Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

International Skating Union versus European Commission: Is the European sports model under threat?

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

Abstract

Regulatory activities of sports governing bodies have been attracting more and more attention of courts and competition authorities. Indeed, the remedial potential of competition law has been steadily growing in recent years and is currently becoming the most viable instrument of protection of commercial freedom of athletes and other stakeholders from abusive policies implemented by national and international sports federations. The recent case of the International Skating Union is very likely to contribute to a considerable liberalisation of the markets for organisation and for commercial exploitation of sports events. However, SGBs, including the powerful IOC, resist this—it seems to be—inevitable process, invoking, inter alia, the importance to safeguard the European sports model. The paper examines the perspectives of this model, and, more particularly, the question of whether it still measures up to the realities of the sports industry. It provides insight into the cases illustrating potential dangers of breakaway leagues. The author of the article comes to the conclusion that the solution of the problem of eligibility rules represents only an intermediate step in the search for a steady balance among all interests involved, and that the European sports model should be ready for further compromises in order to survive as such.

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. Clausen and Bayle (2017), p. 37.

  2. Van Bottenburg (2011), p. 210.

  3. Van Bottenburg (2011), pp. 206–207.

  4. Ibid., para. 3.1.

  5. Clausen et al. (2018), p. 386.

  6. Bayle (2015), p. 109.

  7. Clausen and Bayle (2017), p. 52.

  8. Clausen and Bayle (2017), p. 52.

  9. European Commission, Cases COMP/35.163, COMP/36.638 and COMP/36.776, 13 June 2001.

  10. CJEU, C-49/07, MOTOE, ECLI:EU:C:2008:376.

  11. CJEU, C-49/07, MOTOE, ECLI:EU:C:2008:376.

  12. Van Rompuy (2015), p. 207–208.

  13. Commission White Paper on Sport, Brussels 11 July 2007 COM (2007) 391 final, pt. 4.

  14. European Commission, European Model of Sport: Consultation Document of DG X (1998), para. 1.1.

  15. Nafziger (2008), p. 100.

  16. Nafziger (2008), p. 101.

  17. European Commission, European Model of Sport: Consultation Document of DG X (1998), para. 1.1.

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

  19. For example, successful co-existence of ITF, WTA and ATP in tennis.

  20. European Commission, Case AT.40208—International Skating Union’s Eligibility rules, Decision of 8 December 2017, para. 253.

  21. Geeraert and Bruyninckx (2014), p. 1.

  22. Chappelet (2018), p. 164.

  23. See Chappelet (2018), pp. 158–164.

  24. Commission White Paper on Sport, Brussels 11 July 2007 COM(2007) 391 final, part 4.

  25. Van Bottenburg (2011), p. 217.

  26. European Commission, European Model of Sport: Consultation Document of DG X (1998), para. 1.1.1.

  27. Football Federation of Kosovo joins UEFA, 3 May 2016, https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/mediaservices/newsid=2359883.html?redirectFromOrg=true#/football+federation+kosovo+ joins + uefa (Accessed on 31 August 2018).

  28. IAAF provisionally suspends Russian member federation ARAF, 13 November 2015, https://www.iaaf.org/news/press- release/iaaf-araf-suspended (Accessed on 31 August 2018).

  29. European Commission, European Model of Sport: Consultation Document of DG X (1998), para. 1.1.2.

  30. Nafziger (2008), p. 101.

  31. Art. 101(1) TFEU.

  32. Art. 102 TFEU.

  33. CJEU, C-309/99, Wouters and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2002:98, para. 97.

  34. CJEU, C-309/99, Wouters and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2002:98, para. 97.

  35. CJEU, C-519/04 P, Meca-Medina and Majcen v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2006:492, para. 47.

  36. CJEU, 85/76, Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. AG v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1979:36, para. 91.

  37. CJEU, C-36/74, Walrave and Koch v Association Union Cycliste Internationale and Others, ECLI:EU:C:1974:140, para. 4, CJEU, C-519/04 P, Meca-Medina and Majcen v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2006:492, paras. 22, 28, CJEU, C-49/07, MOTOE, ECLI:EU:C:2008:376, para. 22.

  38. CJEU, C-49/07, MOTOE, ECLI:EU:C:2008:376, para. 29.

  39. CJEU, C-82/01 P, Aéroports de Paris v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2002:617, para. 74.

  40. CJEU, C-82/01 P, Aéroports de Paris v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2002:617, para. 81.

  41. CJEU, T-193/02, Laurent Piau, ECLI:EU:T:2005.22, para. 72.

  42. CJEU, 27/76, United Brands and United Brands Continentaal v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1978:22, para. 65, CJEU, 85/76, Hoffmann-La Roche v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1979:36, para. 38; CJEU, 322/81, Nederlandsche Banden-Industrie-Michelin v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1983:313, para. 30).

  43. CJEU, C-322/81, Michelin v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1983:313, para. 57, CJEU, Joined Cases C-395/96 P and C-396/96 P, Compagnie maritime belge transports and Others v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2000:132, para. 37.

  44. Idem.

  45. CJEU, C-49/07, MOTOE, ECLI:EU:C:2008:376, para. 51.

  46. Weatherill (2005), p. 5.

  47. For example, FEI (International Federation for Equestrian Sports) 2018 General Regulations, Rule 113(4); FINA (International Swimming Federation) 2017 General Rules, Rule 4.

  48. For example, FIVB (International Volleyball Federation) Sports Regulations 2017 (Beach Volleyball), Chapter 8 Rule 28.

  49. Greig v. Insole [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 (25 November 1978), p. 352.

  50. Greig v Insole, p. 307.

  51. As the Commission notes in para. 48 of the Decision, the Eligibility rules as they exist in 2014 version, were adopted in 1998.

  52. European Commission, Case AT.40208 – International Skating Union’s Eligibility rules, Decision of 8 December 2017, para. 176; Greig v Insole, p. 307.

  53. European Commission, European Model of Sport: Consultation Document of DG X (1998), para. 3.1.1.

  54. Commission White Paper on Sport, Brussels 11 July 2007 COM(2007) 391 final, pt. 4.

  55. Geeraert et al. (2015), p. 473.

  56. Bastianon (2016), p. 65. The case at issue is Greig v. Insole [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 (25 November 1978).

  57. Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, A378 - Federitalia/Federazione Italiana Sport Equestri (FISE), Provvedimento No. 18285, 15 May 2008; Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, A396 – GARGANO CORSE/ACI, Provvedimento No. 19946, 11 June 2009.

  58. Swedish Competition Authority (Konkurrensverket), Swedish Automobile Sports Federation (SBF), Decision Dnr. 709/2009, 13 May 2011; Swedish Market Court (Marknadsdomstolen), Case A 5/11 ruling 2012:16 Svenska Bilsportförbundet v Konkurrensverket, 20 December 2012.

  59. Competition and Consumer Protection Commission of Ireland, Show Jumping Ireland amend allegedly restrictive rule, 1 May 2012, case summary https://www.ccpc.ie/business/enforcement/civil-competition-enforcement/closed-investigations/show-jumping-ireland-restrictive-rule/ (Accessed 21 September 2018).

  60. Le Collège de la concurrence de l’Autorité belge de la concurrence, Case no CONC-V/M-15/0016, Decision No. ABC-2015- V/M-23, Demande de mesures provisoires de Global Champions League sprl et Tops Trading Belgium sprl contre la Fédération Equestre Internationale, 27 July 2015.

  61. 1996 FIA International Sporting Code, Art. 108.

  62. 1996 FIA International Sporting Code, Art. 47, 58 and 118.

  63. 1997 Grand Prix contracts between FOA and local promoters, Clause 27.

  64. Notice published pursuant to Art. 19(3) of Council Regulation No17 concerning Cases COMP/35.163, COMP/36.638 and COMP/36.776, 13 June 2001, para. 5.

  65. Notice published pursuant to Art. 19(3) of Council Regulation No17 concerning Cases COMP/35.163, COMP/36.638 and COMP/36.776, 13 June 2001, para. 5.

  66. Notice published pursuant to Art. 19(3) of Council Regulation No17 concerning Cases COMP/35.163, COMP/36.638 and COMP/36.776, 13 June 2001, para. 5.

  67. Merissa Marr, FIA Sign 100-Year Commercial Deal with SLEC, 24 April 2001, http://classic.autosport.com/news/atlasf1-report.php/id/4184 (assessed 3 September 2018).

  68. Ibid., para. 6.

  69. Notice published pursuant to Art. 19(3) of Council Regulation No17 concerning Cases COMP/35.163, COMP/36.638 and COMP/36.776, 13 June 2001, para. 6.

  70. 2000 FIA International Sporting Code. The modification concerned Arts. 17, 47, 58, 74, 84, 113, 118, 165, 169, 189, 191.

  71. Notice published pursuant to Art. 19(3) of Council Regulation No17 concerning Cases COMP/35.163, COMP/36.638 and COMP/36.776, 13 June 2001, para. 6.

  72. CJEU, C-49/07, MOTOE, ECLI:EU:C:2008:376.

  73. CJEU, C-49/07, MOTOE, ECLI:EU:C:2008:376, para. 51.

  74. Art. 106(2) TFEU.

  75. Weatherill (2017), p. 251.

  76. CJEU, C-49/07, MOTOE, ECLI:EU:C:2008:376, para. 38.

  77. CJEU, C-49/07, MOTOE, ECLI:EU:C:2008:376, para. 50; CJEU, C-260/89, ERT v DEP, ECLI:EU:C:1991:254, para. 37; CJEU, C-179/90, Merci Convenzionali Porto di Genova v Siderurgica Gabrielli, ECLI:EU:C:1991:254, para. 17; CJEU, C-380/05, Centro Europa 7, ECLI:EU:C:2008:59, para. 60.

  78. Opinion of AG Kokott in Case C-49/07, MOTOE, delivered on 6 March 2008, para. 88.

  79. Weatherill (2009), p. 5.

  80. Weatherill (2009), p. 5.

  81. Weatherill (2017), p. 253–254.

  82. CJEU, C-49/07, MOTOE, ECLI:EU:C:2008:376, para. 52.

  83. Opinion of AG Kokott in Case C-49/07, MOTOE, delivered on 6 March 2008, para. 102.

  84. CJEU, C-226/11, Expedia, ECLI:EU:C:2012:795, para. 36.

  85. 2014 ISU Constitution & General Regulations, Rule 102 para. 1(a)(ii).

  86. 2014 ISU Constitution & General Regulations, Rule 102 para. 1(a)(ii).

  87. European Commission, Case AT.40208 – International Skating Union’s Eligibility rules, Decision of 8 December 2017, paras. 164 and 165.

  88. Ibid., para. 188.

  89. 2016 ISU Constitution & General Regulations, Rule 102 para. 1(a)(ii).

  90. Idem.

  91. 2014 ISU Constitution & General Regulations, Rule 102 para. 2.

  92. Ben Van Rompuy, The European Commission’s ISU antitrust investigation explained, 5 October 2015, https://www.asser.nl/SportsLaw/Blog/post/the-european-commission-s-isu-antitrust-investigation-explained-by-ben-van-rompuy (Accessed 18 June 2019).

  93. Ibid., Rule 102 para. 7(d).

  94. Ibid., para. 219.

  95. Ibid., para. 220.

  96. Ibid., para. 223.

  97. Ibid., para. 222.

  98. Weatherill (2009), p. 4.

  99. European Commission, Case AT.40208—International Skating Union’s Eligibility rules, Decision of 8 December 2017, para. 219, para. 188.

  100. European Commission, Case AT.40208—International Skating Union’s Eligibility rules, Decision of 8 December 2017, para. 260.

  101. European Commission, Case AT.40208 – International Skating Union’s Eligibility rules, Decision of 8 December 2017, paras. 186 and 208.

  102. Ibid., para. 88.

  103. García and de Wolff (2018), pp. 305–306; Szyszczak (2018), pp. 190–191; Weatherill (2017), p. 285.

  104. For example, Statement of the Federation of European players associations and athlete unions (EU athletes) of 11 December 2017, http://www.euathletes.org/mark-niels-victory-isu-european-commission/ (Accessed 3 April 2019), Statement of the World Swimming Coaches Association of 12 December 2017, https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/world-swimming-coaches-reacts-strongly-to-athlete-antitrust-ruling/ (Accessed 2 April 2019).

  105. For example, IOC President at the Council of the European Union for meeting on ‘Sport in the 21st century’, 22 November 2017, https://www.olympic.org/news/ioc-president-at-the-council-of-the-european-union-for-meeting-on-sport-in-the-21st-century (Accessed on 14 September 2018).

  106. Ben Van Rompuy and Antoine Duval, Statement on the European Commission's ISU Decision, 8 December 2017, http://www.asser.nl/SportsLaw/Blog/post/statement-on-the-european-commission-s-isu-decision-by-ben-van-rompuy-and-antoine-duval (Accessed 10 December 2018).

  107. Idem.

  108. European Commission, Case AT.40208 – International Skating Union’s Eligibility rules, Decision of 8 December 2017, paras. 205, 298.

  109. European Commission, Case AT.40208 – International Skating Union’s Eligibility rules, Decision of 8 December 2017, paras. 22, 201.

  110. Nafziger (2008), p. 108.

  111. Van Rompuy (2015), p. 207.

  112. Cattaneo (2018), p. 126.

  113. Ex., FIBA’s complaint against Euroleague. See FIBA files complaint against Euroleague, 5 April 2016, http://www.fiba.basketball/news/fiba-files-complaint-against-euroleague (Accessed 18 June 2019).

  114. Wicker and Breuer (2014), p. 931.

  115. European Commission, Case AT.40208—International Skating Union’s Eligibility rules, Decision of 8 December 2017, paras. 216, 246.

  116. Lindholm (2013), p. 371.

  117. Clausen and Bayle (2017), p. 40.

  118. Pijetlovic (2015), pp. 61–62.

  119. Pijetlovic (2015), pp. 77–78.

  120. Pijetlovic (2015), p. 72.

  121. About Euroleague Basketball https://www.euroleaguebasketball.net/euroleague-basketball/about (Accessed 18 June 2019).

  122. Euroleague Basketball presents a complaint before the European Commission against FIBA and FIBA Europe, 22 February 2016, http://www.euroleaguebasketball.net/euroleague-basketball/news/i/6p8c54yjk66qsitp/euroleague-basketball-presents-a-complaint-before-the-european-commission-against-fiba-and-fiba-europe (Accessed 10 December 2018).

  123. FIBA files complaint against Euroleague, 5 April 2016, http://www.fiba.basketball/news/fiba-files-complaint-against-euroleague (Accessed 10 December 2018).

  124. Landgericht München I, Az.: 1 HK O 8126/16, Euroleague and others v FIBA Europe and FIBA, 2 June 2016.

  125. Landgericht München I, Az.: 1 HK O 8126/16, Euroleague and others v FIBA Europe and FIBA, 2 June 2016, II.4.

  126. Parliamentary questions, 10 July 2018, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+WQ+P-2018-003773+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=de (Accessed 21 September 2018).

  127. Pijetlovic (2018), p. 357.

  128. Cf., Euroleague’s statement 'Euroleague Basketball welcomes the European Commission’s ruling on ice skating complaint' available at http://mediacentre.euroleague.net/mediacentrepublic/press_single/10402 and FIBA’s statement available at https://twitter.com/FIBA_media/status/939157152912101377/ (Accessed 10 September 2018).

  129. Le Collège de la concurrence de l’Autorité belge de la Concurrence, Case No. CONC-V/M-17/0037, Decision n° ABC-2017- V/M-38, Demande de mesures provisoires de Madame Lisa Nooren et Henk Nooren Handelsstal SPRL, 20 December 2017.

  130. Le Collège de la concurrence de l’Autorité belge de la Concurrence, Case No. CONC-V/M-17/0037, Decision n° ABC-2017- V/M-38, Demande de mesures provisoires de Madame Lisa Nooren et Henk Nooren Handelsstal SPRL, 20 December 2017, IX. Para. 65.

  131. Le Collège de la concurrence de l’Autorité belge de la Concurrence, Case No. CONC-V/M-17/0037, Decision n° ABC-2017- V/M-38, Demande de mesures provisoires de Madame Lisa Nooren et Henk Nooren Handelsstal SPRL, 20 December 2017, IX. Para. 65.

  132. Lindholm (2013), p. 371.

  133. Lindholm (2013), p. 371–372.

  134. Lindholm (2013), p. 371.

  135. Manville (2008), p. 25.

  136. Manville (2008), p. 21.

  137. IOC President at the Council of the European Union for meeting on 'Sport in the 21st century', 22 November 2017, https://www.olympic.org/news/ioc-president-at-the-council-of-the-european-union-for-meeting-on-sport-in-the-21st-century (Accessed on 14 September 2018).

  138. See Infantino (2006).

  139. Nafziger (2008), p. 105.

  140. Manville (2008), p. 21.

  141. Weatherill (2009), p. 5.

  142. Weatherill (2009), p. 5.

  143. Bastianon (2016), p. 84.

  144. Pijetlovic (2018), p. 358.

  145. 2018 ISU Constitution & General Regulations, Rule 102 para. 1.

  146. Pijetlovic (2015), pp. 40–41, Van Bottenburg (2011), p. 220, Nafziger (2008), p. 108.

  147. Nafziger (2008), p. 108.

  148. Nafziger (2008), p. 108.

  149. Halgreen (2004), p. 42.

  150. Andreff and Staudohar (2000), pp. 259–266.

  151. Andreff and Staudohar (2000), pp. 266–269.

  152. Pijetlovic (2015), p. 38.

  153. Weatherill (2005), p. 6.

  154. Manville (2008), p. 26.

  155. For instance, a MoU concluded between the International Triathlon Union (ITU) and the World Triathlon Corporation (WTC) testifies to the efficiency of this tool, available at https://www.triathlon.org/about/governance (Accessed 15 July 2018).

  156. Weatherill (2005), p. 7.

  157. As it was, for example, explicitly stated in CJEU, C-49/07, MOTOE, ECLI:EU:C:2008:376, para. 51.

  158. Nafziger (2008), p. 101.

  159. Weatherill (2005), p. 4.

  160. Clausen et al. (2018), p. 387.

  161. Nafziger (2008), p. 108.

References

  • Andreff W, Staudohar P (2000) The evolving European model of professional sports finance. J Sports Econ 1(3):257–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/152700250000100304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bastianon S (2016) Le federazioni sportive e il mercato dell’organizzazione degli eventi sportivi: uno sguardo al passato per cercare di capire il presente (… ed immaginare il futuro). Rivista di Diritto Sportivo 1:64–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayle E (2015) The sport federations’ perspective. In: Parent MM, Chappelet J-L (eds) The Routledge handbook of sports event management. Routledge, New York, pp 109–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattaneo A (2018) Social dialogue and the regulatory power of governing bodies. Int Sports Law J 17(3–4):119–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-018-0122-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chappelet J-L (2018) The autonomy of sport and the EU. In: Anderson J, Parrish R, García B (eds) Research handbook on EU sports law and policy. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 157–172

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Clausen J, Bayle E (2017) Major sport events at the centre of international sport federations’ resource strategy. In: Dodds M, Heisey K, Ahonen A (eds) Routledge handbook of international sport business. Routledge, New York, pp 37–53

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Clausen J, Bayle E, Giauque D, Ruoranen K, Lang G, Schlesinger T, Klenk C, Nagel S (2018) International sport federations’ commercialisation: a qualitative comparative analysis. Eur Sport Manag Q 18(3):373–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2017.1406970

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García B, de Wolff M (2018) European law and the governance of sport. In: Anderson J, Parrish R, García B (eds) Research handbook on EU sports law and policy. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 287–306

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Geeraert A, Bruyninckx H (2014) You’ll never walk alone again: The governance turn in professional sports. In: Mittag J, Güldenpfennig S (eds) Sportpolitik im Spannungsfeld von Autonomie und Regulierung: Grundlagen, Akteure und Konfliktfelder. Klartext Verlag, Essen

    Google Scholar 

  • Geeraert A, Mrkonjic M, Chappelet J-L (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. https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2014.925953

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halgreen L (2004) European sports law—a comparative analyses of the European and American models of sport. Forlaget Thompson, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Infantino G (2006) Meca-Medina: a step backwards for the European Sports Model and the Specificity of Sport? UEFA Paper, 2 October 2006. https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefa/KeyTopics/480391_DOWNLOAD.pdf. Accessed 20 Sept 2018

  • Lindholm J (2013) The impact of SBF v KKV on sport: Swedish Fender-Bender or European Pileup? Eur Compet Law Rev 34(7):367–372

    Google Scholar 

  • Manville A (2008) European Court vs sports organisations—who will win the antitrust competition? Int Sports Law J 8(3–4):19–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Nafziger J (2008) A comparison of the European and North American models of sports organisation. Int Sports Law J 8(3–4):100–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Pijetlovic K (2015) EU sports law and breakaway leagues in football. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pijetlovic K (2018) European model of sport: alternative structures. In: Anderson J, Parrish R, García B (eds) Research handbook on EU sports law and policy. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 326–359

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Szyszczak E (2018) Competition and sport: no longer So special? J Eur Compet Law Pract 9(3):188–196. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeclap/lpy012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Bottenburg M (2011) Why are the European and American sports worlds so different? Path-dependence in the European and American sports history. In: Tomlinson A, Young C, Holt R (eds) Sport and the transformation of modern Europe: states, media and markets 1950–2010. Routledge, London, pp 205–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Rompuy B (2015) The role of EU competition law in tackling abuse of regulatory power by sports associations. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 22(2):179–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263x1502200203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2005) Is the Pyramid compatible with EC law? Int Sports Law J 5(3–4):3–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2009) Article 82 EC and Sporting ‘Conflict of interest’: the Judgment in MOTOE. Int Sports Law J 9(1–2):3–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2017) Principles and perspectives in EU sports law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wicker P, Breuer C (2014) Examining the financial condition of sport governing bodies: the effects of revenue diversification and organizational success factors. Voluntas: Int J Volunt Nonprofit Organ 25(4):929–948

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Neuchâtel, Faculté de Droit - Avenue du 1er-Mars 26, 2000, Neuchâtel, Switzerland

    Rusa Agafonova

Authors
  1. Rusa Agafonova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rusa Agafonova.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Agafonova, R. International Skating Union versus European Commission: Is the European sports model under threat?. Int Sports Law J 19, 87–101 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-019-00155-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-019-00155-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation