Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Industrial Policy

UEFA battles Super League at EU’s top court

LUXEMBOURG — European football’s governing body UEFA and the rebel Super League renewed hostilities Monday in the EU’s top court at a hearing which could upend football governance for decades.

Lawyers for UEFA and FIFA, world football’s governing body, accused the Super League of trying to “have its cake and eat it” by seeking to create the breakaway league, while keeping its clubs in national competitions.  

The dispute at the Court of Justice of the European Union centers on a Super League complaint that UEFA and FIFA have an illegal monopoly over the organization of international competitions, notably through their right to pre-authorize rival events and potentially unload sanctions against them.

A dozen of Europe’s leading clubs launched the proposed Super League in April 2021, but the project collapsed after several clubs pulled out following two days of tumultuous opposition from fans, high-profile players and coaches, other clubs and politicians

Super League holdout clubs — Real Madrid, Juventus and Barcelona — argued in court that UEFA has a clear “conflict of interest” as European football’s regulator and operator, and would “never” authorize a competitor to its flagship Champions League tournament.

Arguing in front of a packed courtroom, Super League lawyer, Miguel Odriozola Alen, said UEFA has ruled European football with an “iron fist and beaten away any alternative project that could threaten its monopoly.”

UEFA’s lawyer, Donald Slater, hit back. He said the Super League would have struck a “fatal blow” to the European sports model, causing its “systemic collapse.” That would be a “disastrous outcome for football and European society,” he argued.

Slater dismissed as “a textbook example of a cartel” the Super League’s initial proposal for a competition with 12 of Europe’s moneybags clubs as permanent members.

Quoting former Manchester United footballer and wannabe philosopher Eric Cantona, Slater said that “you don’t get to be champions without a struggle.”

“Competition should be open to all, and merit, not money, must determine the outcome,” he concluded.

The court heard lawyers for UEFA, FIFA, the Super League and A22 (promoter of the Super League), as well as Spain’s La Liga and the Spanish Football Association. Later, representatives for EU and EEA member countries began their pleadings, a lengthy section of the hearing given the number of parties weighing in.  

Twenty-one countries, an extraordinary number for the Luxembourg court, are scheduled to speak. Almost all are expected to back UEFA. Some have sent senior figures to make their case. The Czech Republic put up Deputy Foreign Minister Martin Smolek and Portugal’s representative is a former judge at the CJEU.

The Czech Republic, as reported previously by POLITICO, flipped its position after a previous government submitted a written observation last fall that was positive for the Super League. In court, Smolek contended the redistribution of financial resources in football was best protected by UEFA and FIFA.

Denmark’s representative argued that sporting integrity, as promoted by UEFA and FIFA, was a “legitimate objective” justifying a restriction of free competition and therefore was “compatible” with EU law.

Despite its technical complexities, the hearing had moments of levity.

CJEU President Koen Lenaerts asked La Liga’s lawyer to “slow down a bit” during her statement. Ireland’s representative was similarly admonished, with a grin from Lenaerts. Smolek joked that the Czech Republic’s switch in allegiance meant he was like a player transferred to a rival team.

The Court of Justice was asked to rule on points of EU law by a Madrid tribunal. The court’s 15-judge Grand Chamber took the case, registered as C-333/21 European Superleague Company, because of its significance across Europe. Its judgment will guide a final decision from the Spanish court.

After the hearing concludes, the Super League and UEFA must wait until later this year for an opinion from the court’s advocate general, which judges often — but not always — follow.

A final decision is expected in late 2022 or early next year.

This article is part of POLITICO Pro

The one-stop-shop solution for policy professionals fusing the depth of POLITICO journalism with the power of technology

Exclusive, breaking scoops and insights

Customized policy intelligence platform

A high-level public affairs network

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You May Also Like


German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said on Thursday that he was not involved in any way in the tax fraud scandal known as “Cum-Ex” that...


This article is part of POLITICO’s Global Policy Lab: Living Cities, a collaborative journalism project exploring the future of cities. Sign up here. The car-choked streets of central...


LONDON — British business groups are today warning the U.K.’s trade chief to pump the brakes on trade talks with India or risk leaving...

Foreign Policy

Press play to listen to this article Call it diplomacy with Chinese characteristics. As Beijing increasingly views itself as locked in an ideological and...


Press play to listen to this article ROME — Giorgia Meloni, the favorite to become Italy’s next prime minister, has rejected claims that a...


LONDON — The U.K. is offering all children aged 1 to 9 a booster dose of the polio vaccine after further poliovirus has been...


Press play to listen to this article ATHENS — In late July, a team of German and French journalists landed a thunderous scoop: A...


LONDON — China’s ambassador to the U.K. has been hauled into the Foreign Office for crisis talks over Beijing’s “aggressive and wide-ranging escalation” in...