Explained: ECJ Super League view is a big blow to Real Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus
https://theathletic.com/4005104/2022/12/15/ecj-super-league-verdict/
There must be something about December 15 and seismic legal moments in European football’s little world.
Twenty-seven years to the day after the European Court of Justice (ECJ) sided with Jean-Marc Bosman to enable the free movement of players at the end of their contracts, another big decision was delivered in those same Luxembourg courtrooms yesterday morning.
The European Superleague Company, the body behind that ill-fated breakaway in 2021, had been unable to convince the ECJ that UEFA and FIFA were guilty of breaching of EU laws in blocking attempts to start up a rival competition.
The detailed opinion of advocate general Athanasios Rantos is non-binding, but a final ruling, given by a 15-member Grand Chamber of the ECJ in March, is not expected to be notably different.
The Bosman ruling had been all about change in 1995, torching football’s traditions and redistributing powers. This latest ECJ verdict, though, has made it clear that structural reform is not necessary.
It represents a telling blow to Real Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus, the three clubs that have refused to accept defeat in their attempts to create a new money-spinning super league format.
They can continue fighting, clinging to the notion that a rival to the Champions League can be resurrected, but legal challenges designed to pick apart UEFA’s so-called monopoly have now led them only down a dead end.
The Athletic assesses where it leaves plans for the European Super League and the future of competition organisers UEFA.
How did we end up here, inside a courtroom in Luxembourg?
Right, let us begin on that fateful evening of April 18, 2021. Twelve clubs from England, Spain and Italy had come together to say enough was enough, they would be launching their own European Super League to rival UEFA’s Champions League.
It was an enormously significant moment backed by the majority of Europe’s elite clubs but soon enough, amid a torrent of criticism from all quarters, feet began to get cold. All of those attached to the Premier League (Manchester United, Manchester City, Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur and Liverpool) fell like dominos, before AC Milan, Inter Milan and Atletico Madrid followed suit. Contrition became their only defence.
Only not for the other three. Barcelona, Real Madrid and Juventus all stuck to their guns, stubbornly insisting the project could overcome the obstacles that stood in their way.
And so began the legal back and forth. The three rebels won a ruling in a Madrid commercial court in April 2021 that decided they could not face the financial punishments that UEFA had proposed, with the governing body later abandoning its disciplinary plans in September last year.
By that time, the Madrid judge had already passed the case on to the ECJ, which was asked to decide if UEFA and FIFA, the two pillars of international football, were breaking EU competition law with their statutes. They could not continue to monopolise the market, it was argued by those demanding change.
The ECJ invited all parties to press their legal arguments in July. The ESL claimed UEFA would never authorise a competitor owing to a conflict of interests, adding that the governing body “ruled with an iron fist”. Claims that UEFA act for the good of grassroots football were also criticised.
UEFA’s legal team, meanwhile, insisted its model was open to all and not the closed shop being proposed with a breakaway competition.
The process, which also heard statements from FIFA and 20 different EU member states in support of UEFA, lasted days and ended with us being asked to ring December 15 on the calendars for a preliminary decision.
So, what was said at the ECJ?
This was Case C-333/21: European Superleague Company (ESLC) v Union de Federaciones Europeas de Futbol (UEFA), with Rantos, a senior Greek judge, asked to give a preliminary view on whether it breached EU competition law for UEFA and FIFA to block the formation of a new competition.
The opinion of Rantos was delivered by colleague Anthony Michael Collins in Spanish for a world to hear through the ECJ’s streaming service shortly after 9am (UK time), and it was outlined that any new competition would still be subject to approval from UEFA and FIFA. Without permission granted, as will never be the case with this guise of a super league, clubs and players could face sanctions.
The big headline came with the confirmation that the “FIFA-UEFA rules under which any new competition is subject to prior approval are compatible with EU competition law”.
The European Model of Sport system, a pyramid open to all, and the roles of the regulating bodies such as UEFA and FIFA, were effectively given backing by Rantos. So long as they do not discriminate against anyone choosing to set up a super league and respond proportionately, they would be on a sound footing. The status quo had a green light.
Rantos added: “While ESLC is free to set up its own independent football competition outside the UEFA and FIFA ecosystem, it cannot, in parallel with the creation of such a competition, continue to participate in the football competitions organised by FIFA and UEFA without the prior authorisation of those federations.”
Then came the fuller take published in its entirety online. It is the length of a novella — more than 19,000 words — but can hardly be considered a page-turner. It runs to 187 points, full of legalese, before reaching its conclusion that UEFA and FIFA did not act in breach of EU competition laws.
In parts, a dim view was taken of those clubs looking to break away. “It would appear that ESLC’s founding clubs want, on the one hand, to benefit from the rights and advantages linked to membership of UEFA, without however being bound by UEFA’s rules and obligations,” it read.
It was a nuanced, comprehensive read, though. There were observations that the rebels would later claim to be heartened by. “UEFA must avoid favouring its own competitions by unjustifiably refusing to authorise competing events,” Rantos wrote.
So, a UEFA win, right?
That’s certainly its interpretation. And it is not alone. UEFA sounded a subtly triumphant note in a statement released soon after the verdict was made public. Its delight, though, was privately made known.
“UEFA warmly welcomes today’s unequivocal opinion recommending a ruling of the (ECJ) in support of our central mission to govern European football, protect the pyramid and develop the game across Europe,” it read.
“UEFA welcomes today’s unequivocal opinion of Rantos, which is an encouraging step towards preserving the existing dynamic and democratic governance structure of the European football pyramid.
“The opinion reinforces the central role of federations in protecting the sport, upholding fundamental principles of sporting merit and open access across our members, as well as uniting football with shared responsibility and solidarity. Football in Europe remains united and steadfastly opposed to the ESL, or any such breakaway proposals, which would threaten the entire European sports ecosystem.”
The European Club Association (ECA), chaired by Paris Saint-Germain president and vocal opponent of the European Super League Nasser Al-Khelaifi, was another to champion the verdict.
“The opinion issued today by the ECJ proposes a clear rejection of the efforts of a few to undermine the foundations and historical heritage of European football for the many,” it said.
Football Supporters’ Europe were less diplomatic. “Three clubs continue to cling on to their ill-conceived plan in a strained attempt to save themselves from their own apparent financial mismanagement,” it said.
“Giving even more money and power to a few would be catastrophic, enriching a handful of clubs at the expense of all other levels of the game. It would also destroy important principles such as sporting merit, promotion and relegation, qualification to Europe via domestic success, and financial solidarity.”
Agnelli and Juventus vice president Pavel Nedved resigned along with the entire board on November 29 after accusations emerged of false accounting and market manipulation. The club, who are listed on the Italian stock exchange, have denied any wrongdoing. Juventus, who have failed to reach this season’s Champions League knockout stages, also posted record losses of £220million ($268m). Barcelona, another fading European force, continue to live beyond their means, too.
Real Madrid are the exceptions, still winning Champions League titles and announcing the capture of Brazilian 16-year-old Endrick, but there is dissatisfaction with the current models. The rebellion has been quietened for now but the quest for greater incomes for the elite clubs will not go away.
La Liga, home of both Real Madrid and Barcelona, was another to welcome the verdict, standing alongside the Premier League’s strong voice. “We share the advocate general’s clear view that open access is fundamental to European club football,” it said. A lingering threat had been fended off once more.
What has been the response from those left defeated?
A22 Sports Management, the company formed with the aim of creating the European Super League, grimaced and insisted this battle was not over. Not by a long chalk.
Bernd Reichart, chief executive of A22, said this verdict was merely “one step in an ongoing case” and highlighted the favourable points by Rantos rather than the conclusions he had drawn.
“The advocate general made clear that UEFA has a monopolistic position that comes with important responsibilities for enabling third parties to act freely in the market,” said Reichart.
“However, we believe the 15 judges of the Grand Chamber who are entrusted with the responsibility to examine this case will go substantially further and provide the opportunity for clubs to manage their own destiny in Europe.”
A22, which refuses to state who funds its operations, is having to develop a thick skin. It is only two months since it was granted an audience by UEFA in Nyon and sent away with its tail between its legs by a cast of influential figures.
Reichart is due to appear at a business function in Madrid on Friday morning, with Real Madrid owner Florentino Perez, Barcelona president Joan Laporta and Andrea Agnelli, who resigned as Juventus president last month, also lined up to attend.
What comes next in this interminable saga?
The ECJ’s final verdict is the obvious next step, but Reichart and his allies will need to summon every ounce of optimism to believe it will have any great difference to the one delivered by Rantos.
A22 has always been clear that any decision passed by the ECJ would not mark the end of the war, but there will be an acceptance, privately at least, that attempts to resurrect a super league, the whole point of its being, has become a whole lot harder.
To set up a super league, any club wishing to do so would effectively have to leave the system that has built up their strength. They cannot remain and reap the benefits of the competitions they will eventually choose to leave. Finding clubs brave enough to join Barcelona, Real Madrid and Juventus for a second time would likely be a fool’s errand.
It all comes back to the ongoing motivations of those three European giants. They have little or no support for their plans to break away and go it alone, but their need for greater incomes does not diminish.
