Advocate General questions whether FIFA Regulations are compliant with EU Law: Are they restrictive of competition? (Part 3)
In the previous articles, the authors have set forth the factual and legal context of the Opinion issued by the Advocate General in case C-650/22 FIFA v. BZ (also known as the Lassana Diarra case) in Part 1 here and discussed compliance of the RSTP provisions with EU law as well as the general shortcomings of the Opinion in Part 2 here.
In this article, the authors analyse the findings of the Advocate General with respect to Article 101 of the TFEU.
If you would prefer to read all the articles together, please click here.
Article Highlights
- Referring to restriction by object under Article 101 TFEU
- Referring to restriction by effect
- Conclusion
Advocate General takes due notice of the two categories falling under Article 101 par. 1 of the TFEU – restriction of competition “by effect” and “by object”.
To continue reading or watching login or register here
Already a member? Sign in
Get access to all of the expert analysis and commentary at LawInSport including articles, webinars, conference videos and podcast transcripts. Find out more here.
- Tags: Article 101 of TFEU | Article 17 of the FIFA RSTP | Article 45 of TFEU | Belgium | Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union | Competition Law | Contractual Stability | Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) | Court of Justice of European Union (CJEU) | Dispute Resolution | European Union | FIFA | FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) | Football | France | Governance | International Transfer Certificate | Regulation | Switzerland | termination without just cause | Treaty of Functioning of European Union (TFEU)
Related Articles
- UEFA Home-Grown Player Rule EU Law Challenge – Royal Antwerp FC V Royal Belgian FA
- Will EU and UK Competition Authorities scrutinise The PGA Tour, DP World Tour, PIF joint venture?
- Football agents (PROFAA) v FIFA – CAS’s biggest EU competition law decision yet?
- Is The Obligation to Publish Anti-Doping Decisions A Violation Of The GDPR?
- Will we ever see a European Super League? A recap of the ESL, ISU, and Royal Antwerp cases pending CJEUs decisions
- The end of the FIFA Agents Cap and the beginning of a less restrained standard of competition review in sport?
- Legal battle for the creation of new sporting competitions – only the end of the beginning
- UEFA as a neutral regulator of football tournaments? What is to come from the CJEU’s Superleague judgment?
- Trading cards and trading blows – A review of the Panini v. Fanatics antitrust lawsuit
- Professional golf at a crossroads: what next for the PGA Tour & LIV Golf?
- Reassessing data protection in anti-doping – key points of Advocate General Ćapeta’s opinion
- No independent judge, no EU review: Anti-doping case dismissed by ECJ
Written by
Maciej Balazinski
Maciej Bałaziński is a Polish attorney-at-law with a long sports law practise, owner of Kancelaria Prawna Maciej Bałaziński I Współpracownicy, Kraków focused on sports law and litigations. He has also useful experience in sports law after four years of experience as managing director and vice-president of Lechia Gdańsk S.A. and supervisory board of Polish Ekstraklasa (top football league). He is also experienced arbitrator after 4 years in disciplinary and 5 years in NDRC of Polish FA, author of several publications and lecturer at International Football Business Institute, Brussels.
Karolina Letniowska
Karolina is an advocate working at Kancelaria Prawna Maciej Bałaziński i Współpracownicy. She has completed the UEFA Football Law Programme and has done her LL. M. at the University of Gdańsk and LL. M. in Sustainable Development at the University of Milan. Karolina is a member of the Women In Sports Law (WISLaw) and the International Sport Lawyer Association (ISLA).
Global Summit 2024