Geradin Partners’ Quarterly Sports & Competition Law Newsletter 07/10/26

Geradin Partners’ Quarterly Sports & Competition Law Newsletter – Q3 2026

Editorial

By Ilkka Aalto-Setälä

As this edition of the Geradin Partners Sports Newsletter goes to press, the Finnish football community has already played a match that was about much more than football. Finland hosted Belarus at Helsinki’s Olympic Stadium, despite Ukraine having formally urged Finland to reconsider the decision. Only days before the match, the Ukrainian Embassy in Helsinki sent a diplomatic note to the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, expressing its disappointment and calling on the Finnish Football Association to move the match outside Finland.

There is a powerful and understandable instinct to keep politics out of sport. Sport should be governed by rules, not political pressure. Athletes should not automatically be held responsible for the actions of their governments, and sporting organisations need autonomy if competitions are to be organised fairly and consistently.

But Belarus is not simply another national team. The Lukashenko regime has actively supported Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine,allowing Russian forces and military equipment to use its territory and providing other forms of military support to Russia.

This matters particularly in Finland. Russia’s war against Ukraine is not a distant geopolitical issue. It is a fundamental challenge to the European security order, to the sovereignty of states and to the rules on which the European political and economic system rests. Against that background, Ukraine’s objection should not simply have been treated as another political opinion to be balanced against the preferences of players or sporting administrators.

Sporting autonomy cannot be a duty to disregard the wider consequences of sporting decisions. Nor should solidarity with Ukraine be reduced to the proceeds of ticket sales or charitable initiatives surrounding the match. Supporting Ukrainians while simultaneously providing the Belarusian national team with the platform of a home international fixture may risk sending two contradictory messages.

Sport has always carried political and symbolic meaning. National teams are, by their very nature, representatives of states and societies. But in this respect responsibility does not rest only with sporting organisations. Athletes themselves can also make choices that carry political meaning.

Russian NHL star Alexander Ovechkin provides a telling example. Ovechkin has publicly supported Vladimir Putin. Athletes are not responsible for the passports they hold or for decisions taken by governments. But they can, and should, be responsible for the positions they themselves choose to endorse publicly.

The modern sports industry increasingly operates at the intersection of private regulation, public interests and fundamental rights. Governing bodies decide who may participate, where competitions may be held and under what conditions. Such decisions can have significant economic, social and political consequences. Sporting autonomy remains essential. But autonomy must not become a shield against accountability.

The lesson from the Helsinki match is therefore not that politics should take over sport. It is that sport needs clear rules for deciding when extraordinary circumstances justify extraordinary measures. Those rules should be transparent, consistently applied and capable of taking account not only of sporting considerations, but also of security, human rights and the fundamental values of European society.

Ukraine’s intervention should not be dismissed as an attempt to politicise football. It should instead be understood as a reminder of something more fundamental: sport does not exist outside society, and sporting autonomy does not exist outside the rule of law.

At Geradin Partners, we advise clubs, leagues, governing bodies and investors on issues at the intersection of competition law, sports regulation, governance and commercial strategy. As sport becomes an increasingly powerful economic and societal institution, the legal framework governing sporting autonomy, access and participation will become ever more important.

The game may have ended in Helsinki. The debate about where the boundaries of sporting autonomy should lie has not. Sporting autonomy cannot mean freedom from accountability: not for governing bodies, and not for athletes.

Judgments and rulings

CJEU confirms Wouters/Meca-Medina can cover sports federation rules regulating non-members

On 9 July 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) delivered its judgment in ROGON and Others (C-428/23), one of two July judgments concerning the regulation of football agents under EU competition law. The case concerned the German Football Association’s agent regulations (“RfSV”), which set registration, disclosure and remuneration conditions for clubs and players using agents. The Court confirmed that the Wouters/Meca-Medina exception to Article 101(1) TFEU may apply even where a sports federation’s rules regulate third parties, such as agents, that are not themselves members of the federation. A federation may therefore regulate actors within the wider sporting ecosystem where this is necessary to protect the integrity of competitions, provided the rules pursue legitimate public-interest objectives and any resulting restrictions are necessary and proportionate. The Court also clarified that closely connected provisions may be assessed together by reference to the objective they pursue, rather than individually, leaving the final assessment of the German rules to the national court.

CJEU finds FIFA agent rules may amount to by-object restrictions and abuse of dominance

One week later, on 16 July 2026, the CJEU returned to the regulation of football agents in RRC Sports v FIFA (C-209/23), this time examining the FIFA Football Agent Regulations (“FFAR”). The Court reiterated that sporting rules remain subject to EU competition law where they govern economic activity and confirmed that FIFA acts as an association of undertakings when regulating football agents. Of the provisions challenged,it identified two as capable of restricting competition by object: a rule affecting an agent’s entitlement to unpaid commission following a subsequent transfer and rules governing approaches to players already represented by an exclusive agent. Other provisions, includingcommission caps, restrictions on multiple representation, licensing requirements and reporting obligations, must instead be assessed by reference to their effects. The Court also found that FIFA may hold a dominant position, by virtue of its regulatory powers, on the markets for football transfer-intermediary services and for the employment of players and coaches. It also identified possible concerns under Article 102TFEU relating to exclusionary conduct and unfair trading conditions, leaving the final assessment to the national court.

CJEU clarifies requirements for sporting sanctions and effective judicial review

Also on 16 July 2026, the CJEU ruled in FIGC and CONI (Joined Cases C-424/24 and C-425/24), concerning 24-month bans imposed by the Italian Football Federation (“FIGC”) on two former Juventus directors for approving allegedly false accounts linked to artificial capital gains. The sanctions were upheld by the Sport Guarantee Board of the Italian National Olympic Committee (“CONI”) and subsequently extended worldwide by FIFA. The CJEU held that a ban preventing an individual from pursuing professional activities across the EU restricts the free movement of workers and services but may be justified by the need to ensure the proper conduct of sporting competitions if it is proportionate and imposed under a transparent, objective and non-discriminatory sanctioning system. The case also clarified the requirements for effective judicial protection in sport. Under Italian law, the administrative court reviewing the sanctions could only award damages, not lift the sanctions. The CJEU held that EU law requires access to a court or tribunal capable of annulling the sanction and, where necessary, granting interim relief, although that protection may be offered within the sports justice system itself, provided the relevant body qualifies as an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. For more in-depth commentary on the three football-related CJEU judgments, see the July–August editionof the Geradin Partners Monthly EU Litigation Briefing and our blog post.

Manchester City found in breach of Premier League financial rules

On 29 September 2026, an independent Premier League commission found Manchester City FC (“Manchester City”) guilty of all chargesrelating to serious breaches of the Premier League’s financial rules over a nine-season period, as well as three of four charges concerning its failure to cooperate with the League’s investigation. The commission found that the club had used a “disguised funding scheme” and other arrangements to conceal shareholder funding from Abu Dhabi United Group (“ADUG”), artificially inflate commercial revenues and reduce reported costs, including through sponsorship arrangements and the Fordham image-rights structure, which allowed funding from ADUG to be recorded as operating income rather than shareholder contributions. It concluded that these arrangements overstated the club’s financial position by more than £900 million over the relevant period and enabled it to appear compliant with applicable Premier League and UEFA financial rules. The commission also found multiple breaches of Manchester City’s duties of cooperation and utmost good faith during the Premier League’s four-year investigation. The Premier League confirmed that sanctions will be determined separately at a further hearing. Manchester City has appealed the decision.

Investigations and enforcement

Bundeskartellamt clears the 50+1 rule and sets out guidance for its application

Germany’s Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt) has closed its investigation into the Deutsche Fußball Liga’s (“DFL”) 50+1 ownership rule, confirming on 12 August 2026 that the rule remains permissible under competition law, provided it is applied consistently and without differentiation, unless objectively justified. The rule generally requires a club’s members to retain majority voting control over its professional football operations. While the rule restricts competition for investment in professional football, the Bundeskartellamt considers its objective of preserving the club character of the sport and member participation capable of justifying it, provided it is pursued consistently and systematicallyin line with the CJEU’s 2023 judgments in European Superleague, ISU and Royal Antwerp. The DFL rule raised no fundamental concerns. The authority nevertheless identified three shortcomings in the rule’s application: the DFL’s licensing practice does not ensure equal access to full voting membership across Bundesliga and Bundesliga 2 clubs; the DFL failed to monitor whether Hannover 96 CEO Martin Kind complied with his parent club’s voting instruction in the December 2023 investor vote; and the existing proposals concerning Bayer Leverkusen and VfL Wolfsburg do not yet ensure comparable competitive conditions in the long term. The Bundeskartellamt imposed no binding requirements ordeadline but set out guidance on how the DFL could address these issues and apply the rule in the most legally robust manner possible.

Belgian Competition Authority closes U23 quota investigation following discontinuation of the rule

The Belgian Competition Authority (“BCA”) has brought its investigation into the Royal Belgian Football Association’s (“RBFA”) U23 quota to an end after the rule was discontinued. The quota required at least four U23 teams to participate permanently in the Challenger Pro League, Belgium’s second professional division. The BCA opened the investigation in July 2025 following a complaint from several clubs, which objected to the quota and the resulting more favourable relegation treatment afforded to U23 teams. In an interim decision in August 2025, the BCA’s College found that the quota potentially breached the cartel prohibition by distorting competition between Challenger Pro League clubs and, indirectly, Jupiler Pro League clubs, but refused to suspend the rule for lack of urgency. That position changed in May 2026, when the BCA found that the anticipated distortion had materialised, with a classic club facing relegation despite finishing above a U23 team. It therefore granted a second request for interim measures, suspending the quota’s effects on rankings and relegation. The underlying issue was subsequently resolved when the RBFA’s High Council ratified the Pro League General Assembly’s decision to abolish the quota from 1 July 2026, leading the BCA to terminate the investigation without an infringement decision.

European Leagues extends European Commission complaint over FIFA’s International Match Calendar to women’s football

European Leagues, which represents professional domestic leagues and more than 1,300 clubs across Europe, has expanded its European Commission complaint against FIFA to cover the women’s International Match Calendar (“IMC”). The move builds on the complaint filed byEuropean Leagues and FIFPRO Europe in October 2024 over the men’s calendar, which argues that FIFA’s dual role as football’s governing body and organiser of its own competitions creates a conflict of interest contrary to EU competition law. The expanded complaint alleges that FIFA uses its regulatory powers to favour its own competitions and commercial interests to the detriment of women’s football and European domestic leagues, pointing in particular to the FIFA Council’s approval of the 2026–2029 women’s IMC in May 2024 and to the controversy surrounding FIFA’s abandoned Forward Enterprise stake-sale initiative as evidence of the same structural conflict identified in the men’s game. FIFA has rejected the criticism, stating that the women’s IMC was unanimously approved by the FIFA Council following extensive research, analysis and consultation with key stakeholders, and said it favours dialogue over legal escalation. The dispute comes against an increasingly congested women’s football calendar, including the inaugural Women’s Club World Cup, now scheduled for January 2028, the 2027 Women’s World Cup and the 2028 Olympic Games, and follows a December 2025 FIFPRO report highlighting workload concerns, including underload in some domestic leagues.

Italian Competition Authority fines six companies EUR 2.51 million for ambush marketing during Milan-Cortina 2026

The Italian Competition Authority (“AGCM”) has fined six non-sponsors a total of €2.51 million for ambush marketing around the Milan-Cortina 2026 Winter Games. The cases were decided under Article 10 of Decree-Law No. 16/2020, which prohibits unauthorised promotional activities that create an association between a brand and a sporting event or trade fair of national or international significance with a view to obtaining an economic or competitive advantage. The AGCM found that the companies had linked their brands to the Games through advertising and promotional campaigns featuring or evoking Olympic symbols, emblems and official references such as “Milano-Cortina” and “Milano-Cortina 2026”, thereby misleading the public as to the identity of official sponsors. It also rejected arguments based on factors such as pre-existing campaigns, distance from competition venues, limited reach and good faith. The fines imposed were €550,000 for RetailPro (“Pro7”); €500,000 each for Harmont & Blaine and Magazzini Gabrielli (“Oasi”); €350,000 for Butan Gas; €310,000 for Rialto (“Il Gigante”); and €300,000 for MD.

Mexican Competition Authority investigates alleged monopolistic practices in professional football

The Mexican Competition Authority has opened an investigation into possible monopolistic practices in professional football, focusing on the market for the affiliation, organisation and access to professional football competitions in Mexico, as well as related services. Announced on 14 September 2026, the investigation follows concerns arising from the structure of Liga MX, Mexico’s top football division, where club ownership and broadcasting rights are concentrated among a relatively small number of media and business groups. The opening decision refers to conduct that may raise rivals’ costs, hinder their activities or reduce the demand they face, bringing into focus whether the rules governing access to and participation in professional football competitions may restrict competition. The investigation may last between 30 and 120 business days, with up to three extensions of 120 business days each.

Brazil’s competition authority examines exit barriers and control in FFU broadcasting bloc

Brazil’s competition authority (“CADE”) is examining Futebol Forte União (“FFU”), a 31-club broadcasting bloc backed by investor Sports Media Entertainment (“SME”). Following a complaint by club CSA, CADE’s Superintendent-General imposed a preventive measure on 25 June 2026 prohibiting SME from creating obstacles to clubs seeking to leave FFU for rival bloc Libra, subject to a daily fine of R$250,000. SME appealed, and on 8 July CADE’s Tribunal agreed to hear the appeal while leaving the measure in force. Separately, CADE is reviewingFFU’s formation as a notifiable joint venture. In that proceeding, the national football association Sinafut has raised concerns about the long-term arrangements between FFU and SME, including a 50-year rights agreement, and argued that SME exercises de facto control over the bloc.

On 30 July, CADE admitted Sinafut, the referees’ association Anaf and the players’ association Fenapaf as interested third parties in the review. The associations have also sought to participate in the CSA proceedings and called for stronger interim measures.

European Broadcasting Union among targets of proposed Brazilian cartel sanctions

On 23 July 2026, CADE’s Superintendence recommended sanctions against six companies and 18 individuals for alleged participation in an international cartel affecting sports broadcasting rights in Brazil between 2007 and 2018. The companies are Dentsu, the European Broadcasting Union, Infront, MP & Silva, UFA Sports and Telefónica. The alleged conduct involved price-fixing, information exchange andmarket allocation for rights to events including the 2018 World Cup qualifiers, La Liga and the Coppa Italia. The case now proceeds to CADE’sTribunal, which will decide whether to uphold the findings and set fines.

Reviews and consultations

AGCM consults on Serie A’s broadcasting rights guidelines

On 4 August 2026, the AGCM opened a public consultation on Lega Calcio Serie A’s Guidelines for the centralised marketing of the audiovisual rights to its competitions (the Serie A championship, Coppa Italia, Supercoppa Italiana and the Primavera competitions) for the seasons 2029/30 to 2033/34. The consultation, launched under Article 6(6) of Legislative Decree No. 9/2008 (the “Melandri Decree”), sought views on whether the Guidelines comply with the Melandri Decree’s principles of transparency, non-discrimination and effective competition. The Guidelines largely preserve the anti-concentration safeguards used in previous cycles: platform-based packages must cover at least three tiers and may not give a single operator exclusive live rights across all platforms, while product-based packages must include at least two exclusive full-match lots that cannot all be acquired by the same bidder. They also retain the League’s ability to move to private negotiations for unsold packages or, as a fallback, launch its own pay channel, with award outcomes to be reported to the Italian Communications Regulatory Authority (“AGCOM”) and the AGCM before publication. No material developments have been identified since the consultation closed on 25 August 2026.

Spain’s CNMC tells Liga F to rework its women’s football rights tender

Spain’s competition authority (“CNMC”) has called on the Liga Profesional de Fútbol Femenino (“LPFF”), which organises the country’s top women’s league, Liga F, to revise the proposed terms for the centralised sale of its audiovisual rights for the 2026/27 to 2030/31 seasons. In its mandatory report on the proposed commercialisation conditions, issued under Article 4 of Royal Decree-Law 5/2015, the CNMC concluded that several aspects of the proposal did not comply with the applicable framework.

In particular, it considered that the LPFF had sought to include rights beyond those covered by the statutory joint-commercialisation regime, including interviews and press conferences for which no express transfer from the clubs had been demonstrated. The CNMC also criticised certain audience-data requirements and an anti-piracy clause requiring broadcasters, at the LPFF’s request and without judicial intervention, to block allegedly infringing domains and IP addresses. As regards the tender process itself, it recommended limiting the award to three seasons, disclosing the reserve price in advance and allowing at least four weeks for bids instead of eight days.

Legal and policy developments

France overhauls professional sport with new rules on governance, agents, club ownership and piracy

France has overhauled its legal framework for professional sport through Act No. 2026-725 of 3 August 2026. The reform strengthens governance rules for sports federations, including restrictions on office-holding following certain criminal convictions, limits on remuneration and restrictions on foreign funding of federation election candidates. It also requires federations to promote solidarity, particularly financial solidarity, between men’s and women’s professional sport and strengthens obligations concerning the visibility of women’s sport. For sports agents, the existing licence is replaced by a professional card, remuneration remains capped at 10% of the relevant contract and stricter disclosure and conduct requirements apply. The Act also strengthens scrutiny of multiple-club ownership, requiring potential common control or significantinfluence over French and foreign clubs in the same sport to be taken into account and providing for significant sanctions where ownership restrictions are breached. It further expands protections against sports piracy, including real-time blocking of illegal streams, extends organisers’ commercial rights to ticketing and protects live sports data against unauthorised collection for commercial betting purposes.

European Parliament calls for scrutiny of multi-club ownership and dynamic ticket pricing in sport

In its resolution on competition policy for the 2025 annual report, the European Parliament adopted a dedicated paragraph on sport, calling on the European Commission to take account of the implications of multi-club ownership when supporting efforts to safeguard the financial integrity and competitive balance of European sport. It also urged the Commission and Member States to consider regulatory options to address dynamic ticket pricing for live sports and cultural events, including a potential prohibition under the forthcoming Digital Fairness Act, with the aim of protecting consumers and upholding the social and public value of sport and culture.

UK Competition Appeal Tribunal outlines approach to appeals from football regulator

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”) has published a speech by the Hon. Mr Justice Morris setting out how it expects to handle appeals from decisions of the Independent Football Regulator (“IFR”) under the Football Governance Act 2025 (“FGA”). Delivered on 20 May 2026 and published by the CAT in September, the speech explains that most reviewable IFR decisions must first pass through the IFR’s internal review process before they can be appealed to the CAT. By contrast, section 84 FGA identifies six categories of more significant decisions that may be appealed directly to the CAT. These decisions, described by Morris J as the “Major 6”, include certain licensing decisions and determinations that an owner or officer is unsuitable. A “concerned person”, meaning the addressee of the decision, may choose either an internal review or a direct appeal in those cases. Others with a “sufficient interest”, which the judge suggested could include fan groups, rival clubs or community bodies, may also appeal Major 6 decisions directly but must otherwise await the addressee’s internal review. The standard of review differs accordingly: ordinary appeals are determined on judicial-review grounds, while the “Major 6” are subject to a full merits appeal. Hearings will generally be public and livestreamed, with confidentiality protections where needed, and the CAT can act swiftly where required. The full speech is available here.

Market developments

LIV Golf files for bankruptcy as Saudi funding is withdrawn

Less than five years after its first event, LIV Golf filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in New Jersey on 8 September 2026. The filing allows the league to continue operating under court supervision while restructuring its debts. LIV reported assets of $100 to 500 million against debts of $500 million to 1 billion, with several of its star players among its creditors, including Jon Rahm, Bryson DeChambeau and Dustin Johnson. Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, which had financed LIV since its 2022 launch, withdrew its funding earlier this year. LIV says the filing isintended to support a restructuring rather than a wind-down and that it plans to continue staging events under a revised business model centred on team golf and greater player participation in the value of the league.

R360’s operating company given two months to file accounts or be struck off

AOTG Sport, the company behind proposed rugby competition R360, has received a compulsory strike-off notice after failing to file its first annual accounts by the July 2026 deadline. Companies House records the company as active but with overdue accounts, and the notice gives it two months to remedy the default before it risks being struck off. AOTG has attributed the delay to an error by its accountants and said it expects the issue to be resolved shortly. The development comes after R360 postponed its planned launch until 2028 amid opposition from leading national rugby unions, several of which have said that players joining the competition would be ineligible for international selection.

Upcoming cases and developments to watch

Royal Antwerp and Lior Refaelov challenge home-grown player quotas before Brussels court

At a hearing in September 2026, Royal Antwerp Football Club and its former star player Lior Refaelov asked the Brussels Court of First Instance to invalidate home-grown player quotas imposed by UEFA and the Royal Belgian Football Association. The rules require clubs to include aminimum number of players trained for at least three years by the club, or another club in the same national association, between the ages of 15 and 21. Royal Antwerp and Refaelov, supported by the Union of European Clubs, argue that the quotas restrict Belgian clubs’ access to talent and disadvantage players and clubs in smaller national markets. The case follows the CJEU’s 2023 Royal Antwerp judgment (C-680/21), which held that the home-grown player rules may restrict competition and the free movement of workers, while leaving it to the Brussels court to determine whether they can nevertheless be objectively justified and proportionate to the aim of encouraging player training. UEFA and the Belgian federation defended the rules at the September hearing, and a ruling is expected by mid-October 2026.

IFR to publish first draft “State of the Game” report

The IFR is expected to publish and consult on the draft of its first “State of the Game” report later in 2026, with the final report due by May 2027. Required under section 10 FGA, the report will provide an evidence-based assessment of the state of English professional football and inform the IFR’s future regulatory approach. Since summer 2025, the IFR has engaged with competition organisers, clubs, academics and industry experts, and gathered financial, ownership, governance and fan-engagement data. Its final terms of reference indicate that the report will examine the economics of the game, the incentives shaping behaviour across the football ecosystem, and issues including financial flows through the pyramid, club finances and ownership, broadcasting, player wages, distributions, academy development, governance, fan engagement and club heritage.