The giant football clubs are trying to break UEFA’s monopoly position – in the Super Liiga dispute, money talks and the consequences can spread widely

This week, the EU court started a hearing that could have a revolutionary effect on football in Europe.

It is about the complaint of three giant clubs, namely Barcelona, ​​Real Madrid and Juventus.

According to the clubs, the European football association Uefa has wrongly prevented them from establishing their own European Super League.

What is it about and what are the conditions for a complaint?

The professor of business law commented on the case Petri Kuoppamäki from Aalto University and assistant professor of competition law Ben Van Rompuy from the Dutch University of Leiden.

Kuoppamäki is a well-known expert in competition law, and Van Rompuy has commented on the case extensively in the international media.

Barcelona, ​​Real Madrid, Juventus and nine other big clubs announced last year that they would establish a new Super League.

The Superliga was supposed to be played during the national league holidays. The background was money: the big clubs calculated that the new league would bring them a lot more viewership and advertising revenue.

The European football association Uefa and the global umbrella organization Fifa were immediately against the project. They threatened to exclude the clubs from the national leagues and deny the players access to the EC and World Cup competitions.

The fans, especially in the sport’s home country of England, were also enraged. Six English clubs and three others withdrew from the league due to scathing criticism, and the whole project collapsed in just two days.

However, Barcelona, ​​Real Madrid, Juventus did not give up.

They accused UEFA of abusing its monopoly position and restricting competition. They complained (you switch to another service) to the Spanish court, which is now seeking guidance from the EU Court.

The proceedings of the EU court started this week.

If the court decides that Uefa restricted competition on the wrong grounds, the consequences could be revolutionary. The decision would break the entire European football system and open up the possibility of the same for other sports as well.

Hardly, says Professor Petri Kuoppamäki from Aalto University.

– Accepting the league would mean the birth of a kind of football nobility. The noble clubs would automatically enter the lucrative competition and become even more prosperous. This would be a significant competitive advantage for them compared to others.

Thus, the Superliiga would be harmful to a system that is based on sporting success.

In Kuoppamäki’s opinion, the accusation of abuse of UEFA’s position is not valid. Clubs have also not been prevented from setting up their own competition, but have been informed that there will be consequences for letting go.

– I think it can be required that if you play in the Champions League organized by UEFA, you don’t build a competing system alongside it. Or if you build, you can be punished, says Kuoppamäki.

Instead, the EU court may find that the threats by Uefa and Fifa towards the Superliga clubs were exaggerated. This is being weighed, say Kuoppamäki and assistant professor Ben Van Rompuy from Leiden University.

– The idea behind competition legislation is that everyone must have a fair chance to enter the market, says Van Rompuy.

Uefa also lacked an open evaluation system with which it would have processed applications like the Superliga. Uefa established the system only after the dispute had already erupted.

– The court may find that Uefa has violated competition legislation here. Otherwise, I believe that UEFA’s position is strong in court, says Van Rompuy.

For scale, yes, otherwise no.

In 1995, the Bosman decision revolutionized the working conditions of European football players.

Belgian soccer player by Jean-Marc Bosman the lawsuit brought by the .

The Superliiga consequences would also be big but different, says Van Rompuy.

– Before the Bosman decision, it was not known whether EU legislation can be fully applied to professional sports. Now we know that it can.

The Superliga is not buried, but it is waiting for a better moment.

This has been repeatedly said by the chairman of Real Madrid, among others Fiorentino Perez – even though supporters and sports associations are still against the project.

The lawsuit is likely just one stage in a long battle of attrition.

– That’s probably the case. This whole project has been a test ball. The clubs look at what goes through and what doesn’t, says Kuoppamäki.

Van Rompuy believes that within a few years we will see a new company.

– The clubs certainly think that next time they can already succeed, says Van Rompuy.

The EU Court’s decision helps clubs figure out how to change plans so that the project can go through. Next time, Uefa and Fifa probably won’t be able to threaten the clubs with such harsh measures as they have done so far.

Kuoppamäki points out that Uefa and Fifa are not themselves pure scumbags, but organizations that are demonstrably possessed by corruption. Shaking in itself can also have good effects.

The EU Court’s decision in the case is not expected until next year.

In any case, the Superliga case paves the way for similar projects in other sports as well. Football is the largest and most lucrative sport in Europe – according to the consulting firm Deloitte, it is worth up to 30 billion euros before the corona virus – but more money is coming to other hit sports as well.

– This is a kind of game opening, and the logic applies to all sports, Van Rompuy says.

– It is more difficult than before not to grant organizing rights to events outside the federations, if they fit into the competition calendar and do not threaten sporting equality.

Monopolies formed by unions are acceptable as long as they serve the public interest, Kuoppamäki says:

– Undoubtedly, there will be more such companies, and the unions’ exclusive rights will be challenged. In many sports, it’s tough business.