The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concluded on Tuesday the oral hearing of the case that confronts the Super League project with UEFA and FIFA for an alleged abuse of the dominant position of these organizations by blocking the alternative competition, who still support Real Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus, by threatening sanctions.
After the end of the oral hearings, the CJEU announced the publication of the non-binding opinion of its Advocate General for next December 15 before, already in 2023, the community court rules in a ruling that the courts must follow nationals in their decisions on the case.
The second day of hearings was dedicated to the continuation of the presentations of a dozen countries, all of them aligned with FIFA and UEFA, which, together with their legal arguments on European competition, explained concrete examples of how the teams of their countries would see themselves harmed with a model like the one proposed by the Super League.
From this project, on the contrary, its lawyers argued in the current model "structurally 20 countries are excluded from access to the Champions League" -in reference to the fact that their teams do not qualify- and requested that "on that basis ""the level of openness of other proposals" is evaluated, such as the Super League.
Several countries also took on the definition of "cartel" for the Super League project used by UEFA in its Monday afternoon arguments; The twenty governments (including Spain) that intervened aligned themselves with UEFA, FIFA, the Spanish League and the RFEF in their opposition to the alternative project in which Real Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus still remain.
The European Commission, for its part, was somewhat more cautious and warned of the possible excesses in the sanctions with which UEFA and FIFA tried to discourage the project, which would have meant the exclusion of participants from competitions such as the Champions League and the players of these teams from the great national team tournaments organized by UEFA or FIFA.
Even leaving room to consider the objectives pursued by these sanctions as "legitimate", Brussels sees the exclusion of participating players from their national teams as excessive and also warned of the possibility that FIFA's authorization rules are not linked "to criteria that are clearly defined, transparent, non-discriminatory, controllable and capable of guaranteeing effective access to the market".
During the round of questions from the magistrates and the General Counsel to the parties, the FIFA and UEFA lawyers stressed that their opposition to the project does not imply a restriction of competition, since the rebellious clubs have the possibility of leaving the highest competitions current European tournaments, such as the Champions League, to organize their own tournament.
The lawyers for the Super League and its advisory entity A22 Sports Management, on the other hand, argued that a project of the magnitude of the one proposed requires that the clubs that are going to take a risk with it "remain in the market as a peaceful operator", since leaving of the competitions would entail a loss of income that would lead to significant asset losses and risks, "in many cases bankruptcy".
"What the clubs are looking for is not to break a model, it is to make it grow and improve income for all (...), widening the income base," said A22's lawyer, Luis Alonso, who assured that the objective is the the same as when, in the 1950s, various European clubs came together to create what is now the Champions League.
In this sense, UEFA's lawyer, Donald Slater, questioned the argument that the Super League clubs would have needed those "two, three or four years" within the current system to complete the alternative tournament and recalled that, when announcing the project, it was promised that "it would be ready in September (2021), whether UEFA likes it or not".
The plaintiffs' lawyers also questioned UEFA's criterion of solidarity regarding the redistribution of resources towards grassroots football and, while assuring that the Super League provides 400 million euros for this objective, they stressed that "the important thing is that compare and that a third party can monitor and audit it for everyone.
From UEFA, the lawyer Slater pointed out that in the Super League shareholders' agreement the payment of these 400 million is "subject to available liquidity", for which, he warned, they would only be supportive "once the money is given" .
While waiting for the final sentence, the lawyer for the Super League, Miguel Odriozola, concluded his speech by emphasizing the problem that UEFA is at the same time the organizer and regulator of European football and warned that the prior authorization system that stopped the Super League "is inherently discriminatory" and that UEFA will "never" allow direct competition from the Champions League.
Slater (UEFA) closed his speech warning that, in his view, the Super League "did not fail because of anyone's anti-competitive behavior", but "because European fans greatly appreciate the current system and the European values of merit and solidarity it represents".
