In 2009, Sepp Blatter expressed his concerns that half of the players participating in the 2014 FIFA World Cup would be Brazilians naturalized by other countries. The Official list of Players released a few weeks ago tends to prove him wrong[1]. However, some players have changed their eligibility in the past and will even be playing against their own country of origin[2]. This post aims at explaining the key legal aspects in changes of national affiliation and to discuss the regulations pertaining to the constitution of national sides in general[3].

The 32 national associations engaged in the final competition are bound by two sets of rules, namely the Regulations of the 2014 World Cup – Brazil and the Regulations Governing the Application of the FIFA Statutes 2013[4]. Their common purpose is to ensure that players have a genuine, close and credible link with the national association which selects them on its roster[5]. This is primarily ensured by the permanent holding of the nationality of the country of the national association in question[6]. It means that nationality must not be pegged to the residence of the player in a certain country[7]. Naturally, sanctions may apply in the case of a breach of these stipulations[8].

The global race to secure talent meeting this nationality requirement is not new. It appears that it has however reached a new level in light of the Diego Costa case since FIFA regulations do not prevent nor address the issue of dual call-up[9]. Many players, such as Manchester United midfield Adnan Janujaz (who actually just elected to play for Belgium a few weeks ago)[10], are placed in a difficult if not untenable position. They are indeed denied the right to refuse an international selection according to FIFA regulations even if they are called-up by both national teams they are affiliated to[11].

The recent Diego Costa saga put this issue under intense media scrutiny[12]. To summarize the issue, the Brazilian-born player had gained very few international appearances in the preliminary phase, playing exclusively friendlies for his country of birth, before acquiring Spanish nationality and moving to represent Spain at the 2014 FIFA World Cup. His choice was portrayed as traitorous by some officials of the Brazilian football federation. In light of this, imagine for one second the headlines of the worldwide press if Diego Costa had defeated Brazil during the knockout phase (28 or 29 June) or the grand final on 13 July 2014, if both teams had qualified for the second phase of the tournament. In the eyes of many, FIFA is responsible for allowing Diego Costa to play against his country of birth. However, this is overlooking that the acquisition of a new nationality and change of national associations are strictly regulated, and that such regulations are actually decided collectively by the members of FIFA. In this respect, it should be mentioned that the Brazilian Football Federation has not made any official move to modify the rules so far[13].

Acquisition of a new nationality

Article 7 of the 2013 FIFA Regulations reads as follow: “Any Player who refers to art. 5 par. 1 to assume a new nationality and who has not played international football in accordance with art. 5 par. 2 shall be eligible to play for the new representative team only if he fulfils one of the following conditions: a) He was born on the territory of the relevant Association; b) His biological mother or biological father was born on the territory of the relevant Association; c) His grandmother or grandfather was born on the territory of the relevant Association; d) He has lived continuously for at least five years after reaching the age of 18 on the territory of the relevant Association”.

Under this article, the acquisition of a new nationality must be distinguished with double nationality. Dual nationals by birth may elect to represent the national association of their choice. This is notably the case of football players born in Northern Ireland for instance[14]. They can play for the Irish Football Association (Northern Ireland) or the Football Association of Ireland (Ireland) as they can claim British and Irish nationalities at birth[15]. Of note, this article applies only to player who have acquired a new nationality before their first international appearance. If this is not the case, they will not be allowed to play for their new country. 

The “granny rule” and the five-year waiting period are the most controversial eligibility regulations. Some authors find indeed that gaining eligibility through a grandparent does not offer a link close enough with the country that the player wishes to represent. Consequently, they advocate that this provision be deleted from the FIFA regulations[16]. The waiting rule was introduced in order to protect national identity and young players[17] and thus, to prevent expedited naturalization of football players. It institutes a de facto prohibition to play at international level before the age of 23 years old when naturalized. This rule was challenged twice since its coming into force in 2008. First, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Federation and the Australian Federation sought laxer rules in order to include immigrant players in their national side. The FIFA Congress rejected this bid by 153 to 42 votes and the second submission for a change was even withdrawn before being put to vote[18]. This landslide vote shows that FIFA members are favoring the status quo.

Change of association

Article 8, paragraph 1, of the 2013 FIFA Regulations reads as follow: “If a Player has more than one nationality, or if a Player acquires a new nationality, or if a Player is eligible to play for several representative teams due to nationality, he may, only once, request to change the Association for which he is eligible to play international matches to the Association of another Country of which he holds nationality, subject to the following conditions: a) He has not played a match (either in full or in part) in an Official Competition at “A” international level for his current Association, and at the time of his first full or partial appearance in an international match in an Official Competition for his current Association, he already had the nationality of the representative team for which he wishes to play; b) He is not permitted to play for his new Association in any competition in which he has already played for his previous Association”

Appropriately seeking to balance the interests involved, this rule serves to monitor change of eligibility and protect the integrity of international competitions while respecting the rights of players to move from one country to another[19]. FIFA did not monitor such changes until the mid-1960s[20]. The world governing body for football introduced at that time the concept of an election of nationality and banned change of national association until 2003.

The FIFA Congress introduced a limited right to change national affiliation but it was first reserved for U-23 players only[21]. In 2008, FIFA extended this right to any player provided that they were dual nationals when they had played for their first country and had not played in an Official Competition at “A” level (i.e. with the first team of a national association)[22]. The chart indicates that the number of requests to change association increased dramatically after 2008. However, it has now stabilized at approximately 30 requests per year. In this respect, the 2014 FIFA World Cup does not seem to have had any effect compared to the 2010 edition combined with the new set of rules.

To date, 237 players have taken the opportunity to change national affiliation and 24 of them are currently participating in the 2014 FIFA World Cup. This represents approximately 10.10% of the 237 players and only 3.26% of the 736 players engaged in the competition. This figure is line with the 2004 Athens Olympics Games for instance where 2.6% of the athletes had change their sporting nationality[23]. It shows that the concerns of Sepp Blatter have not materialized and that the situation is currently under control. Therefore, there is certainly no urgent need to further strengthen the existing regulatory framework.

[1]For a mapping of ancestral and international connections between teams, see: Brazil 2014: Visualising ancestral and international connections between teams (http://codehesive.com/wc-ancestry/).

[2] If he had been fielded, Eduardo Alves da Silva would have been the first to play against his country of birth during the opening match (Brazil – Croatia: 2 – 1).

[3] This post will not address the issue of shared nationalities (art. 6 Regulations Governing the Application of the FIFA Statutes 2013) and change of association due to states authorities nor its process (art. 8 par 2 and 3 Regulations Governing the Application of the FIFA Statutes 2013).

[4] Available at FIFA.com.

[5] McCutcheon, National eligibility rules after Bosman, in: Professional Sport in the EU: Regulation and Re-regulation TMC Asser Press (Den Haag) p. 127.

[6] Article 5 par. 1 Regulations Governing the Application of the FIFA Statutes 2013.

[7] Article 5 par. 1 Regulations Governing the Application of the FIFA Statutes 2013.

[8] Fielding an ineligible player is sanctioned by the mandatory forfeiture of the game and a CHF 6’000 fine (article 8 par. 3 the Regulations of the 2014 World Cup – Brazil and article 31 FIFA Disciplinary Code).

[9] A situation of dual call-up may occur when a player, dual national and who has not elected a sporting nationality, is called by both associations he belongs to. This raises the issue of the right to refuse an international selection.

[10] According to the project Brazil 2014: Visualising ancestral and international connections between teams, Adnan Janujaz is the most connected player.

[11] Article 3 par. 1 – Annexe 1 – Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players 2012.

[12] See for example: Páez Romero, Regulations: Player eligibility: the Diego Costa case, in: World Sports Law Report, Vol. 12 issue 1 (January 2014); Margaritis, The Dynamics of nationality and football, in: LawInSport, 28 April 2014; Lovatt, Changing nationality in football: the FIFA rules that helped Brazilian Diego Costa play for Spain, in: LawInSport, 4 November 2013.

[13] This is probably due to the fact that the Brazilian Football Federation has lost only one player to the current FIFA regulations. It should be noted that Brazilian players who have never been selected nor have played in friendlies are not cast by FIFA statistics on change of eligibility.

[14] Hafner, La qualification des joueurs en équipe représentative au regard de la réglementation de la FIFA : le cas de la Coupe du monde 2010, n° 35.

[15] Cf. CAS 2010/A/2071 Irish Football Association v/ Football Association of Ireland, Daniel Kearns and FIFA, award of 27 September 2010.

[16] For instance: Hall, Fishing for All-Stars in a Time of Global Free Agency: Understanding FIFA Eligibility Rules and the Impact on the U.S. Men’s National Team, in: Marquette Sports Law Review, Vol. 23 Issue 1, p. 205.

[17] FIFA Congress 2011 – Minutes, p. 64.

[18] FIFA Congress 2011 – Minutes, p. 64 and FIFA Congress 2013, Minutes, p. 85.

[19] McCutcheon, National eligibility rules after Bosman, in: Professional Sport in the EU: Regulation and Re-regulation TMC Asser Press (Den Haag) p. 138. A general prohibition of change eligibility is likely to be deemed illegal. Cf. Oswald, First conclusions of the lecturers, in : La nationalité dans le sport : Enjeux et Problèmes, Editions CIES (Neuchâtel) 2006, p.201.

[20] Hall, Fishing for All-Stars in a Time of Global Free Agency: Understanding FIFA Eligibility Rules and the Impact on the U.S. Men’s National Team, in: Marquette Sports Law Review, Vol. 23 Issue 1, p. 194. Van den Bogaert, Practical Regulation of the Mobility of Sportsmen in the EU post Bosman, p. 348.

[21] Hafner, La qualification des joueurs en équipe représentative au regard de la réglementation de la FIFA : le cas de la Coupe du monde 2010, n° 44.

[22] Hafner, La qualification des joueurs en équipe représentative au regard de la réglementation de la FIFA : le cas de la Coupe du monde 2010, n° 45.

[23] Poli/Gillon, La naturalisation de sportifs et fuite des muscles. Le cas des Jeux Olympiques de 2004, in : La nationalité dans le sport : Enjeux et Problèmes, Editions CIES (Neuchâtel) 2006, p. 59.

Editor's note: This is the fourth part/act of our blog series on the Russian eligibility cases at the CAS ad hoc Division in Rio.

• Act I: Saved by the Osaka Déjà-Vu
• Act II: On being implicated 
• Act III: On being sufficiently tested

Act IV: On Bringing a sport into disrepute

Paragraph 2 of the IOC Decision: “The IFs will also have to apply their respective rules in relation to the sanctioning of entire NFs.” 

In paragraph 2 of its Decision, the IOC mentioned the possibility for IFs to “apply their respective rules in relation to the sanctioning of entire NF's”.This is exactly what the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) did when it decided on 29 July 2016 to exclude the whole Russian Weightlifting Federation (RWF) from the Rio Olympics for having brought the sport into disrepute. Indeed, Article 12. 4 of the IWF Anti-doping Policy, foresees that:

“If any Member federation or members or officials thereof, by reason of conduct connected with or associated with doping or anti-doping rule violations, brings the sport of weightlifting into disrepute, the IWF Executive Board may, in its discretion, take such action as it deems fit to protect the reputation and integrity of the sport.”

The Russian Federation first disputed, to no avail, that there was sufficient legal basis in the IWF regulations for such a blanket ban. The Panel found that “Article 12.4 ADP constitutes a sufficient legal basis”.[1] Moreover, it added that the “power of the IWF Executive Board, in its discretion, to take such action as it deems fit to protect the reputation and integrity of the sport, was not challenged by RWF”.[2]

There were subsequently two main questions related to application of Article 12.4 ADP to be discussed:

• Based on the information available, could the IWF reasonably conclude that there was a “conduct connected with or associated with doping”?
• And, was it sufficient to “bring the sport of weightlifting into disrepute”?

First, the CAS Panel notes that in assessing whether there was a “conduct connected with or associated with doping”, IWF “referred to various sources of information”.[3] It relied on the IP Report that “submits that 117 Russian weightlifters were included in this centrally dictated program”[4] and “on the results from the retesting of the London and Beijing Olympics”[5], which “turned out nine AAFs for Russian weightlifters”.[6] The Panel held that this “information constitutes "conduct connected with or associated with doping"” that “on its face is sufficiently reliable”.[7] Indeed, it reminds that the IP Report applied a standard of proof of “beyond reasonable doubt”. Furthermore, the Panel adds that “the findings of the McLaren Report were taken seriously by the IOC and lead to the IOC Executive Board's decision dated 24 July 216 that enacted eligibility criteria specifically for Russian athletes, which is unique in the history of the Olympic Games”[8] and “were endorsed by WADA, the supreme authority in the world of sport to lead and coordinate the fight against doping and by other international federations, such as the IAAF”.[9] Finally, “the information contained in the Mclaren Report is also corroborated by the reanalysis of the athlete's samples at the London and Beijing Olympics”.[10] The fact that all nine Russian athletes retested were all positive for the same substance, Turniabol, is deemed “a strong indication that they were part of a centrally dictated program”.[11]

Are these findings enough to bring weightlifting into disrepute? For the Panel, disrepute “refers to loss of reputation or dishonour”.[12] It concluded that “the IWF's conclusion that the above facts bring the sport of weightlifting in disrepute is neither incompatible with the applicable provisions nor arbitrary”.[13] The Russian doping scandal is “one of the biggest doping scandals in sports history”, and “paired with the findings from the retesting of samples led the IWF to consider that the actions of the RWF and the Russian weightlifters brought the sport of weightlifting into disrepute, because it draws a picture of this sport as being doping infested”.[14] Thus, the CAS arbitrators consider that “the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the IWF's conclusion that, based on the evidence before it, the conduct of the RWF brought the sport of weightlifting in disrepute, was unreasonable”.[15]

Lastly, the RWF brought forward the much-used ‘we were not the only ones!’ argument. Indeed, it highlighted that the “retesting of the London and Beijing samples has not only resulted in AAFs [Adverse Analytical Findings or positive doping test] for Russian athletes, but also revealed AAFs for other member federations”.[16] Yet, the Panel rebuked this argument by stating “that the situation in Russian weightlifting is - apparently - of a different dimension”, as it “has not been reported nor submitted that other member federations are involved in a centrally dictated and managed doping program”.[17] In this regard, it notes “the impressive number of 61 Russian weightlifters benefitted from the Disappearing Positive Methodology” and the fact “that the whole Russian delegation for the London Olympics was - according to the information provided - involved in doping”.[18]

Once again, an IF taking a strong stance and barring the whole Russian team to participate in the Rio Olympics is vindicated by the CAS.

[1] CAS OG 16/09 RWF v. IWF, para. 7.5.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., para. 7.10.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid., para. 7.11.

[8] Ibid., para. 7.12.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid., para. 7.13.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid., para. 7.14.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

Editor’s note: Stefano Bastianon is Associate Professor in European Law at the University of Bergamo and lawyer admitted to the Busto Arsizio bar. He is also member of the IV^th Division of the High Court of Sport Justice (Collegio di Garanzia dello sport) at the National Olympic Committee.

1. From the very beginning, the outcome of the ISU case was highly predictable, at least for those who are familiar with the basics of antitrust law. Nevertheless, more than twenty years after the Bosman judgment, the sports sector has shown the same shortsightedness and inability to see the forest for the trees. Even this attitude was highly predictable, at least for those who know the basics of sports governance. The final result is a clear-cut decision capable of influencing the entire sports movement.

2. On the 8^th of December 2017, the European Commission ruled that ISU’s eligibility rules breached EU competition law. In particular, the Commission focused on the ISU’s eligibility rule, according to which speed skaters participating in competitions that were not approved by the ISU face severe penalties up to a lifetime ban from all major international speed skating events. The Commission found that such rules restrict competition and enable the ISU to pursue its own commercial interests to the detriment of athletes and organizers of competing events[1]. In sharp contrast with the Commission’s decision is the ISU’s statement published the same day. Indeed, according to the ISU the Commission’s decision is wrong because it fails to consider the specific nature of sports by putting commercial interests ahead of the principles of integrity, health and safety that protect fair play in sport. For this reason the statement ends with the ISU’s reserve to appeal the decision.

3. As it often occurs, small cases (that is cases involving almost unknown athletes or less popular sports and for this reason often underestimated) are able to generate consequences of great importance, presenting many aspects of interest to scholars of EU sports law: this is the case of the ISU affair.

4. First of all, it is a matter of common knowledge that the Commission tends not to intervene in cases dealing with regulatory and organizational aspects of sport. To this regard, it is sufficient to consider that in the 1999 Mouscron case the Commission took the view that the UEFA Cup rule requiring that each club must play its home match at its own ground ("at home and away from home" rule) was a sports rule that did not fall within the scope of the Treaty's competition rules and therefore rejected the complaint. In the 2001 FIA case the Commission closed various anti-trust investigations into certain regulations and commercial arrangements involving Formula One after the parties agreed to make changes which limited the FIA to a regulatory role, so as to prevent any conflict of interests and remove certain commercial restrictions imposed on circuit owners and TV broadcasters. Similarly, in the 2002 FIFA case, the Commission closed its investigation into the rules governing international transfers of football players, in which it formally rejected the complaints related to FIFA in the light of the adoption of new rules capable of balancing a player’s fundamental right to free movement and stability of contracts together with the legitimate objective of integrity of the sport and the stability of championships. Lastly, in the 2002 UEFA multi-ownership rule case the Commission established that the purpose of the rule was not to distort competition, but to guarantee the integrity of the competitions it organizes and rejected the complaint. More recently, in the 2011 Formula One Engine Manufacturers case and the 2014 Financial Fair-Play case the Commission rejected the complaints because of a lack of community interest. In this context, even from a purely statistical point of view, the ISU decision cannot be underestimated.

5. Secondly, one aspect of the importance of the ISU decision lies in the specific matter dealt with. Indeed, eligibility rules (although sometimes differently named) are a common element of many sports. For example the FINA General Rule 4, under the heading “Unauthorised relations”, states that

«no affiliated Member shall have any kind of relationship with a non-affiliated or suspended body (…). Any individual or group violating this Rule shall be suspended by the affiliated Member for a minimum period of one year, up to a maximum period of two years. (…). Each Member that conducts a competition shall strictly enforce the FINA Rules governing eligibility».

The FIG Technical Regulations, Appendix B (Rules of Eligibility for the International Gymnastic Federation) state that

«an eligible gymnast is any gymnast who abides by the eligibility rules of the FIG and the gymnast's National Federation. In any competition sanctioned or conducted by the FIG, each National Federation is responsible for certifying the eligibility of gymnasts from its country. Only gymnasts meeting the requirements of Regulation I are authorised to participate in official competitions and particularly those competitions which qualify gymnasts for Olympic Games and Youth Olympic Games (…). A gymnast may not: (…); b) take part in any gymnastic competition or exhibition which is not sanctioned by the FIG or his/her National Federation (…). Any gymnast infringing these rules, after their enforcement, may not claim to be eligible to participate in the Olympic Games and Youth Olympic Games or qualifying tournaments for the Games».

The FIH Regulations on Sanctioned and Unsanctioned Events state that

«it is prohibited for any National Association, and for any organisation or individual (including Athletes, technical officials, umpires, coaching or management staff) under the jurisdiction of a National Association, to participate in any manner in an Unsanctioned Event. Any Athlete or other individual who participates in any capacity in an Unsanctioned Event is automatically ineligible for twelve months thereafter to participate in any capacity in any International Event».

The UCI Cycling Regulations, under the heading «Forbidden Races», state that

«no licence holder may participate in an event that has not been included on a national, continental or world calendar or that has not been recognised by a national federation, a continental confederation or the UCI».

As a consequence, the ISU decision goes far beyond the specific sport considered (speed skating) and represents a clear message sent by the Commission to the entire sports world.

6. From this point of view, it is important not to forget that before the Commission there are still pending two complaints lodged respectively by the Euroleague Basketball and by FIBA. The dispute between FIBA and Euroleague Basketball goes back to the end of 2015 when FIBA announced the creation of a basketball Champions League in direct competition with the two European professional clubs’ competitions organized by the ECA. In order to force professional clubs to participate in the new Basketball Champions League, FIBA did not hesitate to put pressure on national federations threatening the possibility of excluding their national teams from participation in main competitions such as EuroBasket and the Olympic Games. According to the Euroleague Basketball the complaint «targets the unacceptable and illegal threats and pressures that FIBA and its member federations are making against clubs, players and referees to force them to abandon the Euroleague and the EuroCup and only participate in FIBA competitions. The complaint's objective is to guarantee that clubs, players and referees can freely make the choice to participate in the competitions that they consider appropriate without being subject to threats or pressures. FIBA is violating European Union law because, in a blatant conflict of interest, FIBA has rules on its books that provide for sanctions against those who are involved in competitions not approved by FIBA». In a completely specular way, FIBA has lodged a complaint against the Euroleague Basketball alleging an abusive tying by imposing undue pressure on leagues and clubs, as well as threatening exclusion from the Euroleague unless they commit to the EuroCup (…); a “syndication agreement” circulated among the 11 A license clubs who hold the majority of votes in ECA, meaning that six clubs control ECA, including all Euroleague and EuroCup decisions in sporting and commercial matters; arbitrarily cherry-picking clubs for Euroleague and EuroCup, which means destroying any commercial and sporting value of domestic leagues and undermining the competitive balance in European basketball; abusively discriminating against financially weaker clubs, thereby placing them at a further competitive disadvantage». However, the FIBA/Euroleague dispute involves another fundamental aspect related to the scheduling of competitions. According to FIBA, the new Euroleague calendar does not include windows of time for national team competitions in February or November, and for this reason, the Euroleague is preventing the release of players to national team competitions. On the contrary, according to the Euroleague, FIBA’s new windows in February and November represent a change from the past where international competitions, including the World Cup qualifiers, were held in the summer, during the offseason for most leagues.[2]

Although different in many respects compared to the ISU case, the FIBA/Euroleague affair raises again the problem of conflict of interest when sports federations pretend to exercise autonomously their regulatory power for the sake of the organization of sport and to simultaneously carry out an economic activity related to the organization of sporting events. In consideration of the dual nature of sports federations, the basic problem to be solved is to clarify if and to what extent the conduct of a sports federation is legitimate when it uses its regulatory power to exclude or marginalize third parties from the market of the organization of sporting events. 

7. Going back to the merit of the ISU affair and waiting to read the decision, the Commission’s press release and the statement by Commissioner Vestager are very important in order to better understand the scope and limits of the decision. The decision is not about the pyramid structure of European sports. The principle of a single federation for each sport and the right of the federations to organise competition from local to international levels is a milestone of the European model of sport. In this context the decision does not question the right of sports federations to enact rules necessary to achieve those goals. However, the ISU decision confirms that sport is not just for fun, but it is also a business. Therefore, although the Commission does not intend “to be the referee in every dispute about sport”, in matters dealing with the economic dimension of sport, sports federations must understand that the business of sports has to comply with competition rules. This means that the sole fact that eligibility rules or any other rule enacted by sports federations pursue a legitimate objective (for example, the protection of athletes’ health, the integrity and the proper conduct of sport, the fight against doping) does not represent a valid justification to put those rules outside the scope of EU law. Indeed, according to the Court of Justice’s case law, sporting rules set up by sports federations are compatible with EU law only if they pursue a legitimate objective and the restrictions that they create are inherent and proportionate to reaching this objective. Therefore, in cases relating to the exercise of regulatory power by sports federations the problem does not concern the legitimate nature of the objectives pursued. Generally speaking, in all the cases examined by the Commission and National antitrust authorities, the legitimacy of the objectives pursued by the federations has never been questioned. On the contrary, in those cases the problem was the inherent and proportionate character of the restrictions created by the federations through the exercise of their regulatory power. From this point of view, therefore, it can be said that it must certainly be considered inherent and proportionate to the objective of ensuring the integrity of the sport the rule requiring the athletes who participate in an event not authorized by the respective federation to undergo, at their own expense, an anti-doping tests before being able to attend an event organized by the federation. Quite the reverse, a clause sanctioning the athlete who participates in a competition not authorized by the federation with a lifetime ban from all the events organized by the federation appears totally disproportionate. Similarly, it must certainly be considered inherent and proportionate to the objective of ensuring the integrity of the sport the rule requiring anyone who intends to organize a sporting event outside the federation to ensure compliance with the rules of the game, as elaborated by the federation, and the anti-doping controls. In contrast, the clause that imposes on the organizer of an event the obligation to respect the rules of the federation in regards to the choice of the athletes or teams admitted to participate in such competition must be considered disproportionate. Although it is true that the European model of sport expressly refers to the mechanism of promotion and relegation as a distinguishing feature compared to the US model, it is equally true that the Commission has never qualified the structure of open leagues as a legitimate objective capable of justifying the provision of rules restricting competition or the free movement of persons. Moreover, even considering the model of the open leagues a necessary feature of the European sports model, it must be emphasized that the organization of a sporting event based on a system of special licenses is not in itself in contrast with the founding values ​​of the European sports model. On the one hand, the existence of other events (national and European) characterized by the traditional mechanisms of promotion and relegation represents the best safeguard of the European model of sport. However, it is clear that in order to protect the meritocratic criterion behind the mechanism of promotion and relegation it is sufficient to provide a mixed system where some athletes or teams are admitted on the basis of a licence and other athletes/teams are admitted on the basis of the results achieved on the pitch.

8. We can imagine the ISU’s disappointment regarding the Commission’s decision.  On the contrary, what is really difficult to understand is the ISU’s position shown in the statement published on the same day of the Commission’s decision. The idea that the Commission’s decision fails to consider the specific nature of sport is simply nonsense considering the rather vague nature of the notion of specificity of sports, especially in the post Meca Medina era. Similarly, the idea that the Commission’s decision puts commercial interests ahead of the principles of integrity, health, and safety that protect fair play in sports has no legal basis. In the same way, the idea that the decision is contrary to the Treaty, which recognizes the voluntary, social, and educational functions of sports reveals a serious lack of knowledge of the basics of EU law applied to the sports sector. On the other hand, the ISU correctly affirms that its eligibility rules—similar to the eligibility rules of many other international sports federations—ensure the protection of the health and safety of athletes at all authorized events as well as the integrity of sports events, and that these rules are essential to the role of international federations as the guardians of sports movement. However, it is easy to assert that the Commission’s decision does not question this argument and the fundamental role of international federations to organize the proper and correct conduct of sport.  To this regard, the decision not to impose a fine on the ISU is a clear signal. Another signal is represented by the recognition that there are many disputes which have little or nothing at all to do with competition rules as they raise primarily issues related to the governance of a sport. In other words, sports federations must understand that the sole fact that they are charged to guarantee the integrity and proper conduct of their sport, the protection of athletes’ health, and other fundamental values related to sports does not automatically mean that the rules enacted to pursue these objectives cannot be scrutinized through the lens of EU law. Once and for all, it should be understood that when the exercise of regulatory power by sports federations is able to affect the distinct market of the organization of sports events, in which sports federations compete with other sports events organisers, EU law applies. This new context should have been evident following the Bosman ruling and, above all, after the Meca Medina judgment. Unfortunately, the ISU decision (and the ISU’s reaction) confirms that this is not yet the case.

[1] For more details, see http://leidenlawblog.nl/articles/what-can-eu-competition-law-do-for-speed-skaters 

[2] On this subject it is worthy to note that the statement by Commissioner Vestager on the ISU decision clearly highlights that things like the penalties for doping or match-fixing, or deciding the precise scheduling have little or nothing at all to do with antitrust. For these, sports organisations must live up to their responsibilities and find solutions and mechanisms for solving disputes that deliver the results that the public and the athletes deserve.