The ISU Case and the SuperLeague: on Ancillarity, Object and Burden of Proof in the General Court’s Judgment (Case T‑93/18)
By: Pablo Ibañez Colomo (Chilling Competition)
The world of sport was shaken a few weeks ago when a number of clubs announced a breakaway tournament, the SuperLeague. The follow-up suggests that the consequences for sport will not be immediate (and might never be manfiested). From a competition law perspective, however, the implications may not take long to unfold: it appears that last week, a Spanish judge has referred some questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling concerning the compatibility of UEFA and FIFA regulations with EU competition law (see here).
The submission, arguably inevitable, could not be more timely: the ISU judgment (see here) was rendered by the General Court in December of last year and has since been appealed to the Court of Justice (see here). Some of the fundamental issues raised by the two cases are identical.
In essence, ISU was about a non-compete obligation imposed on athletes taking part in competitions organised by the International Skating Union and its members. The practical consequence is that participants in competitions not authorised by the ISU would face a lifetime ban (with all the dramatic consequences that follow).
The similarities are obvious with any disciplinary action that football governing bodies might take against teams having taken part in the organisation of the SuperLeague (or at least those that have not given up on the idea).
Interestingly, the public perception was not the same. While there was a great deal of sympathy vis-a-vis athletes facing a ban from the ISU, many thought football governing bodies would be right to take disciplinary action against the teams forming a breakaway league.
From a competition law perspective, howevever, I fail to see any differences between the two. In both cases, there is a (de iure or de facto) non-compete obligation imposed by the association setting up the tournament. Accordingly, whether or not the said obligation amounts to a restriction of competition (by object or effect) should be assessed in accordance with the same principles…
Featured News
EU Extends Support for Farms and Fisheries Amid Market Disruptions
May 5, 2024 by
CPI
Sony and Apollo Bid $26 Billion for Paramount Acquisition
May 5, 2024 by
CPI
Goldman Sachs Resolves Decade-Old Metal-Rigging Class Action Lawsuit
May 5, 2024 by
CPI
Italian Antitrust Ruling Puts Halt on Intesa Sanpaolo’s Fintech Ambitions
May 5, 2024 by
CPI
Google Antitrust Case: Closing Arguments Conclude
May 5, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Economics of Criminal Antitrust
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Navigating Economic Expert Work in Criminal Antitrust Litigation
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
The Increased Importance of Economics in Cartel Cases
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
A Law and Economics Analysis of the Antitrust Treatment of Physician Collective Price Agreements
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Information Exchange In Criminal Antitrust Cases: How Economic Testimony Can Tip The Scales
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI