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

08.06.2021 NL law
De Europese Klimaatwet uitgelicht

Short Reads - Op 21 april 2021 is een voorlopig akkoord bereikt over de Europese Klimaatwet. Deze Klimaatwet kan worden gezien als de kern van de Europese Green Deal, die in december 2019 werd gepubliceerd door de Europese Commissie. Het overstijgende doel van deze instrumenten is om een klimaatneutraal Europa te bewerkstelligen in 2050. De Europese Klimaatwet zorgt ervoor dat deze klimaatneutraliteitsdoelstelling in een Europese verordening wordt vastgelegd. Dit blogbericht gaat nader in op de Europese Klimaatwet en legt uit wat dit met zich brengt.

Read more

03.06.2021 NL law
First material judgment in Dutch damages proceedings in trucks infringement

Short Reads - In its judgment of 12 May 2021, the Amsterdam District Court ruled that it has not been established that it is definitively excluded that the trucks infringement led to damage to the claimants. However, this does not alter the fact that it must still be assessed for each claimant whether the threshold for referral to the damages assessment procedure has been met. For this to be the case, it must be plausible that a claimant may have suffered damage as a result of the unlawful actions of the truck manufacturers. The Amsterdam District Court has not yet ruled on this issue.

Read more

08.06.2021 NL law
Actualiteiten milieustraftrecht: zorgelijke ontwikkelingen

Short Reads - Afgelopen vrijdag 28 mei jl. hadden wij een inspirerend webinar over actualiteiten op het gebied van milieustrafrecht. Wij spraken gedurende 90 minuten onder meer over aansprakelijkheden van bestuurders, de zorgplichten, incidentenrapportages vanuit strafrechtelijk- en bestuursrechtelijk perspectief.

Read more

03.06.2021 NL law
Highest Dutch Court: ACM has not proved dominance of Dutch railway operator NS

Short Reads - A high market share is not always proof of a dominant position. The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) upheld the annulment of the ACM’s fine of nearly EUR 41 million on Dutch railway operator NS for alleged abuse of dominance. According to the CBb, NS did not abuse its dominant position as the ACM failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that NS holds a dominant position on the market for the exercise of the right to exploit the main rail network concession.

Read more