EU sports law: a uniform algorithm for regulatory rules

© 2017, T.M.C. Asser Instituut. In applying the EU economic provisions to the regulatory rules in sport, four different categories of “sporting exception” can be discerned in the jurisprudence of the Court. They include sporting rules that do not produce any economic effect, ‘purely sporting’ rules, inherent rules, and objectively justified rules. Based on the existing parameters of the EU sports law and policy, this article advances arguments in support of discarding the nuances in the Court’s analytical approach to sporting exception. Ordinary EU law, coupled by the concept of specificity of sport that is now included in Article 165(1) TFEU, already contains the all-encompassing, uniform analytical structure apt to accommodate all categories of regulatory rules in sports. In addition, the proposed uniform framework can be often be utilised to justify the challenged sporting rules in both internal market law and competition law, thus avoiding duplication of analysis. This is enabled by the high degree of convergence in their application to the rules of private regulatory bodies

Minimum resale price maintenance in EU in the aftermath of the US Leegin decision

Leegin decision of the Supreme Court in 2007 affirmed that minimum RPM was to be evaluated under the rule of reason henceforth. Conversely, minimum RPM retains its position as a hard-core restraint in EU's BER 2010 and the De Minimis Notice. The limited amount of case law reveal that in the absence of certain factors, such as significant market power of the parties, minimum RPM is unlikely to result in the detriment of consumers. Consequently, despite the retention of the maintenance of the single market as a significant aim in EU competition policy, minimum RPM practices are entitled to a more lenient approach, if the ultimate aim is to attain consumer welfare as stated by the Commission and through most judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union