The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) today graduated with oral view of the case facing the project of super league with the UEFA and the FIFA for an alleged abuse of the dominant position of these organizations by blocking alternative competition, which is still supported by Real Madrid and Barcelona, by threatening sanctions.
Following the completion of the oral hearings, the CJEU announced the publication of the non -binding opinion of your lawyer General for next December 15 before, come in 2023dictated judgment the community court in a decision that national courts must follow in their decisions in the case.
The second day of hearings was devoted to the resumption of exhibitions of a dozen countriesthey are all aligned with FIFA and the UEFAwho, together with their legal arguments in European competition, explained concrete examples of how the teams of their countries would be hurt by a model as proposed by the Super League.
From this project, on the contrary, its lawyers argued the current model “in a structural way 20 countries are excluded from access to the Champion Leagues “-in reference to the fact that their teams do not qualify- and requested that” on that basis “” the level of opening of other measures “be assessed, such as the Super League.
Some countries also assume the meaning of “sign“for the Super League project used by UEFA in arguments this Monday afternoon; the twenty governments (including Spain) who interfered aligned with UEFA, FIFA, Spanish League and RFEF in their opposition to the alternative project in which Real Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus still remain.
The European Commissionon the other hand, is something more carefully and warns of possible redundancies in sanctions which UEFA and FIFA have tried to block the project, which means excluding participants in competitions such as the Champions League and the players of these teams from great tournaments of organizing selections. of UEFA or FIFA.
While leaving room for consideration of the purposes these penalties pursue as “legitimate”, Brussels sees the exclusion of participating players from their national teams as excessive and also warns of the possibility that FIFA’s authorization rules do not relate “to clearly defined, transparent, non-discriminatory, regulatory and appropriate standards to guarantee effective market access.”
During a round of questions from magistrates and Attorney General to the parties, FIFA and UEFA lawyers insisted that their opposition to the project does not imply competition restrictionsbecause rebel clubs tend to leave the highest current competitions in Europe, such as the Champions League, to organize their own tournament.
The lawyers of super league and its advisory entity A22 Sports Management, on the contrary, argued that a project as large as the proposed project would require that clubs to take risks here “stay in the market as a peaceful operator”, because leaving the competitions would mean a loss of revenue that would lead to substantial losses and asset risk, “in many cases bankruptcy.”
“What clubs are looking for is not to break a model, it’s to enlarge it and improve revenue for all (…), expanding the revenue base, ”said A22 lawyer Luis Alonso, who ensured that the goal was the same when, in the 1950s, different European clubs were came together to create what is now the Champions League.
In this sense, UEFA lawyer Donald Slater has questioned the argument that Super League clubs need them. “two, three or four years” within the current system to complete the alternative tournament and recalled that, when the project was announced, it was promised that “it will be ready by September (2021), whether UEFA likes it or not.”
Plaintiff’s attorneys They also questioned UEFA’s standard of unity in terms of redistribution of resources towards grassroots football and, while ensuring that the Superliga predictsis 400 million euros for this purpose, they stressed that “the important thing is that it can be compared and it can be monitored and audited by a third party for everyone”.
From UEFA, lawyer Slater pointed out that in the agreement of the Super League shareholders the payment of this 400 million was “subject to available liquidity”, so, he warned, they will only be supportive “once he gave the money.”
While awaiting the final verdict, Superliga lawyer Miguel Odriozola, concluded his speech by emphasizing the problem that UEFA is both the organizer and regulator of European football and warned that the initial authorization system to quit the Super League “was inherently discriminatory” and that UEFA would “never” allow direct competition from the Champions League.
For his part, Slater (UEFA) closed his speech by warning that, in his view, the Super League “has not failed because of anyone’s anti-competitive behavior”, but rather “because European fans greatly appreciate the current system and the European values of merit and solidarity it represents “.
Source: La Verdad
I am Ida Scott, a journalist and content author with a passion for uncovering the truth. I have been writing professionally for Today Times Live since 2020 and specialize in political news. My career began when I was just 17; I had already developed a knack for research and an eye for detail which made me stand out from my peers.
