OFFICIAL EQIPMENT RULES IN SPORT AND EU COMPETITION LAW: ‘OFFICIAL BALLS’
The rules concerning the designation of ‘official balls’ in sports competitions, for example, in association football, tennis, or rugby union, may seem like a minor technical matter.
However, these rules often intersect with European Union (EU) competition law, particularly when exclusive supply agreements or market access restrictions are involved. These arrangements may give rise to issues under Articles 101 and 102 of The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), depending upon their scope and economic impact.
In this context, sports governing bodies, such as FIFA and UEFA, play a key role in setting technical standards for official equipment. In football, for example, the Laws of the Game (Law 2) specify the size, weight, pressure of the balls, and even the placement of logos on them.
As expressly stated:
“All balls used in matches played in an official competition organised under the auspices of FIFA or confederations must meet the requirements and bear one of the marks of the FIFA Quality Programme for Footballs.” (Laws of the Game 2025/26 – Law 2, p. 51).
All balls used in official FIFA or confederation competitions must also bear a mark from the FIFA Quality Programme (FIFA QUALITY, QUALITY PRO or BASIC), indicating that they have passed a rigorous series of tests beyond the minimum specifications. These rules aim to guarantee uniformity, fairness, and safety across competitions.
This regulatory approach is not unique to football. Similar standards govern official equipment in other sports, such as tennis and rugby union, where standardisation is also essential to fairness and performance.
In tennis, the International Tennis Federation (ITF) plays a key regulatory role in ensuring the standardisation of equipment used in professional competitions. Through its Tennis Technology Department, the ITF operates a state-of-the-art Technical Centre that conducts laboratory testing of tennis balls under strict climate-controlled conditions.
The aim is to verify compliance with technical criteria concerning weight, size, deformation, and rebound, all of which are detailed in Appendix I of the ITF Rules of Tennis. Only tennis balls that pass these tests are added to the ITF Approved Balls List, which is updated annually.
This list determines which balls may be used in official ITF, ATP (Association of Tennis Professionals), WTA (Women’s Tennis Association), and Grand Slam tournaments. Major events, like Wimbledon and Roland-Garros, rely on long-standing exclusive partnerships with manufacturers, such as Slazenger and Wilson.
A similar system applies in rugby union. World Rugby defines technical standards in its Laws of the Game and often concludes exclusive supply agreements for international competitions. For instance, Gilbert has long been the official ball supplier for the Rugby World Cup. Whilst such arrangements are generally aimed at ensuring uniformity and safety, their broader market effects may call for careful review under EU competition law.
From a legal standpoint, these regulatory choices must pursue legitimate sporting objectives, such as ensuring consistency in gameplay or safeguarding players. Under EU law, such objectives are not contested in themselves, but the methods used must be necessary and proportionate. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has underlined that regulatory autonomy in sport does not place governing bodies above EU competition rules.
Beyond performance and standardisation, FIFA incorporates social responsibility into its certification quality programme. Licensing fees from manufacturers are channelled into Football for Hope, a development initiative, whilst participating companies are required to respect international labour standards, including a strict prohibition on child labour, in accordance with the World Federation of the Sporting Goods Industry (WFSGI) Pledge.
These elements may support the view that the FIFA regulatory framework, whilst potentially restrictive, pursues objectives in the general interest and does so in a transparent and proportionate manner. This approach aligns with the CJEU reasoning in Meca-Medina (C-519/04 P), which permits certain restrictions when they are inherent to the organisation of the sport and do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve legitimate goals.
Looking at specific examples, the selection of official ball suppliers, particularly through exclusive contracts with global manufacturers, has attracted attention under EU competition law. Article 101 TFEU prohibits agreements that restrict competition, whilst Article 102 targets abuse of dominant positions.
Two recent examples highlight how such exclusive agreements are being implemented in practice. In March 2025, PUMA was announced as the new Official Ball Supplier of the English Premier League, replacing NIKE from the 2025/26 season. The agreement includes not only the supply of match balls but also support for grassroots initiatives and international marketing efforts. Similarly, UEFA appointed KIPSTA, the football brand of Decathlon, as the official ball supplier for the UEFA Europa League and UEFA Conference League from 2024 to 2027. These cases show that, whilst exclusivity is common, supplier rotation is possible and may mitigate long-term foreclosure risks, provided that selection procedures are transparent and time limited.
An exclusive agreement between a sports governing body, such as FIFA, and a single manufacturer may restrict market access for competing suppliers. This is particularly relevant in the light of long-standing partnerships of FIFA, which may limit opportunities for new entrants, unless transparent licensing procedures are followed.
When assessing potentially restrictive arrangements adopted by sports governing bodies, EU institutions, particularly the European Commission and the CJEU, apply a well-established proportionality test. They examine whether the restrictions are objectively justified by legitimate sporting objectives, such as safety; whether they are inherent to achieving those objectives; and whether they are proportionate in the light of their effects on competition.
The growing importance of the compatibility between sports regulations and EU competition law is confirmed by recent CJEU case law. Whilst not directly addressing official equipment or exclusive supply agreements, cases such as ISU v Commission (C-124/21 P), Superleague (C-333/21), Diarra (C-650/22) and Meca-Medina (C-519/04 P), have clarified that rules adopted by sports governing bodies must be subject to legal review when they have economic effects.
The CJEU has consistently emphasised that even sports organisations with regulatory autonomy must comply with EU law. The line between regulatory function and economic activity is closely scrutinised. Rules that unjustifiably exclude competitors, or create barriers to innovation, may be challenged as being anticompetitive.
Ultimately, whilst EU law does not prohibit the use of official balls in sport, it requires that rules governing their selection and use remain transparent, fair, and proportionate. Sports governing bodies must strike a careful balance between their legitimate interests in regulating their sports and their obligation to respect the principles of the EU internal market. In practice, this means that exclusive equipment deals must be justified by sporting needs, and structured in a way that does not foreclose competition.
Rules may shape the game, but they must not block the market!
We advise on all aspect of EU competition law and sport, and further information is available from Dr Estelle Ivanova by emailing her at ivanova@valloni.ch.