Madrid Court Sets March Hearing on Super League Case After CJEU Ruling
The oral hearing regarding the Super League dispute is scheduled for March 14, as confirmed by Spain’s 17th Commercial Court in Madrid, following the decision issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union in December.
The hearing delves into the EU court’s finding that FIFA and UEFA rules requiring prior approval for any new competition project, such as the Super League, violated the Union Code. The decision did not address the specifics of the Super League proposal itself, focusing instead on general principles governing the two governing bodies. This is the position presented by the 17th Commercial Court of Madrid, which continues to hear the case.
According to the CJEU ruling, which binds the Spanish court, both FIFA and UEFA were found to have abused a dominant position. The court noted that their rules, which condition entry to new competitions on their permission, lack transparent, objective, non-discriminatory, and proportionate criteria.
The court stressed that the authority to determine market entry for potentially competing ventures must be accompanied by criteria that ensure transparency, objectivity, non-discrimination, and proportionality, while considering potential conflicts of interest. It noted that FIFA and UEFA did not meet these standards, suggesting that their current rules on broadcasting rights could harm European football clubs by limiting exposure to innovative or appealing new formats.
The Madrid court also indicated that it would assess whether these arrangements could benefit various football stakeholders, for example through solidarity-based redistribution of income from broadcasting rights.
The principal backer of the project at that time was Florentino Pérez, the president of Real Madrid. In reaction to the ruling, he expressed strong satisfaction and insisted that football would never become a monopoly again. He described the Super League as a modern project rooted in sporting merit and compatible with national leagues.
Joan Laporta, president of FC Barcelona, commented that the decision validated the club’s position and opened a historical opportunity to rethink the European football structure.
UEFA countered that the ruling does not constitute approval or disapproval of the Super League, and it expressed confidence in the durability of its revised rules and their alignment with European law.
FIFA, UEFA, the European players’ union FIFPRO, LaLiga, the European Club Association, the professional leagues, and amateur organizations all reiterated that there is no room for a Super League in Europe, emphasizing that sporting merit remains the priority.
LaLiga’s president, Javier Tebas, stated that a Super League would not occur in the near or distant future, arguing that it is not legally feasible. He noted that if Real Madrid and Barcelona wished to pursue a separate competition, they could do so outside the FIFA framework and without the income from the Champions League.
The CJEU decision marked another milestone in the process that began on 21 April 2021, when supporters of Supeliga, A22 Sports Management, and European Super League Company launched legal action against UEFA and FIFA for alleged abuse of dominance. The case moved to the Luxembourg court after a preliminary ruling request from Mario Ruiz de Lara, then owner of a Madrid-based club, who urged a ruling under Union law. The CJEU’s explanation clarified that the case turned on general questions about UEFA and FIFA regulations rather than on the specifics of any single project.
A22 Sports Management welcomed the decision as a victory that could pave the way for football to operate with greater freedom. Its CEO, Bernd Reichart, spoke of a format expansion that could include women’s football, proposing a structure with multiple groups, a champion in each, promotions, and relegations, all designed to create an open competition.
In June 2022, UEFA updated its licensing rules for pre-authorizing new international club competitions to reinforce the European sports model. The amendments aim to establish objective, transparent, and non-discriminatory criteria for licensing, sanctions, and the distribution of solidarity funds, while outlining the international calendar and the management of clubs, competition formats, match schedules, and merit-based classifications.
The reforms require any new competition to seek permission a year before its proposed start date and grant UEFA a 12-month decision period. Non-compliance could lead to sanctions including potential expulsion. The updated regulations are expected to be part of UEFA’s defense in the ongoing case against the Super League.
LaLiga, the sole league participating in the proceedings, assessed the potential damages in its report, arguing that the Super League could be a self-serving initiative aimed at increasing the wealth of a few clubs, which could threaten the livelihoods of hundreds of clubs and tens of thousands of jobs across Europe.