The European Court has decided that clubs cannot be banned from participating in the football Super League

On Thursday, the European Court of Justice, the EU’s highest court, released its decision in the so-called Super League case. The court’s verdict came as an unpleasant surprise for the two largest governing bodies of the global football industry – the International Football Federation (FIFA) and the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA). The court found that their actions in opposition to the project of the Super League – a failed tournament not controlled by UEFA and founded by a dozen top clubs in Europe – violated the antitrust laws of the European Union. From now on, all clubs are free to enter any tournaments without fear of sanctions from higher international federations. The effect of such a decision by the European Court may well overshadow the consequences of the famous “Bosman case”, after which the limit on foreign players was actually abolished in European football. Supporters of the Super League wasted no time in immediately proposing its updated project.

The European Court announced its decision on Thursday (.pdf) in the most high-profile case related to football in recent decades. We are talking about a lawsuit filed by the Super League, a structure whose creation was announced in April 2021 and existed in its intended form for less than 48 hours. The Super League, or rather, Real Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus, which remained in its composition (the Turin team, however, recently announced that they were leaving the pool, but it is unknown whether they managed to do this) demanded that the actions of FIFA and UEFA be declared illegal, accusing them of violating antitrust rules and abuse of dominant position. And they succeeded.

The confrontation began in April 2021, when twelve European giant clubs – English Liverpool, Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham, Spanish Real Madrid, Barcelona and “Atlético”, Italian “Juventus”, “Inter” and “Milan” – spoke founders of the Super League. This elite, virtually closed tournament promised the teams super-profits, primarily due to the presence of a generous investor: JP Morgan agreed to allocate $6 billion for it. Meanwhile, the creation of the UEFA Super League threatened with colossal image and material losses, primarily due to the decrease in the commercial attractiveness of the Champions League, its the main club competition and the main driver of income.

The war between the “schismatics” and officials lasted only two days and ended a complete victory for European football functionaries, whose side was taken by sports and public organizations, famous politicians, as well as fans of the clubs that founded the Super League. They all stated that it undermines the “fundamental principles” of the game and destroys the “pyramid” that has developed in football.

The Super League, which had not yet been born, seemed to have de facto died when, unable to withstand the pressure, its nine founders – all six English clubs plus Atlético, Inter and Milan – informed about leaving the project.

The exit turned out to be by no means free. To make peace with UEFA, the clubs had to make a deal with it. It provided for a one-time payment of €15 million by each club as a “gesture of goodwill”. In addition, the clubs agreed to withhold 5% of the prize money they earn in European competitions during the season, which fell in the second half of 2022 and the first half of 2023. UEFA also warned them of the threat of a fine in case of relapse. If the clubs do not fulfill any of their obligations, it will amount to €50 million, if they again try to initiate a “schismatic” project – €100 million.

However, as it turned out, it was too early to bury the Super League.

The European Court of Justice’s decision noted that “FIFA and UEFA’s rules requiring their consent to host international tournaments such as the Super League and prohibiting clubs from participating in such tournaments are illegal.” The court also agreed with the plaintiffs that the governing football structures abuse their dominant position by “imposing unreasonable restrictions.” The court noted that holding football competitions also has a completely commercial rationale, for example in the form of the implementation of commercial rights, which means that this case falls under laws protecting competition.

The Court considered that it was detrimental to European clubs in general that FIFA and UEFA had exclusive control over the implementation of commercial rights, which “harm[ed]clubs, interested companies, consumers and spectators by limiting their right to enjoy new, potentially innovative or interesting tournaments.”

At the same time, the court did not declare that UEFA and FIFA were obliged to agree to hold the Super League, considering that this was beyond its competence. But the latter doesn’t really matter. It is not surprising that the president of Real Madrid and a key figure in the Super League project, Florentino Perez, hastened to declare the beginning of a new era of world football. “Let me say to all European clubs that we are at the beginning of a new era in which we can work together, maintaining constructive dialogue, avoiding threats, not acting against something or someone, but striving to improve football,” the statement said. Mr. Perez.

And the A22 company, a structure established precisely to promote the interests of the Super League, without delaying the matter, proposed a new project for the tournament. Its parameters were announced by A22 CEO Bernd Reichart. The Super League has decided to move away from the much-criticised de facto closed league system and become open and inclusive. The new format of the Super League involves the creation of a tournament for 64 teams at once, divided into three leagues, from the strongest to the weakest – “star”, “gold” and “blue”. 16 clubs will play in the first two, and another 32 will be in the third. Teams will compete in groups of eight each (this applies to all leagues) followed by play-offs. The matches are supposed to be held in the middle of the week, that is, without interfering with the games of national championships, which usually take place on weekends. There is also an exchange mechanism with national leagues – clubs from them will be able to get into the “blue” league. By what scheme is not reported. It has also been proposed to hold a women’s championship. It will consist of two leagues of 16 teams each.

As you can see, the new Super League project does not at all eliminate the main concerns of UEFA, whose leadership sees in the project a direct threat to European competitions, especially the Champions League (its games are held in the middle of the week).

In the spring of 2021, when emotions from what happened were still acute, UEFA President Aleksandar Čeferin even named Juventus President Andrea Agnelli, whose daughter’s godfather he is, is a “snake” (Mr. Ceferin considered all the other “schismatics” simply “liars”).

However, the latest reaction from UEFA gives reason to believe that the leadership of European football is in some confusion. Toothless UEFA statement It is noted that the court’s decision does not recognize the “so-called Super League project” as legal, and also expresses commitment to further maintaining the work of the European “football pyramid”. FIFA’s statement was made in approximately the same spirit. The statements of the governing football structures do not say anything about measures to counter the upcoming actions of Super League supporters.

Meanwhile, it would be naive to believe that the football industry will immediately feel the consequences of the European Court’s decision. There will certainly be consequences as such. In their effect, they can eclipse those that took place after the famous “Bosman case” (in the mid-1990s, the European Court actually declared the limit on foreign players in European football illegal, which led to the emergence of super clubs made up of stars from all over the world), but it takes time. In the meantime, some top clubs, such as Manchester United, Atlético Madrid and Bayern, have already come out categorically against any projects not agreed with UEFA. Moreover, in the UK, back in November, King Charles III introduced a bill to Parliament that directly prohibits clubs from joining “schismatic” leagues. Note that the UK, which is not a member of the European Union, is not obliged to comply with decisions of the European Court. The German Bundesliga and the Spanish La Liga also opposed it, confirming their commitment to the established model of European football. La Liga said in a statement that “the Super League is a selfish and elitist model.”

In reality, however, what will matter most is money. Actually, the first – failed – project of the Super League was precisely about money: the clubs that joined it were promised approximately $300 million in annual income.

The question is whether Florentino Perez will again be able to find an investor capable of creating conditions that will encourage top clubs to overcome the resistance of their own national federations and leagues and enter a new tournament. And here it must be said that the decision of the European Court came at a very fortunate moment for Super League supporters. After all, there is now an investor who is buying up all the sports assets that he can get his hands on—Saudi Arabia. Over the past two years, the country’s authorities have invested more than $6 billion in various sports projects and will certainly not refuse to participate in the creation of a tournament that could become the most attractive football club championship in the world. And how investors from Saudi Arabia know how to lure stars with money can be seen in the example of golf, which they are already taking control of, paying, if necessary, hundreds of millions to representatives of this species for the transition to tournaments controlled by this country.

We add that Bernd Reichart said on Thursday, among other things, that the Super League is ready to provide fans with the opportunity to watch matches for free. Without an investor to compensate for the profits lost from the sale of television broadcast rights, such a step seems extremely difficult.

Alexander Petrov