The European Court of Justice has ruled that UEFA and FIFA acted unlawfully in banning clubs from joining the European "Super" League (ESL) and are abusing a dominant position. It also added that a breakaway league "would not necessarily be approved". The Euro-judges said that any new competition would still be subject to UEFA's authorisation rules and procedures but those rules would need to be more transparent. Ironically those procedures are already in the process of being changed following the ECJ's preliminary verdict of a year ago which concluded that the rules of football's world and European ruling bodies were compatible with EU competition law (before they changed their mind) but the case was heard on the basis of the old rules.
So this verdict not only ignores what the market (i.e. the fans) want, it's already out of date on publication and effectively meaningless as only two of the ESL clubs are still holding a candle for it and several have already come out and said they have no plans to revive the plan.
I am left wondering why it is that competition law, intended to protect consumers, can end up being used in an attempt to protect those actually abusing their market position (i.e. the Super League clubs). It seems entirely perverse.
The ECJ and Brussels have past form in this regard. It's as long ago as 2005 that the European Commission cost all English football addicts a pretty penny by insisting that Sky could not have a monopoly of Premier League live TV rights. What appeared on the face of it to promote competition cost subscribers money because it pushed up the price that bidders offered and so the price for consumers watching. It also meant that you either had to have a contract with multiple companies or miss out on seeing matches (or go to the pub). I was angry about that at the time and remain angry about it to this day, declining to have a contract with whatever Sultana or BT call themselves now. (It's TNT actually and the crunch for me is you cannot just buy the the Premier League matches, you have to pay for - and not watch, in my case - the so called Champions League matches between many teams that weren't national champions, in which I have little interest, at least until the knock out stage).
More seriously, the Commission's interference revealed a classic misunderstanding about how markets work and what the impact of its decision would be, even though it seemed obvious enough at the time.
Let me be clear - the football authorities do operate as cartels and often not in the interest of the consumers. (A world cup in Qatar, or spread between continents, for example). FIFA and UEFA learned how to keep a grip on the game from its earliest days through the Football Association's requirement that all clubs have to be affiliated and anyone playing in an unsanctioned competition risks being banned from playing in sanctioned competitions. I remember playing in the odd game for a youth team in a Sunday league in Liverpool which didn't seem terribly well organised and collapsed when it became clear it wasn't affiliated or sanctioned. We all risked being banned from playing for our schools and in men's football, which some of the better players were already doing.
But these cartels means that there is a unified set of laws and pyramid structure for football across the world. Sports that are fragmented, like boxing and now golf, are never as satisfying or rewarding to watch. The competition comes in the sporting competition, not a multiplicity of ruling bodies or competing leagues. Even the Americans realised this when their two competing American Football bodies, the NFL and the upstart AFL agreed a merger after 10 years of bidding wars for players. At least that gave us the Superbowl.
So I'm left wondering why the ECJ should have any kind of locus in sport. If they choose to decide that the cartels are legal and you can't just set up a competing football league, which they sensibly do, they have no reason to interfere in the finer detail.
Meanwhile the UK government seems to see this as an further opportunity to justify its ill-conceived plan to implement a football regulator. As the UK isn't covered by EU competition law since Brexit the government can wrap themselves in football flags and try to claim that they have save football, even though four of the six Engish clubs from the ESL proposal have already said they aren't interested.
It was fan power wot did it, not Brexit!
ECJ ruling leaves on question - is the Super League really back? The Independent, 21 December 2023 https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/european-super-league-ruling-uefa-laws-b2467796.html
Sky to lose their Premier League live monopoly. The Guardian 18 November 2005 https://www.theguardian.com/football/2005/nov/18/sportsrights.sport
No comments:
Post a Comment