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

27.09.2019 NL law
Stibbe is attending the IBA's annual conference in Seoul

Conference - The annual conference of the International Bar Association (IBA) is currently taking place in Seoul. There are fourteen partners from Stibbe attending the event. Several of them have speaking slots on a wide range of legal topics and will take part in various panel discussions.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
No fine means no reason to appeal? Think again!

Short Reads - Whistleblowers who have had their fine reduced to zero may still have an interest in challenging an antitrust decision. The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) held two de facto managers personally liable for a cartel infringement but, instead of imposing a EUR 170,000 fine, granted one of them immunity from fines in return for blowing the whistle. The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal found that, despite this fortuitous outcome, the whistleblower still had an interest in appealing the ACM's decision.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
ECJ answers preliminary questions on jurisdiction in cartel damage case 

Short Reads - On 29 July 2019, the ECJ handed down a preliminary ruling concerning jurisdiction in follow-on damages proceedings in what is termed the trucks cartel. The court clarified that Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation should be interpreted in such a way as to allow an indirect purchaser to sue an alleged infringer of Article 101 TFEU before the courts of the place where the market prices were distorted and where the indirect purchaser claims to have suffered damage. In practice, this often means that indirect purchasers will be able to sue for damages in their home jurisdictions.

Read more

08.08.2019 BE law
Regulating online platforms: piece of the puzzle

Articles - The new Regulation no. 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services, applicable as of 12 July 2020, is another piece of the puzzle regulating online platforms, this time focussing on the supply side of the platforms.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
Wanted: fast solutions for fast-growing platforms

Short Reads - Dominant digital companies be warned: calls for additional tools to deal with powerful platforms in online markets are increasing. Even though the need for speed is a given in these fast-moving markets, the question of which tool is best-suited for the job remains. Different countries are focusing on different areas; the Dutch ACM wants to pre-emptively strike down potential anti-competitive conduct with ex ante measures, while the UK CMA aims for greater regulation of digital markets and a quick fix through interim orders.

Read more

01.08.2019 NL law
General court dismisses all five appeals in the optical disk drives cartel

Short Reads - The General Court recently upheld a Commission decision finding that suppliers of optical disk drives colluded in bids for sales to Dell and HP by engaging in a network of parallel bilateral contacts over a multi-year period. The General Court rejected applicants' arguments regarding the Commission's fining methodology, including that the Commission ought to have provided reasons for not departing from the general methodology set out in its 2006 Guidelines.

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