"Do you believe that @UEFA will ever authorise a competitor to the Champions League?"
#EuropeanSuperLeague lawyer Miguel Odriozola starts ECJ hearing with a rhetorical question.
"The answer that you are all thinking of is NO. Never." /thread
Both sides went at it for an hour or so this pm. UEFA and FIFA on one side, ESL and its promoter A22 on the other.
The shortest summary:
ESL: "you're an ugly monopoly, UEFA!!!"
UEFA: "you guy's are a money-grabbing cartel!!!" /2
SuperLeague started with a takedown of UEFA for never allowing anyone to set up any other competitions. It said UEFA had a conflict of interest that need to be unwound. It's a conflict between regulatory role and the economic interests of organizing competitions. /3
UEFA said it was looking out for the grass roots of the sport and distributing funds to safeguard the social role of sport. It also said the ESL competition wasn't based on sporting merit. It pointed to Real Madrid v Sheriff Tiraspol to show what open competitions did. /4
It also quoted "football-philosopher" Eric Cantona: “You don’t get to be champions without a struggle.”/5
A22 argued that UEFA was the exception in governing bodies. There are other sports such as #TourdeFrance & @SixNationsRugby which were private companies.
Private operators can still run sport in line with EU treaty rules about the "European dimension of sport."/6
@LaLigaEN & Spain's FA also intervened to stress the social importance of sport and how UEFA and the current structure enabled them to safeguard interests such as grass roots, the women's game, disability sport etc. This was the European model of sport, they argued. /7
Spanish government also weighed in, favouring the approach to having a single governing body to retain standards and the model of sport. Spain also said there were key differences with the earlier @ISU_Speed case (check out my earlier tweets). /8
The afternoon will be loads of European governments saying their piece. They all support @UEFA One of them didn't (the Czech Republic) but they announced today that do support UEFA & have "changed sides." /ends
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
UEFA v #SuperLeague has ended. Lots of Qs from judges, hinting where the fault lines of the case are:
- Treaty articles on sport & antitrust
- 'closed competitions'
- Solidarity payments
- notion of 'restricting competition'
- specificities of sport
Settle down for a /thread
Jan Passer, reporting judge, asked about money. He wants to know how much cash countries get from UEFA. What %age of their income? He asked #ESL what its plans are.
#ESL has a solidarity fund. But it is voluntary. Still, they reckon it's better than UEFA's. /1
AG Rantos asked why doesn't ESL just set up outside the UEFA ecosystem.
ESL said the clubs would get sanctioned & might face bankruptcy. They need some time to build the new league, it said. For that it needs the money, and the sanctions for leaving are "draconian."/2
EU countries lining up to call it a "cartel" that rubbishes "Europe's model of sport."
Romania, Poland, Malta, Portugal, Austria, Slovenia. None of them had a positive word for #ESL /1
Norway was also there. (It isn't an EU member, but it took up its right to plead before ECJ). It noted that Norwegian teams from the provinces had been promoted and played European sport because of the openness of UEFA structure, on sporting merit. #ESL puts that at risk /2
Shame there was no mention of @ErlingHaaland even though his old club was mentioned as one of the places that benefitted from the UEFA model.
"Its about preserving opportunities," Norway's lawyer said. /3
Country after country is standing up and backing @UEFA 's right to block ESL attempt to set up a rival league. Small countries (Estonia, Ireland, Denmark etc) see themselves excluded from the 'closed competition.' /1
They also note the money they get from @UEFA which feeds into the grass roots. They reckon their clubs would never get into the closed-shop ESL.
They say the UEFA regime of authorizing rival events serves legitimate purposes of protecting European sport /2
Side note: Ireland did its pleading in Gaelic which was bloody lovely.
It said there would be "devastating consequences" if "large clubs" could grab all the revenues from the game. Estonia and Greece agreed. /3
Update: EU court opened with skating dispute, saying it was the "warm-up" for #SuperLeague
Short summary:
- very engaged court
- will pose qu's later on conflicts of interest at @uefa
- will explore EU treaty conflict btw sport & competition law
- Opinion slated for Dec 15
/1
ISU imposed bans because the Dubai event featured betting. EC said the eligibility criteria were not transparent. /2
Jan Passer (Czech judge) is leading the questions & was forensic. Wanted to know about where ISU got its powers from (derived from IOC @iocmedia ? or member associations?). Also wanted to know about "conflicts of interest." This is a governing body having regulatory powers.../3
Despite the club mutiny, ESL is still pursuing its case in Madrid court over UEFA’s rules being unfair & blocking rival competitions. A Madrid court has asked the EU court for help. /1
The main question: is @uefa a business abusing its power to run football? By threatening lifetime bans for players/clubs from the Euros or the #ChampionsLeague is it misusing that power? That would breach EU competition law. /2
I've slept on it. Here's a 'tepid-take' (HT @DrMJCole) on Google ruling.
- politically: huge for @vestager
- practically: won't change much becoz #DMA is new kid in town,
- legally: EU judges' stance on 'essential facility' will cause controversy & perhaps an appeal
/thread
1st, politically:
Court approval for @EU_Competition mantra of 'self-preferencing' is huge; this concept underpins the last decade of action & rhetoric from Brussels, and now the whole world.
Court blessing for that will be read as: 'keep going, you're on the right track.' /2
Losing this case would have been a horror for the entire policy drive, for cases against @Apple@amazon@Meta & for @vestager reputation. As it is, EC goes into all that strengthened.
Court also said Google's "abnormal" conduct can't be explained away as the right to innovate/3