Join us for a round table co-organized by GLawNet
and the Asser Institute at the Campus Brussels of the Maastricht University (Avenue de Tervueren 153, 1150 Brussels) just one day after the publication of the Opinion of
Advocate General Rantos in the European Super League (ESL) case. The discussion between academics and stakeholders will focus on the role played by the
EU, as well as the role it
ought to play, in determining
the way football is organised and governed.
In 2021, the
announcement of the creation of a breakaway European Super League
(ESL), as well as the drama of its early demise, stunned the world.
Since then, the company behind the ESL and UEFA (as well as FIFA) are
locked into a legal battle that will soon come to an end at the Court of
Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Following the preliminary
questions raised by a Spanish court, the CJEU will weigh in on whether
UEFA and FIFA breached EU competition law with their attempts to thwart
the emergence of the ESL. It will not be the first time that the
governing bodies of football, both Swiss associations, face scrutiny
before the EU courts - many will remember the 1995 Bosman ruling.
However, this time around various stakeholders and observers are calling
for the EU to not only referee this particular dispute, but to as well
start playing a stronger governance role by regulating European
football.
Programme:
15:00 – 15:05 Opening: Mariolina Eliantonio (Maastricht University)
15:05 – 16:30 - Roundtable: Governing European Football: What role for the European Union?
Moderator: Carlo Colombo (Maastricht University)
16:30 Reception
This is an In-Person event only and will take place at the Campus Brussels of the Maastricht University (Avenue de Tervueren 153, 1150 Brussels). If you wish to attend, please register HERE.
Supported by 
Call for papers
ISLJ Conference
on International Sports Law
Asser
Institute, The Hague
25 and 26
October 2022
The Editors of the International Sports Law Journal
(ISLJ) invite you to submit abstracts for the ISLJ Conference on International
Sports Law, which will take place on 25 and 26 October 2022 at the Asser
Institute in The Hague. The ISLJ, published by Springer and TMC Asser Press, is
the leading academic publication in the field of international sports law. The
conference is a unique occasion to discuss the main legal issues affecting
international sports and its governance with renowned academic experts.
We are delighted to announce the following confirmed
keynote speakers:
- Jonathan Grix (Professor of Sport Policy and Politics at Manchester
Metropolitan University), and
- Mary Harvey (CEO
at the Centre for Sport and Human Rights),
- Ben Van Rompuy (Assistant Professor at Leiden University).
We welcome abstracts from academics and practitioners
on all issues related to international sports law and governance. We also welcome
panel proposals (including a minimum of three presenters) on a specific issue.
For this year’s edition, we specifically invite submissions on the following themes
and subthemes:
- International sports law and governance in times of conflict:
- The emergence of the idea(l) of political neutrality of
SGBs and its translation in legal/governance practice
- The intersection between public international law and
international sports law and governance in the context of international
conflicts
- The role of sports diplomacy/conditionality in the
context of international conflicts
- International sports law and the Russian invasion of
Ukraine
- Human rights and mega sporting events (MSEs)
- The adverse or positive impact of MSEs on (specific) human
rights
- The influence of human rights commitments on the
organisation of MSEs
- The effects of MSEs on human rights in organising
countries
- The responsibilities and strategies of SGBs to ensure
respect of human rights at MSEs
- The role and responsibilities of states in ensuring
respect of human rights in the context of MSEs
- Competition law and challenges to the governance monopoly of SGBs
- The impact of competition law on SGBs and their
governance
- The limits of competition law on effecting change in the
governance of sport
- The specific modalities of application of competition
law to sports governance
- The legitimacy of competition authorities in
challenging SGBs
Please send your abstract of 300 words and CV no later
than 1 July 2022 to a.duval@asser.nl. Selected speakers will be informed by 15 July.
The selected participants will be expected to submit a
draft paper by 10 October 2022. Papers accepted and presented at the conference
are eligible for publication in a special issue of the ISLJ subject to
peer-review. Submissions after this date will be considered for
publication in later editions of the Journal.
The
Asser Institute will cover one night accommodation for the speakers and may
provide a limited amount of travel grants (max. 250€). If you wish to be considered for a
grant, please indicate it in your submission.
Editor’s note: Stephen Weatherill is the Jacques Delors
Professor of European Law at Oxford University. He also serves as Deputy
Director for European Law in the Institute of European and Comparative
Law, and is a Fellow of Somerville College. This blog appeared first on
eulawanalysis.blogspot.com and is reproduced here with the agreement of
the author.
The crumbling of the ‘SuperLeague’ is a source of joy to many football
fans, but the very fact that such an idea could be advanced reveals
something troublingly weak about the internal governance of football in
Europe – UEFA’s most of all – and about the inadequacies of legal
regulation practised by the EU and/ or by states. This note explains why
a SuperLeague is difficult to stop under the current pattern of legal
regulation and why accordingly reform is required in order to defend the
European model of sport with more muscularity. More...
On Wednesday 20 January 2021 from 16.00-17.30 CET, the Asser International Sports Law Centre, in collaboration with Dr Marjolaine Viret, is organising a Zoom In webinar
on the recent judgment of the General Court in the case International
Skating Union (ISU) v European Commission, delivered on 16 December
2016. The Court ruled on an appeal against the first-ever antitrust
prohibition decision on sporting rules adopted by the European
Commission. More specifically, the case concerned the ISU’s eligibility
rules, which were prohibiting speed skaters from competing in
non-recognised events and threatened them with lifelong bans if they did
(for more details on the origin of the case see this blog).
The ruling of the General Court, which endorsed the majority of the
European Commission’s findings, could have transformative implications
for the structure of sports governance in the EU (and beyond).
We have the pleasure to welcome three renowned experts in EU
competition law and sport to analyse with us the wider consequences of
this judgment.
Guest speakers:
Moderators:
Registration HERE
Zoom In webinar series
In December 2020, The Asser International Sports Law Centre in collaboration with Dr Marjolaine Viret launched a new series of zoom webinars on transnational sports law: Zoom In. You can watch
the video recording of our first discussion on the arbitral award
delivered by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in the Blake
Leeper v. International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) case
on the Asser Institute’s Youtube Channel. Click here to learn more about the Zoom In webinar series.
Editor’s
note: Thomas Terraz is a fourth year LL.B.
candidate at the International and European Law programme at The Hague
University of Applied Sciences with a specialisation in European Law. Currently
he is pursuing an internship at the T.M.C. Asser Institute with a focus on
International and European Sports Law.
1. Introduction
As we begin plunging into a new decade, it can be helpful to look
back and reflect on some of the most influential developments and trends from
2019 that may continue to shape international sports law in 2020 and beyond. Hence,
this piece will not attempt to recount every single sports law news item but
rather identify a few key sports law stories of 2019 that may have a continued
impact in the 2020s. The following sections are not in a particular order.More...
Editor’s
note: Thomas Terraz is a fourth year LL.B.
candidate at the International and European Law programme at The Hague
University of Applied Sciences with a specialisation in European Law. Currently
he is pursuing an internship at the T.M.C. Asser Institute with a focus on
International and European Sports Law.
1
Introduction
The International Olympic Committee (IOC), after many years of ineffective
pushback (see here,
here
and here)
over bye law 3 of rule 40[1] of
the Olympic Charter (OC), which restricts the ability of athletes and their
entourage to advertise themselves during the ‘blackout’ period’[2]
(also known as the ‘frozen period’) of the Olympic Games, may have been gifted a
silver bullet to address a major criticism of its rules. This (potentially) magic
formula was handed down in a relatively recent
decision of the Bundeskartellamt, the German competition law authority,
which elucidated how restrictions to athletes’ advertisements during the frozen
period may be scrutinized under EU competition law. The following blog begins
by explaining the historical and economic context of rule 40 followed by the
facts that led to the decision of the Bundeskartellamt. With this background,
the decision of the Bundeskartellamt is analyzed to show to what extent it may serve
as a model for EU competition law authorities. More...
Editor’s note:
Thomas Terraz is a fourth year LL.B. candidate at the International and
European Law programme at The Hague University of Applied Sciences with a specialisation
in European Law. Currently he is pursuing an internship at the T.M.C. Asser
Institute with a focus on International and European Sports Law.
1. Introduction
The UCI may soon have to navigate treacherous legal
waters after being the subject of two competition law based complaints (see here and here) to the European Commission in less than a month over rule changes and
decisions made over the past year. One of these complaints stems from Velon, a private
limited company owned by 11 out of the
18 World Tour Teams,[1]
and the other comes from the Lega del Ciclismo Professionistico, an entity
based in Italy representing an amalgamation of stakeholders in Italian
professional cycling. While each of the complaints differ on the actual
substance, the essence is the same: both are challenging the way the UCI exercises
its regulatory power over cycling because of a growing sense
that the UCI is impeding the development of cycling as a sport. Albeit in different ways: Velon sees the UCI infringing on its ability
to introduce new race structures and technologies; the Lega del Ciclismo
Professionistico believes the UCI is cutting opportunities for
semi-professional cycling teams, the middle ground between the World Tour Teams
and the amateur teams.
While some of the details remain vague, this blog
will aim to unpack part of the claims made by Velon in light of previous case
law from both the European Commission and the Court of Justice of the European
Union (CJEU) to give a preliminary overview of the main legal issues at stake
and some of the potential outcomes of the complaint. First, it will be crucial
to understand just who/what Velon is before analyzing the substance of Velon’s
complaint. More...
Editor’s
note: Thomas Terraz is a third year LL.B.
candidate at the International and European Law programme at The Hague
University of Applied Sciences with a specialisation in European Law. Currently
he is pursuing an internship at the T.M.C. Asser Institute with a focus on
International and European Sports Law.
1.
Introduction
The
organizational structure of sports in Europe is distinguished by its
pyramid structure which is marked by an open promotion and relegation system. A
truly closed system, without promotion and relegation, is unknown to Europe,
while it is the main structure found in North American professional sports
leagues such as the NFL, NBA and the NHL. Recently, top European football clubs
along with certain members of UEFA have been debating different possibilities
of introducing
a more closed league system to European
football. Some
football clubs have even wielded the threat of
forming an elite closed breakaway league. Piercing through these intimidations
and rumors, the question of whether a closed league system could even survive
the scrutiny of EU competition law remains. It could be argued that an
agreement between clubs to create a completely closed league stifles
competition and would most likely trigger the application of Article 101 and
102 TFEU.[1]
Interestingly, a completely closed league franchise system has already
permeated the European continent. As outlined in my
previous blog, the League of Legends European
Championship (LEC) is a European e-sports competition that has recently
rebranded and restructured this year from an open promotion and relegation
system to a completely closed franchise league to model its sister competition
from North America, the League Championship Series. This case is an enticing
opportunity to test how EU competition law could apply to such a competition
structure.
As
a preliminary note, this blog does not aim to argue whether the LEC is a ‘real’
sport competition and makes the assumption that the LEC could be considered as
a sports competition.[2]
More...
In the last five years, the Striani
case has been the main sword of Damocles hanging over UEFA’s Financial Fair
Play Regulations. At the very least, the only real judicial threat they have
faced (apart from the relatively harmless challenge mounted in the Galatasaray case at the CAS). Indeed, a Belgian
player agent, Daniele Striani, represented by Bosman’s former lawyer Jean-Louis
Dupont, attempted, in various fora, to challenge the compatibility of UEFA’s
CL&FFP Regulations with EU law. Striani lodged a complaint with the
European Commission (which was quickly rejected in October 2014) and initiated a private
action for damages before the Brussels Court of First Instance. The latter
deemed itself not competent to decide on the matter, but nevertheless accepted to
order a provisory stay of the enforcement of the UEFA FFP Regulations pending a
preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the EU (see Ben van Rompuy’s
blog on the case here). The CJEU unsurprisingly rejected to enter into the matter, but UEFA and Striani
decided to appeal the first instance ruling to the Court of Appeal, which
rendered its decision on 11 April. It is unclear at this stage whether Striani
will attempt to challenge it at the Belgian Cour de Cassation (Highest Civil
Court), however this would entail considerable risks and costs and his lawyers
to date have not indicated that they would do so (see here).
While the ruling of the Court of
Appeal does not touch upon the much-discussed question of the compatibility of
UEFA’s FFP Regulations with EU law (see our many blogs on the question here, here and here), it remains an interesting decision to
discuss broader questions related to the procedural ease in challenging
regulatory decisions passed by sports governing bodies (SGBs) based in
Switzerland. Competition law constitutes the main legal tool available to
sports stakeholders looking to challenge existing regulatory arrangements from
the outside (e.g. not going through the internal political systems of the SGBs
or the CAS route). Recent cases, such as the ISU decision of the European Commission, the Pechstein case in front of the German courts or
the Rule 40 decision of the German competition
authority, have demonstrated the potency of competition law to question the
legality of the rules and decisions of the SGBs.[1]
In this regard, the decision of the Brussels Court of Appeal narrows the range
of parties allowed to challenge in European courts the SGBs’ rules and
decisions on the basis of competition law. More...
Editor's note: This report compiles all relevant news, events and
materials on International and European Sports Law based on the daily coverage
provided on our twitter feed @Sportslaw_asser. You
are invited to complete this survey via the comments section below, feel free
to add links to important cases, documents and articles we might have
overlooked.
The Headlines
The Court of Arbitration for Sport bans 12 Russian
track and field athletes
On 1 February 2019,
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) communicated that it had rendered another 12 decisions in the
seemingly endless saga concerning the state-sponsored doping programme in
Russia. These first-instance decisions of the CAS involve 12 Russian track and
field athletes who were all found guilty of anti-doping rule violations based on
the evidence underlying the reports published by professor Richard McLaren and
suspended from participating in sports competitions for periods ranging from
two to eight years. Arguably the most prominent name that appears on the list
of banned athletes is Ivan Ukhov, the 32-year-old high jump champion from the
2012 Olympic Games in London.
The case was
brought by the International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF) that
sought to convince the arbitrators that the athletes in question had
participated in and/or benefited from anabolic steroid doping programmes and
benefited from specific protective methods (washout schedules) in the period
between the 2012 Olympic Games in London and the 2013 IAAF World Championships
in Moscow. The CAS was acting in lieau of the Russian Athletics Federation that
remains suspended and thus unable to conduct any disciplinary procedures. The
athletes have had the opportunity to appeal the decisions to the CAS Appeals
Arbitration Division.
Federal Cartel Office in Germany finds Rule 40 of the
Olympic Charter disproportionately restrictive
At the end of
February, the German competition authority Bundeskartellamt announced that it had entered into a commitment agreement with
the German Olympic Sports Confederation (DOSB) and the International Olympic
Committee (IOC) in which these two organisations had agreed to considerably
enhance advertising opportunities for German athletes and their sponsors during
the Olympic Games. The respective agreement is a direct consequence of the
Bundeskartellamt’s finding that the IOC and the DOSB had abused their dominant
position on the market for organising and marketing the Olympic Games by
demanding that the athletes refrain from promoting their own sponsors while the
Games are ongoing, as well as shortly before and after the Games. This
restriction stems from Rule 40(3) of the Olympic Charter under which no
competitor who participates in the Games may allow his person, name, picture or
sports performances to be used for advertising purposes, unless the IOC
Executive Board allows him/her to do so.
As part of
fulfilling its obligations under the commitment agreement, the DOSB has relaxed
its guidelines on promotional activities of German athletes during the Olympic
Games. For its part, the IOC has declared that these new guidelines would take
precedence over Rule 40(3) of the Olympic Charter. However, it still remains to
be seen whether in response to the conclusions of the German competition
authority the IOC will finally change the contentious rule.
The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights
refuses to pronounce itself on Claudia Pechstein’s case
Claudia Pechstein’s
challenge against the CAS brought before the European Court of Human Rights
(ECtHR) has not yielded the desired result for the German athlete. On 5
February 2019, a Panel of the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR decided that the Grand Chamber would not entertain the case. This
means that the judgment handed down by the 3rd Chamber of the ECtHR
on 2 October 2018, in which the ECtHR confirmed that except for the lack of
publicity of oral hearings the procedures of the CAS are compatible with the
right to a fair trial under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human
Rights, has now become final and binding. However, the protracted legal battle
between the five-time Olympic champion in speed skating and the CAS is not over
yet since there is one more challenge against the CAS and its independence
pending before the German Constitutional Court. More...