The regulations of FIFA and UEFA do not conflict with the competition rules of the European Union and, in addition, the national federations have the power to veto the participation in their competitions of the clubs that play in the Super League.
“The FIFA and UEFA rules that make the creation of any new competition subject to prior authorization are compatible with Union Law on competition.
Taking into account the characteristics of the projected competition, the restrictive effects derived from the prior authorization system are inherent and proportionate to achieve the legitimate objectives pursued by UEFA and FIFA associated with the specific nature of the sport”.
This has been the conclusion of the European Union Advocate General,
the Greek Athanasios Rantos in the case that confronts the international soccer federations with Real Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus, the three clubs that are still in the project.
The other nine founders publicly resigned, although they have not yet signed off.
With this opinion, the EU lawyer agrees with UEFA when it did not recognize the birth of the Super League and threatened its participants with expulsion from their competitions.
Rantos' report opens a door for clubs that intend to create their own league outside of UEFA, but they must face the consequences, that is, being expelled from the competitions in which they have built their prestige for decades (national leagues, Champions League, former European Cup, and other European tournaments).
Barcelona and Juventus, the three clubs that are still in the project.
The other nine founders publicly resigned, although they have not yet signed off.
With this opinion, the EU lawyer agrees with UEFA when he did not recognize the birth of the Super League and threatened its participants with expulsion from their competitions.
Rantos' report opens a door for clubs that intend to create their own league outside of UEFA, but they must face the consequences, that is, being expelled from the competitions in which they have built their prestige for decades (national leagues, Champions League, former European Cup, and other European tournaments).
Barcelona and Juventus, the three clubs that are still in the project.
The other nine founders publicly resigned, although they have not yet signed off.
With this opinion, the EU lawyer agrees with UEFA when he did not recognize the birth of the Super League and threatened its participants with expulsion from their competitions.
Rantos' report opens a door for clubs that intend to create their own league outside of UEFA, but they must face the consequences, that is, being expelled from the competitions in which they have built their prestige for decades (national leagues, Champions League, former European Cup, and other European tournaments).
The EU lawyer agrees with UEFA when it did not recognize the birth of the Super League and threatened its participants with expelling them from their competitions.
Rantos' report opens a door for clubs that intend to create their own league outside of UEFA, but they must face the consequences, that is, being expelled from the competitions in which they have built their prestige for decades (national leagues, Champions League, former European Cup, and other European tournaments).
The EU lawyer agrees with UEFA when it did not recognize the birth of the Super League and threatened its participants with expelling them from their competitions.
Rantos' report opens a door for clubs that intend to create their own league outside of UEFA, but they must face the consequences, that is, being expelled from the competitions in which they have built their prestige for decades (national leagues, Champions League, former European Cup, and other European tournaments).
The opinion of the general counsel does not have to be the same as the ruling that the magistrates will issue in a few months, but it usually coincides 80% of the time: "In the 20% of cases in which the Court of Justice of the Union does not follow the conclusions of the Advocate General is usually because he proposes to go beyond the existing jurisprudence of the Court.
In the absence of reading the full opinion [until now an informative note has been published], it does not seem that the lawyer is raising this”, explains José Rivas, a partner at the Bird & Bird law firm, with a long history before European courts and who does not represent either party in this case.
"With the categoricalness with which the lawyer has expressed himself, there may be some nuance in the sentence, but it is normal for the 15 judges to follow the line set by the general lawyer," say UEFA legal sources.
“It is a brutal blow to the promoters of the Super League, without fissures, and full support for UEFA pursuing legitimate objectives supported by article 165 of the Treaty on European Union, which refers to the special characteristics of the sport, therefore Therefore, the authorization measures of the competitions by UEFA are proportionate ”, warn the same sources.
"It is a very positive opinion that maintains the cabotage of FIFA and UEFA as the regulator of the competitions," say FIFA sources.
Rivas does add some nuance, but without detracting from the forcefulness of the conclusions: "In the opinion, there are elements that indicate a limitation of UEFA when it comes to excluding third parties from the sports competitions market, such as when it states that 'the rules in question must be inherent in and proportionate to the achievement of legitimate objectives”.
The opinion of the general lawyer Athanasios Rantos is based on the six preliminary questions that a Spanish court formulated to the Court of Justice of the EU.
Among other things, the Madrid court wanted to know if UEFA and FIFA violated EU competition rules.
Rantos' response is clear: “Subjecting the creation of any new competition to prior authorization is compatible with Union Law on competition matters.
Taking into account the characteristics of the projected competition, the restrictive effects derived from the prior authorization system are inherent and proportionate to achieve the legitimate objectives pursued by UEFA and FIFA associated with the specific nature of the sport”.
Ranton himself,
The general counsel does not stop there.
It also points out that the EU cannot prohibit organizations, national or international football federations from "threatening with sanctions the clubs affiliated with these federations in the event that they participate in a project to create a new competition that could violate the legitimate objectives pursued." by those federations of which they are members.
In a much clearer decision than expected —a Solomonic decision was expected—, Rantos even goes so far as to point out that the Community Competition rules “do not oppose the restrictions established in the FIFA Statute referring to the exclusive commercialization of the rights relating to competitions organized by FIFA and UEFA to the extent that these restrictions are inherent in and proportionate to the achievement of the legitimate objectives related to the specific nature of the sport”.
To such an extent the decision is forceful that, as Rivas points out, he defends that the federations receive the income from sports rights: "The General Advocate talks about the fact that football is characterized by an 'economic interdependence between clubs' when he points out 'the economic success of a competition depends above all on a certain equality between them' and that the redistribution of income from the competitions responds to this 'balancing objective'.
In other words, among the legitimate objectives of the regulatory function of the federations is 'financial solidarity', which includes the development of the bases of their sport and the joint distribution of those resources with the clubs in the lower echelons”.
UEFA issued a victorious statement: “UEFA welcomes the unequivocal conclusions presented today by Advocate General Rantos, which are an encouraging step towards preserving the current dynamic and democratic governance structure of the European football pyramid. .
The conclusions reinforce the central role of federations in protecting sport, upholding the fundamental principles of sporting merit and open access among our members, as well as uniting football with shared responsibility and solidarity.
Football in Europe remains united and strongly opposes the European Super League, or any such spin-off proposal, which would threaten the entire European sports ecosystem."
For its part, A22 Sports Management, a company linked to the Super League, also issued a note: “Advocate General Rantos affirms that UEFA is the monopolistic organizer of all the major international competitions and has the “particular responsibility” to guarantee that they do not improperly deny third parties access to the market.
Rantos points out that the conditions of access to the market must be clear, objective and as detailed as possible so that the organizers of third-party competitions can comply with them.
In the case of third parties that meet these conditions, the federation in question must not deny access.
In particular, UEFA cannot take its own interest into account in any authorization process."
Furthermore, Bernd Reichart, CEO of A22, states: “The Advocate General's opinion is a step in a still open case,
and we are pleased with the recognition of the right of third parties to organize pan-European club competitions.
The Advocate General made it clear that UEFA has a monopolistic position which entails important responsibilities when it comes to allowing third parties to act freely in the market.
However, we believe that the 15 judges of the Grand Chamber of the CJEU who have the responsibility to examine this case will substantially deepen their analysis and will finally offer clubs the opportunity to manage their own destiny in Europe.”
You can follow EL PAÍS Deportes on
and
, or sign up here to receive
our weekly newsletter
.