6
Nov
CAS Seat Option now in Dublin for Sports Disputes
The European Super League and ISU Decisions: Key Developments in EU Sports Law and UEFA's Response
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is an independent institution founded in 1984, separate from any sports organization. CAS serves as a forum for resolving sports-related disputes, which can be brought by both individuals and legal entities. Despite its name, the "Court" of Arbitration for Sport, CAS is not a traditional court but a specialized tribunal designed to handle disputes through arbitration or mediation. CAS has been granted jurisdiction over all matters related to the Olympics and the Olympic federations. Furthermore, all Olympic National Federations have agreed to recognize CAS' authority in resolving anti-doping disputes.
In December 2023, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued two significant rulings that shaped the landscape of European sports law. The first related to the European Super League (ESL) saga, a controversial proposal by a group of elite European football clubs to create a breakaway competition. The second concerned the International Skating Union (ISU) and its restrictions on athletes’ participation in competitions outside its jurisdiction. Both cases brought EU competition law to the forefront of sports governance, with far-reaching implications for how sports bodies regulate competition and resolve disputes. In the aftermath of these rulings, UEFA—football’s governing body in Europe—modified its rules governing international club competitions, a change that will affect the way disputes are handled in the future. This article explores the key points of these decisions and their long-term consequences.
1. The European Super League Decision: UEFA’s Authorisation Rules Under Scrutiny
The European Super League, launched in 2021 as a joint initiative of 12 of Europe’s top football clubs, was designed to establish a new, closed competition that would compete with UEFA’s Champions League. However, the project faced intense opposition from fans, players, and football authorities alike, leading to a rapid collapse of the proposed league.
In December 2023, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that UEFA’s "Authorisation Rules"—which determine how clubs are allowed to participate in international competitions like the Champions League—must be compliant with EU competition law. This decision arose from ongoing legal battles initiated by the ESL promoters, who argued that UEFA’s refusal to allow the new league violated EU competition rules. The Court held that UEFA’s ability to impose sanctions or prevent clubs from competing in alternative competitions must be scrutinized under the lens of EU law, particularly Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which prohibit anti-competitive practices and abuses of dominance.
While UEFA has long held significant control over European club competitions, the ECJ ruling reinforced that such control cannot be absolute if it restricts competition in a way that harms the free movement of services or creates monopolistic practices. As a result of the ruling, UEFA was required to amend its regulations, ensuring that its Authorisation Rules were more in line with European competition law, offering a fairer and more transparent process for clubs.
2. The ISU Case: Restricting Skaters' Participation in External Competitions
The second major ruling by the ECJ in December 2023 involved the International Skating Union (ISU), which governs figure skating and short-track speed skating. The case centred on the ISU’s refusal to allow athletes to compete in a competition in Dubai and its subsequent threats to ban skaters from participating in future ISU events if they took part in non-ISU sanctioned competitions. The dispute arose after two skaters, who wished to compete in the Dubai event, challenged the ISU’s actions, claiming they were in violation of EU competition law.
In this case, the ECJ found that the ISU’s actions were indeed in breach of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, which govern anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant market position. The Court ruled that the ISU’s restrictions on skaters' ability to participate in competitions outside the ISU’s jurisdiction were an unjustified restraint of trade and amounted to an abuse of the ISU's dominant position in the sport. This was a significant victory for the athletes, affirming that sports governing bodies cannot unreasonably limit the freedom of athletes to compete in events of their choosing.
Another key issue in the ISU case was the arbitration clause in the ISU’s rules, which required athletes to submit to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for any disputes. The Court also found that the imposition of mandatory arbitration under these terms was potentially harmful to the athletes, particularly because it limited their access to fair judicial remedies under EU law.
3. UEFA’s Response: A New Seat for CAS in Dublin
In the wake of the ECJ's rulings, UEFA swiftly acted to amend its rules governing international club competitions. In June 2024, UEFA announced a significant change to its Authorisation Rules: it would offer an alternative seat for CAS arbitration in Dublin, Ireland. Previously, the seat for CAS arbitration was located in Lausanne, Switzerland, but the new rules allowed parties to choose to have their disputes heard in Dublin.
This amendment was significant for several reasons. Firstly, by selecting a location within the European Union, UEFA ensured that CAS decisions made in Dublin would be governed by EU law. Under the revised regulations, any decision made by CAS in Dublin could be appealed to the CJEU, or a question of European law could be referred to the ECJ under Article 267 TFEU. This offers an additional layer of judicial oversight, ensuring that CAS decisions in the EU would align more closely with European competition law.
The decision to move the seat of CAS to Dublin also appears to be motivated by practical considerations. Ireland’s common law legal system, its status as an English-speaking jurisdiction, and its well-established arbitration framework (particularly the Arbitration Act 2010) made it an attractive option for UEFA. Unlike Switzerland, which operates under a civil law system, Ireland’s common law system may have been more appealing to UEFA and its stakeholders, who might prefer the familiar procedures of common law when resolving disputes. Furthermore, Ireland's legal and regulatory framework offers a robust environment for arbitration, making it a favourable choice for sports governance.
4. Conclusion: Long-Term Implications for Sports Law and Governance
The rulings by the ECJ in December 2023 and UEFA's subsequent changes to its Authorisation Rules signal a shift in the relationship between sports organizations and EU competition law. The decisions reinforce the principle that sports governing bodies must balance their regulatory powers with respect for competition law, ensuring that their actions do not unfairly restrict competition or limit the rights of athletes.
For UEFA, the move to Dublin represents an attempt to comply with these legal requirements while maintaining control over international club competitions. The choice of Dublin is likely to have broader implications, as it may set a precedent for other sports organizations to consider the legal implications of their rules and arbitration systems under EU law.
As the landscape of sports law continues to evolve, these developments highlight the growing intersection of sports governance and competition law, particularly in a globalized and increasingly commercialized sports industry. Both the European Super League case and the ISU case underscore the importance of ensuring fair competition and protecting the rights of athletes and other stakeholders within the sports ecosystem.
For sports organizations, the message is clear: while they retain the right to govern their respective sports, they must do so in a way that is consistent with EU law and ensures a level playing field for all parties involved. This is a reminder that the principles of fair competition and transparency must remain at the heart of sports governance, even as the business of sport becomes ever more complex and commercialized.
For an ongoing list of cases before CAS follow this link - https://www.tas-cas.org/en/jurisprudence/recent-de...
The method of referral to a CAS Dublin option is set out in Art. 16 (3) of the UEFA Authorisation Rules.
“3 CAS shall primarily apply the UEFA Statutes, rules and regulations and subsidiarily Swiss law.
The party filing the statement of appeal and/or a request for provisional measures, whichever
is filed first with CAS, shall indicate in its first written submission to CAS whether the party
accepts Lausanne, Switzerland, as seat of the arbitration or if the seat of the arbitration shall
be in Dublin, Ireland, in derogation of Article R28 of the CAS Code. In the latter case, UEFA is
bound by the choice of Dublin, Ireland, as seat of the arbitration and UEFA shall confirm its
agreement to such seat in its first written reply to CAS. In case no seat is indicated in the first
written submission to CAS, Article R28 of the CAS Code shall apply.”