So, an EU court ruled on sport governing bodies and them banning competing formats

stewie

stewie

Active member
Here is an english article: https://theathletic.com/5155064/2023/12/21/super-league-back-court-case-verdict/

They ruled for two cases in two different sports. The more prominent issue was a breakaway league in european soccer, but they also ruled for a case in ice skating.

The ruling says: governing bodies can not just ban competing competition formats. They have to adhere to fair competition. Preserving the [traditions and] rules of the sport would not be a reason to execute a monopoly.

Plays right into the WPA/Matchroom discussions. Might get interesting.
 
Bob Jewett said:
I am not allowed to view the article unless I pay them money. Can you fill us in on the gist?

Was it organization vs. organization or org. vs. player?
Click to expand...
Here is another one: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67783970

The court ruled that UEFA, the European soccer organization, is not allowed to ban clubs for joining a non-uefa-sanctioned super League.

Nobody owns the rules of the sport and nobody can tell clubs or players where else to play it. Banning teams or players would be misuse of power.
 
stewie said:
Here is another one: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67783970

The court ruled that UEFA, the European soccer organization, is not allowed to ban clubs for joining a non-uefa-sanctioned super League.

Nobody owns the rules of the sport and nobody can tell clubs or players where else to play it. Banning teams or players would be misuse of power.
Click to expand...
Not much is clear to me after reading the article except that great steaming piles of money are involved and the top teams want to make sure they get as many of the piles as possible.

I think pool is not yet cursed with great steaming piles of money, so it's not clear how this is going to apply to the MR/WPA kerfuffle.

One difference is that the pool stuff is not limited to Europe.
 
Well, soccer was one sport they ruled on. Ice skating was another one. An analogy, or future entry to another ruling might be the question wether the WPA, EPBF or DBU can ban Joshua Filler from WPA events for competing in a matchroom event. If he is a professional and earns his living with competing, he shall not be prohibited or punished from earning money elsewhere.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Not much is clear to me after reading the article except that great steaming piles of money are involved and the top teams want to make sure they get as many of the piles as possible.

I think pool is not yet cursed with great steaming piles of money, so it's not clear how this is going to apply to the MR/WPA kerfuffle.

One difference is that the pool stuff is not limited to Europe.
Click to expand...
If it affects European players, it is of concern for the court
 
skogstokig said:
and european events, right? most of the big time WPA events are outside europe
Click to expand...
I'm sure they want to show those outside events to an eu audience tho.

In past eu wide rulings against organizations/companies it has been comply or stop doing business in the zone. Not sure if this goes same way, but if it does, they would comply because you would lose not just the ability to host events but also partnerships with the streaming providers for various eu countries ie viaplay or Eurosport.
 
Just my $.02 but i really wish there could be a road to a 'World Tour' where the WPA looks after the rules and MR runs the events. This 'mine is bigger than yours' bs is not doing the game any good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top