC Leisure and others; and Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd [2011] ERC I-9083, para 207.

  88. Parrish (2012), pp. 716–733, at p. 732. However, there is no need to take Article 165 TFEU into consideration in any of the EU legislative procedures, as it is not a horizontal provision.

  89. Parrish and Miettinen, op. cit. supra note 21, p. 74.

  90. Ibid. p. 75.

  91. Ibid.

  92. See Woods and Watson (2012), p. 489.

  93. Weatherill (2008), p. 345.

  94. Para 2.2.1.4 and para 2.4 of the Commission Staff Working Document, The EU and Sport: Background and Context, Accompanying Document to the White Paper on Sport, COM (2007) 391 final.

  95. Ibid. para 2.2.1.4.

  96. Joined Cases C-51/96 and C-191/97 Deliège, para 64.

  97. Parrish and Miettinen, op. cit. supra note 21, p. 101.

  98. European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document, Annex I, para 2.2.1.6.

  99. At para 108.

  100. Pijetlovic (2015), op. cit. supra note 44, pp. 228–233.

  101. Commission Communication on Developing European Dimension in Sport (2011), para 4.2.

  102. Pijetlovic (2015), op. cit. supra note 44, Chapter 6. For more on convergence see also Mortelmans (2001) at pp. 613–649, and Baquero Cruz (2002).

  103. See Case C-309/99 Wouters [2002] ECR I-1577, para 122.

  104. Article 2 of the Council Regulation 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 states that: “In any national or [Union] proceedings for the application of Articles [101] and [102] of the Treaty, the burden of proving an infringement of Article [101(1)] or of Article [102] of the Treaty shall rest on the party or the authority alleging the infringement. The undertaking or association of undertakings claiming the benefit of Article [101(3)] of the Treaty shall bear the burden of proving that the conditions of that paragraph are fulfilled.”

  105. See Case T-203/01 Manufacture française des pneumatiques Michelin v Commission (Michelin II) [2003] ECR II-4071, paras 107–109.

  106. Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 OJ L 1, 04.01.2003, pp. 1–25. Art. 2 reads: “in any national or Community proceedings for the application of Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, the burden of proving an infringement of Article 81(1) or of Article 82 of the Treaty shall rest on the party or the authority alleging the infringement. The undertaking or association of undertakings claiming the benefit of Article 81(3) of the Treaty shall bear the burden of proving that the conditions of that paragraph are fulfilled.”

  107. In paragraph 55 of C-519/04 Meca-Medina the Court held: “Since the appellants have, moreover, not pleaded that the penalties which were applicable and were imposed in the present case are excessive, it has not been established that the anti-doping rules at issue are disproportionate.”

  108. Sibony (2008), at p. 746, cited in Gippini-Fournier (2010), pp. 187–207, at p. 4.

  109. Case C-12/03 P Commission v Tetra Laval BV [2005] ECR I-987. It was held that the evidentiary requirements placed on the Commission so not create a condition relating to the requisite standard of proof, but merely draw attention to essential function of evidence which is to establish convincingly the merits of an argument.

References

  • Baquero Cruz J (2002) Between competition and free movement: the economic constitutional law of the European Community. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster K (2006) Lex sportiva and lex ludica: the CAS's jurisprudence. In: Blackshaw I, Siekmann RCR, Soek JW (eds) The CAS 1984–2004. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 420–440

    Google Scholar 

  • Geeraert A, Mrkonjic M, Chappelet JL (2015) A rationalist perspective on the autonomy of international sport governing bodies: towards a pragmatic autonomy in the steering of sports. Int J Sport Policy Polit 7(4):473–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gippini-Fournier E (2010) The elusive standard of proof in EU competition cases. World Competition 33:187–207

    Google Scholar 

  • Infantino G (2006) Meca-Medina: a step backwards for the European sports model and the specificity of sport? Sports Law Adm Pract 13:3–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones A, Sufrin B (2016) EU competition law: text cases and materials. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mortelmans K (2001) Towards convergence in the application of the rules on free movement and on competition? Common Mark Law Rev 38:613–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parrish R (2012) Lex sportiva and the European Union sports law. Eur Law Rev 37:716–733

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrish R, Miettinen S (2008) The sporting exception in European Union law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pijetlovic K (2010) Another classic of EU sports jurisprudence: legal implications of Olympique Lyonnais SASP v. Olivier Bernard and Newcastle UFC (C-325/08). Eur Law Rev 35:858–869

    Google Scholar 

  • Pijetlovic K (2015) EU sports law and breakaway leagues in football. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sibony A-L (2008) Le juge et le raisonnement économique en droit de la concurrence. L.G.D.J., Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons R (2009) The demand for spectator sports. In: Andreff W, Szymanski S (eds) Handbook on the economics of sport. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 77–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2008) Anti-doping revisited—the demise of the rule of ‘purely sporting interest? In: Weatherill S (ed) European Union sports law: collected papers. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 335–353

    Google Scholar 

  • Whish R (2009) Competition law, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods L, Watson P (2012) Steiner and Woods EU law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Senior Lecturer in EU Law and Sports Law, Law Department, Liverpool Hope University, Taggart Avenue, Hope Park, Liverpool, L16 9JD, UK

    Katarina Pijetlovic

Authors
  1. Katarina Pijetlovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katarina Pijetlovic.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pijetlovic, K. EU sports law: a uniform algorithm for regulatory rules. Int Sports Law J 17, 86–100 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-017-0114-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-017-0114-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation