The EU’s highest court decided on Thursday that UEFA and FIFA had violated EU competition law by obstructing plans for the breakaway Super League.
The Court of Justice heard the matter last year after Super League’s April 2021 start was unsuccessful. Aleksander Ceferin, the president of UEFA, referred to the club executives as “snakes” and “liars” and threatened to ban players from Super League teams.
A Madrid tribunal ordered the court to rule on grounds of EU law, and the business founded by 12 rebel clubs—now led by only Real Madrid and Barcelona after Juventus withdrew last year—started legal action to defend its position.
The clubs claimed that by exploiting its market dominance of football contests, UEFA had violated European law.
The court declared that the FIFA and UEFA regulations that require their prior approval for any new interclub football project—like the Super League—and that forbid clubs and players from participating in those competitions are illegal. “The FIFA and UEFA regulations lack a framework to guarantee their transparency, objectivity, non-discrimination, and proportionality.”
Although the court stated that its decision “does not mean that a competition such as the Super League project must necessarily be approved,” it will give Super League promoters more hope that their initiative would be revived.
“The court does not rule on that particular project in its judgment, having been asked about the FIFA and UEFA rules in general.”
Two years after the initial plan was shelved, Super League organizers unveiled a revised plan in February for a multi-division league that would be independent of UEFA and include up to 80 European football teams.
English teams are still not likely to sign on to this resurrected scheme. In the previous two years, the Premier League’s financial clout and attractiveness abroad have only increased. This month, King Charles unveiled a plan that would give the British government the authority to prevent English teams from attempting to join a breakaway league.
The European Super League was described by the government as “fundamentally uncompetitive” and “threatened to undermine the footballing pyramid against the wishes of fans” in a document outlining the new Football Governance Bill.
Since the infamous Bosman Ruling in 1995, the Court of Justice’s decision on Thursday was the most anticipated sports decision. That case changed the landscape of football transfers, increased salaries for elite players whose contracts expired, and ultimately widened the gap in money and ability to compete between wealthy teams and the rest.
Widespread criticism of the rebel clubs from England, Spain, and Italy followed the announcement of the Super League, a mainly closed competition intended to replace the Champions League overseen by UEFA.
In its response, UEFA claimed that by funding grassroots sports initiatives and organizing events in a pyramid-style format that is accessible to all, it safeguarded the unique position of sports in European society. This season’s Champions League included Union Berlin, which only entered the German top level in 2019, and Royal Antwerp, which captured its first Belgian championship in 66 years.
The Champions League would have been essentially replaced with a 20-team Super League, with spots reserved for up to 15 founders, which would have diminished the allure of domestic competitions for fans and sports fans alike.
Compared to premier U.S. sports leagues, European football had the risk and reward of moving up or down divisions based on performance; the absence of relegation was essentially at odds with that.
