Malta in Super League court feud protests ‘narrow interests’ of Real, Juve and Barca

Malta has argued the European Super League only cares about the “narrow interests” of the clubs behind the footballing project.

"The European Super League (ESL) only took into account the narrow interests of its clubs, it ignores the open nature of competition based on merits," Deputy State Advocate Andria Buhagiar said.

The comments came during a two-day hearing at the Court of Justice of the European Union where 21 countries underlined the high stakes involved for the football’s governing body UEFA and other sports bodies with monopoly power and lucrative media rights.

UEFA found itself in the dock after ESL organisers have accused it of abusing its power in blocking rival events.

In April 2021, plans by the 12 clubs - AC Milan, Arsenal, Atlético Madrid, Chelsea, Barcelona, Inter Milan, Juventus, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United, Real Madrid and Tottenham Hotspurs – to create ESL which would will rival UEFA’s Champion’s League were met with widespread condemnation by football fans and sporting bodies around Europe.

Nearly all clubs behind the ESL withdrew, with only Real Madrid, Juventus and Barcelona holding out. They argue UEFA has a clear conflict of interest, as European football’s regulator and operator, would “never” authorize a competitor to its flagship Champions League tournament.

ESL lawyer Miguel Odriozola Alen said UEFA ruled the European football sector with an “iron fist” and beat away and project that would threaten its monopoly.

Lawyers for UEFA and FIFA have accused the ESL of trying to “have its cake and eat it” by seeking to create the breakaway league, while keeping its clubs in national competitions. 

Lawyer Donald Slater said the ESL would have struck a “fatal blow” to the European sports model. “It would have had a disastrous outcome for football and European society.”

Testifying last Tuesday, European Union countries highlighted the help given by UEFA to fund grassroots football, as well as amateur, women and youth events. They also argued that UEFA’s model provides small teams, hailing from remote regions to break into major leagues.

Hungary argued UEFA represents the values of the European Sports Model, in protecting the physical and moral integrity of athletes.

"These are values which UEFA and FIFA follow, both in the organisation of sports and the reallocation of revenues," Hungary's lawyer Ester Gyarmati told the 15-judge panel on the second day of the hearing.

Austria argued UEFA restrictions do infringe EU competition law, but are justified in safeguarding the European Sports Model.

"This cartel (ESL) cannot co-exist with the organisation of UEFA and FIFA without leading to the certain death of open competition," Emilia Gane, representing Romania said.

Denmark said sport integrity promoted by UEFA and FIFA, was a “legitimate objective” justifying a restriction of free competition and therefore was “compatible” with EU law.

The European Commission on the other hand, took a more nuanced approach, saying there should be “checks and balances” on monopoly power.

"The exercise of regulatory functions must be subject to limits, obligations and control to prevent such bodies from distorting competition," lawyer Carlos Urraca Caviedes said.

He did argue against sanctions imposed on players. "It does not seem sanctions excluding players from participating in UEFA, FIFA are necessary or proportionate to protect those principles."

Court Advocate General Athanasios Rantoswill give a non-binding opinion on 15 December. A final decision is expected in late 2022 or early next year.

READ ALSO: MEPs’ sports group condemns controversial plans for new football super league