Editor's note
Zlatka Koleva is a graduate from the Erasmus University Rotterdam and is currently an Intern at the ASSER International Sports Law Centre.

The decision on appeal in the case of O’Bannon v. NCAA seems, at first sight, to deliver answers right on time regarding the unpaid use of names, images and likenesses (NILs) of amateur college athletes, which has been an ongoing debate in the US after last year’s district court decision that amateur players in the college games deserve to receive compensation for their NILs.[1] The ongoing struggle for compensation in exchange for NILs used in TV broadcasts and video games in the US has reached a turning point and many have waited impatiently for the final say of the Court of Appeal for the 9^th circuit. The court’s ruling on appeal for the 9^th circuit, however, raises more legitimate concerns for amateur sports in general than it offers consolation to unprofessional college sportsmen. While the appellate court agreed with the district court that NCAA should provide scholarships amounting to the full cost of college attendance to student athletes, the former rejected deferred payment to students of up to 5,000 dollars for NILs rights. The conclusions reached in the case relate to the central antitrust concerns raised by NCAA, namely the preservation of consumer demand for amateur sports and how these interests can be best protected under antitrust law.

Facts and proceedings 

The case is brought before the district court by Ed O’Bannon, a former American basketball player at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).[2] In 2008 he visited a friend’s house, where he saw his friend’s son playing a video game depicting him as a player in a college basketball competition.[3] The producer, Electronic Arts (EA), based video games on the concept of college football and men’s basketball.[4] O’Bannon saw an avatar with a striking resemblance of himself, playing for UCLA with his jersey number 31. He never consented to the use of his likenesses nor did he receive any financial remuneration for its usage.[5] For this reason, O’Bannon filed a lawsuit against the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) and the CLC (Collegiate Licensing Company) for using his NILs for commercial purposes.[6] The main argument supported by his legal counsel was that the NCAA restrictions on compensation for student athletes beyond university scholarships impose a limitation on trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.[7] In June 2014 the claims based on antitrust law found a solid ground and the case was sent to the district court.[8] The court at first identified two markets where the NCAA rules can have a significant impact, namely the college education market and the group licensing market.[9] Afterwards, it applied the three-step Rule of Reason test in order to determine whether the NCAA restrictions on compensation for the usage of NILs violate antitrust laws.[10] After weighting the anticompetitive and procompetitive purposes of those rules, the court took the decisive third step in pursuit of less restrictive alternatives available to the NCAA in the attainment of its final goal – preserving the nature of amateur college games.[11] It ruled that there are two alternative routes, which preserve amateurism and, at the same time, protects the NILs rights of college athletes: stipends to the full cost of attendance or deferred payments as portions of the license agreements concluded between third party licensing companies and universities upon completion of their college education.[12] The NCAA objected to the district court’s decision on the ground that the court in the Board of Regents[13] declared the NCAA rules a matter of law and compensation norms, falling outside of the scope of a commercial activity, and therefore not covered by the Sherman Act. Finally, the association claimed that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate injury as a result of the restrictions on compensation.[14] The Court of Appeal for the 9^th circuit ruled on the case as follows.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal for the 9^th circuit

Preliminary questions

The court started the legal discussion by answering to some preliminary legal questions before ruling on the substance. It rejected the notion that Board of Regents automatically renders the NCAA’s rules valid as a matter of law.[15] In fact, “a restraint that serves a procompetitive purpose can still be invalid under the Rule of Reason”.[16] Thus, procompetitive rules are not necessarily deemed lawful.[17] Moreover, rules designed to promote competitiveness “surely affect commerce” and, therefore, fall under the scope of the Sherman Act, according to the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in the 9^th circuit.[18] Finally, the court disagreed with NCAA in finding that the plaintiffs have no standing for failing to demonstrate the injury inflicted by the compensation rules.[19] On the contrary, the plaintiffs have shown willingness and readiness by video game producers to pay for their NILs rights have they possessed these rights, which means that the requirement of antitrust injury in this case is satisfied.[20]

Rule of Reason test

Judge Bybee then continued with the application of the Rule of Reason as assessed in relation to the restrictive measures towards compensation of student athletes.

1. Anticompetitive effect

The court concluded that the NCAA’s rules have an anticompetitive effect on the college education market and invalidated the association’s arguments.[21] It further examined whether the rules produce a procompetitive effect on the market and concluded that the district court has indeed undermined the importance the NCAA pays with regard to the preservation of amateurism in college competitions.[22]

2. Procompetitive purposes

Henceforth, the court outlined two procompetitive purposes of the NCAA’s restrictions: integrating academia with athletics and fostering the popularity of NCAA by promoting amateurism.[23] Nonetheless, it was highlighted that not every restrictive rule preserves the nature and distinctive character of college amateur sports.[24] For this reason, it should be examined whether there are any substantially less restrictive measures available to attain the goals intended by NCAA.[25]

3. Substantially less restrictive alternatives

The appellate court concurred with the district court on the first alternative, namely the grants-in-aid up to the full cost of attendance. The court for the 9^th circuit stated that “the district court did not clearly err in its judgment”[26] and “indicated that raising the grant-in-aid cap to the cost of attendance would have virtually no impact on amateurism”.[27] In fact, “there is no evidence that this cap will significantly increase costs”,[28] since NCAA already granted permission to schools to fund athletes to the full cost of attendance.[29] Nevertheless, the court rejected cash compensation beyond college scholarships to athletes on the ground that if amateur sportsmen receive a payment, they lose their amateur status.[30] The central question which needs closer attention is whether payments to amateur athletes promote amateurism more than the lack of any such remuneration.[31] The court, thus, contended that the comparison between smaller and larger sums and their respective impact on the market is irrelevant, since this is not a point of discussion in this analysis: it would not crystalize whether “paying students small sums is virtually as effective in promoting amateurism as not paying them”.[32] It further rejected the analogy with professional baseball and the Olympic Games, when in 1970s there was a strong opposition against the raising salaries of baseball players and the Olympic Committee permitted the participation of professional athletes in the Games.[33] The court, however, did not agree with this line of reasoning, since the Olympics have not been so impacted by the introduction of professionalism as college sports would be.[34] Finally, the imposition of a 5000-dollar yearly ceiling of deferred payments to college athletes lacks solid argumentation.[35] Neal Pilson, a former sports consultant at CBS and an expert witness for the NCAA, did not opine on how cash compensation relates to the promotion of amateurism and his ‘offhand comment’ does not grant sufficient support for such a revolutionary turnover in the NCAA’s practice.[36] Consequently, the deferred payment alternative failed the Rule of Reason test and was, thus, rejected.[37]

On these grounds, the court concluded that a stipend beyond sports scholarships up to the full amount of college attendance is a substantially less restrictive measure, which withstands the Rule of Reason test, while the cash compensation argument failed the assessment. 

Commentary

This judgment demonstrates a remarkable, yet confusing line of reasoning followed by the appellate court. On the one hand, albeit already affirmed by the NCAA itself, the decision confirms the right of schools to provide compensation up to the full amount of attendance to college athletes. On the other hand, however, the court could have outlined more clearly the instances in which an athlete can qualify for such full compensation and those cases in which student athletes risk violating their legal status of amateurs. A clear example of the court’s reluctance to give more specific guidelines with regard to this subject matter is the rejection of the argument raised by the district court in relation to the compensation received by college tennis players. Although they still qualify as amateurs, tennis competitors earn arguably around 10,000 dollars yearly in prize money.[38] The court conveniently circumvented this argument without stating opposing views or contesting the afore-mentioned statement. It directed its full attention on how the substantially less restrictive measures can contribute to the promotion of amateur college sports instead. In fine, there are two legal points that need further examination. Firstly, amateurism is a relevant concept as long as it relates to consumer demand in antitrust claims.[39] The question at step 3 should, thus, be reformulated to whether less restrictive alternatives are virtually effective in preserving consumer interest in college sports as those prohibiting extra compensation to amateur athletes.[40] In this respect, popular demand by consumers should be the decisive factor in antitrust cases within the sports sector. Secondly, what should also be taken into more careful consideration is that the court on appeal has skipped an essential step in the Rule of Reason analysis and, thus, arguably misapplied the concept.[41] Upon identification of less limiting measures for the attainment of the main goal, one has to balance the harm those alternatives might produce against the benefits there might be if such measures were not implemented. This final stage is necessary as to provide an objective cost-benefit analysis of a legal rule, which in turn determines whether it withstands the reasonableness test. Had the court applied the Rule of Reason in such a manner, the outcome of the case would have potentially differed significantly; the court would have weighted the cost of paying cash compensation to student athletes for their NILs rights against the lack of such additional educationally unrelated payment in the attainment of the NCAA’s final aim, namely preserving amateurism in college sports. [42]  Rather, as Chief Judge Thomas stated in his opinion, it is important to underline that, in the light of US antitrust rules, it is the preservation of popular demand for college sports which should be the key factor in the legal analysis of competition issues in such a scenario.[43]

At the end of the day, the NCAA’s dilemma is solved by the appellate court by exempting the association from further financial obligations towards college athletes. Both parties have 90 days after the release of the court’s decision to “weigh their options” for appeal before the Supreme Court.[44]

[1] Edward O'Bannon, Jr. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (the NCAA) and Electronic Arts, Inc and Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC) 14-16601 (2015) [hereinafter referred to as ‘O’Bannon v NCAA (2015)’]; O’Bannon v. NCAA 7 F. Supp. 3d 955 (N.D. Cal. 2014) [hereinafter referred to as ‘O’Bannon v. NCAA (2014)’].

[2] Ibid, p 12.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Section 1 of Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 15 U.S.C. states that ‘every contract, combination… in restraint of trade or commerce’ should be prohibited.

[8] O’Bannon v NCAA (2015) (n 1), p 14.

[9] O’Bannon v. NCAA (2014) (n 1), paras 956-968.

[10] Ibid., paras 984-1009.

[11] Ibid., paras 1005-1006.

[12] Ibid.

[13] NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklohoma 468 US 85 (1984).

[14] O’ Bannon v. NCAA (2015) (n 1), p 25.

[15] Ibid., p 26.

[16] Ibid., p 31.

[17] Ibid., p 32.

[18] Ibid., p 36: “We simply cannot understand this logic. Rules that are “anti-commercial and designed to promote and ensure competitiveness” […] surely affect commerce just as much as rules promoting commercialism.”

[19] Ibid., pp 37-43.

[20] Ibid., p 43.

[21] Ibid., pp 47-48.

[22] Ibid., pp 48-52.

[23] Ibid., p 51.

[24] Ibid., p 52.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid., pp 54.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid., p 56.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Ibid., p 57: “But in finding that paying students cash compensation would promote amateurism as effectively as not paying them, the district court ignored that not paying student-athletes is precisely what makes them amateurs”.

[31] Ibid., p 56: “The question is whether the alternative of allowing students to be paid NIL compensation unrelated to their education expenses, is “virtually as effective” in preserving amateurism as not allowing compensation.”

[32] Ibid., pp 58-59.

[33] Ibid., p 59.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Ibid., p 60.

[36] Ibid: “But even taking Pilson’s comments at face value, as the dissent urges, his testimony cannot support the finding that paying student-athletes small sums will be virtually as effective in preserving amateurism as not paying them.”

[37] Ibid., p 63 : “The Rule of Reason requires that the NCAA permit its schools to provide up to the cost of attendance to their student athletes. It does not require more.”

[38] O’Bannon v. NCAA (2014) (n 1), para 1000.

[39] Chief Judge Thomas, concurring in part and dissenting in part, p 68.

[40] Ibid.

[41] Carrier M (2015) How Not to Apply the Rule of Reason: The O’Bannon Case. Rutgers University School of Law – Camden. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2672256. Accessed 20 October 2015.

[42] O’ Bannon v. NCAA (2015) (n 1), p 59: “The district court adverted to testimony from a sports management expert, Daniel Rascher, who explained that although opinion surveys had shown the public was opposed to rising baseball salaries during the 1970s, and to the decision of the International Olympic Committee to allow professional athletes to compete in the Olympics, the public had continued to watch baseball and the Olympics at the same rate after those changes”.

[43] Supra n 39, Chief Judge Thomas: “Rather, we must determine whether allowing student-athletes to be compensated for their NILs is ‘virtually as effective’ in preserving popular demand for college sports as not allowing compensation”.

[44] Tracy M and Strauss B, Court Strikes Down Payments to College Athletes (The New York Times.com, 30 September 2015). http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/sports/obannon-ncaa-case-court-of-appeals-ruling.html?_r=0. Accessed 2 October 2015.

Introduction

On 13 September 2017, more than 40,000 people witnessed the successful debut of the football club RasenBallsport Leipzig (RB Leipzig) in the UEFA Champions League (UCL) against AS Monaco. In the eyes of many supporters of the German club, the mere fact of being able to participate in the UEFA's flagship club competition was probably more important than the result of the game itself. This is because, on the pitch, RB Leipzig secured their place in the 2017/18 UCL group stage already on 6 May 2017 after an away win against Hertha Berlin. However, it was not until 16 June 2017 that the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) officially allowed RB Leipzig to participate in the 2017/18 UCL alongside its sister club, Austrian giants FC Red Bull Salzburg (RB Salzburg).[1] As is well known, both clubs have (had) ownership links to the beverage company Red Bull GmbH (Red Bull), and therefore it came as no surprise that the idea of two commonly owned clubs participating in the same UCL season raised concerns with respect to the competition's integrity.

The phenomenon of multi-club ownership is nothing new in the world of football. As will be seen below, the English company ENIC plc. (ENIC)[2] established itself as a pioneer in this type of business activity, having acquired in the late 1990s, through subsidiaries, controlling interests in several European clubs, including SK Slavia Prague in the Czech Republic (Slavia), AEK Football Club in Greece (AEK) or Vicenza Calcio in Italy (Vicenza). Apart from ENIC and Red Bull, a more recent example of a global corporation investing in multiple football clubs worldwide is the City Football Group owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. In August 2017, the City Football Group acquired 44.3% stake in Girona FC, a Spanish club that had just been promoted to La Liga for the first time in their history, thereby adding a sixth club to its portfolio consisting of Manchester City, New York City, Melbourne City, Yokohama Marinos[3] (Japan) and Club Atlético Torque (Uruguay).[4] Private individuals may also become owners of two or more football clubs, the most prominent examples being Giampaolo Pozzo and his son Gino who are in possession of the Italy's second oldest club Udinese Calcio and the English top-flight club Watford FC respectively,[5] or Roland Duchâtelet, a Belgian millionaire whose dubious management of his five clubs, namely Charlton Athletic (England), Carl Zeiss Jena (Germany), AD Alcorcón (Spain), Sint-Truiden (Belgium) and Újpest FC (Hungary), has been met with considerable opposition. Moreover, clubs themselves have acquired stakes in other clubs, including, for instance, Atlético Madrid's investment in RC Lens (France) and Club Atlético de San Luis (Mexico), or AS Monaco's recent takeover of the Belgian second-division club Cercle Brugge.

Leaving commercial and marketing aspects aside, the investment in multiple football clubs is often driven by the vision of recruiting talented players at low cost, preferably in Latin American or African countries, and subsequently facilitating their development in smaller European clubs to prepare them for the level required at the lead club. Hence, should Manchester City discover in Uruguay a 'new Luis Suárez', it will not take much effort (and money) to convince such a player to join the academy of Club Atlético Torque, especially if he is promised further development at language-barrier-free Girona and sees himself wearing the Citizens' sky blue shirt one day. Along these lines, it could well be argued that the phenomenon of multi-club ownership in fact creates a supply chain for talent.

For reasons suggested above, qualification for a UEFA club competition is normally not the primary objective of clubs like Girona, which find themselves somewhere in the middle of this supply chain. This at least partially explains why, to the best of my knowledge, only twice the prospect of two or more commonly owned clubs participating in the same UEFA club competition became so imminent that it required UEFA's direct intervention. The first intervention dates back to May 1998 when the UEFA Executive Committee adopted a landmark rule entitled 'Integrity of the UEFA Club Competitions: Independence of the Clubs' (Original Rule) in response to Slavia and AEK, both under ENIC's control, having qualified for the 1998/99 UEFA Cup. The Red Bull case, for its part, revolved around the interpretation of 'decisive influence in the decision-making of a club', a concept that could not be found in the Original Rule.

Against this background, this two-part blog will focus on the UEFA rule(s) aimed at ensuring the integrity of its club competitions. The first part will take a closer look at how the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and the European Commission (Commission) dealt with ENIC's complaints alleging that the Original Rule was incompatible, inter alia, with EU competition law. The second part will then examine the relevant rule as it is currently enshrined in Article 5 of the UCL Regulations 2015-18 Cycle, 2017/18 Season (Current Rule) and describe how the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber interpreted the aforementioned concept of decisive influence[6] in the Red Bull case. Finally, in light of the conclusions reached by the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber, the second part of this two-part blog will discuss whether any modification of the Current Rule is desirable.

The ENIC saga: How the Original Rule survived EU competition law scrutiny

Background

It has already been noted that the adoption of the Original Rule was prompted, first and foremost, by the fact that ENIC-controlled Slavia and AEK qualified on sporting merit for the 1998/99 UEFA Cup. However, what needs to be added is that the initial impulse came a season before, when Slavia, AEK and Vicenza all reached the quarter-final of the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup. Although UEFA was fortunate that time as the clubs were not drawn to play against each other and only Vicenza advanced to the semi-final, it learnt its lesson and as a result of this situation adopted robust rules aimed at ensuring the integrity of its club competitions.

The Original Rule

The Original Rule made admission to the UEFA club competitions conditional upon fulfilment of three specific criteria. First, a club participating in a UEFA club competition must have refrained from (i) holding or dealing in the securities or shares; (ii) being a member; (iii) being involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration, and/or sporting performance; and (iv) having any power whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of any other club participating in the same UEFA club competition. Second, the Original Rule stipulated that no person could be simultaneously involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of more than one club participating in the same UEFA club competition. Third, an individual or legal entity was prohibited from exercising control over more than one club participating in the same UEFA club competition. The Original Rule further clarified that an individual or legal entity was deemed to have control over a club, and thus the third criterion was not satisfied, where he/she/it (i) held a majority of the shareholders' voting rights; (ii) was authorized to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the administrative, management or supervisory body; or (iii) was a shareholder and single-handedly controlled a majority of the shareholders' voting rights. In principle, under this third criterion, it was permissible for an individual or legal entity to hold up to 49% of the shareholders' voting rights in multiple clubs participating in the same UEFA club competition.

Proceedings before the CAS

It was the third criterion that was applicable to ENIC, a company listed on the London Stock Exchange. Given that both Slavia and AEK were owned as to more than 50% by ENIC, the respective criterion was not satisfied. Consequently, the Committee for the UEFA Club Competitions, a body responsible for monitoring fulfilment of the aforementioned criteria, ruled that only Slavia was eligible to take part in the 1998/99 UEFA Cup on account of its higher club coefficient. Not content with this decision, Slavia and AEK filed a request for arbitration with the CAS on 15 June 1998, challenging the validity of the Original Rule, inter alia, under Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community (TEC) (now Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)). On the same day, the clubs also lodged a request for interim relief which was eventually granted on 16 July 1998.[7] As a result, UEFA was barred from giving effect to the Original Rule for the duration of the arbitration procedure and both Slavia and AEK were given the green light to participate in the 1998/99 UEFA Cup. On 20 August 1999, the CAS rendered its award in which it upheld the validity of the Original Rule and allowed UEFA to apply the rule in question as of the 2000/01 season.

Before embarking on a comprehensive analysis of the compatibility of the Original Rule with EU competition law, the Panel recognized that participation of two or more commonly owned clubs in the same UEFA club competition creates fertile ground for conflicts of interest, and thus ''represents a justified concern for a sports regulator and organizer''.[8] The Panel then confirmed that EU law was applicable to the case before it as the Original Rule could not benefit from any 'sporting exception'.[9] That being clarified, the Panel moved on to examine the relevant market potentially affected by the Original Rule. It defined the relevant product market as the ''market for ownership interests in football clubs capable of taking part in UEFA competitions'' which would include, on the supply side, ''all the owners of European football clubs which can potentially qualify for a UEFA competition'', and, on the demand side, ''any individual or corporation potentially interested in an investment opportunity in a football club which could qualify for a UEFA competition''.[10] The relevant geographic market, for its part, was confined to the territories of national football federations affiliated to UEFA.[11]

Analysis under Article 81 TEC

Article 81 TEC (now Article 101 TFEU) prohibits ''all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which […] have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal market''. While it is evident that UEFA could be classified as an undertaking[12] or an association of undertakings (representing national football federations) within the meaning of Article 81 TEC, it is less clear whether UEFA could also be regarded, through national football federations representing both professional and amateur clubs, as an association of 'club undertakings'. This question is of crucial importance because if UEFA was not to be regarded as an association of 'club undertakings', the Original Rule would not be considered as the product of a horizontal collusion between clubs and, as a result, would fall outside the scope of Article 81 TEC.[13] The role of UEFA in such a case would not go beyond a mere sports regulator.[14] In this context, Advocate General Lenz insisted in the Bosman case that even though national football federations encompass a sheer number of amateur clubs not engaged in economic activities, this does not alter the conclusion that (i) national football federations are to be regarded as associations of undertakings in accordance with Article 81 TEC; and consequently that (ii) UEFA, through these national football federations, is to be regarded as an association of 'club undertakings'.[15] Although not entirely persuaded by the respective argument, the Panel assumed for the purposes of conducting an analysis under Article 81 TEC that the Original Rule represented a decision by an association of 'club undertakings' and, as such, did not fall outside the scope of Article 81 TEC.[16]

The Panel then turned to the question lying at the heart of the dispute, that is, whether the Original Rule had as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal market. It found that the Original Rule was only designed to ''prevent the conflict of interest inherent in commonly owned clubs taking part in the same competition and to ensure a genuine athletic event with truly uncertain results'', thereby excluding any anti-competitive object of the Original Rule.[17] With respect to the effect of the Original Rule, the Panel asserted that even though the rule in question may have discouraged an owner who had already been in possession of a high-level European club from acquiring controlling interest in another such club, its overall effect was pro-competitive in that it enabled more undertakings to enter the relevant market, and thus stimulated investment in professional football.[18] Moreover, the Panel was concerned that, in the absence of the Original Rule, high-level European clubs would potentially be concentrated in few hands which would, in turn, lead to an increase in prices for ownership interests in those clubs.[19]

Having found that neither the object nor the effect of the Original Rule was anti-competitive, the Panel was further not required to pronounce itself on whether the Original Rule was necessary and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Yet, it held that the Original Rule was ''an essential feature for the organization of a professional football competition and [was] not more extensive than necessary to serve the fundamental goal of preventing conflicts of interest''.[20] In a similar vein, the Panel could not identify any plausible less restrictive alternative to the Original Rule, and therefore it declared that the Original Rule was proportionate to the stated aim of preventing conflicts of interest.[21]

Based on the above considerations, the Panel ultimately concluded that the Original Rule was compatible with Article 81 TEC.       

Analysis under Article 82 TEC 

Article 82 TEC (now Article 102 TFEU) prohibits abusive conduct by companies that have a dominant position on a relevant market. Since UEFA cannot become an owner of a football club, the Panel maintained that it was not present on the relevant market for 'ownership interests in football clubs capable of taking part in UEFA competitions', and for that reason UEFA could not be held to enjoy a dominant position.[22] Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the Original Rule did not violate Article 82 TEC.  

Proceedings before the Commission

In the wake of the CAS award, ENIC's business strategy suffered a blow. However, the English company was not yet ready to give up and lodged a complaint with the Commission on 18 February 2000, again claiming that the Original Rule infringed Articles 81 and 82 TEC.

In its decision, the Commission relied to some extent on the CAS award, adopting the definition of the relevant market or confirming that the Original Rule could not benefit from any 'sporting exception'. As far as the object of the Original Rule was concerned, the Commission articulated that the rule was not intended to distort competition, but rather to ''avoid conflicts of interest that may arise from the fact that more than one club controlled by the same owner […] play in the same competition''.[23] With respect to the Original Rule's effect, the Commission referred to the Wouters case in which the European Court of Justice held that an agreement between undertakings or a decision of an association of undertakings restricting the freedom to act may nevertheless fall outside the scope of Article 81 TEC, provided that its restrictive effects are inherent in the pursuit of a legitimate objective.[24] Applied to the case before it, the Commission ruled that the restrictive effects of the Original Rule were ''inherent in the pursuit of the very existence of credible pan-European football competitions''.[25] Consequently, the Commission found no violation of Article 81 TEC. Turning to Article 82 TEC, the Commission briefly noted that ''if one were to assume that UEFA enjoys a dominant position in whatever market, the fact that UEFA has adopted such a rule does not appear to constitute in itself an abuse of dominant position''.[26]

Conclusion

It is quite intuitive that the aim of preserving the integrity of the UEFA club competitions should outweigh the restriction introduced by the Original Rule which essentially rendered owners of high-level European clubs unable to acquire controlling interests in similar clubs. However, the fact that the Original Rule appeared bullet-proof under EU competition law does not mean that it was entirely without flaws. As will be seen in the second part of this blog, UEFA later decided to make the Original Rule more stringent since it realized that even if an individual or legal entity does not have de jure control over a club, it may still be able to exercise de facto control over such club.

[1]   RB Salzburg were eliminated by HNK Rijeka in the third qualifying round.

[2]   ENIC is currently a majority shareholder of the English top-flight club Tottenham Hotspur.

[3]   Among the clubs listed, Yokohama Marinos is the only club in which the City Football Group holds a minority stake (20%).

[4]   Furthermore, Manchester City have a formal cooperation agreement with Dutch side NAC Breda.

[5]   The Pozzo family also owned Spanish side Granada FC, before selling the club to a Chinese firm in 2016.

[6]   UCL Regulations 2015-18 Cycle, 2017/18 Season, Article 5.01(c)(iv).

[7]   According to the CAS, the fact that UEFA enacted the Original Rule shortly before the start of the 1998/99 season contravened the principles of good faith, procedural fairness and legitimate expectations. See CAS 98/200 AEK Athens and SK Slavia Prague / UEFA, Award of 20 August 1999, p. 5.

[8]   CAS 98/200 AEK Athens and SK Slavia Prague / UEFA, Award of 20 August 1999, para. 48.

[9]   Ibid. para. 83. According to the well-established jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, ''the practice of sport is subject to [EU] law only in so far as it constitutes an economic activity''. See Case 36/74 Walrave [1974] ECR 1405, Judgment of 12 December 1974, para. 4. See also Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, Judgment of 15 December 1995, para. 73. On the 'sporting exception', see also Richard Parrish and Samuli Miettinen, The Sporting Exception in European Union Law (T.M.C. Asser Press 2008).

[10] AEK Athens and SK Slavia Prague / UEFA (n 8) paras 101-104.

[11] Ibid. para. 108.

[12] According to the European Court of Justice, ''the concept of an undertaking encompasses every entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of the legal status of the entity and the way in which it is financed''. See Case C-41/90 Höfner [1991] ECR I-1979, Judgment of 23 April 1991, para. 21.

[13] AEK Athens and SK Slavia Prague / UEFA (n 8) para. 88.

[14] Ibid.           

[15] Bosman, Opinion of Advocate General Lenz delivered on 20 September 1995, para. 256.

[16] AEK Athens and SK Slavia Prague / UEFA (n 8) para. 94.

[17] Ibid. para. 113.

[18] Ibid. paras 114-119.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid. para. 136.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid. para. 141. It should be noted, however, that this assertion was later challenged, albeit in the context of FIFA, by the Court of First Instance in the Piau case. The Court held in this case that the fact that FIFA is not itself an economic operator on the market for the services provided by players' agents was ''irrelevant as regards the application of Article 82 TEC, since FIFA is the emanation of the national associations and the clubs, the actual buyers of the services of players' agents''. See Case T-193/02 Piau [2005] ECLI:EU:T:2005:22, Judgment of 26 January 2005, para. 116.

[23] Case COMP/37 806: ENIC / UEFA [2002] Commission, para. 28.

[24] Case C-309/99 Wouters [2002] ECR I-1577, Judgment of 19 February 2002, para. 97.

[25] See Commission decision (n 23) para. 32.

[26] Ibid. para. 45.