FIFA and UEFA acted illegally in blocking the creation of the European Super League (ESL), the European Union’s top court has ruled.
The court had been asked to decide whether the two bodies acted against competition law with its rules which stopped the formation of the league in 2021 and then by seeking to sanction the clubs involved.
The European Court Of Justice said that such rules were “contrary to EU law, contrary to competition law and the freedom to provide services”, adding that FIFA and UEFA were abusing their dominant position in football.
The court’s ruling does not mean that a competition such as the ESL must necessarily be approved.
Judges added the court “does not rule on that specific project in its judgement”.
However, the ruling does bring fresh life into the proposals, which were thought to have been on hold after receiving widespread backlash from fans and clubs.
Its backers relaunched the Super League on Thursday after the judgment, proposing a three-tiered league and cup competition with teams from across Europe.
More on European Super League
Related Topics:
The original proposal for the league, involving 12 of Europe’s biggest clubs including six English teams, collapsed shortly after it was announced in April 2021, sparking widespread condemnation.
Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur, Chelsea and Manchester City were forced to pull out amid a furious backlash from rivals, fans and politicians.
Advertisement
Image: A fan protesting against the European Super League last year
‘Football is free’ – how does new ESL proposal work?
A22 Sports Management, the European commercial sports development company behind the ESL, said its new proposal for the league for both the men’s and women’s game was more open, based on merit and would feature promotion and relegation – addressing criticisms levelled at the 2021 plan.
The proposal for the men’s game involves the following: • A 64-team European competition system; • The top two leagues will be known as the Star League and Gold League – potential replacements for the Champions League and Europa League; • The Star and Gold league will have 16 teams each; • The bottom league will be known as the Blue League; • Promotion into the bottom league will come from domestic leagues only, implying teams locked in the top two leagues would be hard to remove.
A22 also announced its intention to change the way fans watch football. It proposed a project called Unify, which would allow fans to watch every single game of the new competition on one platform, for free.
“This proposal has been shaped with the input of clubs with all sizes,” Bernd Reichart, the chief executive of A22 Sports, said in a statement.
A22 Sports initially challenged FIFA and UEFA’s right to block the formation of the ESL and impose sanctions on competing clubs in the courts.
The firm argued football’s international and European governing bodies have an unfair monopoly and market dominance on the running of club competitions.
After the ruling, Mr Reichart said in a statement posted on X: “We have won the #RightToCompete. The UEFA-monopoly is over. Football is FREE.
“Clubs are now free from the threat of sanction AND free to determine their own futures.”
Based on results from a fan-led government review, the regulator will also implement a licensing system for all clubs from the Premier League down to the National League.
Today, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport, said it “stands by” its decision to create a new independent regulator for English football.
“We will shortly be bringing forward legislation that makes this a reality, and will stop clubs from joining any similar breakaway competitions in the future,” a spokesperson said.
What does the ruling mean for English football clubs?
In reaction to the European Court Of Justice’s (ECJ) ruling today, the UK government has said it plans to bring forward plans for a new independent regulator for English football.
The regulator will be given the power to stop English football clubs from joining new competitions that “harm the domestic game” – and a summary of the proposals said it would “safeguard against a future European Super League-style breakaway league”.
In effect, the regulator would prevent British clubs from joining the breakaway competition.
In addition, because the UK has now left the European Union, the clubs would not be able to appeal against this decision to the EU’s top court.
Plan ‘selfish and elitist’ – but two big clubs back it
In a damning view on the league, Spain’s LaLiga – the Spanish equivalent of the Premier League – called the breakaway competition “selfish and elitist” after the court ruling.
But its top two clubs – Real Madrid and Barcelona – remain enthusiastic backers of the rival project.
Real Madrid’s president, Florentino Perez, hailed the court ruling as a “great day for football and sports”.
Mr Perez was one of the leading figures in the breakaway competition, alongside Barcelona’s Joan Laporta Estruch.
X
This content is provided by X, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable X cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to X cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow X cookies for this session only.
In a video statement posted on X, Mr Estruch said: “We believe that the time has come for clubs and those who are owned by their members to have greater control over their destiny, over their future, over their sustainability.
“The new Super League format is not intended to go against the Spanish league, not against the national league. On the contrary, with an improved European competition and more resources for the clubs, the national leagues will become more balanced and competitive.”
The views of LaLiga’s two biggest clubs were in stark contrast to those of football fan network, Football Supporters Europe (FSE), who maintain any plans to form the ESL continue to “endanger the future” of European football.
“Whatever comes next, the Super League remains an ill-conceived project that endangers the future of European football. FSE, our members, and fans across Europe will continue to fight it,” the group said in a statement.
UEFA ‘committed to uphold the European football pyramid’
Reacting on Thursday, UEFA said it takes note of the European court’s judgment, but said it does not signify an “endorsement or validation of the so-called super league”.
The body said it remains “resolute in its commitment to uphold the European football pyramid” and in ensuring that it continues to serve the “broader interests of society”.
“We trust that the solidarity-based European football pyramid that the fans and all stakeholders have declared as their irreplaceable model will be safeguarded against the threat of breakaways by European and national laws,” UEFA said.
The binding ruling will now be referred back to the Madrid commercial court, which adjudicates legal corporate disputes, where a Spanish judge ruled teams should not be punished for their involvement in the ESL.
But what about his style ‘prince’? Some want that ditched too.
It’s a complicated but not impossible process. Andrew could, of course, just stop using it voluntarily.
Some want him to give up his home, too. For a non-working royal, the stately Royal Lodge, with its plum position on the Windsor Estate, is an uncomfortable optic.
With the reputation of the monarchy at risk, William does not want to appear weak. He’s putting loyalty to “the firm” firmly above his familial relationships.
Prince Andrew has always strongly denied the allegations, and restated on Friday: “I vigorously deny the accusations against me”. Sky News has approached him for comment on the fresh allegations set out in the Mail on Sunday.
But with Virginia Giuffre’s tragic death and posthumous memoir due out on Tuesday, Buckingham Palace will be braced for more scandal.
When Andrew gave up his titles, there was certainly a sense of relief.
There is now a sense of dread over what else could emerge.
Sky News’ royal commentator has explained why Prince Andrew has not given up being called a prince – while another expert has said “the decent thing” for him to do would be “go into exile” overseas.
Andrew announced on Friday that he would stop using his Duke of York title and relinquish all other honours, including his role as a Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter.
However, he will continue to be known as a prince.
Royal commentator Alastair Bruce said that while Andrew’s other honours and titles were conferred to him later in life, he became a prince when he was born to Elizabeth II while she was queen.
He told presenter Kamali Melbourne: “I think […] that style was quite special to the late Queen,” he said. “And perhaps the King, for the moment, thinks that can be left alone.
“It’s a matter really for the King, for the royal household, perhaps with the guidance and advice of government, which I’m sure they are taking.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:49
Who pushed Andrew to drop his titles?
Since Andrew’s announcement, there has been speculation over whether any further measures will be taken – and one author has now called for him to “go into exile”.
More on Prince Andrew
Related Topics:
Andrew Lownie, author of The Rise And Fall Of The House Of York, said: “The only way the story will go away is if he leaves Royal Lodge, goes into exile abroad with his ex-wife, and is basically stripped of all his honours, including Prince Andrew.”
Royal Lodge is the Windsor mansion Andrew lives in with his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, who has also lost her Duchess of York title.
Image: Andrew and his former wife continue to live on the Windsor estate. Pic: Reuters
Mr Lownie continued: “He makes out he’s an honourable man and he’s putting country and family first. Well, if he is, then the optics look terrible for the monarchy. A non-working royal in a 30-room Crown Estate property with a peppercorn rent.
“He should do the decent thing and go. And frankly, he should go into exile.”
Mr Lownie added if the Royal Family “genuinely want to cut links, they have to put pressure on him to voluntarily get out”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:11
Windsor’s take on Prince Andrew
Andrew’s decision to stop using his titles was announced amid renewed scrutiny of his relationship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and fresh stories linked to the late Virginia Giuffre.
Ms Giuffre, who was trafficked by Epstein, alleged she was sexually assaulted by Andrew on three occasions – which he has always vigorously denied.
Bereaved families whose loved ones took their own lives after buying the same poison online have written to the prime minister demanding urgent action.
Warning: This article contains references to suicide
The group claims there have been “multiple missed opportunities” to shut down online forums that promote suicide and dangerous substances.
They warn that over 100 people have died after purchasing a particular poison in the last 10 years.
Among those who have written to Downing Street is Pete Aitken, whose daughter Hannah was 22 when she took her own life after buying the poison from a website.
Hannah was autistic and had ADHD. She was treated in six different mental health hospitals over a four-year period.
He said: “Autistic people seem to be most vulnerable to this kind of sort of poison and, you know, wanting to take their lives.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:05
Pete Aitken speaking to Sky News
Sky News is not naming the poison, but Hannah was able to buy a kilogram of it online. Just one gram is potentially fatal.
“There’s this disparity between the concentration required for its legitimate use and that required for ending your life. And it seems quite clear you could make a distinction,” Mr Aitken said.
Analysis from the Molly Rose Foundation and the group Families and Survivors to Prevent Online Suicide Harms says at least 133 people have died because of the poison. It also says coroners have written warnings about the substance on 65 separate occasions.
The report accuses the Home Office of failing to strengthen the regulation of the poison and says not enough is being done to close dangerous suicide forums online.
Lawyers representing the group want a public inquiry into the deaths.
In a joint letter to the prime minister, the families said: “We write as families whose loved ones were let down by a state that was too slow to respond to the threat.
“This series of failings requires a statutory response, not just to understand why our loved ones died but also to prevent more lives being lost in a similar way.”
The group’s lawyer, Merry Varney, from Leigh Day, said: “The government is rightly committed to preventing deaths through suicide, yet despite repeated warnings of the risks posed by an easily accessible substance, fatal in small quantities and essentially advertised on online forums, no meaningful steps have been taken.”
Image: Hannah’s dad is one of the family members to have signed the letter
A government spokesperson said: “Suicide devastates families and we are unequivocal about the responsibilities online services have to keep people safe on their platforms.
“Under the Online Safety Act, services must take action to prevent users from accessing illegal suicide and self-harm content and ensure children are protected from harmful content that promotes it.
“If they fail to do so, they can expect to face robust enforcement, including substantial fines.”
They added that the position is “closely monitored and reportable under the Poisons Act, meaning retailers must alert authorities if they suspect it is being bought to cause harm”.
“We will continue to keep dangerous substances under review to ensure the right safeguards are in place,” they said.
Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org in the UK. In the US, call the Samaritans branch in your area or 1 (800) 273-TALK.