TThe judge of the 17th commercial court of Madrid, Sofia Gil Garcia, supported the protest of UEFA against the injunction issued in April 2021 against Superleague case and agreed to lift the preventive measure, according to the Supreme Court of Madrid (TSJM).
The judge issued her decision after hearing on April 1 with various parties to decide whether to maintain the preventive measure that forced UEFA suspend disciplinary proceedings against real Madrid, Barcelona and juventuswho continue to participate in Superleague project.
The court’s decision stated that “there is not the slightest evidence that the threat and imposition of sanctions on the three remaining clubs entails the necessary impossibility of implementing a project whose funding is independent,” compared to the argument that this would derail the execution of the project, defended by the plaintiffs – A22 Sports Management SL and European Super League Company SL
“It is alleged that funding will be threatened, but the fact is that the partners and plaintiff companies are independent legal entities and in any case, at the time of the development of the project, the intervening parties – including financial institutions – were well aware of the possible consequences, which did not prevent make financial commitments that cannot be accepted or presumably thwarted by possible sanctions,” he adds.
“Sporting merit and equal opportunity must be guaranteed.”
Referee reviewing the prior authorization system for alternative competitions UEFA and FIFA be “reasonable and justified” and “in the interests of maintaining a level playing field for clubs involved in the sports industry” as clubs’ economic opportunities are “highly unequal” and this affects the actual development of the competition, whether it is funded by individual clubs or by third parties, such as in this case.
He adds that “sporting merit and equal opportunity must be guaranteed, which can be undermined by apparent economic inequalities between participants.” “The huge economic interests that football matches bring to clubs, players and managers represent a clear risk to the maintenance and protection of the fundamental principles of any sport; it is necessary to preserve them in order to prevent the aforementioned economic interest from prevailing over all of them,” she states.
In view of this, the referee argues that “the mechanism for monitoring competitions that may be organized is justified, whether through prior authorization by the governing bodies or through other systems”, so that “as a precautionary measure, the UEFA prior authorization system cannot be considered which was not used in this case is unacceptable.”
The order dismisses the complaint UEFA‘sand FIFAabuse of power
The order rejects it UEFA and FIFA abused their powers, combining commercial and regulatory functions, according to the plaintiffs, and organizing contests. “It cannot be taken as a precautionary measure that the defendants have an unreasonable and arbitrary cover to prevent the entry of new competitors into the domestic football market, which in its purpose and effect is a restriction of competition.”
Among her arguments for UEFARussia’s objection to the retention of the injunctions, the judge considers justified “the need for institutions of control, management and organization, which should provide a system in accordance with sports principles.” “It cannot be concluded that the existing system and controls will have the anti-competitive effects it is claimed unless the plaintiffs attempt to act in accordance with the established channels. On this basis, it has already been stated that not every regulation that requirements or compliance with conditions can be considered an obstacle to free competition,” he insists.
The ruling, subject to appeal in Madrid’s provincial court, was made public 20 days after hearings to challenge injunctions issued by the court itself a year ago, in which UEFA ratified its objection, co-defendants La Liga and the Spanish Football Federation (RFEF) filed charges , and plaintiffs ESLC and A22 requested that the injunction be maintained.
Among the precautions taken by the former head of the court, Manuel Ruiz de Lara, UEFA and FIFA have been instructed during the main trial to refrain from any action that directly or indirectly hinders or impedes the progress of the case. Superleague and prohibited the threat or taking of any disciplinary or sanction action.
Last July, Ruiz de Lara ordered UEFA close disciplinary proceedings against Real Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus, as well as lift “disguised sanctions” from the remaining nine clubs that left the project – Arsenal, Milan, Chelsea, Atletico Madrid, Inter, Liverpool, Manchester, Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspur.
In the case of the latter, it was about a reduction of five percent of income and a contribution to the Solidarity Fund of 15 million euros and a fine of 100 million euros in case of non-compliance, if they seek to participate in the European Super. League.
The pre-trial hearing will take place on June 14, according to the judge on April 12, at which she stated FIFA in contempt of court for failure to appear as a co-defendant on time to respond to the claim.
Super League to appeal
in Superleague the organizers will appeal to the Provincial Court of Madrid against the decision of the 17th Commercial Court of Madrid.
Superleague The sources confirmed to EFE that they will appeal to the appropriate authority, in this case the provincial court of Madrid, against the decision of Judge Sofia Gil Garcia, which was announced on Thursday.
“If they play in other competitions, they won’t play in ours.”
Alexander Cheferin repeatedly threatened to expel teams playing in European Super League bold UEFA competitions.
“Clubs can create their own tournaments, but do not expect to participate in them. UEFA competitions. I’m tired of this football project,” he said.