Abstract
The European Commission’s Helsinki Report, which was published in 1999, includes the assertion that ‘the pyramid structure of the organisation of sport in Europe gives sporting federations a practical monopoly. The existence of several federations in one discipline would risk causing major conflicts?’. Indeed it would create such a risk. It is not the purpose of this short paper to argue a case in favour of an injection of competition into the job of fixing the rules of the game. This contribution is instead driven by a concern that the pyramid structure, and its consequent attribution of monopoly power to sports federations, goes beyond what is required for the proper organization of European sport (in particular, football). A considerable degree of the monopoly power enjoyed by sports federations has profound commercial implications, and it is submitted that the currently constituted pyramid structure is inadequate to allow proper representation of and participation by all affected interests. Litigation is pending, and its potential impact is summarised. In particular, this paper makes a case in favour of allowing a more direct involvement in some aspects of decision-making by the major clubs than is permitted by the pyramid structure; and EC competition law is identified as a lever for achieving a re-shaping of the organisation of the game.
First published in International Sports Law Journal 2005(3–4) pp. 3–7.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
COM (1999) 644 and/2. For comment see Weatherill 2000B, 282.
- 2.
Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch v. UCI, [1974] ECR 1405.
- 3.
Case 13/76 Donà v. Mantero, [1976] ECR 1333.
- 4.
Case C 415/93 URBSFA v. Bosman, [1995] ECR I-4921.
- 5.
Cases C-51/96 & C-191/97 Deliège v. Ligue de Judo, [2000] ECR I-2549.
- 6.
Case C-176/96 Lehtonen et al. v. FRSB, [2000] ECR I-2681.
- 7.
Case C-438/00 Deutscher Handballbund eV v. Maros Kolpak [2003] ECR I-4135.
- 8.
Case T-313/02 David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen v. Commission, judgment of 30 September 2004.
- 9.
Case C-265/03 Igor Simutenkow, judgment of 12 April 2005.
- 10.
IP/99/965, 9 December 1999, IP 99/956, 9 June 1999.
- 11.
IP/01/1523, 30 October 2001.
- 12.
Decision 2003/778 UEFA Champions League, OJ 2003 L 291/25.
- 13.
- 14.
CAS 98/200 AEK Athens and Slavia Prague v. UEFA, 20 August 1999; COMP/37.806, ENIC/UEFA, IP/02/942, 27 June 2002.
- 15.
C-176/96 Lehtonen et al. v. FRSB, [2000] ECR I-2681.
- 16.
Dec. 2000/12 1998 Football World Cup, OJ 2000 L 5/55. For comment see Weatherill 2000A, pp. 275–282.
- 17.
Case T-193/02 Laurent Piau v. Commission, judgment of 26 January 2005.
- 18.
Note 1 above.
- 19.
Cf. Weatherill 2000B, pp. 155–181.
- 20.
- 21.
- 22.
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. See similarly, e.g., Case T-112/99 M6 v. TF1, [2001] ECR II-2159, Para. 76.
- 23.
It is submitted that the CFI in David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen v. Commission, note 8 above has not helped the smooth development of the law by claiming to identify ‘rules concerning questions of purely sporting interest… having nothing to do with economic activity’ (Para. 41). For criticism of flaws in that judgment, see Weatherill 2005, pp. 416–421.
- 24.
Para. 76 of the judgment.
- 25.
Note 8 above.
- 26.
Note 11 above.
- 27.
- 28.
A search against ‘Sepp Blatter G-14’ on www.google.co.uk will generate many references.
- 29.
‘La Fifa assignée!: La blessure de Majid Oulmers suscite réflexion et surtout réaction chez Abbas Bayat’, La Dernière Heure, Jeudi 12 Mai 2005, Sports p. 7.
- 30.
Cases C-51/96 & 191/97, note 5 above, Paras. 41-42 of the judgment; Case C-176/96, note 6 above, Paras. 32–33 of the judgment.
- 31.
COM (2001) 428.
- 32.
Cf. Case T-193/02 Laurent Piau v. Commission, judgment of 26 January 2005 (concerning FIFA's rules governing agents – no abuse was found in the case).
- 33.
Note 1 above, at p. 9.
- 34.
Cf. Dabscheck 2004, 69.
- 35.
Para. 122 of the Decision, note 12 above.
References
Dabscheck B(2004) The Globe at their Feet: FIFA’s New Employment Rules. Culture, Sport and Society 7:69–94
Foster K (2000) Can Sport be Regulated by Europe? An Analysis of Alternative Models, in Caiger A and Gardiner S, eds, Professional Sport in the EU: Regulation and Re-Regulation, The Hague, T.M.C. Asser Press, pp. 43–64
Halgreen L (2004) European Sports Law: a Comparative Analysis of the European and American Models of Sport, Copenhagen, Forlaget Thomson
Mortelmans KJM (2001) Towards Convergence in the application of the rules on Free Movement and on Competition, CML Rev 38:613649
Parrish R (2000) Reconciling Conflicting Approaches to Sport in the European Union, in Caiger A and Gardiner S, eds., Professional Sport in the EU: Regulation and Re-Regulation. The Hague, T.M.C. Asser Press, pp. 21–42.
Parrish R (2003) Sports law and policy in the European Union, Manchester University Press.
Siekmann RCR and Soek JW, eds, (2005) The European Union and Sport: Legal and Policy Documents, The Hague, T.M.C. Asser Press.
Weatherill S (2000) 0033149875354: Fining the Organisers of the 1998 Football World Cup, ECL Rev 275–282
Weatherill S (2000A) Resisting the Pressures of Americanization: the influence of European Community Law on the “European Sport Model”, in Greenfield S and Osborn G, eds, Law and Sport in Contemporary Society. London, Frank Cass Publishing, pp. 155–181.
Weatherill S (2000B) The Helsinki Report on Sport, EL Rev 25:282–292
Weatherill S (2003) “Fair Play Please!”: Recent Developments in the Application of EC Law to Sport. CML Rev 40:51–93, 80–86.
Weatherill S (2004) Sport as Culture in European Community Law, in Craufurd Smith, ed., Culture in European Union Law, Oxford University Press, Ch. 4, pp. 113–152
Weatherill S (2005) Anti-Doping Rules and EC Law, ECL Rev 416–421
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Weatherill, S. (2014). Is the Pyramid Compatible with EC Law?. In: European Sports Law. ASSER International Sports Law Series. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-939-9_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-939-9_12
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-90-6704-938-2
Online ISBN: 978-90-6704-939-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)
