Asser International Sports Law Blog

The newly launched ‘Global Sport and Human Rights Research Network’, an initiative jointly hosted by the T.M.C. Asser Instituut and the Centre for Sport and Human Rights, together with the European Union-funded project ‘Human Rights Empowered Through Athletes Rights (H.E.R.O.)' is organising an in-person conference on October 23 at the Asser Institute in The Hague, to map the field of athletes' rights and engage in critical discussions on protection of these rights and how to prevent rights violations.

The one-day conference will kick off with a presentation by the H.E.R.O. team on their research results, followed by a short panel discussion. The rest of the day will be filled with four panels on different aspects related to the topic of athletes’ human rights, with speakers from academic institutions around the world.

Check out the full programme HERE and register for free HERE.

undefined

Co-funded by the European Union logo in png for web usage

Editor's note: Saverio P. Spera is an Italian qualified attorney-at-law. He has practiced civil and employment law in Italy and briefly worked at the Asser International Sports Law Centre before joining FIFA in 2017. Until May 2024, he has worked within the FIFA legal division - Litigation Department, and lectured in several FIFA sports law programmes. In the spring of 2024 he has co-founded SP.IN Law, a Zurich based international sports law firm.

On 21 December 2023 a judicial hat-trick stormed the scene of EU sports law. That day, the European Court of Justice (the “ECJ”) issued three decisions: (i) European Superleague Company, SL v FIFA and UEFA (Case C-333/21); (ii) UL and SA Royal Antwerp Football Club v Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL (Case C-680/21)and (iii) International Skating Union (ISU) v. European Commission – Case C-124/21.

These judgments were much scrutinised (see here, here and here) in the past 6 months. For the reader’s relief, this paper will not venture into adding another opinion on whether this was a fatal blow to the foundation of EU sports law or if, after all, the substantive change is minimal (as persuasively argued here). It will analyse, instead, UEFA’s recent amendments of its Statutes and Authorisation Rules governing International Club Competitions (the “Authorisation Rules”) and whether these amendments, clearly responding to the concerns raised in the ISU judgment with respect to the sports arbitration system,[1] might pave the way for other Sports Governing Bodies (SGBs) to follow suit and what the implications for CAS arbitration might be. More...

Editor's note: Ella Limbach is currently completing her master’s degree in International Sport Development and Politics at the German Sport University Cologne. Her interests include human rights of athletes, labour rights in sport, the intersection of gender, human rights and sport and the working conditions in women’s football. Previously, she graduated from Utrecht University with a LL.M in Public International Law with a specialization in International Human Rights Law. This blog was written during Ella's internship at the Asser Institute where she conducted research for the H.E.R.O. project. The topic of this blog is also the subject of her master's thesis.

Women’s football has experienced exponential growth over the past decade, though the professionalization of the women’s game continues to face barriers that can be tied to the historical exclusion of women from football and insufficient investment on many levels. While attendance records have been broken and media coverage has increased, the rise in attention also highlighted the need for special accommodations for female footballers regarding health and safety at the workplace. Female footballers face gender specific circumstances which can have an impact on their health such as menstruation, anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries and the impact of maternity. As the recent ILO Brief on ‘Professional athletes and the fundamental principles and rights at work' states “gender issues related to [occupational health and safety] risks are often neglected (p. 23).” While it could be argued that from a human rights point of view article 13(c) of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination of Women stipulates “the right to participate in […] sports [on an equal basis to men],” reality shows that so far practices of men’s football were simply applied to women’s football without taking into consideration the physiological differences between male and female players and the implications that can have for female players’ health. The ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work(ILO Declaration, amended in 2022) includes “a safe and healthy working environment” as one of the fundamental rights at work (Art. 2e). This begs the question whether the scope of the right to occupational health and safety at the workplace includes the consideration of female specific health issues in women’s football. More...

Editor's note: Dr Rishi Gulati is Associate Professor in International Law at the University of East Anglia (UK) and Barrister in Law. He has a PhD from King’s College London, Advanced Masters in Public International Law from Leiden University, and a Bachelor of Laws from the Australian National University. Amongst other publications, he is the author of Access to Justice and International Organisations (Cambridge University Press, 2022). He has previously worked for the Australian Government, has consulted for various international organizations, and regularly appears as counsel in transnational cases.

On 1 December 2024, Jay Shah, the son of India’s powerful Home Minister and Modi confidante Amit Shah, will take over the role of the Independent Chair of the International Cricket Council (ICC). This appointment reflects the influence India now has on the governance of cricket globally. A key test Jay Shah will face is whether or not the ICC should suspend the Afghanistan Cricket Board (ACB) from its membership as Afghanistan no longer maintains a women’s cricket team contrary to the organization’s own rules, as well as its human rights responsibilities. More...

The Editors of the International Sports Law Journal (ISLJ) invite you to submit abstracts for the next edition of the ISLJ Conference on International Sports Law, which will take place on 24 and 25 October 2024 at the Asser Institute in The Hague. The ISLJ, published by Springer and TMC Asser Press, is the leading academic publication in the field of international sports law and the conference is a unique occasion to discuss the main legal issues affecting international sports and its governance with renowned academic experts.

We welcome abstracts from academics and practitioners on all issues related to international and transnational sports law and their impact on the governance of sport. We also welcome panel proposals (including a minimum of three presenters) on specific issues of interest to the Journal and its readers. For this year’s edition, we specifically invite submissions on the following themes and subthemes:

Reformism in transnational sports governance: Drivers and impacts

Legal and social drivers of reforms in transnational sports governance
The role of strategic litigation (before the EU/ECtHR/National courts) as a driver of reform;
The role of public/fan pressure groups on clubs, competition organisers and governments as a driver of change.
The impact of internal reforms in transnational sports governance: Cosmetic or real change? (e.g. IOC Agenda 2020+5, FIFA governance reforms, CAS post-Pechstein changes, WADA sfter the Russian doping scandal)
Emerging alternatives to private sports governance – the UK’s Independent Football Regulator.

The organization and regulation of mega sporting events: Current and future challenges

Mega-sporting events as legalized sites of digital surveillance
Greening mega-sporting events (e.g. carbon neutral pledges, environmental footprints of events, the impact of multiple hosting sites)
Mega-sporting events and the protection of human rights and labour rights (e.g. Paris 2024 Social Charter, Euro 2024 human rights commitments)
The Olympic Games and athletes’ economic rights (remuneration/advertisement)
Reviews of the legal issues raised at Euro 2024 in Germany and the Paris 2024 Olympic Games
Previews of the legal issues likely to have an impact on the FIFA 2026 World Cup and the Milano-Cortina 2026 Winter Olympic Games

Please send your abstract of 300 words and CV no later than 15 July 2024 to a.duval@asser.nl. Selected speakers will be informed by 30 July.

The selected participants will be expected to submit a draft of their paper by 1 October 2024. Papers accepted and presented at the conference are eligible for publication in a special issue of the ISLJ, subject to peer-review.

The Asser Institute will provide a limited number of travel & accommodation grants (max. 300€). If you wish to be considered for a grant, please explain why in your submission.

This seminar is part of the Asser International Sports Law Centre's event series on the intersection between transnational sports law and governance and gender. Dr Pavlidis will present her take on feminist theories and sport governance by exploring sports and in particular Australian rules football and roller derby as sites of cultural transformation.

Register HERE

Australian rules football is Australia's most popular spectator sport and for most of its history it has been a men's-only sport, including in its governance and leadership. This is slowly changing. Roller derby on the other hand has been reinvented with an explicitly DIY (Do It Yourself) governance structure that resists formal incorporation by 'outsiders'. This paper provides an overview of sport governance in the Australian context before focusing in on these two seemingly disparate sport contexts to explore the challenges of gender inclusive governance in sport.

Dr Adele Pavlidis is an Associate Professor in Sociology with the School of Humanities, Languages and Social Science at Griffith University in Australia. She has published widely on a range of sociocultural issues in sport and leisure, with a focus on gender and power relations. Theoretically her work traverses contemporary scholarship on affect, power and organisations, and she is deeply interested in social, cultural and personal transformation and the entanglements between people, organisations, and wellbeing.

We look forward to hearing Dr Pavlidis present on this topic, followed by reflections and comments by Dr Åsa Ekvall from the Erasmus Center for Sport Integrity & Transition, and Dr Antoine Duval from the T.M.C. Asser Institute. There will also be a Q&A with the audience.

Download the latest programme here

Register HERE

Reformism in transnational sports governance: Drivers and impacts

Legal and social drivers of reforms in transnational sports governance
The role of strategic litigation (before the EU/ECtHR/National courts) as a driver of reform;
The role of public/fan pressure groups on clubs, competition organisers and governments as a driver of change.
The impact of internal reforms in transnational sports governance: Cosmetic or real change? (e.g. IOC Agenda 2020+5, FIFA governance reforms, CAS post-Pechstein changes, WADA sfter the Russian doping scandal)
Emerging alternatives to private sports governance – the UK’s Independent Football Regulator.

The organization and regulation of mega sporting events: Current and future challenges

Mega-sporting events as legalized sites of digital surveillance
Greening mega-sporting events (e.g. carbon neutral pledges, environmental footprints of events, the impact of multiple hosting sites)
Mega-sporting events and the protection of human rights and labour rights (e.g. Paris 2024 Social Charter, Euro 2024 human rights commitments)
The Olympic Games and athletes’ economic rights (remuneration/advertisement)
Reviews of the legal issues raised at Euro 2024 in Germany and the Paris 2024 Olympic Games
Previews of the legal issues likely to have an impact on the FIFA 2026 World Cup and the Milano-Cortina 2026 Winter Olympic Games

Please send your abstract of 300 words and CV no later than 15 July 2024 to a.duval@asser.nl. Selected speakers will be informed by 30 July.

The Asser Institute will provide a limited number of travel & accommodation grants (max. 300€). If you wish to be considered for a grant, please explain why in your submission.

Join us for the first online version of our unique training programme on ‘Sport and human rights’ jointly organised by the Centre for Sport and Human Rights and the Asser Institute taking place on May 22-24 & May 27-29.

After the success of the first editions in 2022 and 2023 the programme returns, focusing on the link between the sport and human rights and zooming in on a number of topics, such as the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights and their application in sports. We will also adopt a human rights lens to sport governance and address freedom of speech, the rights of athletes, and access to remedy.

Tackling contemporary human rights challenges in sport

The programme brings together the latest in academic research with practical experiences from working in the field in an interactive package, fostering productive exchanges between the speakers and participants. Theoretical knowledge will be complemented by exposure to hands-on know-how.

Participants will have the opportunity to learn from experts from the Asser Institute, the Centre for Sport and Human Rights, and high-profile external speakers from both academia and practice.

What will you gain?

An extensive introduction to the emergence of the sport and human rights movement
A greater understanding of the normative framework for human rights standards in sport
A comprehensive overview of the latest developments in the interplay between gender and sports
Practical know-how to govern human rights in the context of sporting organisations
Practical know-how to address human rights risks in the context of day-to-day sports, including safeguarding
Practical know-how to access remedy in human rights disputes
The opportunity to engage in discussions and network with leading academics and professionals

Topics addressed in this summer programme include:

The emergence of the sport and human rights discussion/movement
The integration of human rights in the governance of sport
The protection of athletes’ rights
Access to remedy for sport-related human rights harms

Read the full programme.

Register HERE

In partnership with:

undefined

Editor's note: This is a call for papers for a workshop inviting sports lawyers and historians to reflect on how the lex olympica developed within the last 128 years through the prism of challenges and disruptions to the Olympic Games and the sharp and incremental changes they provoked.

Background

The lex olympica are legal rules the International Olympic Committee created to govern the Olympic Movement. Since the revival of the Olympic Games in 1896, the lex olympica, with the Olympic Charter taking its central place, has undergone tremendous changes. It has increased not only in volume but also in complexity and reach.

While some changes were designed to give further detail to the Olympic values, others seem to serve as responses to numerous disruptions and challenges that the Olympic Games experienced on their way. History shows that the Olympic Games faced boycotts, apartheid, armed conflicts, wars, propelled commercialisation, corruption, critique based on human rights and sustainability, pandemics, and many other obstacles.

One can see triggers for changes in specific incidents, broader societal changes, external political interests, long-term internal processes, etc., or further differentiate them according to relevant stakeholders impacting the change, such as IOC, NOCs, IFs, NFs, athletes, commercial partners, television, activist groups, NGOs, governments, host countries, etc. Regardless of their taxonomies, all these challenges met different reactions and affected the Olympic regulation in various ways. The IOC chose to distance the Olympic Games from some challenges and fully embrace others.

Keynote speakers

Jörg Krieger, Associate Professor, Department of Public Health and Sport Science, Aarhus University; co-leader of the Lillehammer Olympic and Paralympic Studies Center; Associate Professor II Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences.

Mark James, Professor of Sports Law and Director of Research in the Manchester Law School at Manchester Metropolitan University, Editor-in-Chief of the International Sports Law Journal.

Deadline for abstract submission: 15 June 2024

Confirmation of participation: 30 June 2024

Publication: Selected contributions will be considered for a special issue at International Sports Law Journal

Contact information

Yuliya Chernykh (Associate Professor)

yuliya.chernykh@inn.no

Organizer

Lillehammer Olympic and Paralympic Studies Center (LOSC), Inland School of Business and Social Sciences and Legal development research group at INN University

Dear readers,

I have the pleasure to inform you that our (with Prof. Johan Lindholm and Alexander Kruger from Umeå University) edited volume entitled 'The European Roots of the Lex Sportiva: How Europe Rules Global Sport' has been published Open Access by Hart Publishing.

You can freely access the volume at: https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/monograph?docid=b-9781509971473

Abstract:

This open access book explores the complexity of the lex sportiva, the transnational legal regime governing international sports. Pioneering in its approach, it maps out the many entanglements of the transnational governance of sports with European legal processes and norms. The contributors trace the embeddedness of the lex sportiva within national law, European Union law and the European Convention on Human Rights. While the volume emphasizes the capacity of sports governing bodies to leverage the resources of national law to spread the lex sportiva globally, it also points at the fact that European legal processes are central when challenging the status quo as illustrated recently in the Semenya and Superleague cases. Ultimately, the book is also a vantage point to start critically investigating the Eurocentricity and the complex materiality underpinning the lex sportiva.

Table of contents:

1. Made in Europe: Lex Sportiva as Embedded Transnational Law - 1–14 - Antoine Duval , Alexander Krüger and Johan Lindholm

I. The European Roots of Lex Sportiva

2. Embedded Lex Sportiva: The Swiss Roots of Transnational Sports Law and Governance - 17–40 - Antoine Duval

3. Putting the Lex into Lex Sportiva: The Principle of Legality in Sports - 41–68 - Johan Lindholm

4. Europeanisation of the Olympic Host (City) Contracts - 69–92 - Yuliya Chernykh

5. The Influence of European Legal Culture on the Evolution of Lex Olympica and Olympic Law - 93–118 - Mark James and Guy Osborn

6. Who Regulates the Regulators? How European Union Regulation and Regulatory Institutions May Shape the Regulation of the Football Industry Globally - 119–152 - Christopher A Flanagan

7. The Europeanisation of Clean Sport: How the Council of Europe and the European Union Shape the Proportionality of Ineligibility in the World Anti-Doping Code - 153–188 - Jan Exner

II. The Integration of European Checks into the Lex Sportiva

8. False Friends: Proportionality and Good Governance in Sports Regulation - 191–210 - Mislav Mataija

9. Sport Beyond the Market? Sport, Law and Society in the European Union - 211–228 - Aurélie Villanueva

10. EU Competition Law and Sport: Checks and Balances ‘à l’européenne’ - 229–256 - Rusa Agafonova

11. Is the Lex Sportiva on Track for Intersex Person’s Rights? The World Athletics’ Regulations Concerning Female Athletes with Differences of Sex Development in the Light of the ECHR - 257–282 - Audrey Boisgontier

III. Engaging Critically with a Eurocentric Lex Sportiva

12. Lex Sportiva and New Materialism: Towards Investigations into Sports Law’s Dark Materials? 285–308 - Alexander Krüger

This is the second and final part of the ‘Real Madrid Saga’. Where the first part outlined the background of the case and the role played by the Spanish national courts, the second part focuses on the EU Commission’s recovery decision of 4 July 2016 and dissects the arguments advanced by the Commission to reach it. As will be shown, the most important question the Commission had to answer was whether the settlement agreement of 29 July 2011 between the Council of Madrid and Real Madrid constituted a selective economic advantage for Real Madrid in the sense of Article 107(1) TFEU.[1] Before delving into that analysis, the blog will commence with the other pending question, namely whether the Commission also scrutinized the legality of the operation Bernabeú-Opañel under EU State aid law. By way of reminder, this operation consisted of Real Madrid receiving from the municipality the land adjacent to the Bernabéu stadium, while transferring in return €6.6 million, as well as plots of land in other areas of the city.

The Commission’s ‘pragmatic’ solution regarding the Operation Bernabéu-Opañel

As was explained in part 1 of this blog, during the formal investigation period (i.e. from 18 December 2013 until 4 July 2016), the operation Bernabéu-Opañel (referred to by the Commission as the ‘2011 urban development agreement’) was firstly suspended by the Madrid High Court (31 July 2014) and later completely annulled (2 February 2015) by that same Court. It is worth reiterating that the Court believed there to be a sufficient link between the 2011 settlement agreement and the operation Bernabéu-Opañel in order to examine the agreements together.[2]

The Commission, however, was actually surprisingly brief on this matter. As can be read from paragraphs 79 and 80 from the decision, “(a)s a result of (the judgment of 2 February 2015), the 2011 urban development agreement has been cancelled between the parties. Consequently, that agreement will no longer be implemented so that the Commission assessment of the 2011 urban development agreement has become without object. The present Decision therefore only examines the 2011 settlement agreement under State aid rules”.[3]

From an EU State aid law perspective, declaring the operation Bernabéu-Opañel “without object” makes sense. With the agreement annulled, there has been no transfer of resources from the State to Real Madrid of any sorts, nor could Real Madrid have obtained an economic advantage from an annulled agreement. Therefore, removing all the problematic aspects of the agreement from a State aid perspective. Yet, it does remain slightly ironic that that the ‘standstill obligation’ was applied to an agreement that was later on never analysed by the Commission. True, the subsequent annulment (based solely on Spanish administrative law) made Commission scrutiny redundant, but one does wonder what the Commission would have decided had the Madrid Court not annulled the operation.

The 2011 settlement agreement under Article 107(1) TFEU

By way of reminder, in the opening decision, the Commission primarily doubted whether:

1) It was impossible for the Council of Madrid to transfer the Las Tablas property to Real Madrid;

2) This legal impossibility automatically led to an obligation for the Council of Madrid to compensate Real Madrid;

3) A market value of the Las Tablas plot of land has been sought;

4) And whether the value of the properties which were transferred to Real Madrid by the 2011 settlement agreement were market conform.[4]

In reaction to the opening decision Spain argued that transferring the plot in Las Tablas was illegal based on the local urban law 9/2001 of 2001, this interpretation was later confirmed by the Spanish High Court in 2004. Yet, this was already the case in 1998 when the Madrid Council agreed to transfer the land to Real Madrid.[5] Given that Real Madrid had legitimate expectations that it was the owner of the land, it has suffered damages as a consequence of the transfer’s invalidity. As a consequence, Real Madrid needed to be compensated by an amount equal to the market value of Las Tablas in 2011, namely €22.693.054,44. Since this sum was calculated on the basis of an objective model set by the Ministry of Economy and Industry[6], Spain considered that it matched the market value and could not constitute State aid.

The economic advantage criterion according to the market economy operator principle

The Commission’s State aid assessment essentially revolved around the question whether the 2011 settlement agreement between the Council of Madrid and Real Madrid resulted in an economic advantage to the benefit of Real Madrid.[7] As is standard Commission practice[8], “to determine whether a particular transaction carried out by a public authority has been carried out in line with normal market conditions, it is necessary to compare the behaviour of that public authority with that of a similarly situated hypothetical “market economic operator” operating under normal market conditions. If the “market economy operator” would have entered into that transaction under similar terms, then the presence of an advantage may be excluded as regards that transaction”.[9] Referring to EU case law[10], the Commission argued that a prudent market operator would carry out his own ex ante assessment on the basis of sound economic and legal evaluations, when entering such transactions. Public authorities cannot claim that evaluations made after the transaction, based on a retrospective finding that it was actually economically rational, like the Madrid Council did in this case, is the course of action that a prudent market operator would take under similar circumstances.[11]

In continuation, the Commission indicated the two criteria it used in order to determine whether the amount of compensation offered to Real Madrid was in line market conditions:

1) The probability that the Madrid Council would be held liable for its inability to perform its contractual obligations;

2) And the maximum extent of its financial exposure resulting from finding such a liability.[12]

Though these criteria are clearly cumulative, it should be noted that the Commission did not support the criteria with a reference to case law, its own decisional practice or documents of (soft) law. Be that as it may, based primarily on these criteria the Commission concluded that a market economy operator in a similar situation to the Madrid Council would not have entered into the 2011 settlement agreement.

As regards the first criteria, the Commission argued that the Madrid Council should have sought legal advice so as to establish the likelihood that it was indeed liable for not performing its contractual obligations. Without legal advice, the Commission found it hard to believe that a prudent market operator would have assumed full legal liability, especially considering “the legal uncertainties surrounding the potential impossibility to perform (the land transaction), the legal consequences of that potential impossibility, and the Madrid Council’s ability to remedy that legal impossibility through other means”.[13] The Commission seems definitely correct in questioning the chain of events that eventually led to the compensation of more than €20 million. Even though, as Spain now claims[14], it was already legally impossible to transfer the land in 1998, why did the Madrid Council sign this agreement in the first place? After the introduction of local urban law 9/2001, shouldn’t the parties have been aware of the legal impossibility at that moment, or in any case after the 2004 judgment of the Madrid High Court? Consequently, why did the Council wait until 2011 before compensating Real Madrid? In paragraphs 103 and 104, the Commission also drew an interesting comparison with the operation Bernabéu-Opañel. Although this latter operation was declared void by a Spanish Court for not being in line with the general interest, it simultaneously shows that reclassifying a terrain from public to private (sport) use is not entirely legally impossible. In other words, by analogy, the plot in Las Tablas could have been reclassified for private use (provided the reclassification served the general interest) and be legally transferred to Real Madrid.

With regard to the second criteria, i.e. the maximum extent of the Madrid Council’s financial exposure resulting from finding such a liability, the Commission firstly argued that the different valuations of 1998 and 2011 of the land in Las Tablas were based on the mistaken assumption that this land could have been transferred in 2011, which, in hindsight appeared to be legally impossible. “Assuming the Madrid Council could not be held liable for that legal impossibility, for which it never solicited legal advice, it is at least arguable that the market value of the plot in its relationship with Real Madrid would be zero, since the land in question cannot be transferred”.[15] On the other hand, and assuming the Madrid Council is liable and Real Madrid had a right to a compensation, this amount should have been way less than €22 million as a Commission-assigned study concluded. Taking into account the Commission’s consideration that the correct parameter for the valuation of the concerned plot is the long-term exploitation of the land for sport use, the study arrived at a valuation in 2011 of €4.275 million.[16]

For all the above reasons, the Commission established that the Madrid Council had not acted as a prudent market operator. It had not sought legal advice before entering the 2011 settlement agreement, and the subsequent compensation granted to Real Madrid too high. In conclusion, by means of the 2011 settlement agreement, a selective economic advantage was granted to Real Madrid and the State aid criteria of Article 107(1) TFEU were fulfilled. As a result, the amount of aid that Spain was required to recover from the football club amounted to €18.418.054,44 (€22.693.054,44 - €4.275.000) plus interests.[17]

The aftermath

On 2 September 2016, the municipality of Madrid officially ordered Real Madrid to repay €20.3 million, an obligation complied with by the club in early November. Nonetheless, the Real Madrid ‘saga’ has not come to an end. In fact, now that Real Madrid’s appeal is registered by the CJEU, it has become clear that it could take several more years until the case is finally closed. The pending questions are; what are the grounds of Real Madrid’s appeal and could the appeal be successful?

As a preliminary remark, neither Spain nor Real Madrid have claimed that the 2011 settlement agreement falls, or could fall, under one of the exceptions of Article 107(3) TFEU. In principle, this does not prevent Real Madrid from advancing a compatibility plea in front of the General Court, even though it did not raise the argument during the formal investigation.[18] Nonetheless, given the Commission’s wide discretion in applying the exceptions of Article 107(3)[19], the review of the legality of its decision is restricted to determining whether the Commission committed a manifest error in its assessment of the facts or misused its powers.[20] Moreover, as the Commission indicates in paragraph 135 of the decision, the aid granted to Real Madrid is considered as operating aid.[21] In other words, the aid releases an undertaking from costs which it would normally have to bear in its day to day activities.[22] Both the Commission and the CJEU have been very reluctant in permitting operating aid since it rarely facilitates the development of certain economic activities without adversely affecting trading conditions.[23]

In a press-release following the Commission’s announcement of its recovery decision, Real Madrid inter alia argued that the valuation method used in the 2011 settlement agreement is the “only objective method, as it is based in the cadastral value, legally obliging for all Spanish City Councils, and therefore is applied in all transaction between City Councils and third parties whether they are public or private”.[24] The Commission’s final decision takes note of the criticism expressed by Real Madrid regarding the Commission-assigned valuation study, especially concerning the (in its eyes erroneous) valuation method used for the study.[25] Though the Commission rebutted Real Madrid’s criticism[26], it will be up to the General Court of the EU (and potentially later the Court of Justice) to decide whether the Madrid Council used the correct valuation method when determining the 2011 value of las Tablas. This will not be completely new territory for the General Court, given the rich jurisprudence available on valuation methods.[27] As regards the standard of review applied by the General Court, Conor Quigley argues that “where the Commission is found by the Court to have committed a sufficient error of assessment, the decision will be annulled”.[28] It is settled EU case law, that the valuation method must be based on the available objective, verifiable and reliable data, which should be sufficiently detailed and should reflect the economic situation at the time at which the transaction was decided, taking into account the level of risk and future expectations.[29] The General Court remains, however, entitled to fully review and assess the valuation methods presented by the Commission and the interested parties.[30]

The Real Madrid case is too complex and intertwined to draw definitive conclusions on the possible outcome of the appeal. Nonetheless, the thorough State aid assessment conducted by the Commission in its decision should not be underestimated. This will be a tough “legal match” on an entirely new turf for Real Madrid.

[1] By way of reminder, Article 107(1) TFEU reads: “Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market”.

[2] See Oskar van Maren, “The EU State aid and sport saga: The Real Madrid Decision (part 1)”, Asser International Sports Law Blog, 15 November 2016.

[3] Commission decision SA.33753 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid implemented by Spain for Real Madrid CF, paras. 79 and 80.

[4] Commission decision SA.33753 of 18 December 2013, State aid– Spain Real Madrid CF, paras. 41-43.

[5] Interestingly enough, Spain’s comments contradict Real Madrid’s comments, according to which, as can be read in paragraph 46 of the decision, Spanish law did allow Las Tablas to be reclassified for private use in 1998 and beyond until a specific law that prohibits that was introduced in 2001.

[6] Commission decision SA.33753 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid implemented by Spain for Real Madrid CF, paras. 29-36.

[7] Since it was clear State resources were transferred, that the measure was selective and that it at least had the potential of affecting intra-Union trade, the other criteria of Article 107(1) TFEU were only briefly discussed.

[9] Commission decision SA.33753 of 18 December 2013, State aid– Spain Real Madrid CF, para. 88.

[10] Case C-124/10 P Commission v. EDF ECLI:EU:C:2012:318, paras. 84, 85 and 105.

[11] Commission decision SA.33753 of 18 December 2013, State aid– Spain Real Madrid CF, para. 89.

[12] Ibid, para. 92.

[13] Ibid, para. 94.

[14] Ibid, para. 29.

[15] Ibid, para. 108.

[16] Ibid, paras. 111-112.

[17] Ibid, paras. 139-142.

[18] See for example T-110/97 Kneissl Dachstein v Commission ECLI:EU:T:1999:244, para. 102.

[19]Case T-304/08 Smurfit Kappa Group v Commission ECLI:EU:T:2012:351, para. 90.

[20] Conor Quigley, “European State Aid Law and Policy”, Hart Publishing, 3^rd edition (2015), pages 738-739. See also for example T-20/03 Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2008:395, para. 115.

[21] Commission decision SA.33753 of 18 December 2013, State aid– Spain Real Madrid CF, para. 135.

[22] See for example Case C-172/03 Heiser ECLI:EU:C:2005:130, para. 55.

[23] Quigley, page 276.

[24] Real Madrid further found it surprising that the Commission used a valuation made by an architect’s office in Barcelona to dictate their decision. Though many will find this comment by Real Madrid rather amusing, it once again shows that the rivalry between the two clubs (and cities) far exceeds the performances on a football field.

[25] Commission decision SA.33753 of 18 December 2013, State aid– Spain Real Madrid CF, para. 89.

[26] Ibid, paras. 119-128.

[27] See for example T-366/00 Scott v Commission ECLI:EU:T:2007:99; and C-239/09 Seydaland Vereinigte Agrarbetriebe ECLI:EU:C:2010:778.

[28] Quigley, page 737. Based on the case law of the Court, it is not entirely clear whether a “sufficient error of assessment” by the Commission is enough for the Court to annul the decision.

[29] T-366/00 Scott v Commission ECLI:EU:T:2007:99, para. 158. See also Commission Notice C 262/1 of 19 July 2016 on the notion of State aid as referred to in Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, para. 101.

[30] Case T-274/01 Valmont v Commission ECLI:EU:T:2004:266.

Florentino Perez
2/11/2017 9:19:30 AM |

According to the ecological movement (EeA), the advantage for Real in the transfer of the plots in the Opanel district in exchange for the super prime area in front of the Bernabeu Stadium was approx. €60 million which is not unreasonable considering the actual market prices in both areas. That was the lion's share of the aid. Add this to the three years of delay in the stadium redevelopment (no IPIC naming rights at €20-25 million a year and no increase in the match day revenue) and you will see the that the Saga has been ruinous for Real that has been overtaken in the meantime by United and Barca in the revenue league.

Our International Sports Law Diary
The Asser International Sports Law Centre is part of the

Conference - Empowering athletes’ human rights: Global research conference on athletes’ rights - Asser Institute - 23 October

Luxembourg calls…is the answer from Nyon the way forward? Assessing UEFA’s response to the ECJ’s ISU judgment - By Saverio Spera

Women’s Football and the Fundamental Right to Occupational Health and Safety: FIFA’s Responsibility to Regulate Female Specific Health Issues - By Ella Limbach

The International Cricket Council and its human rights responsibilities to the Afghanistan women's cricket team - By Rishi Gulati

[Call for Papers] - International Sports Law Journal - Annual Conference - Asser Institute, The Hague - 24-25 October 2024 - Reminder!

[New Event] Feminist theory and sport governance: exploring sports as sites of cultural transformation - 9 July -15:00-17:00 - Asser Institute

[Call for papers] - International Sports Law Journal - Annual Conference - Asser Institute, The Hague - 24-25 October 2024

[Online Summer Programme] - International sports and human rights - 22 - 29 May 2024 - Last spots!

[Call for Papers] Through Challenges and Disruptions: Evolution of the Lex Olympica - 20 September 2024 - Inland School of Business and Social Sciences

[New Publication] - The European Roots of the Lex Sportiva: How Europe Rules Global Sport - Antoine Duval , Alexander Krüger and Johan Lindholm (eds) - Open Access

Asser International Sports Law Blog

Our International Sports Law Diary
The Asser International Sports Law Centre is part of the

The EU State aid and sport saga: The Real Madrid Decision (part 2)

Comments (1) -

Florentino Perez

Related posts

Comments (1) -

Florentino Perez