Competition law

What does the FFP Article 1 -Scope of application say?

- All clubs participating in the CL and Europa League - National leagues have demanded that teams in their leagues live up to the regulation

How can broadcasting be problematic in competition law perspective?

- Collective selling of sports broadcasting rights - The granting of long-term exclusivity - The concept of "black-outs"of important matches to enhance stadium attendance

What does article 102 in general say?

- Regulates the activities of undertakings in a dominant market position - (and art. 101) may be invoked at the same time where agreements between undertakings is misuse of a dominant position - does not contain inapplicability provisions like art. 101(3) -no relevant exemptions

What is ownership restrictions and what is the purpose?

- Restriction on ownership of clubs, teams and franchises - Rules applies to both players, stockholders, management, employees and ownersWhat is the purpose of ownership restrictions? - Protect the integrity/uncertainty of sport - The risk of match-fixing speculations - Preserving independence - Prevent the game from being jeopardized by conflicts of interests - Otherwise, clearly a threat to the core values of sport FYI: UEFA adopted ownership restrictions in 1998 -later implemented on national member association (DBU) level

What does the soft law policy statement say?

- Safeguarding the general interest in relation to the protection of private interest - Restricting competition action to cases of community interest - Applying the de minimis rule -agreements of minor importance which do not affect trade between member states - Applying art. 81.(3) - exemption - Defining relevant markets pursuant to the applicable rules

What is the status regarding black out today in the US?

- September 2014, the Federal Communications Commission voted unanimously to repeal the sports TV blackout rule - March 2015, the NFL's owners voted to suspend the blackout rules for the 2015 NFL season, meaning that all games would be televised in their home markets, regardless of ticket sales Is the repeal effective? - In principal, the NFL can still enforce its blackout policies on a contractual basis with television networks, stations, and service providers -a process made feasible by the large amount of leverage the league places on its media partners - However, the black-out provision suspension continues. Why? NFL's main source of revenue is no longer ticket sales but television revenues, making blackouts less necessary

What is the Premier League Case of 1999?

- The UK Competition Authority lost its case against the Premier League, as the court ruled that an abolishment of collective selling of Premier League matches would make the gap between richer and poorer clubs even greater, which would not be in the public interest - In perspective, the collective selling was limiting competition, but justified by the fact that it was a duly collective process that generated the product - The decision could be criticized as the Premier League in fact was a "producer cartel" not competing on prize or quality, and which normally justify regulatory intervention

Characteristics of sports in competition law?

- The organisation and rules of sporting competitions are very different from those of competition between industrial companies, for instance the principles of promotion and relegation - The need for equality and solidarity to ensure/guarantee uncertainty of the results - Sports is not only an economic, but also a social activity practiced by millions of amateurs - Re-distribution is welcomed -solidarity from the top to the buttom - Sports organisations often has a "double-role" = regulaters of economic activities which they also are involved in

What was the black out provision?

- This provision entitled the Major Leagues to prohibit the broadcasting of games "within the territory of a member club of the league on a day when such a club is playing a home game", i.e. within the home territory of a member club on the day of a home match. - Hence, the name "black-out" provision, which was frequently applied by the NFL to prevent local broadcasts of any game that the networks where televising elsewhere in the US. - Issue with regard to sold-out games? In the '70s, only 40 % of NFL games were televised. The rest were blacked out

Key objectives of FFP?

- To introduce more discipline and rationality in club football financing; - To decrease pressure on salaries and transfer fees and limit inflationary effect (overdue payables); - To encourage clubs to compete within their revenues; - To encourage long-term investments in the youth sector and infra-structure; - To protect long-term viability of European club football; - To ensure clubs settle their liability on a timely basis

What does the USFL vs. NFL case say?

- USFL argued that NFL had robed them from obtaining profitable network contracts because NFL had non-exclusive contracts with all networks: anti-competitive effect on the market - Appeal court: the sports broadcasting immunity from Congress applied unless the contract constituted an illegal monopolization or an unreasonable restraint of trade so far as competing leagues were concerned -this was not fulfilled and NFL won the case.

What are the three essential elements in establishing a breach of art. 102?

1) A dominant position 2) Misuse/abuse of that position 3) An effect in the relevant market on inter-member trade caused by the abuse

What does the FFP Article 14 -Licence say?

1. Clubs which qualify for the UEFA club competitions on sporting merit must obtain a licence issued by their licensor according to the national licensing regulations, except where Article 15 applies. 2. A licence expires without prior notice at the end of the season for which it was issued. 3. A licence cannot be transferred. 4. A licence may be withdrawn by the licensor's decision-making bodies if: a) any of the conditions for the issuing of a licence are no longer satisfied; or b) the licensee violates any of its obligations under the national club licensing regulations. 5. As soon as a licence withdrawal is envisaged, the UEFA member association (DBU) must inform the UEFA administration accordingly

What are the two typical categories of misconduct on Sherman Act 2?

1. Conduct that may violate other laws, e.g. false or misleading marketing practice 2. Conduct that a company would not rationally/normally engage in except for its adverse impact on other competitors, e.g. predatory pricing, tying agreements or denial of access to essential facility

What are the two methods of Sherman Act 1?

1. The "per se rule" = Some practices are deemed unreasonable automatically and no proof are needed: Price fixing, horizontal market division, specific group boycotts and tying arrangements 2. The "rule of reason" = Applied to practices which -on the face of it -is not clearly anti-competitive: only if the negative aspects of the practice are greater than the positive an infringement of the Sherman Act will be constituted

What are the two dimensions to the relevant product market under US anti-trust law?

1. The product market (comprises firms manufacturing products which consumers regard as reasonable substitutes for the monopolist product) 2. The geographical market (area to which buyers can practically turn for alternative sources of supply) In addition, proof of unlawful conduct by the alleged monopolist is a condition to establish violation of Sherman Act, section 2.

What are the two main complementary aims of the EU competition rooms?

1. To promote a competitive market economy -competition may not be distorted 2. Prevention of barriers to integration of the European Single Market -in US there are different markets!

What are the two important anti-trust articles in the treaty?

101 and 102

What does UEFA art 5 - Integrity of the competition say?

5.01 To ensure the integrity of the Uefa club competitions, the following criteria apply: a. no club participating in a Uefa club competition may, either directly or indirectly: - have any power whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of any other club participating in a Uefa club competition b. no-one may simultaneously be involved, either directly or indirectly, in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of more than one club participating in a Uefa club competition; c. no individual or legal entity may have control or influence over more than one club participating in a Uefa club competition, such control or influence being defined in this context as: i. holding a majority of the shareholders' voting rights; ... v. being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club

What is the UEFA Club Financial Control Body?

An investigatory chamber and an adjudicatory chamber Carries out its duties as specified in the present regulations and in the Procedural rules governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body.

What is the single entity defence?

Approach from Leagues claiming to be immune from Player anti-trust suits: - The use of section 1 requires that more than one party perform. Many US Pro Leagues have over time claimed that they did not fall within the scope of the Sherman Act because a league has to be seen as one single entity incapable of contract, combinations or conspiracy

How is the rules on relocation in EU? And is there any cases?

As a starting point, relocation of clubs within the same MS does not affect EU competition rules, as the relocation of clubs does not affect trade between MS. Therefore, relocation has not been an issue to EU, despite once in Mouscron case(1999): - In the UEFA Cup, Excelcior Mouscron (Belgian club) and FC Metz (French club) wanted to (re)locate a match at the stadium of Lille Metropole in France. - UEFA rejected the application from the teams because every club needed to play its match at its own ground in the UEFA Cup. ("the home away rule") -no exception applied - Lille lodged a complaint to the Commission arguing restriction of competition - The Commission rejected the complaint and argued that UEFA had exercised its legitimate right to self-regulation as a sports organisation which was not subject to EC competition regulation. - Further, the Commission referred to the "de minimis rule".

What is the FFP break even requirement?

Break-even is "The difference between relevant income and relevant expenses [...]", cf. Article 60(1). - If the licensee's relevant expenses are less than relevant income for a reporting period, the club has a break even surplus. - If the licensee's relevant expenses are greater than relevant income for a reporting period, the club has a break even deficit.Article 61 -Notion of acceptable deviations - A lot of clubs were not able to break even immediately, once the FFP regulation was introduced - Article 61 was included so that FFP would not eliminate clubs from participating without time to adapt to the new regime - Article 61(2) [87.02]: "The acceptable deviation is EUR 5 million. However, it can exceed this level up to EUR 30 [60] million if such excess is entirely covered by contributions .

What are the four key EU competition policy areas?

By regulating anti-competitive conduct by companies (and Member States) to ensure that they do not create cartels and monopolies that would damage the interest of the society Cartels Market dominance Mergers State aid

What does the Murphy case say?

Case summary: - Terms in the FA PL's license system prohibited broadcasters from suppling decoder cards to persons, who wished to watch the broadcasts outside the Member State, for which the license was granted - The landlady of a pub in Portsmouth, Karen Murphy, screened PL matches using a Greek decoder card, which she had bought under false name and address in order to circumvent the license exclusivity granted only to residents of Greece - Hence, Murphy was faced with criminal proceedings for violation of copyright laws ECJ: - National legislation, which prohibited the import, sale or use of foreign decoder cards was contrary to the freedom to provide services and could not be justified either in the light of the objective or protecting IP rights or by the objective of encouraging the public to attend football stadiums

What was the outcome of Meca-Medina 2006?

Case summary: Compliant filed by two professional swimmers arguing that anti-doping rules adopted by the IOC and the Swimming Federation, FINA, were not compliant with Art. 81 and 82 -today, art. 101 and 102 of the TFEU. - Court of first instance: Anti-doping rules are purely sporting -not economical (Walrave and Koch + Dona) ECJ: "In holding that rules could thus be excluded straight away from the scope of those articles solely on the ground that they were regarded as purely sporting with regard to the application of articles 39 and 49 without any need to determine first whether the rules fulfilled the specific requirements of Article 81 and 82 [...] the court of first instance made an error of law". - I.e.: The qualification of a rule as "purely sporting" is not sufficient to remove the athlete or the sports association adopting the rule in question from the scope of article 81-82 [101-102]. The articles specific requirements must be examined irrespective of the nature of the rule. Conclusion: However, the WADA Code was not in violation of these articles The Meca-Medina test must be applied.

What does the Commission investigation of Danish Tennis Federation (DKTF) say?

DKTF had endorsed certain tennis balls and labelled them "official", but the balls where no different than other tennis balls and producers ... Except that DKTF had entered into a sponsorship agreement with the producer in question The Commission found that DKTF could only label the balls as "official" while also informing the public that DKTF had a sponsorship agreement with the ball producer Accordingly, this implied a restriction of competition among suppliers.

What is the purpose of the transfer window?

Def.: The period during the year in which a club can transfer players from other clubs or countries into their playing staff. - Purpose of promoting equality of competition in sports - However, restriction on free competition and to free movement of labor

What does United Brands v. Commission 27/76 say?

Defined "Dominant position" "The position of economic strength enjoyed by an undertaking, which enables it to prevent effective competition being maintained on the relevant market by giving it the power to behave to an appreciable effect independently of its competitors, and ultimately of its consumers". Dominant DBU..... This was later on repeated and extended in Case 85/76 -Hoffman -La Roche.

What is the wording of Sherman Act 1?

Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal

What is the wording of Sherman Act 2?

Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony - Traditional issue in monopolization cases is to define the scope of the relevant product market -the broader the market, monopoly less likely - Unlawful conduct is a condition

Defining the relevant market in article 102 and other factors?

Example: in the United Brands case, the Commission claimed that United Brands had handled 40 % of the EU banana market and had violated Art. 102. The Commission claimed that the product market was bananas, whereas United Brands claimed that their product market was "fresh fruit". ECJ held that United Brands' product market was bananas. Other important factors in establishing dominance of a particular market is: - Market share of the undertaking - Market share of competitors - Financial and technical resources - Control of production and distribution - Conduct and performance

What does the Bowman v. NFL case say?

Facts: - Former players from the folded World Football League were seeking employment in the NFL. - The NFL decided that a player/coach from another major football league could not sign with any NFL club for the year 1975 after a set deadline - This restriction made it difficult for WFL players/coaches to find a new job.Court: - Issued a preliminary injunction against the NFL's decision - To gain public policy support, the Court held that "professional sports and the public are better served by open, unfettered competition for playing positions"- Precedential value of the decision? - It can be argued that under the rule of reason it is still possible for a league to maintain transfer windows as long as they are truly based on preventing a distortion of the integrity of the tournament

What does the Redbull case say?

Facts: - RB Leipzig and FC RB Salzburg (and many other Red Bull teams in different sports!) are owned by Red Bull. - Qualification for the Champions League 2017/2018Issue: - Raised discussion and concern as to whether both clubs would be permitted to participate in the UEFA Champions League 2017/2018 season given UEFA's rules against common ownership in art. 5 of the Regulations of the UEFA Champions League 2015 -2018, since; - It prohibits clubs with strong links from playing in CL in the same season. UEFA CFCB (Club Financial Control Body) decision: - "has decided to accept the admission of both FC Salzburg and RB Leipzig to the UEFA Champions League 2017/2018, having found that Article 5 (Integrity of the competition) of the competition regulations is not breached." - "Following a thorough investigation, and further to several important governance and structural changes made by the clubs (regarding corporate matters, financing, personnel, sponsorship arrangement, etc.), the CFCB deemed that no individual or legal entity had anymore a decisive influence over more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition."

What does the American Football League vs. NFL (1963) say?

Facts: - AFL sued NFL under the Sherman Act, alleging that NFL had a monopoly in the relevant market and was misusing it by seeking to locate new franchises in Dallas and Minneapolis, where the AFL had strong interests Decision: - The court ruled that NFL did not have monopoly power in the "relevant market" • The court rejected that NFL had attempted to monopolize the industry

What does Charleroi vs. FIFA, C-243/06 (2009) say?

Facts: - Charleroi player Abdel Oulmers was badly injured while playing a match for the Moroccan national football team - The injury resulted in losses to Charleroi during his period of recovery, in accordance with the player release rule - Charleroi (backed up by G14 -major football clubs in Europe, today ECA) challenged FIFA's mandatory player release rule for international matches by demanding that FIFA should compensate Charleroi for the expenses: a challenge to the entire structure of the international FIFA match calender! - G14 threatened FIFA demanding no less than EUR 860 million in damages as incurred by G14 over a 10 year period - The G14 wished for a "hermetic" closed league system -with no player release rule -similar to the Major Leagues in the US Allegation: - That the rule without compensation would constitute an abuse of dominant position under Art. 102 Settlement: - The parties settled the dispute out of court with a financial package and UEFA changed its structure Implications: - Very close in challenging the European pyramid structure (the player release rule)

What does the Lehtonen, C-176/96 case say?

Facts: - Finnish basketball player, Jyri Lehtonen, challenged acquisition deadlines as a violation of his right to free movement, due to the discriminating transfer windows in the Belgian Federation depending on country of origin; outside EU (NBA) and Belgian nationals: much larger window. - Lehtonen had been transferred outside said window and had therefore not been eligible to play = team, Namur-Braine ASBL, was declared losers in their game against Belgacom -Quaregnon.ECJ Preliminary ruling: - The deadlines can be justified for sporting reasons under the EC Treaty, but in this case were quite arbitrary and dubious: "rules can't go beyond what is necessary for achieving the aim pursued". - The transfer rules violated the Treaty with regard to free movement of labor. Precedential value? › Transfer periods can be justified for sporting reasons.

What does the NASL vs NFL say?

Facts: - In 1980s, NASL (now folded) included team owners that also owned NFL teams - To prevent NASL from becoming a serious competitor, the NFL adopted restrictions on cross-ownership in its by-laws.Decision: - The court decided that the cross-ownership restriction were anti-competitive and in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, stating that the cross-ownership ban: "adversely affected competition in the capital market for the purchase of sports franchises", and therefore the cross-ownership ban was struck down as anti-competitive - A rule of reason could not justify the restriction because it prevented the NASL from attracting potential new owners/investors

What does Günther Hartzford v. USTA (US Tennis Association) (1981) say?

Facts: - International Tennis federation banned German manufacturer's new model of tennis rackets, because they were constructed in a way causing exaggerated top spin - USTA adopted the ITF's ban on GH rackets, accordingly, and enforced on the US market - GH sued USTA claiming that the ban constituted an illegal restraint of trade under the Sherman Act. The court ruled that there was no violation of the anti-trust laws because: - No unlawful intention of injuring GH or any others - The ban was reasonably related to legitimate goals (not to distort the Tennis game) - The ban was not more extensive than necessary to achieve the legitimate goals

Was does the San Francisco Seals vs. the NHL (1974) say?

Facts: - The owners of San Francisco Seals speculated in relocating the franchise in Vancouver - This was denied by the NHL with reference to its bylaws prohibiting a member club from transferring its home games to a new city without unanimous approval from the league Ruling: - The court found that the NHL decision was not anti-competitive, as the NHL teams were not competitors in an economic sense, thereby quoting the "single entity defense". - Obviously, it is unlikely that a court would come to that conclusion today, cf. American Needle, where the "single entity defense" was rejected.

What does the Sullivan vs. NFL say?

Facts: - With reference to the Sherman Act, William Sullivan challenged NFL's policy against public ownership of teams Court: - Ruled that the relevant market was limited to "Sports Team Ownership". - By restricting that form of ownership, the NFL was restricting the output of product -the share -to the public. - Applying the rule of reason, the court held that the NFL could have achieved its goal by a less restrictive measure. The case was settled in 1996.

What does the ENIC case 2000-2002 say?

Facts: ENIC Plc lodged a formal complaint to the EU Commission over the rules adopted by UEFA stating that: "two clubs or more participating in a UEFA club competition may [not] be directly or indirectly controlled by the same entity or managed by the same person" - ENIC considered that the rule distorted competition by preventing and restricting investment in European clubs.• Accordingly, the Commission launched an investigation into the UEFA rules, and concluded that: - "Although the UEFA rule is a decision taken by an association of undertakings and, therefore, theoretically caught by the prohibition principle set in Article 81(1) of the European Union treaty, it can be justified by the need to guarantee the integrity of the competitions." - "It is the task of sports organisations to organise and promote their particular sports, particularly as regards pure sporting rules, such as the number of players that play in a football team or the size of the goal posts. The Court of Justice has ruled on several occasions that the economic aspects of sport are subject to EU law, but also recognisedthat the special characteristics of the sector must be taken into account when applying the treaty rules." - "[...] the Commission established that the purpose of the rule was not to distort competition, but to guarantee the integrity of the competitions it organises." Conclusion: the ownership restriction rule was incapable of being defined as a restriction of competition.

What does Fraser v MLS say?

Facts: A group of professional soccer/football players claimed that MLS violated S. 1 of the Sherman Act arguing that by contracting centrally through MLS (and not directly with team/franchise) -the "designated player rule" -member teams were prevented from competing for players on an individual and direct basis - The players claimed that this, eventually, prevented them from obtaining higher salaries and therefore was a restraint of trade. US Court of Appeals used the single entity defence: - The players' claim that the MLS policy of centrally contracting all players through the league as compared with individual franchises was a violation of S. 1 of the Sherman Act, did not qualify as a matter of law. - MLS is a single entity only in that it acts as a "single economic actor" and may continue to sign players under its current system.

What does Needle Inc. v. NFL (2010) say?

Facts: American Needle designed and sold headware carrying trademark names and logos of various professional athletic teams. American Needle brought action against the NFL under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act challenging a 10 year exclusive headware license granted by the NFL to Reebok, another sports goods manufacturer, after a bidding process Supreme Court ruling: - The Court rejected the "Single Entity Defense" from NFL and stated that the NFL should be regarded as a combination of competitors rather than a single entity, e.g. because the teams are acting as separate economic actors pursuing interest of each corporation itself, and therefore is a potential independent centre of decision making - Court suggests that a "Single Entity Defense" for sports leagues' joint activities, such as a licensing agreement, will not be successful, as long as the economic underlying interests of each franchise owner is inherently different from the others in the league - Conversely, the Court also suggest the use of the "quick look" rule of reason analysis as a possible justification for allowing types of licensing agreements as a way to fulfil each team's shared interest in maintaining competitive balance within the league

What does Bassett v. NCAA say?

Facts: Disciplinary action against a coach who had violated NCAA rules concerning recruitment practices and academic fraud US Court of Appeals: - The NCAA rules and sanctions was solely intended to ensure fair competition in inter-collegial athletics and was not intended to give NCAA a competitive advantage. - TheNCAA rules and sanctions were not commercial, the enforcement neither commercial and, thus, fell outside the scope of US antitrust law

What does Warrior Sports Inc. v. the NCAA say?

Facts: Pertinent NCAA rules on the specifications of Lacrosse sticks. District court: - No evidence that NCAA engaged in business/commercial activity relating to the sale of Lacrosse sticks - The aim of the rules was to increase the quality of college Lacrosse play and the interest herein and, therefore, the NCAA rules was not commercial in nature and, thus, outside the scope of the Sherman Act.

What does the de minimis rule say in regard to art 101?

Implying that EU law should not be devoted to agreements whose effects on trade between Member States or on competition are insignificant. This rule excepts agreements with small market shares on the relevant market: 5 % horizontal agreements, 10 % vertical agreements and 5 % for mixed agreements

What does Blaich vs. NFL say?

In 1962, New York Giants fans sought a preliminary injunction against the black-out rules blacking an NFL championship game between the Giants and Chicago Bears• Argued that the black-out rules only applied to regular season games - The court rejected that it was a basic human right for the fans to watch the game, denied the injunction, and stated that Section 1291(2) expressly permits local blackouts - Hence, blackout rules apply to all games In 1973, the NFL lifted the local blackout of the Super Bowl -to satisfy a furious congress

What is the EU perspective of black out?

In 1980s, UEFA allowed the national football associations (DBU) to block the broadcast on television of football (no other sport) matches during a period of time on match days, i.e. Saturday and Sunday. -The idea was: protect and promote stadium attendance and avoid the loss of ticket revenues, especially in lover divisions - The rules was challenged by the Commission for being to restrictive and anti-competitive - And as a result, in 2000, UEFA amended its rules only allowing national football associations to blackout football broadcasting: 1) During 2 ½ hours time slot when matches are played live 2) Either Saturday or Sunday 3) At hours that correspond to the country's domestic fixture schedule - FA Premier League still maintains blackout and broadcasting of football matches in the United Kingdom is prohibited on Saturday afternoon. DBU are not exercising the right to block broadcasting hours.

What does the UEFA Champions League Case of 1999-2003 say?

In 1999 UEFA requested clearance regarding its joint selling of the commercial rights to the Champions League in relation to the EC competition rules - In 2001, the Commission issued a warning to UEFA on its joint selling arrangement could not benefit from an exemption under Art. 81(3) (today, Art. 101(3)), and argued that because of the high prices, only very large media group were able to acquire the broadcasting rights, which could slow down the development of new technologies to present the "image and sound" of football - In response, UEFA developed a new joint selling arrangement and presented it to the Commission for consultation - In July 2003, the Commission made a final decision exempting UEFA's new joint selling arrangements for the rights to the CL: the rights were now unbundled into several (gold and silver) rights packages enabling more than one broadcaster to acquire rights to the CL - Landmark decision: For the first time, the Commission accepted joint selling of football media rights - The Commission recognised that UEFA had a legitimate interest in creating a CL product separated from the interest of individual clubs

What does article 101 in general say?

In general, article 101 prohibits cartel-like arrangement between two or more undertakings, which may affect Member State trade and which have an anti-competitive purpose or effect.

What are the definition of undertakings of art. 101?

Is liberally interpreted by the Commission and the ECJ to include any legal or natural person engaged in economic or commercial activities involving the provision of goods and services, see e.g. C-41/90 Höfner. - In a sports context, sports governing bodies such as federations or leagues are not exempted from Art. 101 - Players/athletes acting as employees are, as a main rule, not regarded as undertakings - However, if an employee's agreement with an employer restricting competition beyond the scope of the contract/employment relationship, the actors could be regarded as an undertaking

What is the Maschinenbau-test?

Its quite easy to bring an agreement within art. 101 because it just has to influence direct or indirect, actual or potential on the pattern of trade between member states

What does Levin vs NBA say?

Levin vs. NBA - Levin & Lipton was not suitable to own a team because of their contact to certain individuals involved in illegal gambling - The NBA decision that they could not buy a basketball team was not made for anti-competitive reasons and the plaintiff was not in general excluded from competing with the NBA, and the claim from the plaintiffs were rejected

What is the purpose of restriction on (Re)location of Franchises and the "Home and Away"?

Most major leagues have rules restricting buying/selling or (re)location of teams/franchises, and in quite many cases the leagues has been successful Purpose: to avoid competition for the same spectators, investors and sponsors: money

How did the NFL amend the ownership ban in 1997?

NFL amended the ownership ban in 1997 and allowed NFL team owner cross-ownership in another major league sports team if: - the other professional sports franchise was in the same city as the NFL team of the owner, or - the other league's franchise was in a neutral city, meaning a city that is not currently occupied by an NFL team and is not characterized as a "potential NFL city".• - Thereby, NFL was trying to prevent owners from competing with each other for sports and entertainment dollars in the same city. - NFL was afraid that business owners compete against each other for revenue from tickets, sponsorships, and merchandise, which they share

What is the NSPE case?

Not all purposes are deemed "reasonable"were a restraint of trade that served the "public interest" not was enough to legitimize. But according to later cases the scope of pro-competitive benefits (consumer welfare) is broadened.

Cases testing the FFP regulation?

Porto case - Porto has accepted a settlement agreement amounting to EUR 700,000 fine and a restriction on the number of players available in the squad from next CL season - Porto had failed to comply with Financial Fair Play regulations that was the break even requirement where Porto had a too large deficit. - The CFCB Investigatory Chamber set Porto a maximum break-even deficit of €30 million for the financial year ending in 2017, then €20m for 2018 and down to €10m for 2019. PSG case - Summer 2017, PSG acquired Neymar from Barcelona for a EUR 222 million -the biggest transfer deal in football history -and a loan of Mbappe from Monaco (incl. buy option EUR 180 million). - September 2017, UEFA announced it had opened a FFP investigation into PSG to be conducted by the CFCB and stated that: "The investigation will focus on the compliance of the club with the break-even requirement, particularly in light of its recent transfer activity." CAS 2019: UEFA could not re-open the case from 2017. - Already in 2014 Paris Saint-Germain failed to comply with FFP regulations and the club received a fine €60m! And limitations on the CL A list. AC Milan vs. UEFA - CFCB: Found that AC Milan had failed to fulfil the break-even requirement and decided to excluded AC Milan from participating in the next UEFA club competition for which it would otherwise qualify for the next 2 seasons (2018/19 and 2019/20). - On 28 June 2019 the CAS issued its award and the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber has issued a procedural order confirming the exclusion of AC Milan. UEFA is satisfied that it is now acknowledged by AC Milan and confirmed by CAS that AC Milan's failure to be break-even compliant must lead to a severe sanction, as the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber had decided this from the very beginning of the respective proceedings.

What was the purpose of the Sherman Act?

Promote consumer welfare Protect the average American against powers of big business / companies, such as: predatory pricing/price fixing, horizontal market division, group boycotts, tying arrangements and other monopolistic practices undermining free competition

What does the Meca-Medina say?

Purpose: To assess whether a rule adopted by a sporting association relating to the organisationof sport could possibly infringe TFEU, art. 101 and 102 First step of the test: Determine whether the sports association that adopted the rule in question would be considered "an undertaking"or "an association of undertakings" within the meaning of Art. 101 and 102. - Economic activity? Yes → undertaking Second step of the test: Assess whether the challenged rule in question restricts competition within the meaning of art. 101 or constitutes an abuse of dominant position under art. 102. - C-309/99 Wouter principles, - account must be taken of: (i) The overall context, in which the rules were taken or produced, their effect and of their objectives, and (ii) Whether the restrictive effects were inherent in the pursuit of the objectives, and (Iii) The proportionality of the rule in light of the objective pursuit Third step of the test: Determine whether trade between Member States is effected. Fourth step of the test: Determine whether the rule may fulfil the conditions of Art. 101(3)

What does the Commission investigation of English Tennis federation (ETF) say?

Tennis ball producer Tretorn complaint to the Commission that ETF decision only to use prepressurized balls was an illegal discrimination of Tretorn, which did not produce such balls The Commission rejected Tretorn's complaint and held that ETF could make such decision as prepressurized balls were considered to bounce better

The Commisions stand on broadcast media rights after the champions league case?

The Commission's decision in the UEFA Champions League case created a basis for a similar approach within two major football markets, namely the Bundesliga and the FA Premier League, whom committed their selling of broadcasting rights to: - Unbundling of rights into separate rights packages - Using a public tender procedure - Exclusive rights contracts were not to extent three football seasons

What does the Raiders (1984) case and Clippers (1887) case say?

The Raiders case (1984) - To avoid competition NFL blocked Oakland Raiders attempt to move to Los Angeles where LA Rams was already located - Applying the rule of reason the court ruled that the block by the NFL on franchise movement was anti-competitive as the move to LA would create -not eliminate - competition The Clippers case (1987) - NBA blocked San Diego Clippers attempt to move to Los Angeles - The court did not interpret the Raiders case absolute, but instead acknowledged that rules requiring league approval in relocation cases were lawful, unless they were applied unreasonably. FYI: - As a result, major leagues amended their bylaws to make sure they were reasonable, and that only objective criteria was applied when deciding on a proposal to relocate.

What does the Györi ETO vs. UEFA say?

The club had not disclosed accurate and correct financial information to UEFA. UEFA imposed a fine of EUR 50,000 CAS Panel held that the fine was fairly and reasonable

What does Bursaspor vs. UEFA say?

The club had overdue payables to other football clubs in breach of art. 65 UEFA imposed a fine of EUR 250,000 plus an exclusion of UEFA competition if qualifying within 4 years CAS Panel held that the sanction was disproportionate to the offence and suspended the exclusion for a probationary period of 3 years

What does Malaga vs. UEFA say?

The club had violated UEFA's club licensing/FFP Regulations following overdue payables towards other clubs and the Spanish tax authorities UEFA excluded the club from Europa League 13/14 and imposed a fine of EUR 300,000 CAS dismissed the club's appeal and confirmed UEFA's decision

How to state a misuse of dominant position under Sherman Act 2?

To state a misuse the positive pro-competitive purposes shall be weighted against the negative anti-competitive aspects + a proportionality test: could the pro-competitive benefits have been achieved by less restrictive means? If yes: misuse Remember: To have a monopoly on the relevant market is not illegal, but the misuse of a dominant position is

What did the US congress do to the black out rule in 1973?

US Congress enacted legislation requiring the Major Leagues to lift the local blackout of any pooled telecast, if all the tickets available for purchase 5 days before the game was sold 72 hours or more in advance.

What does Standard Oil v New Jersey say?

US courts has prohibited contracts or combinations in the form of trusts or otherwise, or Conspiracy, which unreasonably restrain or limits the trade Unreasonable is determined by the two methods of analyzing the rule in Sherman Act 1

What was the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961?

a result of the cases between Department of Justice and NFL - The Act immunized the pooled sale of telecast rights to selected professional ML sports, but not collegial or other amateur sports. - Protected and assured small market ML teams with a piece of the telecast revenues = solidarity - However, the exemption does not apply to the broadcast of NFL on Friday nights and Saturdays during the college football season. - The Act only applies to television -not radio. - The grant of exclusive television rights to sports events are not, as such, a violation of US anti-trust law, but if the purpose or effect of the exclusivity is to restrict production with the consequence of artificially raising the price, then it is likely to violate the Sherman Act

What does art. 101(2) say?

any agreements or decisions found to be in violation of Art. 101(1) shall automatically be void

What does art. 101(3) say?

art. 101(3) set forth a few exemptions to the prohibition in Art. 101(1) in order to provide a legal basis for balancing pro-competitive with anti-competitive aspects of any given agreement, decision or concerted practice