The European Court of Justice opens the door for a Super League in European football. And even if the proposal that is currently being discussed is unlikely to be implemented, the ruling has much more far-reaching consequences for sport, says an expert.
In the end there is only humor; there is no other way to explain UEFA President Aleksander Čeferin’s reaction on Thursday. He reacted with ridicule to what had happened a few hours earlier. “It’s just before Christmas,” he said: The Super League agency “A22 found a present under the Christmas tree. They were happy. When they open it, they will notice that there isn’t much in it.”
The gift that Čeferin meant was the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the Christmas tree. He had judged what many had previously interpreted as a defeat for the association. Namely that the door is open for the Super League, a possible competitor to the Champions League. The judges declared that the European association had exploited its monopoly.
According to the ECJ, it is unlawful for every new football competition to require the approval of FIFA and UEFA. There is no set of rules that are transparent, objective, appropriate and non-discriminatory. What applies to every market economy company also applies to UEFA: the association is subject to EU competition law.
The limits of the UEFA monopoly
One person who is familiar with antitrust law and the Super League is lawyer Mark-E. Orth. The ECJ has, as he describes it, torn down the “Berlin Wall” of sport. “Sports associations have a monopoly that has been growing for about a century,” he explains in an interview with ntv.de. Orth represents clubs and athletes; time and again they come up against this power imbalance that towers up in front of them like a wall.
The ironic thing – the first point – is that sport is actually organized as a competition. The person who runs the fastest or has the best technique wins. This just doesn’t apply to the organization. In football, at least in Europe, there is only one Champions League. In addition, the athletes are exposed to a number of restrictions. For example, they are not allowed to advertise during the Olympic Games – or have to fight to take part in competing competitions outside their associations.
It has almost disappeared that the ECJ ruled on this matter on the same day also a judgment from 2020 confirmed – which is perhaps even more significant. In May 2014, two Dutch speed skaters wanted to take part in a non-federation competition in Abu Dhabi, also because there were higher bonuses there. The ISU association banned this and threatened with a lifelong ban. But in the final instance, the ISU lost in court. A ban on participation in events outside the association is inadmissible if the association does not simultaneously provide for a binding and non-discriminatory approval procedure for such non-association competitions.
The ECJ ruling on the Super League starts at the same point. “What we’re really saying here is: Sports associations, your monopoly has limits,” explains Orth. Specifically, the ECJ says that UEFA needs comprehensible criteria if it wants to subject participation in competing events to approval. “She must demonstrate that she has objectively examined the proposal.” Transparent, objective, appropriate and non-discriminatory. The full impact of the ruling will still unfold, but the athletes and the clubs will have significantly more scope for development.
For the uprising of the Super League clubs, which UEFA put down in April 2021, the association did not provide any objective criteria for participation in competing events, which is part of the ECJ decision. And that could be expensive. After such a verdict, the next step would be a claim for damages, says Orth. The group had already clarified the financing at that time; it was almost three billion euros.
“An advantage for UEFA”
Regardless of the money, it would probably be just as bad for UEFA if the Super League actually came about. Because then the association lost considerable sums. But it doesn’t look like that at the moment, which also explains the mocking comments from association boss Čeferin. So far, only Real Madrid and FC Barcelona have publicly acknowledged this, the rest are behind the existing system. Two clubs are not enough for a new international league.
In addition, the second point of this story is that it could be the ruling that prevents new competition. “As nonsensical as it sounds: it’s to UEFA’s advantage,” says Orth. The first Super League attempt was made in 1999 with Project Gandalf, which led to a major Champions League reform. The very idea of a competition in which there could be more money for the clubs ensured that UEFA massively revised its competition structure.
UEFA doesn’t have a problem yet. Because the current super league, the English Premier League with all its superstars and giants, has conspired against an international league. Without them the Super League makes no sense. But in a hypothetical scenario where the Super League offer is less vague and actually attracts more money than the Champions League, everything could change. Then, in this distant future, when there is no longer any fan resistance and there is still a majority among the top European clubs, it could be that a Super League does come into being. And then it was this ECJ ruling that opened the door for this. The question is whether the current UEFA boss will still react with ridicule.
2023-12-22 20:29:17
#football #Berlin #Wall #sport #torn
/cloudfront-ap-northeast-1.images.arcpublishing.com/chosun/6N7N26VHF3YZS5SSSZO7RPICOM.jpg?resize=150%2C150&ssl=1)
