This Tuesday a hearing is scheduled before the General Court of the European Union (TGUE). The case involves a set of Barcelona supporters who claim they have a direct interest in the matter and challenge the European Commission’s stance regarding the signing of the contract that brought Lionel Messi to Paris Saint-Germain (PSG) in August 2021. The central issue is whether those supporters are properly recognized as interested parties and thus eligible to file a formal complaint about the movements of a high-profile player between major European clubs.
The hearing is set to begin at 9:30 am local time on Tuesday, during which the plaintiff group, composed of several Barcelona-based partners, will present their arguments alongside the European Commission, which acts as the respondent in this dispute. The discussion is anticipated to focus on procedure and party status, rather than on the broader questions of alleged state aid or the specific terms of the player’s contract signing.
According to the proceedings, the case before the TGUE raises a precise question about the Commission’s interpretation of who counts as an interested party, as defined in the Commission’s own rules and practice. The parties emphasize that the matter should be heard in the court of first instance, centering the debate on party status rather than on the merits of any alleged support for PSG or the conditions surrounding Messi’s transfer.
The origins of the dispute date back to 8 August 2021, the day Lionel Messi, then a player of FC Barcelona, announced his departure from the club and his subsequent recruitment by Paris Saint-Germain. On that same day, a complainant designated in the case by the initials WA, along with a Barcelona partner who had joined FC Barcelona as a partner on 3 March 2020, submitted a complaint to the European Commission. The allegation concerns potential illegal state aid that could have facilitated PSG’s ability to sign Messi.
The WA complainant and the Pan-Barcelona Lyon section (PBL), comprising supporters from Bron in France, had established an association network on 10 June 2019 with the aim of uniting FC Barcelona fans, sharing a common passion for the club, and promoting a broader appreciation among football enthusiasts. WA is identified as a member of this network, underscoring the broader community ties that motivated the action.
In September 2021, Brussels informed WA that the information provided would not be recorded as a formal complaint but only as general market information, as it did not come from an “interested party.” The legal action before the TGUE now encompasses an appeal against that Commission decision by WA and PBL, challenging the determination of their status as interested parties and seeking a broader review of the Commission’s approach to such classifications.
The court proceedings ask the General Court to determine whether the Commission correctly concluded that WA and PBL lack the status of interested parties and therefore lack standing to raise the claim. The applicants contend that the Commission ignored their position as a member of FC Barcelona’s partner network and therefore failed to recognize their competency to challenge the alleged illegal aid.
The petitioners also argue that there was a divergence in the regulatory frameworks of member states that distorted competition within the internal market. Specifically, they contend that the Spanish Professional Football League imposes a 70 percent cap on salary costs relative to club income, a rule that they assert is applied differently in France and that this discrepancy constitutes a distortion that disadvantages FC Barcelona in practice.
Consequently, the plaintiffs request the General Court to annul the Commission’s decision of 1 September 2021 issued by the DG Competition and to demand that the French Football Federation act to terminate regulatory distortions affecting competition and that UEFA enforce licensing and financial fair play rules in line with the relevant regulations. They seek a ruling that the Commission’s action be reversed and for the matter to be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union if necessary.
The applicants also asked the court to consider interim measures that could halt or suspend certain regulatory decisions enabling the signing of Messi, arguing that the actions had created an unfair distortion of competition that affected domestic trade. They seek relief designed to remedy the harm they claim to have suffered as a result of the sequence of events surrounding the transfer.