Many of us are familiar with the idea of one football team being the dominant force in a national league, take Manchester City in the Premier League (England), FC Bayern Munich in the Bundesliga (Germany), or Real Madrid in La Liga (Spain). But what about the idea of world football’s governing body having a dominant position and abusing it?

By Meg Cochrane, Sports Law Barrister at 1EC

That is precisely the nature of the complaint that the top European professional domestic leagues,[1] together with La Liga, and the players’ union, FIFPRO, have jointly filed against world football’s governing body, FIFA. The complaint was filed with the European Commission, (the ‘EC’), on 14^th October 2024.

The complainants allege that FIFA’s unilateral decisions to expand the men’s international match calendar, (the ‘IMC’), is an abuse of dominance and violation of EU competition law. They allege that FIFA is using its power and position to favour its own commercial interests over those of domestic leagues and over player welfare-related concerns. While FIFA opposes these allegations, it remains to be seen whether the EC will open a formal investigation into FIFA’s allegedly abusive conduct or not.

Background to FIFA

Founded in 1904, FIFA is both the self-regulatory governing body of world football, and the organiser of major world and continental competitions for which players must be released.[2]

 Basis of Complaint

The European Leagues, La Liga and FIFPRO are not challenging FIFA’s role as the global regulator nor the lawfulness of mandatory player release obligations in and of themselves. Rather, they are challenging FIFA’s dual role as competition organiser and regulator.

To do so, they are relying (in part) on the recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, (the ‘CJEU’), in the European Superleague case.[3] In that case, the CJEU found that FIFA:

• holds a dominant position in the market for the organisation and commercial exploitation of international football competitions; and
• its rules give it the power to decide whether competing tournament/league organisers can enter the market.

Given this conflict of interest, the CJEU held that it would be an abuse of EU competition law, specifically under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, (the ‘TFEU’), for FIFA to exercise its regulatory powers without ensuring that such was done in a transparent, objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate manner.

A further CJEU judgment on which the complainants rely is that rendered in the case of Diarra.[4] In that case, the CJEU held that FIFA’s rules and behaviour must be closely examined under EU law, particularly where they relate to the commercialisation of football tournaments and to competition for access to professional footballers whose services constitute essential resources for football tournaments.

Premised (in part) on this caselaw, the complainants allege inter alia that:

• FIFA’s economic interest in organising competitions and boosting its own revenues conflicts with its regulatory role. FIFA (mis)uses its dominant position to control when and how its competitors, such as national leagues, can schedule their domestic calendars.
• FIFA has unilaterally, without any meaningful engagement/consultation with domestic stakeholders (i.e., leagues and players), extended the format and duration of existing competitions (e.g., the 2026 World Cup) and created new ones (e.g. the 2025 Club World Cup). The result is that the IMC is oversaturated, which puts pressure on and serves to undermine the economic and social sustainability of domestic football calendars. This, in turn, forces national leagues and players to have to make difficult choices.

Turning to national leagues first, they allege that FIFA’s conduct is forcing them to have to choose between:

• violating their collective bargaining agreements with players by starting leagues as scheduled but infringing on players’ recovery periods;
• reducing the number of clubs in national competitions, which may serve to reduce employment opportunities and potentially damage a country’s national sporting culture;
• compressing the schedule of their own competitions and/or restarting such without key players, thereby decreasing the league’s economic value; or
• cutting out games, e.g. national cup competitions altogether, to facilitate the busy IMC.[5]

As for players, they can be divided into 2 categories: those who are at the top/elite level of the professional game and those who are not. For players in the former category, it is alleged that they frequently must choose between:

• following a busy calendar, including playing international matches, which has the potential to increase their injury risk but decrease their performance levels and/or endanger the longevity of their careers; or
• no longer play for their country due to the pressure of overlapping calendars.

As for players in the latter category, it is alleged that a calendar that favours elite competitions has the potential to cause match underload and result in them having a lack of playing opportunities.

FIFA’s Response

In reply, FIFA has:

• insisted that FIFPRO and the World League Association[6] were consulted about changes to the 2025-2030 IMC, which it confirmed would not be altered;
• asserted that it is fully within FIFA’s “rights to set the parameters of [its] competitions whilst respecting the regulatory framework in place”;[7] and
• accused some leagues of being hypocritical and acting to further their own commercial self-interest.

 Remedies Sought by the Complaints

The complainants assert they are seeking a more fair and inclusive decision-making procedure in relation to the setting of the IMC. They contend that such will bolster and help ensure the wellbeing of players and the viability of national leagues, while simultaneously showing that FIFA respects national collective bargaining agreements.

Despite the compelling nature of the complaint outlined above, it remains to be seen whether the EC will open a formal investigation into FIFA’s allegedly abusive conduct or not.

 Meg Cochrane, Sports Law Barrister at 1EC

[1] The European Leagues represent 39 professional football leagues and associations comprising 1,130 clubs across 33 European countries. For reference, see here.

[2] Clubs that refuse to release their players face severe sanctions as do players who refuse to play.

[3] The full citation is European Superleague Company, SL  v Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) and Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), Case C-333/21. For the full judgment, see here.

[4] The full citation is Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) v BZ, Case C-650/22. For the full judgment, see here.

[5] These choices are derived from the complainants’ briefing document, which can be found here.

[6] The World League Association, (the ‘WLA’), consists in representing the professional football leagues on a world level. For the WLA’s mission, see here.

[7] See the BBC Sport report “FIFA Defends Club World Cup Schedule” here.