THE SPECIFICITY OF SPORT IN EU LAW
Few aspects of life combine physical performance, emotional intensity, and social meaning as powerfully as sport. It inspires, unites, and sometimes divides, yet it always reflects something essential about who we are. It is a deeply human and cultural phenomenon: an integral part of our collective identity.
In its White Paper on Sport of 11 July 2007 (COM (2007) 391 final), the European Commission highlighted both the societal role of sport and its increasing economic importance. Sport contributes to education, social cohesion and public health, whilst also representing a growing part of the European economy. On this basis, the Commission made it clear that sport is not exempt from EU law but rather must be examined in the light of its specific features.
To understand this better, the European Commission proposed a dual approach to analysing the specificity of sport:
The first concerns the specificity of sporting activities and rules, such as separate competitions for men and women; limits on the number of participants; the importance of maintaining uncertainty of outcomes; and the need to preserve a competitive balance between clubs.
The second concerns the structural dimension of sport, including the autonomy and diversity of sports organisations; the pyramid model of competitions from grassroots to elite level; solidarity mechanisms between different levels and actors; the national organisation of sport; and the principle of a single federation per discipline.
This dual approach paved the way for the later codification of sport in Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (the Treaty of Lisbon), which, since its entry into force on 1 December 2009, has provided the legal basis for EU intervention in the field of sport.
Article 165 TFEU expressly recognises the European dimension of sport, highlighting its specific characteristics; its voluntary-based structures; and its social and educational functions. It outlines the European Union objective to promote fairness and openness in sporting competitions; encourage cooperation between responsible bodies; and protect the physical and moral integrity of athletes, particularly the youngest amongst them.
Importantly, Article 165 TFEU must be read in conjunction with Article 6(e) TFEU, which classifies sport as a field in which the European Union has a supporting competence. This means that the European Union may support, coordinate, or supplement Member States‘ actions, but may not harmonise national legislation in this domain.
Over the years, both the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Commission have acknowledged the specific nature of sport. However, they have consistently made clear that this recognition does not justify a general exemption from the application of EU law. Instead, every rule or practice must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, particularly where it generates economic effects or raises concerns under competition law or the rules of the internal market.
Within this framework, the European Union plays a complementary role in the field of sport, in line with its supporting competence. It focuses on areas such as promoting good governance; combating doping; and ensuring equal opportunities, particularly with regard to gender equality, access to sport, and fair representation.
The interaction between EU law and the specificity of sport becomes particularly evident through case law, which reveals how core principles, such as free movement, competition law, and state aid control, are applied in sporting contexts. Over time, the CJEU has consistently reaffirmed that sport is not exempt from EU law, even when the rules in question pursue legitimate sporting objectives. A number of prominent examples illustrate how these principles interact with the realities of the sporting world:
In the famous Bosman case (C-415/93), the Court ruled that transfer restrictions and nationality quotas were incompatible with Article 45 TFEU on the free movement of workers, unless they could be justified on objective and proportionate grounds. A few years later, in Olivier Bernard (C-325/08), the Court addressed the issue of training compensation schemes and accepted that encouraging youth development could constitute a legitimate aim. However, the particular scheme at stake — which imposed fixed financial penalties unrelated to actual training costs — was found to be disproportionate and, therefore, contrary to EU law.
The principle that sporting rules must comply with EU competition law was clearly confirmed in Meca-Medina (C-519/04 P), a landmark case concerning anti-doping regulations. The Court rejected the notion of “purely sporting rules”, affirming instead that any rule which produces economic effects must be analysed in light of its objective and its impact on the market. Only if the restriction is inherent in the objective pursued and proportionate can the rule be deemed compatible with Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. This approach was reaffirmed in the recent ISU v Commission judgment (C-124/21 P), where the CJEU held that the rules of the International Skating Union, which sanctioned athletes for participating in unauthorised competitions, could restrict competition and access to the market. The Court emphasised that such rules must be based on transparent, objective and non-discriminatory criteria and must be proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued.
More recently, the European Super League case (C-333/21) provided a striking example of how EU law constrains the regulatory autonomy of international sports bodies. The Court held that rules requiring prior approval for new competitions, such as those imposed by UEFA and FIFA, could infringe competition and internal market provisions if they were not based on transparent, objective and non-discriminatory criteria. Whilst acknowledging the importance of preserving the integrity of competitions and the traditional pyramid structure of sport, the Court made clear that Article 165 TFEU does not grant a general exemption from EU rules.
Furthermore, in the Diarra case (C-650/22), widely dubbed as the new Bosman, the Court held, on 4 October 2024, that a number of provisions of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players were contrary to the EU freedom of movement of workers and competition rules against restrictive agreements.
The Commission has also played a crucial role in clarifying how state aid provisions apply to sport. Although professional clubs are typically subject to standard scrutiny, the Commission has recognised that certain public support measures may be compatible with EU law. A notable example is the French case State Aid SA.35501 (2013/N), in which the Commission approved state funding for the construction and renovation of stadiums for UEFA EURO 2016. The measure was found to pursue an objective of general interest and was deemed compatible with Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, particularly because the stadiums were also intended for long-term social, cultural and public use beyond the tournament itself.
The EU recognises the existence of a ‘European Model of Sport’, which emphasises the autonomy and diversity of sports organisations; a pyramid structure of competitions; and solidarity mechanisms between different levels of sport. According to the 2022 European Commission Study on the European Sport Model, its core features include open competition, promotion and relegation systems, financial solidarity, and the voluntary dimension of sport, and they continue to enjoy broad support across stakeholders. These features, however, are neither static nor uniformly applied. Their implementation varies significantly across disciplines, reflecting the flexibility of the Model and its capacity to adapt to different sporting contexts. The Study highlights a shift towards integrating good governance; gender equality; sustainability; and digitalisation into sport management. This evolution reflects a growing demand for transparency, stronger solidarity, and the incorporation of core EU values in sports governance.
In parallel, the EU Work Plan for Sport 2024–2027 further reinforces this strategic vision. It identifies three overarching priorities: safeguarding the integrity and values of sport; promoting its socio-economic and sustainable dimensions; and encouraging health-enhancing physical activity. Within this framework, the EU continues to support good governance; the fight against doping; and gender equality, reflecting a commitment to ensuring that sport remains inclusive, fair, and ethically grounded.
This policy evolution is supported by analytical tools such as the Mapping and Analysis of the Specificity of Sport, a comprehensive Report commissioned by the European Commission and published in June 2016. The study offers a systematic review of relevant case law and Commission decisions on sporting rules since the 2007 White Paper. It focuses on the economic dimension of sport and recent legal developments concerning its organisation and assesses the growing role of Article 165 TFEU in the Court’s reasoning.
The legal recognition of the specificity of sport reflects the European Union commitment to preserving the unique features of sport whilst ensuring full respect for the rule of law. Far from being exempt, sport is subject to EU legal principles, but in a way that acknowledges its distinct role in society.
This delicate balance remains the subject of an ongoing debate. Policymakers, legal scholars, and sports bodies continue to reflect on how best to reconcile the autonomy of sport with the application of EU internal market and competition rules. At the heart of this debate lies a central question: how can we protect the social, educational and cultural functions of sport whilst ensuring accountability, fairness and compliance with EU law?
Looking ahead, this debate is likely to intensify as sport continues to grow in economic significance and attract global attention. The European Model of Sport, grounded in values such as solidarity, open competition and integrity, must adapt to meet new legal, social and ethical expectations. In doing so, it must remain aligned with the fundamental principles of EU law, especially competition law, without losing its identity or legitimacy.
In other words, the European Model of Sport must evolve within the boundaries of EU law; and, it may be noted, that this balance is fragile and more relevant than ever!
We advise on all legal aspects of sport and its stakeholders within the European Union, and further information is available from Dr Estelle Ivanova by emailing her at ‘ivanova@valloni.ch’.