This is the second part of a blog series on the Real Madrid State aid case. In the previous blog on this case, an outline of all the relevant facts was provided and I analysed the first criterion of Article 107(1) TFEU, namely the criterion that an advantage must be conferred upon the recipient for the measure to be considered State aid. Having determined that Real Madrid has indeed benefited from the land transactions, the alleged aid measure has to be scrutinized under the other criteria of Article 107(1): the measure must be granted by a Member State or through State resources; the aid granted must be selective; and it must distorts or threatens to distort competition. In continuation, this blog will also analyze whether the alleged aid measure could be justified and declared compatible with EU law under Article 107(3) TFEU.

The aid is granted by the State or through State resources

In its decision to launch a formal investigation, the Commission concluded that Real Madrid “enjoyed an advantage which derives from State resources, as the State forgoes possible revenues”.[1] Given that the Commission argued in 2002 that a requalification of a terrain does not entail State aid because there was no transfer of State resources and given that the facts regarding the requalification show some striking similarities with the current case, it is surprising that the Commission provided such a limited analysis. This might leave open the possibility for Real Madrid or the Council to argue that they could have legitimately expected that the land transactions concerned were free of a transfer of State resources. Therefore, it would have been more prudent for the Commission to further highlight the differences between the case in question and its decision not to start an investigation in 2002.

As regards land sale transactions, the land that is sold under market value by the public authorities is to be considered a State resource. The agreements to (1) compensate Real Madrid for the terrain in “Las Tablas” by providing the club other terrains and (2) to provide Real Madrid the land between the stadium and the “Paseo de la Castellana” are both imputable to the Council of Madrid and imply a loss of State resources. As regards the ad hoc modification of the PGOU, even though the modification provides a selective advantage to Real Madrid, this measure is unlikely to qualify as State aid, because no State resource has been transferred. 

The selectivity of the aid granted

With regard to whether the agreements favoured Real Madrid over its competitors, the Council could hold that both agreements could only be made with Real Madrid and not with any other football club. The first agreement involved a compensation for the impossibility to transfer a land from the Council to Real Madrid and the second agreement concerned further land transactions between Real Madrid and the council that, due to the location of several of the terrains in question, could not be offered to another football club.

Nonetheless, both measures at hand can most definitely be considered selective, thereby favouring Real Madrid over its competitors. The agreement of 29 July 2011 is selective because it only involves Real Madrid. Not only does the compensation include an economic advantage for the club, Real Madrid will also have the acquired terrains at full disposal, allowing it to sell, rent, swap or construct in any way it pleases.

Moreover, despite that the Council stated that Real Madrid had to bear all the costs for the construction of the hotel, the parking space and the shopping centre, it is also true that all the benefits of the exploitation will go directly to the football club and not to any of its competitors. The competitors, in this sense, should be interpreted wider than just being other football clubs. The Council has not given any reasons why a hotel and shopping centre in one of the main streets of Madrid has to be exploited by the undertaking Real Madrid. The “Bernabéu-Opañel” plan is therefore also selective in that it favours Real Madrid over competitors that exploit hotels and shopping centres. 

The aid has an effect on inter-State trade and distorts competition

In order for the measures to fall within the prohibition of Article 107(1), there must be an effect on competition and inter-State trade. For this condition to be fulfilled, it is sufficient that the Commission can establish a link between the measures in question and a potential effect on competition and trade. The recipient, Real Madrid, is an undertaking that operates in the European football sector. The 29 July 2011 Agreement could have allowed Real Madrid to receive a higher compensation than what it should have gotten, had the Council used the market values of the terrains in question. The economic advantage obtained by Real Madrid could be used to strengthen its position in the football sector. The same can be said for the operation “Bernabéu-Opañel”. A possible economic advantage deriving from this measure enables the football club to generate profits from the exploitation of a hotel and a shopping centre. This extra income could enable them to strengthen their team by buying new players. A strengthened Real Madrid would distort competition since other football clubs have not enjoyed the same support.

Secondly, the fact that the measure facilitates Real Madrid to run and exploit a hotel in one of the most important streets of Madrid, distorts competition in the hotel sector as well. Other hotels might generate less money because Real Madrid is exploiting an indirectly publicly subsidized hotel.

All the four criteria of Article 107(1) TFEU are fulfilled. The land transactions have created an advantage to the recipient, Real Madrid. Furthermore, the lands provided by the Council are to be regarded as State resources and, given that the measures were selective, competition has been distorted.  

Can the aid be justified?

The moment an aid measure fulfils all the criteria of Article 107(1), it will be seen as constituting State aid. However, the measure could still be deemed justified under certain conditions in accordance with EU Law. There are no EU Regulations or Commission guidelines on the application of State aid rules to commercial sporting activities. Therefore, the question whether the aid can be justified needs to be based on the conditions set in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.[2] Article 107(3)c) provides that aid may be compatible if it facilitates the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. The Commission understands that the specific nature of sport needs to be taken into account when dealing with State aid cases, as sport fulfils educational, public health, social and recreational functions. Furthermore, it is established Commission practice that a measure may be declared compatible if it is necessary and proportionate and if the positive effects for the common objective outweigh the negative effects on competition and trade.[3] In a Hungarian State aid case dating from 2011, the Commission approved an aid measure for the Hungarian sport sector, since the general objective of the measure (“increase the participation of the general public in youth activities”) took into account Hungary’s commitments that the benefits would be distributed to the widest possible beneficiaries, and is therefore in line with the common market. [4]

Furthermore, over the last two years the Commission has reached several final decisions involving State aid granted for the construction of football stadiums. For example, in a decision dating from 20 November 2013, the Commission decided not to raise objections regarding the plan of the Flemish government to subsidize the renovation and the construction of multifunctional football stadiums as the State aid contained therein was deemed compatible with Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. Even though all the criteria of Article 107 (1) were fulfilled, the Commission acknowledged that the social, cultural and educational return of football stadiums plays a central role in the decision whether the aid could should be declared compatible. Since all the stadiums in question would have a clear multifunctional character and different players could use the stadiums for different events, the Commission found that the general public would benefit from the aid and that the positive effects would outweigh the negative effects.[5]

When applying the balancing test to the possible aid measures involving Real Madrid, firstly, as regards the 29 July 2011 Agreement, there does not appear to be an objective of common interest. The agreement was made with the sole objective of compensating Real Madrid and was not beneficial for the general public.

As regards the “Bernabéu-Opañel” on the other hand, the Council held that the operation would create additional “green zones” for the city and that the hotel and shopping centre would provide work to around 600 people. The question remains, however, whether the positive effects derived from the creation of 600 jobs outweigh the negative effects on competition and trade.

In its decision, the Commission considered that it did not appear to pursue an objective of common interest, which could justify an economic advantage to one of the biggest and most successful operators in a highly competitive economic sector. [6] Indeed, the only player in the football sector that will benefit from the operation “Bernabéu-Opañel” is Real Madrid. The fact that Real Madrid could generate profits from the hotel and shopping centre will not be beneficial to other football clubs operating in the football sector, nor will it be beneficial to the football sector in general. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the positive effects of the operation “Bernabéu-Opañel” outweigh the negative effects on competition and trade.  

The recovery of the aid and possible consequences of a negative decision

A measure which constitutes State aid in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and which is declared incompatible with the internal market, is unlawful. Therefore, should the Commission find that the agreements between the Council of Madrid and Real Madrid constitute unlawful aid, it will order Spain to recover the aid provided to the club.  

The Recovery of the aid

The purpose of recovery is to re-establish the situation existing before aid was unlawfully granted.[7] The procedural rules on the recovery of unlawful aid are laid down in in Council Regulation 659/1999. Article 14(1) of the Regulation provides that “the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary”. Not only is the Commission exclusively competent to decide whether or not a measure constitutes unlawful State aid, it is also exclusively competent to request from a Member State to recover the unlawful State aid. Importantly, however, the recovery itself shall be done in accordance with the procedures under the law of the Member State concerned, provided that they allow the immediate and effective execution of the Commission’s decision.[8] As regards the quantification of the aid, there is no provision of Union law that requires the Commission to quantify the exact amount of aid to be recovered.[9] Nonetheless, the Commission may include information in its recovery decision enabling the addressee of the decision to work out that amount itself without overmuch difficulty.[10]

To establish the amount of aid to be recovered, one needs to firstly determine the total advantage obtained by Real Madrid and the exact moment in which Real Madrid started obtaining the advantage. At this stage in time it is difficult to determine what the Commission could consider as possible advantage. It is neither known whether the Commission takes all land transactions into account, nor is it clear what the exact value of each parcel is due to the complexity of the case and the lack of relevant information. However, once a total advantage is established, and with that the total amount of aid to be recovered, this amount would also probably include interest at an appropriate rate fixed by the Commission.[11]  Interest would be payable from the date the unlawful aid was put at the disposal of Real Madrid until the date of effective recovery. The aid can be recovered by means of a cash payment. However, alternative measures are allowed provided that the Member State ensures that the measure chosen is transparent and eliminates the distortion of competition caused by the unlawful aid. 

The consequences of a negative decision

The direct consequence of a negative decision for Real Madrid is that the situation existing before the aid was unlawfully granted would have to be re-established. Whether this situation concerns the time before the agreement of 1998, the Agreement of 29 July 2011 or before the operation “Bernabéu-Opañel” was conducted will depend on the Commission’s decision. An analysis of other Commission decisions involving land transactions in which the Commission ordered recovery of the aid indicates that the Commission does not simply undo the land transaction itself. The Commission decision that led to the Konsum Nord case included the order directed to the Swedish authorities to recover an amount equal to the difference between the amount offered for a land by the supermarket “Lidl” and the amount paid by the supermarket “Konsum”.[12] With regard to a Dutch case on an alleged sale of land below market price, the Commission established that the amount to be recovered consisted of the difference of the price paid by the undertaking “SJB” and the price initially agreed between the “SJB” and the local authorities. A third very recent example concerned unlawful forest swap transactions in Bulgaria. The Commission ordered Bulgaria to either recover the incompatible State aid granted or undo the swaps concerned. In other words, undoing the land transaction is merely an option and never an obligation.

Keeping the Commission practice in mind, in case of a negative Commission decision, the most likely scenario is that the Commission will oblige Spain to recover the advantage Real Madrid obtained from the transactions, but that the transactions themselves will not be undone. Therefore, the obvious direct consequences for the football club will constitute in paying a lump sum to the Spanish authorities equal to the difference between the valuation of the parcels as established by the Commission and as valued by the Council of Madrid.  

A more far-reaching consequence, such as an unlimited suspension of the operation “Bernabéu-Opañel”, are rather unlikely. The recovery will be done under national law[13], thus further recovery actions mainly depend on Spanish national law. The ad hoc modification of the Plan General de Ordenación Urbana de Madrid de 1997 (PGOU) that opened up the possibility of constructing on the terrain between the stadium and the “Paseo de la Castellana” can, therefore, only be challenged under national law.

If the consequences of a negative decision are only limited to paying a lump sum and, given the fact that Real Madrid is possibly financially the most powerful football club in the world, one could legitimately ask the question what the fuss is all about. Indeed, why would Real Madrid worry about paying a lump sum of, say, €20 million when its turnover exceeds €600 million per year, and when it is capable of spending more than €100 million in summer transfer fees? In my opinion, the aspects that make the Real Madrid case unlike any other State aid case are not to be found in the amount that constitutes the total financial advantage for the club nor, consequentially, the amount that would have to be recovered. What makes this case special is the very specific role played by citizens and the position Real Madrid has in the football sector. A negative State aid decision involving one of the richest and most successful football clubs in the world would serve as a warning to the entire European football sector that the Commission is serious regarding unlawful State aid granted to football clubs.  

To be continued….

[1] SA.33754 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) – Spain Real Madrid CF, §36

[2] Article 107(2) and Articles 107(3)a), b) and d) are also justifications, but are not relevant to the case at hand

[3] Community framework for State aid for research and development and innovation, OJ C 323, 30.12.2006, p. 1, point 1.3.

[4] SA.31722 Supporting the Hungarian sport sector via tax benefit scheme, §85-90

[5] SA.37109 (2013/N) – Belgium Football stadiums in Flanders, §28-34

[6] SA.33754 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) – Spain Real Madrid CF, §38-40

[7] Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, Recital 10

[8] Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, Article 14(3)

[9] Case C-480/98 Spain v Commission [2000] ECR I-8717, §25

[10] Commission Decision SA.24123 Alleged sale of land below market price by the Municipality of Leidschendam-Voorburg, §107

[11] Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, Article 14(2)

[12] Commission Decision No C 35/2006 – implemented by Sweden for Konsum Jämtland Ekonomisk Förening, §74-77

[13] Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, Article 14(3)

Since last year, Doyen Sports, represented by Jean-Louis Dupont, embarked on a legal crusade against FIFA’s TPO ban. It has lodged a competition law complaint with the EU Commission and started court proceedings in France and Belgium. In a first decision on Doyen’s request for provisory measures, the Brussels Court of First Instance rejected the demands raised by Doyen and already refused to send a preliminary reference to the CJEU. Doyen, supported by the Belgium club Seraing, decided to appeal this decision to the Brussels Appeal Court, which rendered its final ruling on the question on 10 March 2016.[1] The decision (on file with us) is rather unspectacular and in line with the first instance judgment. This blog post will rehash the three interesting aspects of the case.

·      The jurisdiction of the Belgian courts

·      The admissibility of Doyen’s action

·      The conditions for awarding provisory measures

I.      The jurisdiction of the Belgian courts

Doyen was not the only party to the dispute dissatisfied with the first instance ruling; FIFA and UEFA also appealed the decision challenging the territorial competence of the Belgian Court to hear the claims raised against FIFA’s TPO ban. They consider that the Swiss courts are solely competent to deal with civil disputes involving its rules and decisions.

As in first instance, the thrust of the ruling on this question turns on the interpretation of the Lugano convention of 2007 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. In principle, under Article 2(1) of the Convention: “Subject to the provisions of this Convention, persons domiciled in a State bound by this Convention shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that State.” Thus, translated to the present dispute this would imply that FIFA and UEFA, which are Swiss Associations, are in principle to be sued in front of Swiss courts.

Moreover, to support their view that Swiss Courts have an exclusive jurisdiction, FIFA and UEFA also invoke Article 22(2) Lugano Convention stipulating that “proceedings which have as their object the validity of the constitution, the nullity or the dissolution of companies or other legal persons or associations of natural or legal persons, or of the validity of the decisions of their organs, the courts of the State bound by this Convention in which the company, legal person or association has its seat. In order to determine that seat, the court shall apply its rules of private international law”. Yet, the Appeal Court is of a different opinion and refers to the jurisprudence of the CJEU indicating that Article 22(2) should be interpreted as referring to disputes lodged based on company law or their statutes against decisions of a company or association.

The principle enshrined in Article 2 Lugano Convention is not absolute, many exceptions are provided in the Lugano Convention itself. In particular, Article 5(3) Lugano Convention foresees that in delictual matters the court of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur is competent. This entails both the place were the harmful conduct was put in motion and the place where the harm was felt. In the present case, the Appeal Court argues that it is “difficult to contest that by hindering the appellant to execute their partnership agreement and enter in future TPO or TPI agreements over specific players, the attacked ban is producing harmful effects on the Belgian territory”.[2] Furthermore, the TPO agreement between Doyen Sports and the ASBL RFC Seraing is not deemed fictitious, as it has been invoked by FIFA to hand out disciplinary sanctions to the ASBL RFC Seraing.[3]

Additionally, the Court derives also its competence from Article 6(1) Lugano Convention. This article provides that a party can be sued “where he is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where any one of them is domiciled, provided the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings”. The key question is whether there is sufficient connectedness between the claims raised against l’URBSFA, FIFA and UEFA. The Court refers to the recent case law of the CJEU, which is relevant to the interpretation of the Lugano Convention, on the identical provision in the Brussels Regulation (notably the case C-352/13 at para. 20). It is of the view that “FIFA and URBSFA share a regulatory and disciplinary power that enables them both, acting jointly or separately, to adopt the contested ban, to enforce it and to adopt an individual decision susceptible to block, compromise and/or restrict the execution of the contract signed by the appellants”.[4] Thus, “the autonomous regulatory power of the URBSFA justifies its participation in this proceeding, alongside FIFA in order (i) to obtain that both be prevented to act; (ii) that each of them be deprived of the opportunity to contest the opposability of a decision to which they would not have been part and lastly (iii) to deny FIFA the possibility to circumvent an interdiction pronounced against it by having recourse to the regulatory power of the URBSFA”.[5] Finally, the Court argues “if the appellant were forced to lodge a claim against FIFA in front of the Swiss courts and against URBSFA in front of the Belgian Courts, this could potentially lead to irreconcilable solutions”.[6] As far as the claims against UEFA are concerned, which has not contrary to FIFA explicitly banned TPO, the Appeal Court is also convinced of their connectedness. It is so because UEFA “imposes to the clubs needing a license to participate in its competitions that they comply with the statutes and regulations of FIFA and, thus, with the disputed TPO ban “.[7]

This is again a powerful reminder that Sports Governing Bodies (SGBs) seated in Switzerland cannot evade the jurisdiction of the national courts of EU Member States when EU competition law is involved.[8] Under Article 5(3) Lugano Convention, EU Member States courts will be competent to deal with a civil liability claim based on EU competition law if the damage caused by the disputed measure/decision/regulation can be felt on the national territory of a Member State. Furthermore, if, as is usually the case for sports regulations, the rules have to be implemented by national sporting associations, the claims raised against the national SGBs will most likely be deemed connected to the original decisions/regulations of the international SGBs and justify the jurisdiction of the court of the domicile of the national SGB.[9]

II.    The admissibility of Doyen’s action

In this proceeding, as well as in the one initiated in front of the Paris court (FIFA’s legal submission in the Paris procedure has been published by football leaks), FIFA argues that Doyen’s action is not admissible due to the fact that the wrong administrator has initiated it. Indeed, under article 11.1 of Doyen’s own statutes the judicial representation is to be exercised by the local administrator designated by shareholder A acting in conjunction with the local administrator designated by shareholder B or by any other person designated by the general assembly. Yet, in practice Nelio Lucas, who fulfils none of the relevant criteria and was thus not authorized to act in Doyen’s name in judicial matters, lodged the action. However, Doyen could have under Belgium procedural rules ratified the judicial initiative taken by an incompetent organ. Doyen tried to do so but failed to organize the general assembly necessary to ratify Nelio Luca’s decision. Thus, the Court deems the action initiated by Doyen inadmissible. Luckily for Doyen it was not the sole party to the proceedings as the ASBL RFC Seraing joined the procedure. The Court believes the intervention of RFC Seraing in the proceedings is admissible and its interest to act is acknowledged. On this latter point, FIFA was arguing that RFC Seraing’s interest to act was inexistent due to the fact that the partnership agreement between Doyen and Seraing was contrary to the public order. However, in light of the divergent positions regarding the legality of TPO/TPI and of the on-going proceedings before various national courts and the European commission, the Belgium court is reluctant to admit that the interest of Seraing to act in this matter is illegitimate.

III.  Doyen’s (un)likelihood to prevail

Concerning the likelihood to prevail, however, the Court sided with the federations and refused to admit that the TPO/TPI ban was likely to restrict article 101(1) TFEU. On the one hand, as indices of the compatibility of the ban with EU law, it pointed out that the Commission was inclined to support the TPO ban, that FIFPro was clearly opposed to TPO and invokes fundamental values in support of the ban, and that the ban was adopted after a collective reflection involving many stakeholders and is aimed at tackling the negative externalities listed by the first instance court.[12] On the other hand, it refers to an academic article authored by Marmayou contesting the compatibility of TPO with EU law (this reference appears poorly chosen as the article is dedicated primarily to the FIFA regulations for intermediaries, for a stronger challenge to the compatibility of the TPO ban with EU law see Lindholm).[13] In any case, “it is obvious that a preliminary assessment cannot lead the Court to conclude, with sufficient certainty, that the ban would be contrary to EU competition rules”.[14] Finally, and this is the part of the ruling that seems to have been slightly misinterpreted by the press. The Court pointed out that Seraing and Doyen were asking in the main proceedings for a preliminary reference to the CJEU and that they were, therefore, conscious that they are not certain to prevail. However, the Appeal Court cannot, in the framework of a procedure involving provisory measures, ask a question to the CJEU, as it is unable to comply with the CJEU’s requirements for the admissibility of preliminary references (see the failed attempt in the UEFA FFP case). Hence, it is for the Commercial Court of Brussels, which is competent in the main proceeding, to decide whether it is necessary to do so. The Appeal Court (and the claimants as it cheekily points out) seems to believe that it could be needed, as it is not at all clear that the ban is contrary to EU competition law.

Conclusion

There are number of lessons that can be drawn from the judgment of the appeal court. Three stand out:

1. FIFA and UEFA cannot evade the jurisdiction of EU courts. Indeed, if an EU competition law violation of their rules is invoked they can be brought before the jurisdictions of the Member States
2. Doyen messed up in its original court filing by failing to abide by the procedure enshrined in its own statutes. This has no dire consequences in the Belgium proceedings due to presence of Seraing, but it might be a different story before the Paris court, where Doyen stands alone and the same procedural irregularity is invoked by FIFA.
3. To FIFA’s great satisfaction, the case against the TPO ban is not deemed strong enough to allow for the adoption of provisory measures blocking its implementation. As pointed out in our previous blog (and here) EU competition law is not a golden bullet that can be invoked easily to strike down FIFA or UEFA regulations. There is a high justificatory burden and the claimants will face an uphill battle to demonstrate that the ban is disproportionate (especially in light of the broad support for the ban amongst many key stakeholders).

This was only a small skirmish in a long legal war still before us. It will not be definitely over until the CJEU decides the matter (in 2018 at the earliest) or Doyen bows out of the game in the face of the high legal fees incurred. What is already certain is that the way EU law applies to sport is not straightforward and does not entail an economic/neoliberal logic blindly favourable to an unrestricted freedom to invest.

[1] Cour d’appel Bruxelles, Doyen Sports et ASBL RFC Seraing United c. URBSFA, FIFA et UEFA, 2015/KR/54, 10 mars 2016.

[2] “Il est difficilement contestable qu’en empêchant les appelantes de poursuivre l’exécution de leur convention de collaboration et la conclusion de nouvelles conventions « TPO » ou « TPI » spécifiques à des joueurs, l’interdiction litigieuse produit des effets dommageables sur le territoire belge.” Ibid, para.50.

[3] “C’est également en vain qu’il est soutenu que la convention de collaboration litigieuse ne serait qu’un artifice destiné à saisir les juridictions belges. En effet, elle a connu une exécution par des payements de sommes de Doyen Sports à l’ASBL RFC Seraing et surtout, son existence a été invoquée par la FIFA pour mener des poursuites disciplinaires contre le club dirigé par l’ASBL RFC Seraing et lui infliger une sanction.” Ibid.

[4] “L’URBSFA et la FIFA se partagent donc un pouvoir réglementaire et de contrainte qui leur permet, à l’une et à l’autre, agissant ensemble ou séparément, d’adopter l’interdiction litigieuse, de la mettre en œuvre et de prendre une mesure ou une décision à caractère individuel de nature à empêcher, compromettre et/ou entraver l’exécution du contrat conclu entre les appelantes.” Ibid, para.57

[5] “Le pouvoir règlementaire autonome de l’URBSFA et son pouvoir d’action propre justifient sa présence dans la procédure, en même temps que la FIFA afin (i) d’obtenir l’empêchement d’agir de l’une et de l’autre ; (ii) de priver chacune d’elles de la possibilité de contester l’opposabilité d’une décision judiciaire qui serait rendue dans une cause à laquelle elle serait demeurée étrangère et enfin (iii) d’empêcher la FIFA de contourner une interdiction qui serait prononcée à son encontre en recourant au pouvoir réglementaire de l’URBSFA.” Ibid.

[6] “Si les appelantes étaient dans l’obligation d’attraire la FIFA devant les juridictions suisses tout en citant l’URBSFA devant les juridictions belges, cette situation serait susceptible de conduire à des solutions inconciliables […]”, ibid. para.58.

[7] “En ce qui concerne l’UEFA, la connexité existe également. En effet, si elle n’est pas l’auteur des dispositions réglementaires et si elle n’est pas intervenue comme soutien dans l’exercice de poursuites disciplinaires menées contre le RFC SERAING, elle impose aux clubs qui doivent obtenir une licence pour participer aux compétitions qu’elle organise, de se plier aux statuts et aux règlements de la FIFA et à l’interdiction en cause.” Ibid., para.59.

[8] The same solution was adopted in 2012 by the French Cour de Cassation (Highest French Civil Court) in a dispute opposing the French agent Piau to FIFA. See Cour de cassation, civile, Chambre civile 1, 1 février 2012, publié au bulletin.

[9] This solution was also adopted by the OLG in the Pechstein ruling, see Oberlandesgericht München, 15 January 2015, Az. U 1110/14 Kart, para.A.I.1.a)aa) and bb).

[10] « L’urgence est établie. L’ASBL RFC Seraing est sous le coup d’une sanction disciplinaire dont seule l’exécution a été suspendue et elle est susceptible d’encourir de nouvelles poursuites et sanctions pour le cas où elle conclurait de nouvelles conventions TPO/TPI avec Doyen Sports ou toute autre société menant des activités de financement similaires.” Cour d’appel Bruxelles, Doyen Sports et ASBL RFC Seraing United c. URBSFA, FIFA et UEFA, 2015/KR/54, 10 mars 2016, para.78.

[11] « Ensuite, il n’est pas douteux que l’interdiction de poursuivre la convention de collaboration du 30 janvier 2015 et de conclure de nouvelles conventions TPO/TPI la prive d’une source de financement, sans qu’il soit démontré par les intimées qu’elle pourrait lui trouver un substitut adéquat par des emprunts classiques auprès de tiers.”Ibid.

[12] « D’un côté, il faut constater que :
- la Commission paraît s’être orientée vers la condamnation de la TPO;
- la FIPpro y est clairement opposée et invoque à cette fin des valeurs essentielles;
- l’interdiction est le résultat d’une réflexion collective à laquelle ont participé de nombreux interlocuteurs - et non pas seulement l’UEFA ou certains de ses membres - et elle est l’aboutissement de plusieurs constats que relève le premier juge dans son ordonnance : opacité, absence de contrôle des instances dirigeantes, importance du phénomène puisqu’il concerne le marché mondial, environnement ouvert à la corruption et aux pratiques frauduleuses, importance des sommes en jeu, etc...” Ibid, para.81.

[13] « De l’autre, de sérieuses réserves sont émises à propos de la légalité de l’interdiction de la TPO/TPI (voir ainsi l’article de J.M. MARMAYOU, « La compatibilité du nouveau règlement FIFA sur les intermédiaires avec le droit européen » Les cahiers de droit du sport, 2015, p. 15, pièce 38bis des appelantes).” Ibid.

[14] « Il est patent qu’un examen en apparence ne permet pas de conclure, avec la force nécessaire, que l’interdiction porte atteinte aux règles de la concurrence.” Ibid, para.82.