UEFA/FIFA saavat asettaa sanktioita toimijoille, jotka osallistuvat niiden ulkopuolisiin kilpailuihin ilman lupaa. Eli toisin sanottuna, Juventus voi lähteä pelaamaan Dubai Oil Warriorsia ja Shenzhen iPhonemeniä vastaan Binance Cupia jos haluavat, mutta sitten he eivät saa pelata Serie A:ssa, vissiin.
Eri asia, kansalliset sarjat järjestää kansallinen lajiliitto.
Kansallinen sarja ei kilpaile näiden viritysten kanssa, Mestareiden liiga (Eurooppa liiga ja Konferenssiliiga) kilpailevat.
Kansallisten sarjojen näkökulmasta taas ratkaisuehdotuksessa nähdään ESL:n kultapossukerho eli vakijäsenet kansallisten sarjojen kilpailua vääristävänä tekijänä.
Jos lopullinen tuomioistuimen päätös on tämän mielipiteen mukainen, niin se on RIP Superliiga ainakin nykymuodossaan. Kauas on tultu Bosmanista ja UEFAn varpaille tallovasta EUsta, kun EU antaa näin suoraan tukea UEFAn monopolille.
EU:n näkökulmasta UEFA ei ole monopoli.
Kuten Superliiga-otsikossa on toistuvasti käyty läpi, niin tässäkin sallitaan kilpaileva toiminta eli sen monopolin saa murtaa, mutta ketään ei voida velvoittaa ottamaan toimintaansa mukaan kilpailevaan toimintaan osallistuva.
129. In the light of the explanations provided by the referring court, it should be assumed that the relevant market is the market for the organisation and the commercial exploitation of international competitions between football clubs at European level, and that UEFA holds a dominant position (if not a monopoly) on that market, since it is the sole organiser of all major interclub football competitions at European level.
134. I would point out, in the first place, that the mere fact that a sports federation performs the tasks both of regulator and of organiser of sporting competitions does not entail in itself an infringement of EU competition law. (67) Although a structural separation as advocated by ESLC consisting in entrusting the exercise of the regulatory powers to an independent body with no connection to any undertaking active on the market concerned could eliminate any conflict of interests, it is not the only and necessary solution. It is thus clear from the case-law of the Court recalled in points 45 and 46 of this Opinion that, in order to prevent potential conflicts of interests, a federation can also establish an approval procedure for third-party competitions by identifying pre-defined approval criteria in an objective and non-discriminatory manner.
V. Conclusion
187. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo Mercantil n.º 17 de Madrid (Commercial Court, Madrid, Spain) as follows:
(1) Articles 101 and 102 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding Articles 22 and 71 to 73 of the Statutes of the Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) and Articles 49 and 51 of the Statutes of the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) which provide that the setting up of a new pan-European interclub football competition is to be subject to a prior approval scheme since, taking into account the characteristics of the planned competition, the restrictive effects arising from that scheme appear inherent in, and proportionate for achieving, the legitimate objectives pursued by UEFA and FIFA which are related to the specific nature of sport.
(2) Articles 101 and 102 TFEU must be interpreted as not prohibiting FIFA, UEFA, their member federations or their national leagues from issuing threats of sanctions against clubs affiliated to those federations when those clubs participate in a project to set up a new pan-European interclub football competition which would risk undermining the objectives legitimately pursued by those federations of which they are members. However, the sanctions involving exclusion targeted at players who have no involvement in the project in question are disproportionate, in particular as regards their exclusion from national teams.
(3) Articles 101 and 102 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding Articles 67 and 68 of the FIFA Statutes since the restrictions concerning the exclusive marketing of the rights relating to the competitions organised by FIFA and UEFA appear inherent in the pursuit of the legitimate objectives related to the specific nature of sport and proportionate to them. Furthermore, it is for the referring court to examine to what extent the articles in question may benefit from the exemption provided for in Article 101(3) TFEU or whether there is an objective justification for that conduct for the purpose of Article 102 TFEU.
(4) Articles 45, 49, 56 and 63 TFEU are to be interpreted as not precluding Articles 22 and 71 to 73 of the FIFA Statutes and Articles 49 and 51 of the UEFA Statutes which provide that the setting up of a new pan-European interclub football competition is to be subject to a prior approval scheme, since that requirement is appropriate and necessary for that purpose, taking into account the particular characteristics of the planned competition.
