Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Treatment of UEFA Restrictions on Breakaway Leagues in Football Under EU Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
EU Sports Law and Breakaway Leagues in Football

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

Abstract

Chapter 7 is the most significant contribution to the topic of breakaway structures in the English language. It starts from the determination of the relevant market, the position of the parties on the relevant market and the designation of the restraints under EU competition and internal market law. The qualitative analysis of the existence of UEFA dominance on the market, as supported by established legal principles and the Court’s case law, lead to the unexpected result that it would be a challenging task to demonstrate that such dominance indeed exists. On the other hand, demonstrating market foreclosure is an easier task despite the fact that the specific traditional competition law doctrines have proven particularly awkward to apply to the organisational rules in question. The core of the outcome of the analysis in this chapter lies in the elements of justification framework that are transposable and shared between competition and internal market provisions. The proportionality of the rules on breakaway leagues is the culminating point of these analyses.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Sect. 3.2.1 for policy statements on the pyramid structure.

  2. 2.

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

  3. 3.

    See Sect. 4.8.

  4. 4.

    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 2.1.2.

  5. 5.

    UEFA Statutes, edition 2012.

  6. 6.

    Similarly, the most severe sanction under Article 12 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code involves expulsion from competitions and a fine of no more than CHF 1 million.

  7. 7.

    Case C-250/92 Gøttrup-Klim e.a. Grovvareforeninger v Dansk Landbrugs Grovvareselskab AmbA (DLG) [1994] ECR I-5641, paras 19 and 48.

  8. 8.

    Case C-49/07 Motosykletistiki Omospondia Ellados NPID (MOTOE) v Elliniko Dimosio [2008] ECR I-4863, para 33.

  9. 9.

    Ibid.

  10. 10.

    Dietl et al. 2011, Organisational Differences between U.S. Major Leagues and European Leagues: Implications for Salary Cap. International Association of Sports Economists, Working Paper Series, Paper No 11-05, p. 2. Available at http://college.holycross.edu/RePEc/spe/Dietletal_OrganizationalDifferences.pdf.

  11. 11.

    Noll 2003, fn. 1.

  12. 12.

    Dietl et al. 2011, p. 3.

  13. 13.

    Ibid. p. 2.

  14. 14.

    Commission Decision in Case COMP/37.398—Joint Selling of Commercial Rights (UEFA Champions League) [2003] OJ L 291/25, para 13.

  15. 15.

    Faull and Nikpay 2007, p. 44.

  16. 16.

    ‘Champions League Final Tops Super Bowl for TV Market’, BBC news, 31 January 2010.

  17. 17.

    UEFA Financial Report 2010/2011, p. 23.

  18. 18.

    This was recognised by the Commission in Case COMP IV/37.806—ENIC/UEFA [2002] unpublished decision of 27 June 2002, para 41 that said: ‘the preferences of viewers determine the value of a programme to advertisers and pay TV broadcasters’.

  19. 19.

    Analogous to finding in Commission Decision in Case IV/36.539—British Interactive Broadcasting/Open [1999] OJ L 312/1, p. 1.

  20. 20.

    Commission Decision in Case No IV/36.237—TPS [1999] OJ L 90/6, p. 6.

  21. 21.

    Commission Decision in COMP/M.2483—Group Canal+/RTL/GJCD/JV [2001] OJ L 2985, para 19.

  22. 22.

    Ibid. para 21.

  23. 23.

    Commission Decision in COMP/37.398—Joint Selling of Commercial Rights (UEFA Champions League) [2003] OJ L 291/25, para 59.

  24. 24.

    Ibid. para 58.

  25. 25.

    This follows from findings by Dietl et al. 2011, p. 10. In either case, it is not irrelevant that the UEFA EURO and the FIFA World Cup, which similarly attract large viewership, are scheduled to avoid overlap with the Champions League, European League or national leagues.

  26. 26.

    Case T-114/02 BaByliss SA v. Commission, judgment of 3 April 2003.

  27. 27.

    Case T-290/94 Kaysersberg SA v. Commission, judgment of 27 November 1997.

  28. 28.

    But see the discussion below in the subsection on the UEFA market power.

  29. 29.

    Dietl et al. 2011, p. 3.

  30. 30.

    See Sect. 7.6.4.3.

  31. 31.

    Ibid. para 89.

  32. 32.

    T-193/02 Piau, paras 112 and 116.

  33. 33.

    In accordance with Case T-319/99 Federación Nacional de Empresas de Instrumentación Cientifica, Médica, Técnica y Dental (FENIN) v. Commission ECR II-351 paras 36–37 as upheld by the Court in Case C-205/03 [2006] ECR I-6295, paras 25–27.

  34. 34.

    Commission Decision in Case COMP IV/37.806—ENIC/UEFA, para 25.

  35. 35.

    Cases T-25/95 etc. Cimenteries CBR SA v. Commission [2000] ECR II-491, para 1325.

  36. 36.

    Paragraph 26 [emphasis added].

  37. 37.

    See Annex I, endnote nr. 27 [emphasis added].

  38. 38.

    Case T-313/02 David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen v Commission [2004] ECR II-3291 and Case C-519/04 David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen v Commission [2006] ECR I-6991.

  39. 39.

    See Annex I, endnote nr. 27 of the White Paper.

  40. 40.

    Case C-309/99 Wouters [2002], para 64.

  41. 41.

    T-193/02 Piau, paras 112 and 116.

  42. 42.

    T-193/02 Piau, para 75.

  43. 43.

    Commission Decision in Case Cases 33.384 and 33.378—Distribution of package tours during the 1990 World Cup [1992] OJ L 326/31.

  44. 44.

    Ibid. para 75.

  45. 45.

    UEFA Statutes, edition 2012, Article 70.

  46. 46.

    The solidarity payment is made available to Member Associations to develop infrastructure, co-finance some of their statutory tasks, as incentives for good governance, for the clubs licensing project, etc. See UEFA Financial Report 2009/2010, p. 13.

  47. 47.

    The constitution and rules of trade associations may constitute decisions. Commission Decision in Case IV/27.958—National Sulphuric Acid [1980] OJ L 260/24, para 30.

  48. 48.

    Commission Decision in Cases 33.384 and 33.378—Distribution of package tours during the 1990 World Cup, OJ 1992 L326/31, paras 52 and 53. See also the references in Commission Decision COMP/37.398—Joint Selling of Commercial Rights (UEFA Champions League) [2003] OJ L 291/25, para 106.

  49. 49.

    T-99/04 AC-Treuhand AG v Commission [2008] ECR II-1501.

  50. 50.

    See his Opinion in C-415/93 Bosman, paras 254–259.

  51. 51.

    Case 27/76 United Brands v. Commission [1978] ERC 207, para 65.

  52. 52.

    Ibid. paras 65–66.

  53. 53.

    Annex I, para 2.1.4.

  54. 54.

    Case 85/76 Hoffmann-La Roche [1979] ECR 461, para 41.

  55. 55.

    Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers under the Council Regulation on the control of concentrations between undertakings 2004/C 31/03, para 64.

  56. 56.

    Commission Notice—Guidance on Vertical Restraints, Brussels SEC (2010) 411, para 116.

  57. 57.

    For more on the list of factors that support a finding of collective dominance see O’Donoghue and Padilla 2006, pp. 137–161.

  58. 58.

    T-342/99 Airtours plc. v. Commission [2002] ECR II-2585, judgment of 6 June 2002.

  59. 59.

    Case T-193/02 Laurent Piau v. Commission, judgment of 26 January 2005, para 111.

  60. 60.

    C-396/96 P Compagnie Maritime Belge Transports and Others v. Commission [2000] ECR I-1365.

  61. 61.

    Cases T-68/89 etc. Società Italiano Vetro SpA v. Commission [1992] ECR II-1403; Case T-102/96 Gencor Ltd. V. Commission [1999] ECR II-0753; and Case C-393/92 Almelo v. NV Energiebedriff Ijsselmij [1994] ECR I-1477.

  62. 62.

    See Opinion of Advocate General in C-396/96 P Compagnie Maritime Belge, para 137.

  63. 63.

    See Sect. 7.3.1.1.

  64. 64.

    See Sect. 7.3.3.

  65. 65.

    Ibid.

  66. 66.

    Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers under the Council Regulation on the control of concentrations between undertakings 2004/C 31/03, para 64.

  67. 67.

    Commission Notice—Guidance on Vertical Restraints Brussels SEC (2010) 411, para 116.

  68. 68.

    Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers under the Council Regulation on the control of concentrations between undertakings 2004/C 31/03, para 65.

  69. 69.

    Ibid. paras 68–75.

  70. 70.

    The prospect of formation of some other regional alternative league (such as the Balkan league) might not satisfy the requirement of sufficiency, but an elite breakaway on a pan-European level is different in its scope and in the fact that the clubs supply an input that cannot be duplicated in terms of its value for UEFA.

  71. 71.

    Hornsby 2001, and; Halgreen 2004, p. 155.

  72. 72.

    Jonathan Taylor and Adam Lewis ’Governing Body Restraint on Breakaways’ paper presented at ‘Sport and The Law’ conference, London, 31 March 2011 and Stephen Hornsby ‘Governing Body Restraints on Breakaways. Do They Really Need to Rely on Them or is Dominance Enough?’ paper presented at ‘Sport and The Law’ conference, London, 31 March 2011.

  73. 73.

    White Paper on Sport (2007), para 2.1.4, and; Professional Sport in the Internal Market, project No. IP/A/IMCO/ST/2005-004, Commissioned by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection of the European Parliament (September 2005), para 4.2.6.

  74. 74.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings. OJ L 24, 29/1/2004, pp. 1–22.

  75. 75.

    Commission Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice under Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (2008/C 95/01), paras 16–21.

  76. 76.

    Ibid. para 56.

  77. 77.

    See Sect. 5.6.2 for case analysis. Notice published pursuant to Article 19(3) of Council Regulation No. 17 concerning Cases COMP/35.163—Notification of FIA Regulations, COMP/36.638—Notification by FIA/FOA of agreements relating to the FIA Formula One World Championship, COMP/36.776—GTR/FIA and others (2001/C 169/03).

  78. 78.

    Commission Staff Working Document, Annex I, para 2.2.2.1.

  79. 79.

    Stephen Hornsby ‘Governing Body Restraints on Breakaways. Do They Really Need to Rely on Them or is Dominance Enough?’ paper presented at ‘Sport and The Law’ conference, London, 31 March 2011.

  80. 80.

    An interview with Rick Parry, Chief Executive of Liverpool Football Club 1998–2007 and a former head of the Premier League, 2 June 2011.

  81. 81.

    Ibid.

  82. 82.

    See Sect. 3.3.

  83. 83.

    Parrish and Miettinen 2008, p. 213.

  84. 84.

    Treatment of the players participating in clubs forming breakaway league by the national associations and UEFA is important in this regard due to EU free movement rules. Also, leagues that have no ties with national associations would themselves likely breach competition law because they would, as such, amount to closed leagues. See on this point Parrish and Miettinen 2008, p. 213.

  85. 85.

    Case C-55/94 Gebhard [1995] ECR I-4165 para 37.

  86. 86.

    For example Case C-325/08 Olympique Lyonnais SASP v. Olivier Bernard and Newcastle United FC judgment of grand Chamber of the Court delivered on 16 March 2010. See Sect. 4.8 for detailed analysis.

  87. 87.

    Case C-8/08 T-Mobile Netherlands BV and Others v. Raad van bestuur van de Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit, judgment of 4 June 2009, para 27.

  88. 88.

    Ibid.

  89. 89.

    Case C-209/07 Competition Authority v. Beef Industry Development Society Ltd and Barry Brothers (Carrigmore) Meals Ltd [2008] ECR I-8637, para 21.

  90. 90.

    Communication from the Commission—Notice—Guidelines on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty OJ C 101/97, 27.4.2004, para 22.

  91. 91.

    The relationship between the two different references to context and objective has not been addressed anywhere, but it can be assumed that there is a great degree of overlap between them.

  92. 92.

    Guidelines on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty, para 21.

  93. 93.

    For the opposite view which argues that the rule is an object rule, see Hellenthal 2000, Zulässigkeit einer supranationalen Fussball Europaliga nach den Bestimmungen des europäischen Wettbewerbsrechts, Frankfurt am Main, cited in Professional Sport in the Internal Market, project no. IP/A/IMCO/ST/2005-004, Commissioned by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection of the European Parliament (September 2005).

  94. 94.

    For public interest objectives see Sect. 7.6.

  95. 95.

    Case 56/65 Société La Technique Minière v. Maschinenbau Ulm GmbH [1966] ECR 235, at 249–250.

  96. 96.

    Dietl et al. 2011, p. 3.

  97. 97.

    Commission Notice—Guidance on Vertical Restraints, Brussels SEC (2010) 411, para 137.

  98. 98.

    Ibid.

  99. 99.

    Ibid.

  100. 100.

    Case C-234/89 Stergios Delimitis v Henninger Bräu AG [1991] ECR I-935.

  101. 101.

    Rousseva 2005, p. 590.

  102. 102.

    Ibid. p. 637.

  103. 103.

    Case C-250/92 Gøttrup-Klim e.a. Grovvareforeninger v Dansk Landbrugs Grovvareselskab AmbA [1994] ECR I-5641, para 49.

  104. 104.

    Case 85/76 Hoffmann-La Roche v. Commission [1979] ECR 461, para 91.

  105. 105.

    Communication from the Commission—Guidance on the Commission’s enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings (2009/C 45/02), para 34.

  106. 106.

    Paragraph 249.

  107. 107.

    ‘Cross-Border Women’s Soccer League May Lead to Men’s Competition’ by Tariq Panja, Bloomberg, 4 September 2012.

  108. 108.

    For more on this discussion see paper by Miettinen S and Parrish R, ‘Inherent Rules in EC Sports Law’, presented at the Conference on Law and Popular Culture, Onati, Spain (June 2008).

  109. 109.

    Parrish and Miettinen 2008, p. 216.

  110. 110.

    As referred to by Gippini-Fournier 2010.

  111. 111.

    For more on principle of proportionality see Harbo 2010.

  112. 112.

    Lavrijssen 2010, pp. 636–659.

  113. 113.

    See para 40 of Case C-325/08 Bernard. For discussion see Pijetlovic 2010, pp. 862–867, and Sect. 4.8.

  114. 114.

    See Pijetlovic and Nyman-Metcalf 2013, pp. 88–89, and Sect. 4.10.2.3. See also Kaburakis et al. 2012, p. 313.

  115. 115.

    In para 55 of C-519/04 Meca-Medina the Court held: ‘[s]ince 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’.

  116. 116.

    Commission Staff Working Paper, Annex I, para 2.1.5.

  117. 117.

    UEFA news item ‘European Club Football—National Associations, their leagues and clubs want UEFA to remain in charge’ 30 July 1998.

  118. 118.

    UEFA Statement on club football, 15 December 2000. Available at http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/news/001215.html.

  119. 119.

    Ducrey et al. 2003, UEFA and Football Governance: A New Model. Adoptions for the Challenges of Modern Football. Centre International D’Etude Du Sport, p. 35. Available at http://www.academia.edu/173028/UEFA_and_Football_Governance_A_New_Model.

  120. 120.

    For example, there are 23 million registered male and female players, with many more millions playing informally. See the Independent European Sport Review (2006) often referred to as the ‘Arnaut Report’. As a matter of comparison, access to motor sport at all levels requires substantial finances and, unlike football, it is not a ‘sport for all’—it is first business and then sporting activity. See Cygan 2007, pp. 74 et seq. Other team sports in Europe draw in significantly less people.

  121. 121.

    Paragraph 3.4.

  122. 122.

    Case 26/76 Metro v. Commission [1977] ECR 1975, Case 42/84; Remia v. Commission [1985] ECR 2545 and; Cases 56 and 58/64 Consten and Grundig v. Commission [1966] ECR 299.

  123. 123.

    Paragraphs 164 and 165.

  124. 124.

    Case C-70/95 [1997] ECR I-3395, para 29.

  125. 125.

    Paragraph 9.

  126. 126.

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

  127. 127.

    This is the final requirement of the Article 101(3). See Commission Notice Guidelines on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty, OJ C 101, 27.04.2004, pp. 97–118, paras 105–116 and Communication from the Commission—Guidance on the Commission's enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings, OJ C 45, 24.2.2009, pp. 7–20, para 30. See also Sect. 5.2.4.

  128. 128.

    ‘Declaration on the Specific Characteristics of Sport and its Social Function in Europe, of which Account Should be Taken in Implementing Common Policies’, Presidency Conclusions following the Nice European Council Meeting of 7, 8 and 9 December 2000, para 8.

  129. 129.

    Ibid. para 9.

  130. 130.

    Ibid. para 1.

  131. 131.

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

  132. 132.

    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, and 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.

  133. 133.

    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.

  134. 134.

    Case C-434/04 Ahokainen and Leppik [2006] ECR I-9171, para 39.

  135. 135.

    UEFA Financial Report 2011/12, p. 2.

  136. 136.

    Ibid. p. 11.

  137. 137.

    UEFA Financial Report 2010/11, p. 9.

  138. 138.

    Ibid. p. 6.

  139. 139.

    Ibid. p. 7.

  140. 140.

    European Professional Football Leagues, ‘Financial Solidarity at Leagues and European Level’ (July 2010) p. 18.

  141. 141.

    Ibid.

  142. 142.

    Ibid. pp. 19–21.

  143. 143.

    Declaration on the Specific Characteristics of Sport and its Social Function in Europe, of which Account Should be Taken in Implementing Common Policies’, Presidency Conclusions following the Nice European Council Meeting of 7, 8 and 9 December 2000, para 15.

  144. 144.

    Andreff and Bourg, p. 51.

  145. 145.

    Case C-415/93 Union Royale Belge Sociétés de Football Association and others v. Bosman and others [1995] ECR I-4921, para 52.

  146. 146.

    Opinion of AG Lenz in Case C-415/93 Bosman, para 219.

  147. 147.

    Commission Decision Relating to a Proceeding Pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Comp/C.2-37.398 Joint Selling of the Commercial Rights of the UEFA Champions League) 2003/778/EC, OJ 2003 L291/25, para 131.

  148. 148.

    Independent European Sport Review (2006), Annex III, p. 148.

  149. 149.

    Paragraph 3.1.2 of the European Model of Sport.

  150. 150.

    Report from the Commission to the European Council with a view to safeguarding the current sports structures and maintaining the social function of sport within the Community framework (‘The Helsinki Report on Sport’) COM(1999) 644 final, para 4.2; Resolution of the European Parliament on the role of the European Union in the field of sport, OJ C 200, 30.6.1997, and; Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on “The European model of sport”, CdR 37/99, 15.9.99.

  151. 151.

    Ibid.

  152. 152.

    Ibid., Annex 3.

  153. 153.

    Paragraph 3.67 of the Report.

  154. 154.

    Ibid.

  155. 155.

    These social functions are usually directly supported by the local governments.

  156. 156.

    A famous example involved Eric Cantona, a French player in Leeds United in 1993. See Gardiner 1998, pp. 249–64.

  157. 157.

    Consultation Conference with the European Sport Movement on the Social Function of Sport, Volunteering in Sport and Fight Against Doping, ‘The EU and Sport: Matching Expectations’, Brussels 14–15 June, 2005.

  158. 158.

    ‘Sport both integrates and excludes’, EurActiv, 18 June 2008.

  159. 159.

    See Sect. 2.2.2.

  160. 160.

    Paragraph 3.2 of the European Model of Sport.

  161. 161.

    Paragraph 4.2.3 of the Helsinki Report.

  162. 162.

    Commission Staff Working Document, para 3.4.

  163. 163.

    Case C-55/94 R. Gebhard v. Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano [1995] ECR I-4165.

  164. 164.

    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, paras 97 and 108.

  165. 165.

    Ibid. para 107.

  166. 166.

    Whish 2009, p. 127.

  167. 167.

    Case C-519/04 David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen v Commission [2006] ECR I-6991, para 44.

  168. 168.

    Joined Cases C-51/96 and C-191/97 Deliège [2000] ECR I-2549, para 64.

  169. 169.

    Court of Arbitration for Sport, 17 July 1998, CAS 98/200.

  170. 170.

    Ibid. Specifically, CAS cited French Law no. 84-610 of 16 July 1984 as an example.

  171. 171.

    Declaration on the specific characteristics of sport and its social function in Europe, of which account should be taken in implementing common policies 13948/00, Annex to the Presidency Conclusions, Nice (‘Nice Declaration’).

  172. 172.

    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 4.1.

  173. 173.

    White Paper on Sport, para 4.

  174. 174.

    Weatherill 2007, p. 265.

  175. 175.

    Ibid. See also Weatherill 2009, p. 100.

  176. 176.

    UEFA Mission Statement.

  177. 177.

    UEFA Vision Europe 2005, p. 7.

  178. 178.

    Opinion of Advocate General in Joined Cases C-51/96 and C-191/97 Deliège [2000] ECR I-2549, para 87.

  179. 179.

    Case T-313/02 David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen v Commission [2004] ECR II-3291, paras 56–57.

  180. 180.

    Case C-519/04 Meca-Medina [2006] ECR I-6991, paras 46–56.

  181. 181.

    Commission Staff Working Document, Annex I, para 2.1.5.

  182. 182.

    McDermott 2010, p. 280.

  183. 183.

    Parrish and Miettinen 2008, p. 215.

  184. 184.

    Hoehn and Szymanski 1999.

  185. 185.

    Ibid. pp. 230–232.

  186. 186.

    Ibid. pp. 225–227.

  187. 187.

    Ibid. pp. 228–230.

  188. 188.

    Ibid.

  189. 189.

    Weatherill 2005, para 7.

  190. 190.

    See Sects. 3.4 and 7.4.2.

  191. 191.

    William Gaillard, a personal advisor to the President of UEFA ‘Football and the EU in a Wider Historical Perspective’ in a speech delivered at Sport&EU annual conference in Istanbul 28 June, 2013.

  192. 192.

    Ibid.

  193. 193.

    UEFA news item ‘Best of Belgian and Dutch Unite in the BeNe League’ 23 January 2013.

  194. 194.

    Professional Sport in the Internal Market, Project No IP/A/IMCO/ST/2005-004, Commissioned by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection of the European Parliament (September 2005), p. 62.

  195. 195.

    Ibid. pp. 61–62.

  196. 196.

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

  197. 197.

    Notice published pursuant to Article 19(3) of Council Regulation No 17 concerning Cases COMP/35.163—Notification of FIA Regulations, COMP/36.638—Notification by FIA/FOA of agreements relating to the FIA Formula One World Championship, COMP/36.776—GTR/FIA and others (2001/C 169/03).

  198. 198.

    For details and analysis of the case see Sect. 5.6.2.

  199. 199.

    Weatherill 2008, p. 11.

  200. 200.

    Commission Press Release IP/01/1523 ‘Commission closes its investigation into Formula One and other four-wheel motor sports’, Brussels, 30 October 2001.

  201. 201.

    See Sect. 3.4.2 for details on UEFA mandate.

  202. 202.

    Case C-49/07 Motosykletistiki Omospondia Ellados NPID (MOTOE) v Elliniko Dimosio [2008] ECR I-4863.

  203. 203.

    For details and analysis of the case see Sect. 5.6.1.

  204. 204.

    C-250/92 DLG.

  205. 205.

    Paragraph 37 of C-49/07 MOTOE.

  206. 206.

    Ibid. para 38.

  207. 207.

    Ibid. para 39.

  208. 208.

    Ibid. para 41.

  209. 209.

    Ibid. para 42.

  210. 210.

    Ibid. para 43.

  211. 211.

    In Wouters and Meca-Medina, both involving regulatory ancillarity, the issue did not relate to preventing breakaway structures but to ethical standards of profession and the Court upheld the legality of the restrictions. Thus, proportionality usually ends up being the main issue in regards to restrictive rules of associations that are designed to protect public interest, ethical standards, or commercial interest that benefit the members.

  212. 212.

    Greig v. Insole [1978] 1 WLR 302 (Ch D 1977).

  213. 213.

    Ibid. paras 347–348.

  214. 214.

    Ibid. para 349.

  215. 215.

    Ibid. para 310.

  216. 216.

    Ibid. para 351.

  217. 217.

    Ibid. para 352.

  218. 218.

    Ibid. para 365.

  219. 219.

    Hendry and others v. WPBSA [2001] All ER (D) 71.

  220. 220.

    Ibid. paras 114–115.

  221. 221.

    Ibid. para 116.

  222. 222.

    Jonathan Taylor and Adam Lewis ’Governing Body Restraint on Breakaways’ paper presented at ’Sport and The Law’ conference, London, 31 March 2011.

  223. 223.

    Memorandum of Understanding between UEFA and ECA (2012), paras D.1, D.3 and D.4.

  224. 224.

    Case C-49/07 MOTOE [2008] ECR I-4863.

  225. 225.

    Weatherill 2008, p. 8.

  226. 226.

    Cited in Master Thesis by Jaka Lucu, Mico Petcovic, Mihai C. Tudoran and Victor Vasiliev, ‘Central European Football League: Dream or Reality’ (International Centre for Sports Studies (CIES), Neuchatel, 2007), pp. 42–43.

  227. 227.

    For e.g., Case C-67/96 Albany International BV v. Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds Textielindustrie [1999] ECR I-5751.

  228. 228.

    See for e.g., Case C-432/03 Commission v Portugal [2005] ECR I-9665, and Case C-390/99 Canal Satélite Digital SL v. Adminstración General del Estado, and Distribuidora de Televisión Digital SA (DTS) [2002] ECR I-607.

  229. 229.

    Ibid. para 43.

  230. 230.

    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.

  231. 231.

    Opinion of AG Kokott in C-49/07 MOTOE, para 92.

  232. 232.

    European Parliament Report on the future of professional football in Europe (2006/2130(INI)), Committee on Culture and Education, final A6-0036/2007, p. 14.

  233. 233.

    Annex I, para 2.2.1.7 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.

  234. 234.

    Ibid. Annex I, para 2.1.5.

  235. 235.

    Paragraph 4.7 of the Commission Staff Working Document.

  236. 236.

    Case T-193/02 Laurent Piau v. Commission [2005] ECR II-209, paras 100–106.

  237. 237.

    Jonathan Taylor and Adam Lewis ‘Governing Body Restraint on Breakaways’ paper presented at ‘Sport and The Law’ conference, London, 31 March 2011.

  238. 238.

    Ibid.

  239. 239.

    Opinion of AG Kokott in C-49/07 MOTOE, paras 91 and 94.

  240. 240.

    Ibid. para 94.

  241. 241.

    Parrish and Miettinen 2008, p. 214.

  242. 242.

    UEFA Press Release. European Club Football—National Associations, their leagues and clubs want UEFA to remain in charge, 30 July 1998.

  243. 243.

    Case C-49/07 MOTOE, para 51.

  244. 244.

    Advocate General Kokott in Case C-49/07 MOTOE, para 96.

  245. 245.

    Jonathan Taylor and Adam Lewis ‘Governing Body Restraint on Breakaways’ paper presented at ‘Sport and The Law’ conference, London, 31 March 2011.

  246. 246.

    Norros 2011, p. 37.

  247. 247.

    See Sect. 7.6.2.2.

  248. 248.

    A study by European Professional Football Leagues ‘Financial Solidarity at Leagues and European Level’, July 2010.

  249. 249.

    Seventh Report of Session 2010–2012 ‘Football Governance’. House of Commons: Culture, Media and Sport Committee, HC 792-I, published on 29 July 2011, p. 50, contains detailed of this arrangement.

  250. 250.

    For more on the organisation and economics of Italian football see Baroncelli and Caruso 2011, pp. 168–181, and Baroncelli and Caruso 2013, pp. 67–84.

  251. 251.

    For more on the organisation and economics of Spanish football see Gomes et al. 2013, pp. 182–194.

  252. 252.

    ‘La Liga seeks collective TV rights deal to close gap on Premier League’ by Andy Hunter, The Guardian, 11 April 2013.

  253. 253.

    For e.g., all men’s professional tournaments (but for Futures that are governed by ITF) pay fees to ATP in accordance with the Chapter III of the ATP World Tour Rulebook 2014.

  254. 254.

    Vollebregt and Brinckman 1998, p. 284.

  255. 255.

    See Annex I, para 3.1.3.1.2.

  256. 256.

    Commission Decision in COMP/37.398—Joint Selling of Commercial Rights (UEFA Champions League) [2003] OJ L 291/25, para 122.

  257. 257.

    [1978] 1 WLR 302, 309.

  258. 258.

    Jonathan Taylor and Adam Lewis ‘Governing Body Restraint on Breakaways’ paper presented at ‘Sport and The Law’ conference, London, 31 March 2011.

  259. 259.

    See, for e.g., Case 42/84 Remia v Commission [1985] ECR 2545, para 22.

  260. 260.

    This follows from the Commission Notice—Guidelines on the effect on trade concept contained in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty OJ C 101, 27.4.2004, para 61.

  261. 261.

    Emphasis added.

  262. 262.

    Commission Guidelines on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty OJ C 101/97, para 30. See also Case T-112/99 Métropole télévision (M6), Suez-Lyonnaise des eaux, France Télécom and Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) v Commission of the European Communities [2001] ECR II-2459, para 107.

  263. 263.

    Commission Staff Working Document, Annex I, para 2.1.6.

  264. 264.

    See Commission Guidelines on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty, OJ C 101, 27.04.2004, pp. 97–118, para 106.

  265. 265.

    See Case T-193/02 Piau, para 119.

  266. 266.

    Paragraph 145. The Court’s selected reference to paras 105–124 also confirms the point made above in Sect. 4.10.2.4, that encouraging public to attend and participate in matches is probably not accepted as objective worthy of protection under EU law, and that the Court was only dealing with the point of proportionality.

  267. 267.

    Opinion of AG Lenz in C-415/93 Bosman, para 278.

  268. 268.

    Opinion of Advocate General Lenz in C-415/93 Bosman, para 255.

  269. 269.

    Ibid. para 285.

  270. 270.

    Van den Brink 2000, p. 426.

  271. 271.

    See Sects. 7.4.2 and 7.3.1.

  272. 272.

    See Opinion of Advocate General in C-396/96 P Compagnie Maritime Belge, para 137.

  273. 273.

    See Sect. 5.7 on the concepts of superdominance and special responsibility.

  274. 274.

    Professional Sport in the Internal Market, Project No IP/A/IMCO/ST/2005-004, Commissioned by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection of the European Parliament (September 2005), p. 61.

  275. 275.

    Van den Brink 2000, p. 426.

  276. 276.

    Ibid.

  277. 277.

    Parrish and Miettinen 2008, p. 213.

  278. 278.

    Hornsby 2001, pp. 162–167.

  279. 279.

    Commission Decision in Case COMP IV/37.806—ENIC/UEFA, para 28.

  280. 280.

    CAS arbitral award dated 20 August 1999 in Case CAS 98/200 AEK Athens and Slavia Prague v. UEFA, cited in para 20 of Commission Decision in Case COMP IV/37.806—ENIC/UEFA.

  281. 281.

    Dietl et al. 2011, p. 3.

  282. 282.

    Study on Match-fixing in Sport: A Mapping of the Criminal Law Provisions in EU 27’ (2012), pp. 15–16.

  283. 283.

    Commission Decision in Case COMP IV/37.806—ENIC/UEFA, para 32.

  284. 284.

    Commission Decision in Case COMP/37.398—Joint Selling of Commercial Rights (UEFA Champions League) [2003] OJ L 291/25, paras 136–196.

  285. 285.

    Weatherill 2004, p. 131.

  286. 286.

    In certain circumstances, a joint venture may be considered full-function even if it does not own the resources that it needs in order to operate on the market, provided it has sufficiently firm access to such resources. In Celanese/Degussa (Case COMP/M.3056, 11 June 2003), ownership of certain production facilities that were to be used by the joint venture was retained by one of the parents, for technical reasons. Despite this, the Commission confirmed that the joint venture was full-function, as it would have exclusive access to the production capacity of the plant in question. See http://uk.practicallaw.com/1-107-3702.

  287. 287.

    Professional Sport in the Internal Market, Project No IP/A/IMCO/ST/2005-004, Commissioned by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection of the European Parliament (September 2005), p. 62.

References

  • Baroncelli A, Caruso R (2011) The organisation and economics of Italian Serie A: a brief overall view. Rivista di Diritto ed Economia Dello Sport 7:67–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Baroncelli A, Caruso R (2013) The organisation and economics of Italian top football. In: Gammelsater H, Senaux B (eds) Organisation and governance of top football across Europe: an institutional perspective. Routledge, London, pp 168–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Cygan A (2007) Competition and free movement issues in the regulation of formula one races. In: Bogusz B, Cygan A, Szyszczak E (eds) The regulation of sport in the European Union. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 74–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietl H et al (2011) Organisational differences between U.S. Major leagues and European leagues: implications for salary cap. International Association of Sports Economists, Working paper series, Paper no 11-05

    Google Scholar 

  • Ducrey et al (2003) UEFA and football governance: a new model. Adoptions for the challenges of modern football. Centre International D’Etude Du Sport. http://www.academia.edu/173028/UEFA_and_Football_Governance_A_New_Model

  • Faull J, Nikpay A (2007) The EC law of competition, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner S (1998) The law and hate speech: ‘Ooh, aah, Cantona’ and the demonisation of ‘the Other’. In: Brown A (ed) Fanatics! Power, identity and fandom in football. Routledge, London, pp 249–264

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomes S, Marti C, Bofafull Mollo C (2013) Commercialisation and transformation in Spanish top football. In: Gammelsater H, Senaux B (eds) Organisation and governance of top football across Europe: an institutional perspective. Routledge, London, pp 182–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Harbo T-I (2010) The function of the proportionality principle in EU law. Eur Law J 16:158–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halgreen L (2004) European sports law: a comparative analysis of the European and American models of sport. Forlaget Thomson, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoehn T, Szymanski S (1999) European football: the structure of leagues and revenue sharing. Econ Policy 14:204–240

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornsby S (2001) ‘Closed Leagues’: a prime candidate for the ‘Sporting Exception’ in European competition law? Int Sports Law Rev 2:162–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaburakis A, Lindholm J, Rodenberg R (2012) British pubs, decoder cards and the future of intellectual property licensing after Murphy. Columbia J Eur Law 18:307–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavrijssen S (2010) What role for National Competition Authorities in protecting non-competition interests after Lisbon? Eur Law Rev 35:636–659

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott J (2010) Direct v. indirect discrimination in European football: the legal differences between UEFA’s Homegrown Player Rule and FIFA’s ‘6+5’ proposal. Texas Rev Entertain Sports Law 11:267–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Noll (2003) The organization of sport leagues. Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, SIEPR Discussion Paper no 02-43

    Google Scholar 

  • Norros O (2011) Does the outsourcing of a sports league affect its evaluation under EU competition law? Int Sports Law J 3–4:29–37

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donoghue R, Padilla AJ (2006) Law and economics of article 82 EC. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrish R, Miettinen S (2008) 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, Nyman-Metcalf K (2013) Liberalising the market for satellite transmission: interplay between intellectual property rights, specificity of sport and TFEU economic provisions in Murphy (joined cases C-403/08 and C-429/08). Int Sports Law J 13:82–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseva E (2005) Modernising by eradicating: how the commission’s new approach to Article 81 EC dispenses with the need to apply Article 82 EC to vertical restraints. Common Market Law Rev 42:587–638

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Brink JP (2000) EC competition law and the regulation of football: Part 2. Eur Compet Law Rev 21:420–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Vollebregt E, Brinckman D (1998) The marketing of sport and its relation to E.C. competition law. Eur Compet Law Rev 19:281–288

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2004) Sport as culture in EU law. In: Craufurd SR (ed) Culture in European Union law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 113–146

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2007) Overlapping legal orders: what is the ‘Purely Sporting’ rule. In: Bogusz B, Cygan A, Szyszczak E (eds) The regulation of sport in the European Union. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 48–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2008) Article 82 EC and sporting ‘Conflict of Interest’: the judgment in MOTOE. Int Sports Law J 3–4 (special addendum)

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2009) The influence of EU law on sports governance. In: Gardiner S, Parrish R, Siekmann CR (eds) EU, sport, law and policy: regulation, re-regulation and representation. T.M.C Asser Press, The Hague, pp 79–100

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Helsinki, Finland

    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

Copyright information

© 2015 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pijetlovic, K. (2015). Treatment of UEFA Restrictions on Breakaway Leagues in Football Under EU Law. In: EU Sports Law and Breakaway Leagues in Football. ASSER International Sports Law Series. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-048-0_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation