Football on the monopole – Newspaper Kommersant No. 234 (7435) of 12/16/2022
[ad_1]
The Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) has achieved an important intermediate success in the confrontation with the Super League, a project that involves the creation of an alternative tournament to the Champions League. On Thursday, the European Court of Justice’s senior legal adviser, Athanasios Rantos, issued an opinion on the dispute between the Super League and football governing bodies around the world. It states that UEFA and the International Football Federation (FIFA) have the right to impose sanctions on clubs that play in third-party competitions without proper permission. In this, Mr. Rantos believes, there is no contradiction to the EU antimonopoly rules, in violation of which the Superleague accuses UEFA and FIFA. The opinion of Athanasios Rantos is not legally binding on the court, whose verdict is not expected until next year. But, as practice shows, the court in most cases takes into account the position of a legal adviser.
An interesting twist has taken place in the ongoing European Court of Justice dispute between UEFA and FIFA on the one hand and the Super League, or rather what is left of it, on the other. On Thursday, European Court of Justice Senior Counsel Athanasios Rantos unveiled his take on a case that many believe could have as much of an impact on the football industry as the famous Jean-Marc Bosman case. The Superleague demands that the actions of UEFA and FIFA (the verdict is not expected until spring 2023) aimed at preventing the emergence of a tournament beyond their control are recognized as contrary to EU antitrust law. But Athanasios Rantos actually sided with UEFA and FIFA.
He said in a statement that “the Super League can host independent football competitions outside the UEFA and FIFA ecosystem.” However, the specialist believes that the clubs participating in the Super League cannot “continue to participate in tournaments organized by FIFA and UEFA without the prior permission of these organizations.”
Mr Rantos admits that such a position is contrary to the requirements of EU antitrust law, but believes that “given the legitimate purposes related to the nature of sport, such restrictions are acceptable.” It should be noted that the ban in itself on potential Superleague participants to play in competitions under the auspices of UEFA is not so terrible for them – they are trying to get out of UEFA control. But the problem is that the possible disqualification of splinter clubs may affect their players personally. They can simply be banned from playing for national teams. For many top players, such a threat will be enough motivation to stay within the UEFA rules and not move to alternative tournaments.
The scandalous Superleague project started in the spring of 2020. Then 12 European top clubs – English Liverpool, Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham, Spanish Atletico, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Italian Inter “And” Milan “,” Juventus “- announced the creation of a tournament not controlled by UEFA. True, it lasted a little more than a day and actually collapsed after all the English teams left it, unable to cope with the pressure. Atlético Madrid, Inter and AC Milan followed suit. All the clubs that abandoned the project were forced to make a bad deal with UEFA. It provided for a one-time payment of €15 million by them as a “goodwill gesture”. In addition, the clubs agreed to withhold from them 5% of the prize money earned for the 2022/23 season. UEFA also warned them about the threat of a fine in case of relapse. If the clubs do not fulfill any of the obligations taken, it will amount to €50 million, if they again try to initiate a “splitting” project – €100 million. Real Madrid, Juventus and Barcelona have not abandoned the Super League project, and it is they who are suing with UEFA/FIFA. And the main inspirer of the project is the president of Real Madrid, Florentino Perez. Now, however, their judicial prospects appear precarious. The opinion of Athanasios Rantos, of course, is not legally binding on the court, but, as practice shows, in most cases his decisions do not contradict the recommendations of the senior legal adviser.
UEFA welcomed the decision of the representative of the European Court. “The expressed opinion reinforces the leadership role of federations in protecting the interests of sport, supporting its fundamental principles and ensuring access to competition for all,” UEFA said.
Let’s add that on Thursday Mr. Rantos made public his position on yet another dispute, very similar to the one that UEFA/FIFA and the Superleague are trying to resolve. The participants in the dispute are the International Skating Union (ISU) and a number of skaters who protested against the ISU ban on performance in commercial tournaments not sanctioned by the federation. Back in 2016, the European Commission banned the ISU from preventing athletes from competing in third-party championships. The European Commission equated such actions with a violation of the freedom of competition. ISU appealed to the European Court of Justice, but lost it in 2020. Now Athanasios Rantos says the case should be reviewed. His opinion on the skating business echoes his own position on the football occasion. “Sports federations may, under certain circumstances, restrict market access to third parties, which will not be a violation of competition laws, provided that such prohibitive measures are due to the legitimate interests of the federations,” said Mr. Rantos.
[ad_2]
Source link