"When the referee also plays: UEFA and FIFA's abuse of dominant position under the spotlight of competition law
La recent resolution of the Provincial Court of Madrid, dated October 29, 2025The decision, which dismisses the appeal from LaLiga, the Royal Spanish Football Federation (RFEF) and UEFA, marks a significant turning point in the field of competition law applied to team sports.
According to the ruling, UEFA—along with FIFA—committed a abuse of a dominant position, by imposing a system of prior authorization of alternative competitions that violates Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
In this article, we address this topic from both a technical and practical perspective. the key elements of the case, its implications for sports entities and market operatorsas well as the lessons to be learned from the perspective of the advisor in commercial law and regulatory compliance.
Factual and legal context of the conflict
The origin of the litigation lies in the lawsuit filed by European Super League Company SL (ESLC) against UEFA and FIFA, in which the restrictive nature of its statutes and regulations for the authorization and development of alternative club competitions was invoked.
In particular, it was questioned whether the governing bodies of European football were to assume a dual role: regulators of the sport and commercial actors with high control over pieces of the market.
La Judgment of the Commercial Court No. 17 of Madrid, dated May 27, 2024He stated that UEFA and FIFA had abused their dominant position by imposing "unjustified and disproportionate" restrictions that prevented free competition.
The Provincial Court, in its ruling of 29th October 2025This analysis has confirmed, reinforcing the thesis of structural abuse of power in the European football competitions market.
What is abuse of dominant position?
From the perspective of EU competition law:
- An dominant position It is configured when a company (or a group, such as a regulatory body with market functions) can act without regard for competition from others, or pressure from its customers or competitors.
- El abuse This occurs when the company imposes conditions or conduct that limit effective competition, without objective, proportional, transparent and non-discriminatory justification.
- In the context of the TFEU, Article 102 prohibits the abuse of a dominant position, while Article 101 sanctions agreements that restrict competition.
In the case in question, The court noted that UEFA (and FIFA) required authorization to organize competitions of clubs external to the pre-existing system, which was considered a restriction "by object" of the competition.
Key elements of the ruling applicable to the sports sector
relevant market and dominant position
The court considers that UEFA holds a dominant position in the “relevant market” for the organization and marketing of international club competitions within the EU.
The dual function —on the one hand a commercial actor, on the other a sports regulator— facilitates the ability to impose conditions.
Object restriction
Establishing a system of prior authorization for new competitions, without transparent objective criteria, is considered a restriction “by object” of competition.
In other words, it is not necessary to demonstrate a specific effect of competitive detriment; the nature of the restriction is sufficient.
Lack of transparency, objective criteria, and jurisdictional control
The court emphasizes the absence of a clear, precise and non-discriminatory procedure for deciding on the authorization of new competitions by UEFA/FIFA.
This violates the requirements of proportionality and allows for abusive exploitation.
Consequences for clubs and third parties
The ruling opens the door for clubs that consider themselves affected to claim damages for the conduct of the dominant sports authority.
Practical implications for sports organizations and advisors
- For regulatory bodies
- Review statutes and regulations to ensure that authorization mechanisms are objective, transparent, non-discriminatory and provided.
- Avoid simultaneous roles: regulator and commercial operator with control over access for alternative competitors.
- Establish effective and accessible jurisdictional control mechanisms for third parties.
- For clubs, competition operators and other interested parties
- Analyze the relevant market configuration rigorously (products, geography, consumers).
- Evaluate for signs of abuse of power: dominant position + restrictive behavior + lack of objective justification.
- Assess potential claims for damages or preventative strategies before the courts declare the infringement final.
- Remember that sport, although with its own particularities, It is not exempt from the general EU competition regime.
- For business and regulatory compliance advisors
- Include in competition audits the internal regulatory instruments of sports organizations: statutes, regulations, exclusivity contracts.
- Advise on market access clauses, sanctions, distribution rights, alternative competition proposals and governance structures.
- Ensure that commercial contracts (e.g., retransmission or sponsorship agreements) derived from dominant organizations do not involve additional unjustified restrictions.
A final thought
The sentence of 29th October 2025 Remember that sport, even with its unique characteristics, cannot escape the principles of the free market and fair competition.
When a regulatory body combines the role of referee with that of player in the market, the risk of abuse multiplies.
This pronouncement implies a milestone in corporate law and commercial contracts applied to sports, by demonstrating that the regulation of competitions and the commercial exploitation of their rights must be kept separate.
The requirement for regulatory conduct compatible with competition law is now unavoidable for UEFA, FIFA and all entities that intend to operate with authority and legitimacy in the European sports market.
