KEIR RADNEDGE ANALYSIS —- World sport holds its breath. December 15, 2022, could become as significant in the world of not only world football but sport in general as the exact same day in 1995.

That latter date was the one on which the European Court of Justice vindicated a journeyman Belgian footballer, Jean-Marc Bosman, in a legal challenge against the will of FIFA, UEFA and his national association to protect their closed-shop restriction of players’ working rights.

Bosman’s claim was comparatively narrow but the domino effect led to the present worldwide system of fee-free, end-of-contract transfers and the player valuation and wages inflation which generated today’s frenetic multi-million-dollar football swap shop.

Now the football establishment is back at the European Court, resisting a demand that three founder-members of the European Super League should be free to organise their own event(s) without being subservient to the competition controls of international and national associations.

Ultimately, the issue is about money. UEFA wants to protect its exclusive hold over the Champions League cash cow while the ‘Super Three’ – Barcelona, Juventus and Real Madrid – want freedom to generate independent revenue streams free from dependency on the UEFA cash shares system.

For those three clubs read the names of their presidents: Joan Laporta, Andrea Agnelli and Florentino Perez.

Champions League trickledown

UEFA, supported by world governing body FIFA, claims that the “traditional European sports model” is in the good of everyone, rich and poor because its TV and sponsor-derived Champions League largesse trickles down into the smallest of countries, leagues and clubs.

The system is common to all international sports federations which guard, jealously, their monopoly insistence on well-behaved deference from national associations, entities and individuals.

Hence the chill shudders running through the sports establishment at the case aired this week in Luxembourg.

The furore kicked off in April last year when plans for a breakaway midweek European Super League were published by the ‘dirty dozen’: AC Milan, Arsenal, Atletico Madrid, Chelsea, Barcelona, Internazionale, Juventus, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United, Real Madrid and Tottenham. The financial lure was an upfront €3.5bn plus an overall pot of € 5bn a year.

Reverse gear

Within days the project had stalled under a furious onslaught from fans, politicians, many other clubs and players.

Nine clubs, including the English six, quit the project and negotiated a ‘financial apology’ with UEFA. However, the European body’s threatened disciplinary action against the deviant trio was halted by order of a Madrid commercial court. A judge ruled the issues concerned six basic tenets of European Union competition law and referred them to the ECJ for guidance.

ECJ legal advisers viewed the issues so significant as to warrant a grand chamber hearing before a full 15-strong panel of judges.

On Monday afternoon the judges heard a basic outline of the case and statements from other interested parties. These largely comprised more than 20 representatives of governments and national football associations – all, naturally, in support of UEFA. The next day was taken up with both sides setting out their own, diametrically-opposed pleadings.

An opinion is expected from the advocate-general on December 15. This opinion is not binding on the other judges but disagreement is rare. Their judgment will then revert to Madrid for a definitive verdict. Until then sport’s traditional structure remains happily intact. After that, who knows?

#####################