‘At the mercy of the courts’

A series of major rulings by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) have made it one of the most important institutions for sport in the EU.

William Gaillard of UEFA, European football’s governing body, says that sport is "at the mercy of the Court of Justice" because the courts treat sport like a business.

One of the first landmark rulings was the 1995 decision to uphold a complaint by Marc Bosman, a player from Belgium’s second division, against restrictions on players leaving clubs before their contracts expired. The decision gave players more freedom to move, but also deprived some smaller clubs of income from transfer fees. While the change has had some effect on clubs’ finances, the consequences are considered to be relatively small compared to the massive injection of cash into football from selling broadcasting rights.

In 2006 the ECJ clarified how sport should be treated under EU competition and internal market law with an important ruling in the Meca-Medina case. Two swimmers had been suspended from competing for two years by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) after testing positive for nandrolone, an anabolic substance. The two brought a complaint before the court on the grounds that the IOC’s rules on doping were not compatible with the EU’s rules on the freedom to provide services.

The court found that such rules could have an effect on competition but that the IOC’s rules were not excessive for what was necessary to ensure that sporting events could be conducted fairly. The decision established that sport was covered by EU competition law and internal market rules but that some restrictions were acceptable provided they were proportionate to the objective that they were designed to achieve. UEFA’s Gaillard calls the Meca-Medina case ruling "absurd" as the court had to adjudicate on what constituted an appropriate level of nandrolone. He says that unless the unique nature of sport is protected through clearer treaty language, the European model of sport is threatened. "If sports rules are being judged only on economic merits, the Court of Justice could say that 11 players is an artificial obstacle to competition," Gaillard says.

Another important case which will have a further effect on professional sports has been brought before the ECJ by Royal Charleroi, a football club in Belgium’s first division, which demanded compensation for club players who are injured when playing for their national teams. The case is supported by the G14 group of leading European football clubs. The case is not expected to be heard until next year at the earliest but it could set tough conditions which would have important ramifications across European sport. There are also clashes between clubs and the national side in rugby with some teams reluctant to release their star players for national matches.

A series of major rulings by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) have made it one of the most important institutions for sport in the EU.