Tondela (Case C‑133/24): No-Poach Agreements in Sport: Context Always Matters

In this post for Covington & Burling’s competition blog, authors Christian Ahlborn, Laurie-Anne Grelier, Toni Pitesa & Mattia Spanò walk us through the implications of the European Court of Justice’s ruling in Tondela, the first major judgment to examine no-poach agreements in professional sports. The case arose from an agreement among Portuguese football clubs during the COVID-19 pandemic not to recruit players who had terminated their contracts due to the disruption caused by the crisis.

The Court confirmed that no-poach agreements can, in principle, constitute serious infringements of EU competition law because they restrict competition for access to labor. However, it rejected the idea that all such agreements should automatically be treated as “by object” restrictions, emphasizing that their legal and economic context, objectives, and surrounding circumstances must be carefully assessed.

A central theme of the judgment is the unique nature of professional sports. The Court acknowledged that football clubs are both competitors and interdependent participants in a shared sporting competition. In the exceptional circumstances of the pandemic, a temporary no-poach arrangement may have served legitimate objectives such as preserving roster stability, maintaining competitive balance, and protecting the integrity of an unfinished season.

The ruling also broadens the potential reach of the Meca-Medina doctrine, which allows certain sports-related restrictions to fall outside the scope of EU competition law when they pursue legitimate public-interest objectives and are necessary and proportionate. While the Court left the final assessment to the Portuguese court, the decision signals a more nuanced, context-driven approach to labor-market restrictions in sport and provides important guidance for clubs, leagues, and regulators navigating competition law issues in the sector.