The European Commission’s competition decisions in the area of sport, which set out broad principles regarding the interface between sports-related activities and EU competition law, are widely publicized. As a result of the decentralization of EU competition law enforcement, however, enforcement activity has largely shifted to the national level. Since 2004, national competition authorities (NCAs) and national courts are empowered to fully apply the EU competition rules on anti-competitive agreements (Article 101 TFEU) and abuse of a dominant position (Article 102 TFEU).

Even though NCAs have addressed a series of interesting competition cases (notably dealing with the regulatory aspects of sport) during the last ten years, the academic literature has largely overlooked these developments. This is unfortunate since all stakeholders (sports organisations, clubs, practitioners, etc.) increasingly need to learn from pressing issues arising in national cases and enforcement decisions. In a series of blog posts we will explore these unknown territories of the application of EU competition law to sport.

We kick-start the series with a recent investigation of the Swedish National Competition Authority (NCA) into a so-called duty of loyalty clause applied by the Swedish Bodybuilding and Fitness Federation (Svenska Kroppskulturförbundet, SKKF).[1]

Source: http://www.scmp.com/photos/recent/all/1046780

The facts

The SKKF is the only national member of the International Bodybuilding Federation (IFBB) and organises various championships in the sport of bodybuilding and fitness in Sweden. It is essential for Swedish clubs, individual athletes, and officials to be a member of the SKKF as this is prerequisite for participation in IFBB international competitions.

The IFBB’s rules and regulations form an integral part of the SKKF’s Statutes. According to the SKKF’s rules, members who compete or otherwise participate in contests that are not approved or authorised by the SKFF or IFBB can be fined or suspended (i.e. the duty of loyalty clause). Athletes who have taken part in an unsanctioned event must also test for doping, at their own expenses, before they are allowed to compete at SKKF or IFBB events again.

In October 2013, BMR Sport Nutrition AB, a manufacturer of nutritional and bodybuilding supplements that also occasionally organises unsanctioned bodybuilding and fitness events in Sweden, filed a complaint before the NCA alleging that this rule violates Article 101 TFEU and Chapter 2, Article 1 of the Swedish Competition Act as it prevents event organisers from effectively competing with the SKKF (i.e. they are deprived from the chance to gather the human resources necessary for a successful event). The complainant submitted evidence that the threat of a fine and/or the withdrawal of their license by the SKKF effectively deterred athletes from participating in non-sanctioned events.

The context

The Swedish bodybuilding case follows a 2011 decision of the NCA, which ordered the Swedish Automobile Sports Federation (Svenska Bilsportförbundet, SBF) to abolish its rules preventing members from participating in motorsport events not authorized by the KKF.[2] On appeal by SBF, the Swedish Market Court upheld the decision in its entirety.[3]

This “precedent” case dealt with two duty of loyalty clauses in the SBF’s Common Rules prohibiting officials and contestants, licensed by the SBF, to officiate or participate in motor sport events other than those organised by the SBF or its member clubs. A violation of these provisions could result in a fine and/or withdrawal of the licence to officiate or compete in SBF events.

The NCA and the Market Court established that the contested rules constituted a decision by an association of undertakings. While the NCA had only applied national competition law, the Market Court, having defined the organisation of motorsport competitions in Sweden as the relevant product market, found that trade between the Member States was affected and therefore also applied Article 101 TFEU. According to the Court, the mere existence of the rules considerably distorted competition because they led to an absolute ban for SBF members to participate in non-sanctioned events. It concluded that, even if the rules would be regarded as serving a legitimate objective, the total ban could not be considered proportional to achieving such an objective. Moreover, the Court concluded that the restriction of competition could not benefit from an exemption under Article 101(3) TFEU or Chapter 2, Article 1 of the Swedish Competition Act.

While the Market Court’s judgment is far from innovative and carefully followed the proportionality test adopted by the Court of Justice in Meca-Medina, the case drew much media attention and raised concerns and criticism from the Swedish sports movement. Having demonstrated the remedial potential of EU competition law to challenge organisational sporting rules, it was only a matter of time before further national enforcement action would result from this case. 

The outcome

In a statement responding to the filing of the complaint by BMR Sport Nutrition AB, the chairman of the SKKF contested the apparent analogy with the SBF (motorsport) case. He essentially put forward three reasons. First, the SKKF is a non-profit organisation that pursues an aim in the general interest (i.e. the promotion of sport) and reinvests all its income, which is insufficient to cover its costs, in its sports activities, e.g. to fund education and training activities, doping tests, and travel expenses of the national team. This precludes the assumption that it pursues an economic activity. It follows that the SKKF cannot be regarded as an undertaking for the purposes of competition law (contrary to commercially successful sports associations). Second, the SKKF does not act independently of the will of its members. Similar to trade unions, member athletes voluntarily submit themselves to the applicable regulations when they join a member club. They can move to change certain rules if they find, in a true democratic spirit, a majority for such change. Alternatively, member athletes can choose to leave their club and join another association. Third, the right of freedom of association excludes the rule-making powers of the SKKF from the ambit of the competition rules.

Nevertheless, following several meetings between the NCA and the SKKF, the latter committed no longer to suspend or fine athletes, coaches, officials or judges that participate in non-sanctioned events.[4] The requirement that they must test for doping, at their own expense, was not abolished. According to the SKFF, this requirement was necessary to comply with the IFBB anti-doping rules, which conform to the provisions of the World Anti-Doping Code.

Given the commitment of the SKKF to no longer apply the duty of loyalty clause, the NCA decided to close the investigation without concluding whether competition law had been infringed.

Commentary

Those familiar with sports-related competition law cases will surely recognize the arguments of the chairman of the SKKF to assert immunity from the application of the competition rules. While they have been tried and tested many times, also before the Union courts, these arguments keep popping up. So let’s take a closer at why they are not accepted.

Regarding the claim that the SKKF is a non-profit organisation that exclusively aims to promote the development of the sport, it must be recalled that – if there still was any doubt - in Meca-Medina the Court of Justice made clear that the qualification of a rule as “purely sporting” was insufficient to remove the body adopting that rule (or the person engaging in the activity covered by it) from the scope of the Treaty. It thus must be examined, irrespective of the nature of the rule, whether the specific requirements of the various provisions of the Treaty are met. For the purpose of the competition rules, the notion of “undertaking” is a core jurisdictional element. According to established case law, this concept covers “any entity engaged in an economic activity regardless of the legal status of the entity or the way in which it is financed”.[5]

In an attempt to escape the bite of the competition rules, various other sports associations have time and again asserted that they cannot be regarded as “undertakings” because their objective is not the pursuit of economic interests. Even when only considering their regulatory functions, this reasoning finds no support in the case law. The Court of Justice has consistently held that the concept of undertaking does not presuppose a profit-making intention. The fact that entities are non-profit making has no effect on their classification as undertakings.[6] Similarly, the fact that entities pursue cultural or social activities does not in itself prevent these activities from being regarded as economic.[7]

In the case at hand, it is clear that in addition to the SKKF, even assuming that it organises bodybuilding and fitness events without seeking to make profit, other entities like BMR Sport Nutrition AB are also engaged in that activity (and do seek to make a profit). The SKKF offers goods or services on a market in competition with others. The success or economic survival of the SKKF ultimately depends on it being able to impose its services to the detriment of those offered by other event organisers. Consequently, the SKKF must be considered as an undertaking engaged in the markets for the organisation and marketing of bodybuilding and fitness events.

Regarding the somewhat chucklesome claim that the SKKF should be qualified as a trade union (or other professional association) that cannot act independently of the will of its members, it is sufficient to stress that Article 101 TFEU also applies to “associations of undertakings”. A federation like the SKKF, the beacon of democracy it may be, is not an association of employees but (also) of member clubs that engage in economic activities. Hence, the result of the delimitation between the federation acting “in its own right” or “merely as an executive organ of an agreement between its members” is irrelevant: Article 101 TFEU still applies to its regulations.

Regarding the claim based on the principle of freedom of association, indeed protected in the Swedish constitution as well as in the EU legal order, it is difficult to see how the duty of loyalty clause could be considered an inevitable result thereof. In any event, the Court of Justice has made clear that this right cannot be so absolute as to afford sports federations’ complete immunity from EU law.[8] In other words, the need to guarantee sports’ right of self-regulation cannot be a blank check to avoid scrutiny of measures that may conceal the pursuit of economic interest. Provided that its rules are proportional to a legitimate objective, SKKF should have nothing to fear from the competition rules.

So contrary to what the chairman of the SKKF contented, the analogy between its rule and the contested rule in the SBF (motorsport) case was accurate. A confrontation with this inconvenient truth was sufficient to convince the SKKF to commit itself to no longer suspend or fine athletes, coaches, officials or judges for participating in non-sanctioned competitions. That the requirement of a doping test (for those having participated in competing events) could remain clearly illustrates that competition law will leave unscratched restrictive sporting rules that are deemed inherent and proportionate to the organisation and proper conduct of sport. It almost makes you wonder what all the fuss is about when competition law confronts the world of sport.

One final note: the contested “SKKF” rule is the national equivalent of the clause contained in the IFBB Constitution (which forms an integral part of the SKKF’s statutes). Article 19.4.7 stipulates that:

“Any athlete or official who participates in a competition or event not approved or sanctioned by the IFBB, may be fined, suspended or expelled. The amount of the fine as well as the suspension period will be decided by the IFBB Disciplinary Commission … Once the suspension has been completed and before participating in an IFBB competition or event, the athlete must be drug tested at his or her own expenses”

Participation in an event or competition includes (but is not limited to!) competing, guest posing, giving a seminar, lecture or similar presentation, judging, officiating, allowing the use of one’s name and/or likeness for promotional purposes, and/or taking part in a non-IFBB sanctioned competition or event in any other way, shape or form.

To the IFBB and all other European member federations, who have to the author’s knowledge not decided to no longer enforce or abolish this rule: beware!

[1] Swedish Competition Authority (Konkurrensverket), 28 May 2014, Bodybuilding and Fitness Competitions, Decision dnr. 590/2013, http://www.kkv.se/upload/Filer/Konkurrens/2014/13-0590.pdf

[2] Swedish Competition Authority (Konkurrensverket) 13 May 2011, Swedish Automobile Sports Federation, Decision dnr. 709/2009, available at http://www.kkv.se/upload/Filer/Konkurrens/2011/Beslut/09-0709.pdf

[3] Swedish Market Court's ruling 2012:16 in Case A 5/11, Svenska Bilsportförbundet v Konkurrensverket (December 20, 2012), http://www.kkv.se/t/NewsArchive.aspx?id=529

[4] The SKKF notified its member athletes and clubs of the changes via its newsletter and website.

[5] Case C-41/90 Höfner and Elser [1991] ECR I-1979, para. 21.

[6] See e.g. Case C-222/04 Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze v Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze SpA and others [2006] ECR I-289; Case C-475/99 Firma Ambulanz Glöckner v Landkreis Südwestpfalz [2001] ECR I-8089; Joined Cases 209/78 to 215/78 and 218/78 Van Landewyck v Commission [1980] ECR 3125; C-244/94 Fédération Française des Sociétés d’Assurances and others v Ministère de l'Agriculture [1995] ECR I-4013; Joined Cases C-115/97 to C-117/07 Brentjens’ Handelsonderneming BV v Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds voor de Handel in Bouwmaterialen [1999] ECR I-6025.

[7] See e.g. Joined case C-180/98 to C-184/98 Pavel Pavlov and Others v Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten [2000] ECR I-6451; Case C‑218/00 Cisal [2002] ECR I‑691.

[8] Case C-415/93 Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association and others v Bosman and others [1995] ECR I-4921, paras. 79-80

Editor’s note: Thomas Terraz is a third year LL.B. candidate at the International and European Law programme at The Hague University of Applied Sciences with a specialisation in European Law. Currently he is pursuing an internship at the T.M.C. Asser Institute with a focus on International and European Sports Law.

1.     Introduction

Christmas has come very early this year for the EU sports law world in the form of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) judgment in TopFit eV, Daniele Biffi v Deutscher Leichtathletikverband eV by exclusively analyzing the case on the basis of European citizenship rights and its application to rules of sports governing bodies that limit their exercise. The case concerned an Italian national, Daniele Biffi, who has been residing in Germany for over 15 years and participates in athletic competitions in the senior category, including the German national championships. In 2016, the Deutscher Leichtathletikverband (DLV), the German Athletics Federation, decided to omit a paragraph in its rules that allowed the participation of EU nationals in national championships on the same footing as German citizens. As a result, participation in the national championship was subject to prior authorization of the organizers of the event, and even if participation was granted, the athlete may only compete outside of classification and may not participate in the final heat of the competition. After having been required to compete out of classification for one national championship and even dismissed from participating in another, Mr. Biffi and TopFit, his athletics club based in Berlin, brought proceedings to a German national court. The national court submitted a request for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU in which it asked essentially whether the rules of the DLV, which may preclude or at least require a non-national to compete outside classification and the final heat, are contrary to Articles 18, 21 and 165 TFEU. Articles 18 and 21 TFEU, read together, preclude discrimination on the basis of nationality against European citizens exercising their free movement. The underlying (massive) question here is whether these provisions can be relied on by an amateur athlete against a private body, the DLV.

Covered in a previous blog, the Advocate General’s (AG) opinion addressed the case from an entirely different angle. Instead of tackling the potentially sensitive questions attached with interpreting the scope of European citizenship rights, the opinion focused on the application of the freedom of establishment because the AG found that participation in the national championships was sufficiently connected to the fact Mr. Biffi was a professional trainer who advertised his achievements in those competitions on his website. Thus, according to the AG, there was a sufficient economic factor to review the case under a market freedom. The CJEU, in its decision, sidelined this approach and took the application of European citizenship rights head on.

The following will dissect the Court’s decision by examining the three central legal moves of the ruling: the general applicability of EU law to amateur sport, the horizontal applicability of European citizenship rights, and justifications and proportionality requirements of access restrictions to national competitions.

2.     Applicability of EU Law to Amateur Sport

The CJEU has long made the distinction that sporting activity falls under the scope of EU law “in so far as it constitutes an economic activity.”[1]  Since this ruling in the 1974, treaty revisions, the natural development of the CJEU’s case law, and the increasing economic interests involved in sport has meant that defining the boundaries of EU law’s application to sport has become increasingly difficult. These borderline cases can especially arise when an amateur athlete is barred from a competition, since amateur athletes prima facie do not have an economic interest. For example, the CJEU in the Deliège case explored the extent to which amateur athletes may enjoy market freedoms. The Court ruled that amateur athletes may come within the scope of EU law when the exercise of their sporting activity is sufficiently connected to an economic sphere. In this case, an amateur athlete’s sponsorship contracts and grants were considered to be sufficient economic activity to fall within the scope of the freedom to provide services.[2] Amateur athletes in this case still needed to demonstrate that they had a minimum economic interest that was being affected by a sport rule. Sporting rules lacking economic effect would thus fall outside the scope of the market freedoms.

The TopFit ruling changes this understanding because Mr. Biffi is an amateur athlete and instead of invoking the market freedoms, he decided to rely on his European citizenship rights. These rights derive from being a citizen of the Union and do not require the exercise of an economic activity to be applicable. Indeed, Article 21 TFEU gives the free movement of persons a whole new dimension where an economic interest is no longer a prerequisite to fall under the aegis of the fundamental freedoms.[3] The CJEU confirmed this reality in Baumbast when it declared that the introduction of Union citizenship “has conferred a right, for every citizen, to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States” regardless of their status as economically active or nonactive.[4] Thus, the Court in TopFit states, in reference to other cases, that one’s exercise of their free movement under their European citizenship, includes the “access to leisure activities” and that Article 21 (1) TFEU also intends “to promote the gradual integration of the EU citizen concerned in the society of the host Member State.”[5] It then extends this reasoning to sport by relying on Article 165 TFEU, the Article which explicitly introduced sport into the Treaties, which “reflects the considerable social importance of sport” and that the practice of an amateur sport helps “to create bonds with the society of the State” or “to consolidate them.”[6] The Court goes even further to unequivocally state that this is the “case with regard to participation in sporting competitions at all levels.”[7] On this basis, it is possible for amateur sportspersons to rely on Article 18 and 21 TFEU.[8] Therefore, the Court has confirmed that EU law, through rights derived from European citizenship, may apply to restrictions of free movement that arise from ‘all levels’ of amateur sport, basically extending the reach of EU law applicability to all types of sports activity on the territory of the EU, provided by public authorities or (as we will see in the next section) by private ones.  

3.     Horizontal Applicability of European Citizenship Rights

The next issue that materializes from the ability of amateur sports persons to rely on European citizenship rights is whether these rights may be invoked against private entities, the sport governing bodies. Indeed, sports throughout the European Union is primarily governed by a network of private associations integrated in the famous pyramid of sports. Treaty articles may be relied upon horizontally, meaning against other private parties, by individuals so long as the relevant article is “sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional to be invoked by individuals.”[9] AG Tanchev rightly argued in his opinion that giving Article 21 TFEU horizontal direct effect would be a “significant constitutional step” by being the “first time this century that a provision of the Treaty has been selected to join the small number of provisions having the quality of horizontal direct effect.”[10] In particular, the AG explains that Article 21 TFEU has always been used in relation to disputes arising between an individual and the State and giving horizontal direct effect to Article 21 TFEU could damage legal certainty.[11] 

Regardless, the Court in TopFit was not dissuaded and decided to allow Mr. Biffi to rely on Articles 18 and 21 TFEU against the DLV, a private entity. It explains that the fundamental objectives of the European Union “would be compromised if the abolition of barriers of national origin could be neutralised by obstacles” emanating from private entities.[12] The Court then goes on to elaborate that this principle applies “where a group or organisation exercises a certain power over individuals and is in a position to impose on them conditions which adversely affect the exercise of the fundamental freedoms.”[13] Such an interpretation of the horizontal direct effect of Article 21 TFEU is in line with the ‘relatively’ limited horizontal direct effect already described by De Mol for Article 18 TFEU that “concerns private relations in which one party is weaker than the other party.”[14] Thus, in order for one to invoke Article 21 TFEU horizontally, it is necessary to scrutinize the nature of the relationship and power (im)balance between the parties. The more asymmetrical the relationship, the more likely Article 21 TFEU may be relied on horizontally. On the whole, TopFit confirms that not only may Article 21 TFEU have horizontal direct effect but that perhaps this horizontal effect is not completely unlimited, although it is questionable what the practical consequences of this distinction actually entails.

In the sporting context, however, the message is clear: non-economic sporting activity, such as amateur level sports with zero economic benefits derived from it, falls under the scope of EU law and Article 21 TFEU may be invoked by EU citizens against the private associations which are more often than not ruling sports at a local, regional and national level in the Member States. In short, all (economic and non-economic) sports activity is now subjected to the control of EU law (in particular with regard to anti-discrimination).

4.     Justifications and Proportionality of Access Restrictions to National Competitions

After having found that Mr. Biffi may rely on his European citizenship rights against the DLV, the Court quite readily finds that there has been a restriction to this right. It asserts that the DLV’s rules could result in non-German athletes receiving less investment from their clubs since they may not participate in the national championships in the same manner as German athletes. Consequently, “athletes of other Member States would be less able to integrate themselves” in their club and the wider society of the Member State, and the effects of this “are likely to make amateur sport less attractive for EU citizens.”[15] However, a restriction on a fundamental freedom may be justified if it pursues a legitimate objective and meets the proportionality requirements. The Court goes on to entertain several justifications put forward by the DLV and firmly rejects each as an illegitimate objective. These rejected justifications include: “the argument that the public expects that the national champion of a country will have the nationality of that country”; that the national champion is used to represent his country in the international championship (it was clear that this was not the case for those competing in the senior category); and a “need to adopt the same rules for all age categories” (since it was obvious the DLV had adopted different rules in regards to national selection depending on the age category).[16] In the end, the Court only accepts one justification concerning preventing the participation of non-nationals in the final heat specifically due to the nature of eliminatory heats in some sports. It recognizes that the participation of a non-national may prevent a national from “winning the championship and of hindering the designation of the best nationals.”[17]

Having found a legitimate justification, the Court moves on to considerations of proportionality and reasons that “non-admission of non-nationals to the final must no go beyond what is necessary”, and it recalls the fact that the exclusion of non-nationals is only recent.[18] In other words, the Court essentially finds it rather strange that a sudden rule change became necessary to prevent the participation of non-nationals in the finals and, in light of this, finds the means to be unnecessary and generally disproportionate to the aim sought.

Next, it also recalls that participation of non-nationals was also subject to the authorization of the organizers and had resulted in Mr. Biffi’s complete exclusion in one competition. The Court explains that such an authorization scheme must “be based on objective and non-discriminatory criteria which are known in advance” to be justified. In regard to proportionality, it finds that “total non-admission” of a non-national athlete to the national championship in this circumstance to be disproportionate because due to the DLV’s own admission, there were ways for athletes to compete in the competition, either in the preliminary heats and/or outside classification. None of the DLV’s justifications were able to survive the proportionality requirements.

However, this does not mean that there could never be a legitimate justification that can meet the proportionality requirements. Interestingly, before it examined any of the DLV’s submitted justifications, the Court essentially gave a hint to sport governing bodies wishing to introduce nationality restrictions to the organization of their national competitions. It states that it is legitimate to limit the award of the national title to a national of the relevant Member State because the nationality requirement is an essential feature of holding the title.[19] Thus, it seems the Court would readily accept a restriction to the ability of non-national athletes to actually win the title.

5.     Conclusion

The CJEU took full advantage of the case before it by demonstrating how a lack of an economic interest does not give sport governing bodies full reign to prevent amateur athletes seeking to further integrate themselves in their host Member State’s society through amateur sport. It also signals the Court’s willingness to observe and take into consideration the specific characteristics of the sport and competition structure in question. Additionally, TopFit has opened exciting new judicial avenues for the exercise and enforcement of European citizenship rights against powerful private entities. In particular, sport governing bodies should pay close attention to the TopFit ruling because it further illustrates how they may exercise their regulatory autonomy provided they follow the analytical framework imposed by the CJEU in its control of discriminatory restrictions to market freedoms and European citizenship rights.

[1] Case 36-74 B.N.O. Walrave and L.J.N. Koch v Association Union cycliste internationale, Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie and Federación Española Ciclismo [1974] ECR 1974 –01405 para 4.

[2] Joined Cases C-51/96 and C-191/97 Christelle Deliège v Ligue francophone de judo et disciplines associées ASBL, Ligue belge de judo ASBL, Union européenne de judo [2000] ECR I-02549 para 51.

[3] See Section III, Ferdinand Wollenschlager, ‘A New Fundamental Freedom beyond Market Integration: Union Citizenship and its Dynamics for Shifting the Economic Paradigm of European Integration’ [2011] European Law Journal 1.

[4] Case C-413/99 Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] ECR I-08091 para 81 and 83.

[5] Case C-22/18 TopFit e.V. Daniele Biffi v Deutscher Leichtathletikverband e.V. [2019] ECLI:EU:C:2019:497 para 31-32.

[6] ibid para 33-34.

[7] ibid para 34.

[8] ibid para 35.

[9] Case C-438-05 International Transport Workers’ Federation and Finnish Seamen’s Union v Viking Line ABP and OÜ Viking Line Eesti [2007] ECR I-10779 para 66; see also Paul Craig and Gráinne de Búrca, EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (6^th edn, OUP 2015) 192.

[10] Case C-22/18 TopFit e.V. Daniele Biffi v Deutscher Leichtathletikverband e.V. [2019] ECLI:EU:C:2019:181, Opinion of AG Tanchev, para 56 and 100.

[11] ibid para 101 and 103.

[12] TopFit (n 5) para 38.

[13] ibid para 39.

[14] Mirjam de Mol, ‘The Novel Approach of the CJEU on the Horizontal Direct Effect of the EU Principle of Non-Discrimination: (Unbridled) Expansionism of EU law?’ [2011] Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 109.

[15] TopFit (n 5) para 46-47.

[16] ibid para 54 and 56-57.

[17] ibid para 61.

[18] ibid para 62

[19] ibid para 50.