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.
Donald Trump’s trade war escalation has sparked a global sell-off, with US stock markets seeing the biggest declines in a hit to values estimated above $2trn.
Tech and retail shares were among those worst hit when Wall Street opened for business, following on from a flight from risk across both Asia and Europe earlier in the day.
Analysis by the investment platform AJ Bell put the value of the peak losses among major indices at $2.2trn (£1.7trn).
The tech-focused Nasdaq Composite was down 5.8%, the S&P 500 by 4.3% and the Dow Jones Industrial Average by just under 4% at the height of the declines. It left all three on course for their worst one-day losses since at least September 2022 though the sell-off later eased back slightly.
Analysts said the focus in the US was largely on the impact that the expanded tariff regime will have on the domestic economy but also effects on global sales given widespread anger abroad among the more than 180 nations and territories hit by reciprocal tariffs on Mr Trump‘s self-styled “liberation day”.
They are set to take effect next week, with tariffs on all car, steel and aluminium imports already in effect.
Price rises are a certainty in the world’s largest economy as the president’s additional tariffs kick in, with those charges expected to be passed on down supply chains to the end user.
The White House believes its tariffs regime will force employers to build factories and hire workers in the US to escape the charges.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
5:07
The latest numbers on tariffs
Economists warn the additional costs will add upward pressure to US inflation and potentially choke demand and hiring, ricking a slide towards recession.
Apple was among the biggest losers in cash terms in Thursday’s trading as its shares fell by almost 9%, leaving it on track for its worst daily performance since the start of the COVID pandemic.
Concerns among shareholders were said to include the prospects for US price hikes when its products are shipped to the US from Asia.
Other losers included Tesla, down by almost 6% and Nvidia down by more than 6%.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:54
PM: It’s ‘a new era’ for trade and economy
Many retail stocks including those for Target and Footlocker lost more than 10% of their respective market values.
The European Union is expected to retaliate in a bid to put pressure on the US to back down.
The prospect of a tit-for-tat trade war saw the CAC 40 in France and German DAX fall by more than 3.4% and 3% respectively.
The FTSE 100, which is internationally focused, was 1.6% lower by the close – a three-month low.
Financial stocks were worst hit with Asia-focused Standard Chartered bank enduring the worst fall in percentage terms of 13%, followed closely by its larger rival HSBC.
Among the stocks seeing big declines were those for big energy as oil Brent crude costs fell back by 6% to $70 due to expectations a trade war will hurt demand.
The more domestically relevant FTSE 250 was 2.2% lower.
A weakening dollar saw the pound briefly hit a six-month high against the US currency at $1.32.
There was a rush for safe haven gold earlier in the day as a new record high was struck though it was later trading down.
Sean Sun, portfolio manager at Thornburg Investment Management, said of the state of play: “Markets may actually be underreacting, especially if these rates turn out to be final, given the potential knock-on effects to global consumption and trade.”
He warned there was a big risk of escalation ahead through countermeasures against the US.
Sandra Ebner, senior economist at Union Investment, said: “We assume that the tariffs will not remain in place in the announced range, but will instead be a starting point for further negotiations.
“Trump has set a maximum demand from which the level of tariffs should decrease”.
She added: “Since the measures would not affect all regions and sectors equally, there will be winners and losers as in 2018 – although the losers are more likely to be in the EU than in North America.
“To protect companies in Europe from the effects of tariffs, the EU should not respond with high counter-tariffs. In any case, their impact in the US is not likely to be significant. It would be more efficient to provide targeted support to EU companies in the form of investment and stimulus.”
British companies and business groups have expressed alarm over President Donald Trump’s 10% tariff on UK goods entering the US – but cautioned against retaliatory measures.
It comes as Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds launched a consultation with firms on taxes the UK could implement in response to the new levies.
A 400-page list of 8,000 US goods that could be targeted by UK tariffs has been published, including items like whiskey and jeans.
On so-called “Liberation Day”, Mr Trump announced UK goods entering the US will be subject to a 10% tax while cars will be slapped with a 25% levy.
The government’s handling of tariff negotiations with the US to date has been praised by representative and industry bodies as being “cool” and “calm” – and they urged ministers to continue that approach by not retaliating.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
5:07
The latest numbers on tariffs
Business lobby group the CBI (Confederation of British Industry) said: “Retaliation will only add to supply chain disruption, slow down investment, and stoke volatility in prices”.
Industry body the British Retail Consortium (BRC) also cautioned: “Retaliatory tariffs should only be a last resort”.
‘Deeply troubling’
While a major category of exports, in the form of services – like finance and information technology (IT) – has been exempted from the tariffs, the impact on UK business is expected to be significant.
Mr Trump’s announcement was described as “deeply troubling for businesses” by the CBI’s chief executive Rain Newton-Smith.
The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) also said the tariffs were “a major blow” to small and medium companies (SMEs), as 59% of small UK exporters sell to the US. It called for emergency government aid to help those affected.
“Tariffs will cause untold damage to small businesses trying to trade their way into profit while the domestic economy remains flat,” the FSB’s policy chair Tina McKenzie said. “The fallout will stifle growth” and “hurt opportunities”, she added.
Companies will need to adapt and overcome, the British Export Association said, but added: “Unfortunately adaptation will come at a cost that not all businesses will be able to bear.”
Watch dealer and component seller Darren Townend told Sky News the 10% hit would be “painful” as “people will buy less”.
“I am a fan of Trump, but this is nuts,” he said. “I expect some bad months ahead.”
Industry body Make UK said the 25% tariffs on cars, steel and aluminium would in particular be devastating for UK manufacturing.
Cars hard hit
Carmakers are among the biggest losers from the world trade order reshuffle.
Auto industry body the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) said the taxes were “deeply disappointing and potentially damaging measure”.
“These tariff costs cannot be absorbed by manufacturers”, SMMT chief executive Mike Hawes said. “UK producers may have to review output in the face of constrained demand”.
The new taxes on cars took effect on Thursday morning, while the measures impacting car parts are due to come in on 3 May.
Economists immediately started scratching their heads when Donald Trump raised his tariffs placard in the Rose Garden on Wednesday.
On that list he detailed the rate the US believes it is being charged by each country, along with its response: A reciprocal tariff at half that rate.
So, take China for example. Donald Trump said his team had run the numbers and the world’s second-largest economy was implementing an effective tariff of 67% on US imports. The US is responding with 34%.
How did he come up with that 67%? This is where things get a bit murky. The US claims it studied its trading relationship with individual countries, examining non-tariff barriers as well as tariff barriers. That includes, for example, regulations that make it difficult for US exporters.
However, the actual methodology appears to be far cruder. Instead of responding to individual countries’ trade barriers, Trump is attacking those enjoying large trade surpluses with the US.
A formula released by the US trade representative laid this bare. It took the US’s trade deficit in goods with each country and divided that by imports from that country. That figure was then divided by two.
More on Donald Trump
Related Topics:
So, in the case of China, which has a trade surplus of $295bn on total US exports of $438bn, that gives a ratio of 68%. The US divided that by two, giving a reciprocal tariff of 34%.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:58
PM will ‘fight’ for deal with US
This is a blunt measure which targets big importers to the US, irrespective of the trade barriers they have erected. This is all part of Donald Trump’s efforts to shrink the country’s deficit – although it’s US consumers who will end up paying the price.
But what about the small number of countries where the US has a trade surplus? Shouldn’t they actually be benefiting from all of this?
That includes the UK, with whom the US has a surplus (by its own calculations) of $12bn. By its own reciprocal tariff formula, the UK should be benefitting from a “negative tariff” of 9%.
Instead, it has been hit by a 10% baseline tariff. Number 10 may be breathing a sigh of relief – the US could, after all, have gone after us for our 20% VAT rate on imports, which it takes issue with – but, by Trump’s own measure, we haven’t got off as lightly as we should have.