By John Considine
There is a superb survey article in the current issue of the Journal of European Competition Law and Practice that deals with recent sporting issues. By reviewing the period 2018-2021 it allows one to catch up on some of the major developments in the area of competition law. All of this in the shadow of the proposed European Super League.
It considers a variety of issues. The largest amount of space is devoted to a case where the International Skating Union (ISU) was approached by a Korean event organiser who wanted to organise two international events. The ISU did not approve the events and threatened any skaters involved with lifetime bans from ISU events. Consequently, two Dutch speedskaters brought a case to the EU Commission arguing that EU Competition Law had been infringed. The speedskaters were successful. It is easy to see the possible relevance for the European Super League if one substitutes UEFA for ISU and substitutes two Spanish competitors for two Dutch competitors. The authors, Benoit Keane and Ben Foster, examine the implications for breakaway events - including the European Super League.
The reaction of clubs and national sporting bodies to Covid-19 is one of the more interesting sections. The authors examine how four different national football associations were taken to task for their alternative approaches to ending (or not ending) their seasons. Clubs appealed to competition law for a range of reasons. They complained that one governing body stopped the season and averaged the results. The complained that one governing body used the league standings when games stopped. Another complaint concerned cancelled promotion and relegation. The fourth situation involved a governing body who completed the season after the covid-19 induced delay. Did any of the clubs win their cases? Should any of the clubs have won their cases?
There is also an informative section dealing with financial regulation in sport. Again, there is some interesting distinctions discussed. One involves a club taking a case against a governing body, i.e. Saracens' case against a salary cap. This case is worth contrasting with others where players complain against a group of clubs that reduced the salaries of players in response to Covid-19 issues. The relevant legal authorities rejected Saracens arguments against the salary cap but rejected the way the clubs reduced players salaries. (A Financial Fair Play case brought by a sports agent also features in this section.)
The article opens with a discussion of the word "Crisitunity" (as coined by Homer Simpson) but it is largely exempt from legal jargon. On a number of occasions there is a discussion of agreements that are anticompetitive "by object" and "by effect". Here the authors might have used another illustration from The Simpsons. In an episode given his name, Sideshow Bob Roberts complains that he is in jail for a crime he did not commit, "Attempted murder, now honestly, did they ever give anyone a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?" In EU Competition Law, the anticompetitive agreement does not have to have its intended effect.
It considers a variety of issues. The largest amount of space is devoted to a case where the International Skating Union (ISU) was approached by a Korean event organiser who wanted to organise two international events. The ISU did not approve the events and threatened any skaters involved with lifetime bans from ISU events. Consequently, two Dutch speedskaters brought a case to the EU Commission arguing that EU Competition Law had been infringed. The speedskaters were successful. It is easy to see the possible relevance for the European Super League if one substitutes UEFA for ISU and substitutes two Spanish competitors for two Dutch competitors. The authors, Benoit Keane and Ben Foster, examine the implications for breakaway events - including the European Super League.
The reaction of clubs and national sporting bodies to Covid-19 is one of the more interesting sections. The authors examine how four different national football associations were taken to task for their alternative approaches to ending (or not ending) their seasons. Clubs appealed to competition law for a range of reasons. They complained that one governing body stopped the season and averaged the results. The complained that one governing body used the league standings when games stopped. Another complaint concerned cancelled promotion and relegation. The fourth situation involved a governing body who completed the season after the covid-19 induced delay. Did any of the clubs win their cases? Should any of the clubs have won their cases?
There is also an informative section dealing with financial regulation in sport. Again, there is some interesting distinctions discussed. One involves a club taking a case against a governing body, i.e. Saracens' case against a salary cap. This case is worth contrasting with others where players complain against a group of clubs that reduced the salaries of players in response to Covid-19 issues. The relevant legal authorities rejected Saracens arguments against the salary cap but rejected the way the clubs reduced players salaries. (A Financial Fair Play case brought by a sports agent also features in this section.)
The article opens with a discussion of the word "Crisitunity" (as coined by Homer Simpson) but it is largely exempt from legal jargon. On a number of occasions there is a discussion of agreements that are anticompetitive "by object" and "by effect". Here the authors might have used another illustration from The Simpsons. In an episode given his name, Sideshow Bob Roberts complains that he is in jail for a crime he did not commit, "Attempted murder, now honestly, did they ever give anyone a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?" In EU Competition Law, the anticompetitive agreement does not have to have its intended effect.
RSS Feed