Editor's note: Marine Montejo is a graduate from the College of Europe in Bruges and is currently an intern at the ASSER International Sports Law Centre. 

Part 2. EU competition law and sports funding

The first analysed impact of Brexit on sport was the one regarding EU internal market rules and free movement. However, all sport areas that are of interest to the European Union will be impacted by the result of the future Brexit negotiations. This second part of the blog will focus on EU competition law and the media sector as well as direct funding opportunities keeping in mind that if the UK reaches for an EEA type agreement competition law and state aid rules will remain applicable as much as the funding programs.  

A) EU competition law and the media sector

As for the internal market rules, EU competition law applies to sport as long as an economic activity appears to have an impact on the European market. In the field of sport this is particularly true for the media sector, a key source of economic revenue for professional sport. 

EU competition law

It should be stated from the beginning that the UK, even completely outside of the EU, will not escape EU competition law (articles 101 and 102 TFEU). Indeed, if there is an economic activity within the European market EU law will continue to apply. The application of EU competition law leads to a convergence with national competition rules and most of the decisions relating to sport will probably remain enforceable through UK national law provisions unless there is an important change in their interpretation or a complete shift in competition law policy leading to a change of these rules. 

The main impact for the UK regarding the applicability of EU competition law appears to be in the media sector. With regard to the collective selling of media rights, for the time being national provisions should maintain the system in force which is derived from the Commission’s decisional practice (Football Association Premier League for a British example). Collective selling of media rights is compatible with EU competition law if the selling procedure is organised in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner, the contractual exclusivity runs for no more than three years and the rights are sold in several packages. The “no-single buyer” clause that was first imposed upon the Premier League to avoid the risk of monopolisation given the specific structure of the British sport media market (and now also applied by the German competition authority for the Bundesliga rights) might be questioned. This clause, providing that all the rights should not be sold to a single broadcaster, combined with the possibilities offered by EU free movement and impressive marketing skills from the Football Association, has made the Premier League the most valuable football competition in the world (6.9 billion euros for 2016-2019). It is highly probable that the UK national competition authority will keep that clause and the obligations for all sport media rights unless there is a major shift in national competition law policy. Remaining or leaving, in any case EU competition law will have left an important imprint on the British sport media rights landscape.

Other media related questions

In relation to media rights, two more points are interesting. Firstly, the question concerning multi-territory licensing of media rights in sport may arise. Sport rights are sold on a territorial basis. One of the many reasons for it are linguistic borders. However, the ECJ concluded that territorial exclusivity agreements relating to the transmission (using satellite decoders from broadcast providers based on another Member State) of football matches were a breach of competition law and the free movement of provision of services (Football Association Premier League v QC Leisure and Karen Murphy v. Media Protection Services Limited, joined cases C-403/08 and C-429/08). This important judgement caused great despair among sport organisers but it gave the opportunity to consumers to access a broader list of sport media providers around the EU. Depending on the position of the UK towards the EU, this possibility may vanish in the future. This judgment is also important for EU protection of property rights. The Court held that sport events cannot be considered intellectual creations, and, as such, cannot be protected by copyright. However, a clear distinction was made between private residence watching and public screening. The latter could amount to copyright infringement if some part of the event can be considered as unique and original and are duly protected (i.e. songs, slow motion extracts, etc.). In that case, it is for the Members States to regulate such a protection, but the EU is also developing a specific protection at the European level. Sport rights holders are exposed to financial damages due to breach of intellectual property rights with high economic value. This is the case for media rights but also for sport merchandising. The enforcement of those rights is conjointly overlooked by the Commission for harmonization of national legislations as well as the European Union Intellectual property Office (EUIPO) and Europol. In a situation where cross-border piracy and counterfeiting is difficult to tackle alone, the UK might consider to secure some kind of cooperation with the EU on that matter.

Secondly, also concerning the sports media industry, albeit with less ties to competition law provisions, the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (better known as the “Television Without Frontiers directive”) might not be applied to the UK in the future or at least as it stands at the moment. This directive regulates cross-border television broadcasting and allows EU Member States to establish a list of sport events of major importance for society that are offered on subscription-free TV channels (article 14 of the directive). The protected events list is then transmitted to the Commission in order to check its compliance with EU law and published in the EU Official Journal. Members States are entitled to create such a list but may choose not to. The UK is amongst the Members States that choose to set up such a list. Consequently, the 1996 Broadcasting Act lists those events for the UK (for example the Olympic Games, the Wimbledon Tennis Finals, the FA Cup Final, or the FIFA World Cup Finals Tournament). The national law relies on the directive which means that after Brexit, if the UK wants to keep with that requirement it should integrate the list into its national law. In a country where the subscriptions for premium sports pay television are the most expensive in Europe, it is quite doubtful whether this is good news for the British consumer and that might be an incentive to maintain a similar system. The directive also provides for a system of mutual recognition meaning that a provider of an audiovisual media services is subject to the law of its country of origin. Another Member State cannot impose other requirements than the one provided for by the directive. This principle, in case of Brexit, will surely disappear which is a potential problem for sports broadcasters seated in the UK and engaged in cross-border activities.  

EU State aid policy

Public funding and financial support is often used in sport and is a highly sensitive issue. Infrastructure and individual sport clubs are the main beneficiaries of public funds, which can make them subject to EU State aid provisions (article 107 TFEU). The Commission has closely monitored the application of State aid law in the field of sport, drawing a big line between professional and grassroots sports subsidies. Financial support to professional clubs is sometimes found incompatible with EU law as it distorts competition. An exception to this is where the objectives pursued are non-economic (subsidies for young training centres have been considered compatible as the main goal is to meet education obligations). Subsidies to amateur clubs are less likely to constitute State aid as they are not pursuing an economic activity. For sport infrastructures, only the ones pursuing economic activities and in competition at the European level are likely to be subject to State aid rules. A consequence of a complete Brexit might end the application of EU State aid rules in the UK. Anyway, given the expected negative economic consequences related to Brexit, it is rather unlikely that British public authorities will have the financial capacity to intensively fund professional clubs and sports infrastructures even if it they would have the freedom to do so. 

B) The money: securing sports funding

Finally, since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU developed a more proactive policy in sport via funding opportunities. These are also going to be impacted by Brexit and adverse consequences will specifically target amateur sport.  

EU funding for sport

The introduction of article 165 TFEU allowed the EU to create a specific funding programme for sport. Before that, sport related projects were indirectly funded through other EU programmes. The 2014-2020 Erasmus + Sport programme provides grants for a broad range of actions and activities in the field of sport. The aim of the programme is to promote the positive values of sport and physical activity and good governance in the sector as well as support dual careers of athletes and projects against match-fixing, doping, violence, racism and intolerance. These funds are directly targeted to grassroots sports through collaborative partnerships, not-for-profit European sport events, dialogue with European sport stakeholders as well as studies and conferences. British sport and sport-related organisations as well as public authorities can benefit from funding. However, these possibilities may disappear following Brexit. Erasmus + Sport is a European programme and, as such, helps to finance projects contributing to the development of a European dimension of sport. Consequently, it is difficult to give an exact number of projects financed through the programme in the UK. However, to give an illustration, in 2015, just for Erasmus + Sport projects for which a UK sport organisations was the lead coordinator, the EU funding amounted up to 1.1 million euros. It should be kept in mind that other British organizations are simple partners to many other projects and are entitled to be funded as well (the 2015 budget for the Erasmus + Sports programme was 18,8 million euros). Will the UK be entitled to keep some funding? If it secures an EEA type agreement, Erasmus + Sport will still apply but the UK will have to financially contribute to it. 

The financial participation from the EU in UK sports is also possible through other EU programmes. It is worth mentioning the European Structural and Investment funds which promotes the socio-economic development of European regions (10.7 billion euros were awarded to the UK for 2014-2020). The EU also provides funding for sport related studies to which several UK-based academics and think tanks have already participated. One should not forget that the EU is also actively supporting academic and PhD research through several programmes (the main one being Horizon 2020) and that in case of Brexit it will have a negative impact on the UK’s capacity to produce academic output on sport (think about anti-doping, sports law and governance, economics studies, etc…). 

Gambling and sport betting

The British market for gambling and sports betting generated 12.6 billion pounds last year. It is one of the biggest markets in Europe and British betting operators seized the opportunities offered by the EU’s freedom to provide services to develop their activities in other EU Members States as the EU pushed for the opening of gambling and online betting to competition. As a consequence of Brexit, Gibraltar-based online betting firms (let’s face it, due to a favourable taxation system) might lose their access to the European market. The Gibraltar betting and gambling authority tried to put on a brave face in the aftermath of the Brexit vote but, in the case of Brexit, the best solution for the operators will be to leave Gibraltar for an EU Member State and secure its access to the European market (for example Malta, a very popular host for betting operators).

The economic impact for the gambling sector is sure to be important, but it is just as important for the sport sector as part of the betting industry’s revenue constitutes an important source of income for sport, and in particular grassroots sport via taxes. Furthermore, betting operators are active in sponsorship for professional club and athletes. If the financial stability of these companies is undermined, it will probably have an impact on both their participation in the financing of sport and their marketing strategy. 

Another problem that might arise for the UK in that area concerns the fight against corruption and match fixing that threatens the integrity of sport and its economic value. The UK cannot handle this problem alone and the EU, given the sector’s inherent cross-border nature, is encouraging cooperation between Members States and sport organisations to tackle the issue. Europol, the EU’s law enforcement agency, provides assistance to EU Member States and sport organisers (collaborating for example with UEFA). Brexit might imply that the UK will leave that organisation, yet it could also maintain a cooperation via operational or/and strategic agreements. In any event, the UK remains a member of Interpol also very active in the fight against match-fixing and illegal gambling. 

Conclusion

Just about everything is going to change between the EU and the UK and it is the same for sport. At this stage, a lot of guesswork is involved in trying to elucidate a picture of the impact of Brexit on sport. Whether with a direct positive action through its funding policy or because of the rules on the internal market and competition having an indirect impact, the EU had an influence on the whole of British sport. This blog tackled the main issues at stake in sport for the EU and the UK before the latter starts its negotiations to formally rescind its membership. But it also should be noted that the EU is an important arena for formal and informal discussion on subject that interest sport in general. For example the EU Work Plan for sport for 2014-2017 sets up EU expert groups to work on topical issues in the field of sport. The European Parliament also hosts a sport-intergroup. By leaving the EU, the UK is also leaving behind an opportunity to deepen its cooperation at the EU level.

Since last year, Doyen Sports, represented by Jean-Louis Dupont, embarked on a legal crusade against FIFA’s TPO ban. It has lodged a competition law complaint with the EU Commission and started court proceedings in France and Belgium. In a first decision on Doyen’s request for provisory measures, the Brussels Court of First Instance rejected the demands raised by Doyen and already refused to send a preliminary reference to the CJEU. Doyen, supported by the Belgium club Seraing, decided to appeal this decision to the Brussels Appeal Court, which rendered its final ruling on the question on 10 March 2016.[1] The decision (on file with us) is rather unspectacular and in line with the first instance judgment. This blog post will rehash the three interesting aspects of the case.

·      The jurisdiction of the Belgian courts

·      The admissibility of Doyen’s action

·      The conditions for awarding provisory measures

I.      The jurisdiction of the Belgian courts

Doyen was not the only party to the dispute dissatisfied with the first instance ruling; FIFA and UEFA also appealed the decision challenging the territorial competence of the Belgian Court to hear the claims raised against FIFA’s TPO ban. They consider that the Swiss courts are solely competent to deal with civil disputes involving its rules and decisions.

As in first instance, the thrust of the ruling on this question turns on the interpretation of the Lugano convention of 2007 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. In principle, under Article 2(1) of the Convention: “Subject to the provisions of this Convention, persons domiciled in a State bound by this Convention shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that State.” Thus, translated to the present dispute this would imply that FIFA and UEFA, which are Swiss Associations, are in principle to be sued in front of Swiss courts.

Moreover, to support their view that Swiss Courts have an exclusive jurisdiction, FIFA and UEFA also invoke Article 22(2) Lugano Convention stipulating that “proceedings which have as their object the validity of the constitution, the nullity or the dissolution of companies or other legal persons or associations of natural or legal persons, or of the validity of the decisions of their organs, the courts of the State bound by this Convention in which the company, legal person or association has its seat. In order to determine that seat, the court shall apply its rules of private international law”. Yet, the Appeal Court is of a different opinion and refers to the jurisprudence of the CJEU indicating that Article 22(2) should be interpreted as referring to disputes lodged based on company law or their statutes against decisions of a company or association.

The principle enshrined in Article 2 Lugano Convention is not absolute, many exceptions are provided in the Lugano Convention itself. In particular, Article 5(3) Lugano Convention foresees that in delictual matters the court of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur is competent. This entails both the place were the harmful conduct was put in motion and the place where the harm was felt. In the present case, the Appeal Court argues that it is “difficult to contest that by hindering the appellant to execute their partnership agreement and enter in future TPO or TPI agreements over specific players, the attacked ban is producing harmful effects on the Belgian territory”.[2] Furthermore, the TPO agreement between Doyen Sports and the ASBL RFC Seraing is not deemed fictitious, as it has been invoked by FIFA to hand out disciplinary sanctions to the ASBL RFC Seraing.[3]

Additionally, the Court derives also its competence from Article 6(1) Lugano Convention. This article provides that a party can be sued “where he is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where any one of them is domiciled, provided the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings”. The key question is whether there is sufficient connectedness between the claims raised against l’URBSFA, FIFA and UEFA. The Court refers to the recent case law of the CJEU, which is relevant to the interpretation of the Lugano Convention, on the identical provision in the Brussels Regulation (notably the case C-352/13 at para. 20). It is of the view that “FIFA and URBSFA share a regulatory and disciplinary power that enables them both, acting jointly or separately, to adopt the contested ban, to enforce it and to adopt an individual decision susceptible to block, compromise and/or restrict the execution of the contract signed by the appellants”.[4] Thus, “the autonomous regulatory power of the URBSFA justifies its participation in this proceeding, alongside FIFA in order (i) to obtain that both be prevented to act; (ii) that each of them be deprived of the opportunity to contest the opposability of a decision to which they would not have been part and lastly (iii) to deny FIFA the possibility to circumvent an interdiction pronounced against it by having recourse to the regulatory power of the URBSFA”.[5] Finally, the Court argues “if the appellant were forced to lodge a claim against FIFA in front of the Swiss courts and against URBSFA in front of the Belgian Courts, this could potentially lead to irreconcilable solutions”.[6] As far as the claims against UEFA are concerned, which has not contrary to FIFA explicitly banned TPO, the Appeal Court is also convinced of their connectedness. It is so because UEFA “imposes to the clubs needing a license to participate in its competitions that they comply with the statutes and regulations of FIFA and, thus, with the disputed TPO ban “.[7]

This is again a powerful reminder that Sports Governing Bodies (SGBs) seated in Switzerland cannot evade the jurisdiction of the national courts of EU Member States when EU competition law is involved.[8] Under Article 5(3) Lugano Convention, EU Member States courts will be competent to deal with a civil liability claim based on EU competition law if the damage caused by the disputed measure/decision/regulation can be felt on the national territory of a Member State. Furthermore, if, as is usually the case for sports regulations, the rules have to be implemented by national sporting associations, the claims raised against the national SGBs will most likely be deemed connected to the original decisions/regulations of the international SGBs and justify the jurisdiction of the court of the domicile of the national SGB.[9]

II.    The admissibility of Doyen’s action

In this proceeding, as well as in the one initiated in front of the Paris court (FIFA’s legal submission in the Paris procedure has been published by football leaks), FIFA argues that Doyen’s action is not admissible due to the fact that the wrong administrator has initiated it. Indeed, under article 11.1 of Doyen’s own statutes the judicial representation is to be exercised by the local administrator designated by shareholder A acting in conjunction with the local administrator designated by shareholder B or by any other person designated by the general assembly. Yet, in practice Nelio Lucas, who fulfils none of the relevant criteria and was thus not authorized to act in Doyen’s name in judicial matters, lodged the action. However, Doyen could have under Belgium procedural rules ratified the judicial initiative taken by an incompetent organ. Doyen tried to do so but failed to organize the general assembly necessary to ratify Nelio Luca’s decision. Thus, the Court deems the action initiated by Doyen inadmissible. Luckily for Doyen it was not the sole party to the proceedings as the ASBL RFC Seraing joined the procedure. The Court believes the intervention of RFC Seraing in the proceedings is admissible and its interest to act is acknowledged. On this latter point, FIFA was arguing that RFC Seraing’s interest to act was inexistent due to the fact that the partnership agreement between Doyen and Seraing was contrary to the public order. However, in light of the divergent positions regarding the legality of TPO/TPI and of the on-going proceedings before various national courts and the European commission, the Belgium court is reluctant to admit that the interest of Seraing to act in this matter is illegitimate.

III.  Doyen’s (un)likelihood to prevail

Concerning the likelihood to prevail, however, the Court sided with the federations and refused to admit that the TPO/TPI ban was likely to restrict article 101(1) TFEU. On the one hand, as indices of the compatibility of the ban with EU law, it pointed out that the Commission was inclined to support the TPO ban, that FIFPro was clearly opposed to TPO and invokes fundamental values in support of the ban, and that the ban was adopted after a collective reflection involving many stakeholders and is aimed at tackling the negative externalities listed by the first instance court.[12] On the other hand, it refers to an academic article authored by Marmayou contesting the compatibility of TPO with EU law (this reference appears poorly chosen as the article is dedicated primarily to the FIFA regulations for intermediaries, for a stronger challenge to the compatibility of the TPO ban with EU law see Lindholm).[13] In any case, “it is obvious that a preliminary assessment cannot lead the Court to conclude, with sufficient certainty, that the ban would be contrary to EU competition rules”.[14] Finally, and this is the part of the ruling that seems to have been slightly misinterpreted by the press. The Court pointed out that Seraing and Doyen were asking in the main proceedings for a preliminary reference to the CJEU and that they were, therefore, conscious that they are not certain to prevail. However, the Appeal Court cannot, in the framework of a procedure involving provisory measures, ask a question to the CJEU, as it is unable to comply with the CJEU’s requirements for the admissibility of preliminary references (see the failed attempt in the UEFA FFP case). Hence, it is for the Commercial Court of Brussels, which is competent in the main proceeding, to decide whether it is necessary to do so. The Appeal Court (and the claimants as it cheekily points out) seems to believe that it could be needed, as it is not at all clear that the ban is contrary to EU competition law.

Conclusion

There are number of lessons that can be drawn from the judgment of the appeal court. Three stand out:

1. FIFA and UEFA cannot evade the jurisdiction of EU courts. Indeed, if an EU competition law violation of their rules is invoked they can be brought before the jurisdictions of the Member States
2. Doyen messed up in its original court filing by failing to abide by the procedure enshrined in its own statutes. This has no dire consequences in the Belgium proceedings due to presence of Seraing, but it might be a different story before the Paris court, where Doyen stands alone and the same procedural irregularity is invoked by FIFA.
3. To FIFA’s great satisfaction, the case against the TPO ban is not deemed strong enough to allow for the adoption of provisory measures blocking its implementation. As pointed out in our previous blog (and here) EU competition law is not a golden bullet that can be invoked easily to strike down FIFA or UEFA regulations. There is a high justificatory burden and the claimants will face an uphill battle to demonstrate that the ban is disproportionate (especially in light of the broad support for the ban amongst many key stakeholders).

This was only a small skirmish in a long legal war still before us. It will not be definitely over until the CJEU decides the matter (in 2018 at the earliest) or Doyen bows out of the game in the face of the high legal fees incurred. What is already certain is that the way EU law applies to sport is not straightforward and does not entail an economic/neoliberal logic blindly favourable to an unrestricted freedom to invest.

[1] Cour d’appel Bruxelles, Doyen Sports et ASBL RFC Seraing United c. URBSFA, FIFA et UEFA, 2015/KR/54, 10 mars 2016.

[2] “Il est difficilement contestable qu’en empêchant les appelantes de poursuivre l’exécution de leur convention de collaboration et la conclusion de nouvelles conventions « TPO » ou « TPI » spécifiques à des joueurs, l’interdiction litigieuse produit des effets dommageables sur le territoire belge.” Ibid, para.50.

[3] “C’est également en vain qu’il est soutenu que la convention de collaboration litigieuse ne serait qu’un artifice destiné à saisir les juridictions belges. En effet, elle a connu une exécution par des payements de sommes de Doyen Sports à l’ASBL RFC Seraing et surtout, son existence a été invoquée par la FIFA pour mener des poursuites disciplinaires contre le club dirigé par l’ASBL RFC Seraing et lui infliger une sanction.” Ibid.

[4] “L’URBSFA et la FIFA se partagent donc un pouvoir réglementaire et de contrainte qui leur permet, à l’une et à l’autre, agissant ensemble ou séparément, d’adopter l’interdiction litigieuse, de la mettre en œuvre et de prendre une mesure ou une décision à caractère individuel de nature à empêcher, compromettre et/ou entraver l’exécution du contrat conclu entre les appelantes.” Ibid, para.57

[5] “Le pouvoir règlementaire autonome de l’URBSFA et son pouvoir d’action propre justifient sa présence dans la procédure, en même temps que la FIFA afin (i) d’obtenir l’empêchement d’agir de l’une et de l’autre ; (ii) de priver chacune d’elles de la possibilité de contester l’opposabilité d’une décision judiciaire qui serait rendue dans une cause à laquelle elle serait demeurée étrangère et enfin (iii) d’empêcher la FIFA de contourner une interdiction qui serait prononcée à son encontre en recourant au pouvoir réglementaire de l’URBSFA.” Ibid.

[6] “Si les appelantes étaient dans l’obligation d’attraire la FIFA devant les juridictions suisses tout en citant l’URBSFA devant les juridictions belges, cette situation serait susceptible de conduire à des solutions inconciliables […]”, ibid. para.58.

[7] “En ce qui concerne l’UEFA, la connexité existe également. En effet, si elle n’est pas l’auteur des dispositions réglementaires et si elle n’est pas intervenue comme soutien dans l’exercice de poursuites disciplinaires menées contre le RFC SERAING, elle impose aux clubs qui doivent obtenir une licence pour participer aux compétitions qu’elle organise, de se plier aux statuts et aux règlements de la FIFA et à l’interdiction en cause.” Ibid., para.59.

[8] The same solution was adopted in 2012 by the French Cour de Cassation (Highest French Civil Court) in a dispute opposing the French agent Piau to FIFA. See Cour de cassation, civile, Chambre civile 1, 1 février 2012, publié au bulletin.

[9] This solution was also adopted by the OLG in the Pechstein ruling, see Oberlandesgericht München, 15 January 2015, Az. U 1110/14 Kart, para.A.I.1.a)aa) and bb).

[10] « L’urgence est établie. L’ASBL RFC Seraing est sous le coup d’une sanction disciplinaire dont seule l’exécution a été suspendue et elle est susceptible d’encourir de nouvelles poursuites et sanctions pour le cas où elle conclurait de nouvelles conventions TPO/TPI avec Doyen Sports ou toute autre société menant des activités de financement similaires.” Cour d’appel Bruxelles, Doyen Sports et ASBL RFC Seraing United c. URBSFA, FIFA et UEFA, 2015/KR/54, 10 mars 2016, para.78.

[11] « Ensuite, il n’est pas douteux que l’interdiction de poursuivre la convention de collaboration du 30 janvier 2015 et de conclure de nouvelles conventions TPO/TPI la prive d’une source de financement, sans qu’il soit démontré par les intimées qu’elle pourrait lui trouver un substitut adéquat par des emprunts classiques auprès de tiers.”Ibid.

[12] « D’un côté, il faut constater que :
- la Commission paraît s’être orientée vers la condamnation de la TPO;
- la FIPpro y est clairement opposée et invoque à cette fin des valeurs essentielles;
- l’interdiction est le résultat d’une réflexion collective à laquelle ont participé de nombreux interlocuteurs - et non pas seulement l’UEFA ou certains de ses membres - et elle est l’aboutissement de plusieurs constats que relève le premier juge dans son ordonnance : opacité, absence de contrôle des instances dirigeantes, importance du phénomène puisqu’il concerne le marché mondial, environnement ouvert à la corruption et aux pratiques frauduleuses, importance des sommes en jeu, etc...” Ibid, para.81.

[13] « De l’autre, de sérieuses réserves sont émises à propos de la légalité de l’interdiction de la TPO/TPI (voir ainsi l’article de J.M. MARMAYOU, « La compatibilité du nouveau règlement FIFA sur les intermédiaires avec le droit européen » Les cahiers de droit du sport, 2015, p. 15, pièce 38bis des appelantes).” Ibid.

[14] « Il est patent qu’un examen en apparence ne permet pas de conclure, avec la force nécessaire, que l’interdiction porte atteinte aux règles de la concurrence.” Ibid, para.82.