Articles

Exclusivity obligations in sports organization rules violate EU competition law

Exclusivity obligations in sports organization rules violate EU competition law

Exclusivity obligations in sports organization rules violate EU competition law

01.12.2015 BE law

The Competition College decision

On 27 July 2015, the Belgian Competition Authority ("BCA") imposed provisional measures on the Fédération Equestre internationale ("FEI"), the international governing body for all Olympic equestrian (horseback riding) disciplines.

The Global Champions League and Tops Trading Belgium, both active in the organization of equestrian competitions around the world, had complained that the exclusivity clause introduced in 2012 in the FEI’s General Regulations infringed Belgian and EU competition law. The exclusivity clause prohibited athletes and horse-owners from participating in any FEI approved competition if they had participated in any non-FEI-approved competitions in the six months preceding the event.

Because of the exclusivity (and related) clauses, the complainants claimed that they were unable to organize a new team competition (called the Global Champions League). No athlete or horse-owner would want take part in such a competition if they would be excluded from participating in FEI approved competitions, since the FEI competitions are the only events eligible to affect their international rankings and qualification for the Olympic Games.

The BCA considered that the exclusivity clause would, prima facie, be liable to infringe Articles 101 and 102 TFEU (and their Belgian equivalents). The BCA regarded the case at hand as a matter of urgency and used its powers to order partial suspension of the exclusivity clause (before taking a final decision on the merits).

The Brussels Court of Appeal judgment

The FEI appealed the BCA decision before the Brussels Court of Appeal seeking annulment and immediate suspension of the BCA decision. On 22 October 2015, the Court dismissed the FEI’s application for suspension.  

Conclusion

While there was uncertainty whether the new Belgian Competition Law of 2013 would be favorable to parties seeking provisional measures, this second decision to that effect seems to alleviate such suspicions.

The decision also shows that exclusivity clauses in the rules imposed by sports organizations will continue to be scrutinized by (national) competition authorities and courts. Other examples include a 2012 judgment by the Swedish Market Court in relation to the national Automobile Sports Federation, and a recent investigation opened by the Spanish authority concerning the national basketball association's rules. In a similar vein, the European Commission recently opened a formal investigation into alleged anti-competitive restrictions imposed on speed skaters by the International Skating Union.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of December 2015. Other articles in this newsletter:

Team

Related news

07.11.2019 NL law
Tackling Big Tech up-front? Time to stop thinking and start acting

Short Reads - Benelux competition authorities have published a joint memorandum on how best to keep up with challenges in fast-moving digital markets. As well as calling on the European Commission to issue an economic study on digital mergers, the memorandum calls for an ex ante intervention tool to fill the gap between interim measures and ex post enforcement. This tool would pre-emptively impose behavioural remedies on digital gatekeepers without first having to establish an actual competition law infringement.

Read more

08.11.2019 BE law
Interview with Wouter Ghijsels on Next Gen lawyers

Articles - Stibbe’s managing partner Wouter Ghijsels shares his insights on the next generation of lawyers and the future of the legal profession at the occasion of the Leaders Meeting Paris where Belgian business leaders, politicians and inspiring people from the cultural and academic world will discuss this year's central theme "The Next Gen".

Read more

07.11.2019 NL law
Rotterdam District Court rules that claims in elevator cartel damages proceedings need further substantiation

Short Reads - The Rotterdam District Court has ordered claimant SECC (a litigation vehicle) to substantiate its claims in proceedings against Kone and ThyssenKrupp regarding the elevator cartel. The Court also ruled that some claims have become time-barred, unless SECC can show that these were timely assigned to SECC and notified to Kone and ThyssenKrupp. The Court rejected several defences of Kone and Thyssenkrupp, including a jurisdictional challenge based on arbitration clauses between the defendants and assignors of claims to SECC.

Read more

07.11.2019 NL law
Safeguarding legal privilege: better safe than sorry?

Short Reads - The European Court of Justice recently ruled that the European Commission does not have to take additional precautionary measures to respect the right of legal professional privilege when conducting a new dawn raid at the same company. Companies are well-advised to mark clearly all communications covered by legal privilege as 'privileged and confidential' and to keep all privileged communication separate from other communication.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring