Professor Stephen Weatherill, Faculty of Law and Somerville College, University of Oxford, analyzes the attempted formation of a European SuperLeague and what it reveals about the weaknesses in European football governance and legal frameworks. He argues that while the SuperLeague ultimately failed, the desire for such a league persists and requires proactive legal and structural reforms to safeguard the European model of sport.
A Persistent Threat
The proposed SuperLeague, driven by wealthy and commercially successful clubs, posed a significant challenge to UEFA, the governing body of European football. UEFA has historically responded to the threat of a breakaway league by appeasing these clubs, making changes to the structure of the Champions League to benefit them. However, the recent SuperLeague proposal was an attempt to circumvent UEFA entirely.
The SuperLeague’s structure, guaranteeing long-term participation for founding members and disregarding the traditional model of promotion and relegation, drew widespread criticism. This, along with public pressure, ultimately led to its swift collapse.
Despite its failure, the concept of a breakaway league remains appealing to some powerful clubs. This necessitates a thorough examination of the legal framework governing sports in Europe, particularly the inadequacy of existing regulations in preventing such leagues.
Legal Loopholes and Regulatory Overlaps
UEFA’s role is twofold: it regulates European football and operates as a commercial entity through tournaments like the Champions League. This duality creates a conflict of interest when addressing breakaway leagues. While UEFA has a legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and structure of European football, its opposition to the SuperLeague also stemmed from a desire to protect its commercial interests.
EU competition law, particularly Article 101 TFEU, complicates the issue. The International Skating Union (ISU) case, where the Commission found the ISU’s eligibility rules anti-competitive, provides some insight. The ruling highlighted the need for governing bodies to act proportionately and avoid leveraging regulatory power for commercial gain.
While the ISU case offers some guidance, the power dynamics between UEFA and the major football clubs differ significantly from those in the ISU case. The question of where regulation ends and anti-competitive behavior begins remains ambiguous.
Past cases such as Meca Medina and Majcen v Commission and MOTOE underscore the EU’s acknowledgment of the need for regulation in sports while emphasizing that it should not be misused for commercial advantage. The EU’s approach allows for what has been termed ‘conditional autonomy’ for sports governing bodies.
UEFA’s Options and the Need for Reform
It is unclear if EU law would have allowed UEFA to take action against the SuperLeague. UEFA could argue that it was acting to preserve the integrity of European football by ensuring a single, merit-based pathway to determine the best club in Europe. However, the lack of clear legal precedent makes predicting the outcome difficult.
The SuperLeague’s collapse highlights the need for a more robust legal framework for sports in Europe. UEFA’s dependence on urgent consultations and the lack of clear legal guidelines underscore the system’s fragility.
The Path Forward: Embracing Reform over Autonomy
The SuperLeague fiasco presents an opportunity for UEFA to reconsider its stance on EU involvement in sports regulation. While UEFA has historically guarded its autonomy, the threat posed by breakaway leagues might necessitate a strategic shift towards collaboration with the EU.
A closer relationship with the EU could offer UEFA much-needed support in protecting the European model of sport. The EU could play a role in establishing clear governance standards, ensuring merit-based competition structures, and promoting financial fairness within European football. This could lead to a more robust ‘European Model of Sport’, one that is more than just rhetoric.
Additionally, national governments could consider legislation to prevent closed leagues and promote financial fairness within their football pyramids. While this represents an increase in state intervention in sport, it might be necessary to counter the immense power of wealthy clubs.
Conclusion
The failed SuperLeague exposes the vulnerabilities in European football’s governance. While this immediate threat has subsided, the underlying issues persist. The need for a clearly defined legal framework for sports in Europe, one that balances the autonomy of governing bodies with the need for fair competition and the preservation of traditional sporting values, is now more apparent than ever. Without reform, the possibility of another attempt at a breakaway league, potentially more sophisticated and successful, remains a genuine threat.
Photo credit: Ed g2s, via Wikimedia Commons
Barnard & Peers: chapter 17