Ethics CasesSport

Cases · FIFA / UEFA / ISU · 2017–2023

Regulator and Rival: The EU Court's 2023 Sport Governance Rulings

On December 21, 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in two cases about sport governing bodies that both write the rules and run competitions. In European Superleague Company, it held that FIFA and UEFA's rules requiring their prior approval for new club competitions, and barring clubs and players from unapproved events, were unlawful because they had no framework ensuring they were transparent, objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate. The same day, it upheld the European Commission's finding that the International Skating Union's authorization and eligibility rules breached EU law. Neither ruling approved any particular rival competition. This case looks beyond the Super League's rise and fall to the governance principle: what limits should apply when a sport's regulator is also a commercial competitor?

By Tanner Simkins, editor

Timeline

  1. The European Commission finds the ISU's authorization and eligibility rules breach EU competition law.
  2. The EU General Court largely upholds the Commission's ISU decision but rejects its finding on arbitration rules.
  3. Twelve clubs announce the Super League; FIFA and UEFA threaten sanctions.
  4. The Court of Justice rules against FIFA and UEFA's prior-approval rules and dismisses the ISU's appeal.
  5. UEFA adopts Authorisation Rules for international club competitions.
  6. The Provincial Court of Madrid dismisses appeals by UEFA, FIFA, the Spanish federation and LaLiga.
  7. A22 begins Spain's mandatory pre-litigation procedure for a damages claim against UEFA.
  8. UEFA, EFC and Real Madrid announce an agreement of principles to resolve their Super League disputes.

The ethical issues

  • Conflict of interest when a regulator also runs competitions.
  • Athletes' freedom to compete versus sanctions for unauthorized events.
  • Transparency and proportionality in governance.
  • Solidarity redistribution versus open markets.
  • Access to courts versus mandatory sports arbitration.

Stakeholders

StakeholderInterests & obligations
FIFA, UEFA and the ISUTheir authority to approve competitions and their commercial revenues.
Clubs and rival organizersFreedom to set up new competitions.
Athletes and playersFreedom to compete without career-ending sanctions.
Fans and broadcast audiencesAccess to competitions and fair structures.
Smaller clubs and grassroots sportSolidarity payments from centralized revenues.
The European Commission and courtsApplying competition law.

The case

The Super League’s announcement and collapse are covered in the European Super League breakaway. This case focuses on the legal and governance principle that the Court of Justice of the European Union set out on December 21, 2023. That day it ruled on FIFA and UEFA’s rules in the Super League case and on the International Skating Union (ISU)‘s rules in a separate appeal.[1][2]

Background

Football. FIFA and UEFA are private associations based in Switzerland. Their rules gave them power to approve club competitions in Europe and to exploit related media rights.[1] When 12 clubs, through European Superleague Company, tried to launch the Super League, FIFA and UEFA objected and threatened sanctions on participating clubs and players. The company sued in the Commercial Court of Madrid, which referred questions to the Court of Justice.[1]

Skating. The ISU is the only IOC-recognized international federation for figure and speed skating. It regulates the sport and also organizes international competitions and exploits the related rights.[2] Its rules required prior approval for international competitions. Skaters who took part in unauthorized events could be excluded for a set period or for life, and refusals and sanctions could be challenged only before the Court of Arbitration for Sport.[2] In 2017, the European Commission found the authorization and participation rules unlawful. In 2020, the General Court upheld that finding but said the Commission was wrong about the arbitration rules.[2]

The rules and governance

In the Super League case, the Court held that organizing club competitions and exploiting media rights are “quite evidently, economic activities,“[6] subject to competition law despite the specific features of sport.[1] Where a dominant undertaking can decide whether competitors access the market, that power must, “given the risk of conflict of interest to which it gives rise,” be subject to transparent, objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria. FIFA and UEFA’s powers were not, so they were “abusing a dominant position.” Their approval, control and sanctions rules were also unjustified restrictions on the freedom to provide services.[1] The Court added that this “does not mean that a competition such as the Super League project must necessarily be approved.”[1]

On media rights, the Court said FIFA and UEFA’s rules could harm clubs, media companies and viewers by preventing new competitions. It left it to the Madrid court to decide whether the rules might still benefit stakeholders, for example through “a solidarity-like redistribution” of revenue.[1]

In the ISU case, the Court dismissed the federation’s appeal. It said the rules had the object of restricting competition, harming “athletes, consumers and audiences.” A sports association may adopt and enforce rules on competitions, but they must be subject to a framework ensuring they are transparent, objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate.[2] Unlike the General Court, the Court of Justice held that the Commission was right to question the arbitration rules.[2]

Aftermath

The Court of Justice does not decide the national dispute itself; the Madrid court had to apply the ruling.[1]

UEFA responded by codifying its gatekeeping. In June 2024, its Executive Committee adopted Authorisation Rules for international club competitions. An organizer must submit administrative, financial, sporting, ethical and “sporting merit” information. It must commit that clubs will be admitted “on the basis of non-discriminatory conditions based upon sporting merit,” and the rules list among their aims “guaranteeing… that sporting values always prevail over commercial interests.” UEFA itself must “enforce these rules in a proportionate manner.”[3] Under the rules, UEFA, which organizes Europe’s main club competitions, still processes applications from would-be rivals; it says the criteria are “objective, transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate.”[3][5]

In May 2024, a Madrid commercial court found that UEFA, FIFA, the Spanish federation and LaLiga had abused a dominant position by banning clubs from joining the Super League. On October 29, 2025, the Provincial Court of Madrid dismissed the appeals.[4][5] Real Madrid said the ruling “paves the way for the club to claim substantial damages from Uefa.” UEFA said the judgment did “not validate” the Super League project, “nor does it undermine Uefa’s current authorisation rules.” It pointed to a European Parliament resolution that month opposing “breakaway competitions” because they “endanger the overall sport ecosystem.”[5] The principle that sport regulators with commercial roles must exercise gatekeeping powers under fair criteria applies across European sport.

Damages claims and a negotiated end

The Madrid rulings turned the CJEU principle into a damages claim. A22 Sports Management, the company formed to promote the Super League, said it had asked UEFA in December 2024 to recognize a new competition, the “Unify League,” and had negotiated with UEFA from March to September 2025 without reaching agreement. On November 21, 2025, it began the mandatory pre-litigation (MASC) procedure required under Spanish law before suing UEFA for damages.[7] It argued that UEFA “continues to maintain regulations and practices that directly contradict judicial decisions,” including the authorisation rules adopted in 2024.[7] A22 also sent UEFA a letter demanding pre-authorisation of the Unify League within eight weeks. In its revised proposal, three competitions of 36 teams each would qualify through domestic leagues. The proposal also called for a “League Board of Directors” with a veto over format, revenue distribution and other commercial and sporting decisions.[8] Inside World Football reported that Real Madrid had claimed it was owed €4.5 billion.[8]

The dispute ended in negotiation rather than in a damages judgment. On February 11, 2026, UEFA, European Football Clubs (EFC, formerly the European Club Association) and Real Madrid announced “an agreement of principles for the well-being of European club football, respecting the principle of sporting merit.” They said it “will also serve to resolve their legal disputes related to the European Super League, once such principles are executed and implemented.”[9] The Guardian reported that Barcelona had announced its withdrawal from the project days earlier, leaving Real Madrid the last club backing it. It also reported that the agreement did not say what role, if any, A22 would have, and that the Champions League format would be kept for 2027–31.[10] The CJEU’s legal test still governs how UEFA must handle any future applicant, although the club that did most to bring the case had settled.[1][9]

The core dilemma

Sport needs rule-makers to set calendars, ensure integrity and redistribute revenue. But when the rule-maker also profits from its own events, its power to block rivals creates a conflict of interest. How much gatekeeping power should governing bodies have, and what checks should apply?

Competing values

  • Stability and solidarity vs. freedom to compete.
  • Self-governance vs. external legal accountability.
  • Athletes’ livelihoods vs. federation control.
  • Fans’ interest in new events vs. the pyramid’s traditions.

Strongest arguments

For the rulings: unchecked gatekeeping lets incumbents exclude rivals and punish athletes. Requiring fair criteria protects athletes, organizers and fans without abolishing governance.

For the governing bodies: central control funds grassroots sport and protects sporting merit. Breakaways can drain value from the wider game.

A middle view: governing bodies can keep approval powers if criteria are published, applied consistently and reviewable.

Applying the frameworks

Justice

A justice lens asks whether access rules are fair and whether they protect weaker parties, such as smaller clubs relying on solidarity, or entrench incumbents.

Rights

A rights lens focuses on athletes’ freedom to compete and earn a living, and on access to courts rather than only arbitration.

Utilitarianism

A utilitarian lens weighs the benefits of centralized structures and solidarity against the harm of restricting innovation and competition.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

  1. Spot the issue. You are a federation board member reviewing your approval rules. Stakeholders include athletes, clubs, organizers and fans. Less visible are grassroots beneficiaries. The codes are EU competition law and your statutes.
  2. Gather facts. What criteria do you use? Beware assuming that a long-standing rule is lawful.
  3. Test options. (a) Keep discretionary approval. (b) Publish objective criteria with independent review. (c) Remove approval requirements.
  4. Check codes and law. Check the 2023 rulings and national law.
  5. Decide and document. Record the criteria and reasons for decisions.
  6. Communicate and follow up. Publish criteria and monitor outcomes.

What’s settled and what’s contested

  • Settled: the December 2023 rulings and their reasoning as stated by the Court.
  • Contested: what criteria will satisfy the Court; how far solidarity justifies centralized media rights; how the principle applies to other sports.

Why this case matters

The 2023 rulings set legal limits on sport’s dual-role governance, affecting federations, athletes and organizers across Europe.

See also: Who Reviews Sport’s Court? Seraing and the Limits of CAS Finality.

Key terms

Conflict of interest
A situation where a person’s private interest could improperly influence a decision they make in an official role.
Institutional accountability
Structures that make a sport organization explain its decisions and face consequences: clear authority, transparency, appeals, independent oversight and enforcement.
Commercialization
The process of turning sport into a product and a business enterprise, with profit pressures that can compete with principle.
Stakeholders
Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.
Distributive justice
Fairness in how scarce opportunities, resources, benefits and burdens are shared.
Due process
Fair procedures before a sanction: notice, a chance to respond, an impartial decision-maker and a right of appeal.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

  1. Should a governing body that profits from its own competitions be allowed to approve or block rivals? Under what conditions?
  2. The Court said the Super League did not have to be approved. What criteria would make an approval system fair?
  3. Is threatening athletes with bans an acceptable way to protect a sport's structure?
  4. Could solidarity redistribution justify centralized control of media rights?
  5. Should sports disputes go to courts or to specialized arbitration?

Sources

  1. Press release No 203/23: The FIFA and UEFA rules on prior approval of interclub football competitions, such as the Super League, are contrary to EU law — Court of Justice of the European Union
  2. Press release No 202/23: The rules of the International Skating Union on the prior authorisation of skating competitions infringe EU law — Court of Justice of the European Union
  3. UEFA Authorisation Rules governing International Club Competitions, Edition 2024 — UEFA
  4. Sentencia Civil 269/2025, Audiencia Provincial de Madrid, Sección 32, Rec. 612/2024 (Oct. 29, 2025) — Iberley (case-law database)
  5. Real Madrid: Spanish club to seek 'substantial damages' from Uefa after Super League ruling (Oct. 2025) — BBC Sport
  6. European Superleague Company v FIFA and UEFA, Case C-333/21, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) (Dec. 21, 2023) — EUR-Lex
  7. A22 commences damage claim process against UEFA (Nov. 24, 2025) — A22 Sports Management
  8. A22 sends UEFA demand to pre-authorise 'the Unify League' (Nov. 27, 2025) — Inside World Football
  9. UEFA, European Football Clubs and Real Madrid CF reach agreement for the good of European club football (Feb. 11, 2026) — UEFA
  10. European Super League project officially over after Real Madrid and Uefa deal (Feb. 11, 2026) — The Guardian