COMPETITION LAW AND SPORT IN ITALY
In Italy, competition law applies in full to the sports sector, which—although characterised by its own regulatory and disciplinary specificities—does not benefit from any general exemption from competition rules.
The economic activities surrounding sport, ranging from the management of professional clubs to the commercialisation of broadcasting rights, from players’ contracts to agents’ representation, constitute genuine entrepreneurial activities and are, therefore, subject to the general principles of the market and to the supervision of the Italian Competition Authority (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)).
Law No. 287 of 10 October 1990 is the cornerstone of the national legal framework on competition and market protection in Italy, its provisions mirroring the structure and rationale of the European Union (EU) provisions enshrined in Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It applies to any economic activity carried out within the Italian territory, without exceptions for the sports sector. Consequently, sports federations, leagues, promotional entities, and other regulatory bodies that issue rules, adopt decisions, or enter into agreements with economic effects must comply with the limits imposed by competition law.
Although sport pursues social and cultural objectives of public interest, its organisation and management also entail economic dimensions that make it subject to Italian competition law and the scrutiny of the AGCM.
The AGCM may intervene to repress restrictive agreements, abuses of dominant position, or other practices that undermine effective competition, even when such conduct originates from sports federation regulations or decisions of sports association bodies. In recent years, the AGCM has progressively extended its focus to the sports sector, imposing higher standards of transparency and economic rationality in the regulatory choices of federations.
Within this legal framework, Italian sports federations, recognised by the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI), are required to adopt rules consistent with the principles of transparency, objectivity, and non-discrimination. Sporting autonomy, a value recognised at both constitutional and international level, cannot translate into regulatory autarky. Sports federation rules must be accessible, clear, and justified by genuine technical or sporting needs, not by corporate or protectionist interests. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has repeatedly affirmed that the lawfulness of a restriction on competition in sport depends upon the pursuit of a legitimate sporting objective and on the proportionality of the measure adopted.
A rule aimed, for instance, at preserving the competitive balance amongst clubs or ensuring the regularity of sporting competitions may be considered legitimate if the limitation it imposes is necessary and proportionate. Conversely, when sporting restrictions prove excessive or arbitrary, they lose their sporting justification and fall within the scope of prohibited anti-competitive conduct. This marks the delicate boundary between lawful cooperation, inherent in the organisation of sport and sporting events, and exclusionary or discriminatory practices that distort market dynamics.
The distinction between “by object” and “by effect” restrictions is particularly relevant in the sporting context. The former are prohibited because their very nature eliminates competition; whilst the latter require a concrete assessment of their effects. In other words, not all rules that limit the economic freedom of sports operators are automatically unlawful: it must be determined whether such limitations serve a genuinely sporting purpose or rather conceal an intention to foreclose the relevant sports market.
In recent years, the AGCM has launched investigations into several sports federations for alleged abuses of dominant positions, particularly concerning rules that may have limited the activity of competing entities or the contractual freedom of athletes. A notable example is the case of the restrictions imposed in youth and amateur football, where the AGCM challenged the Italian Football Federation (FIGC) for adopting regulatory constraints that allegedly hindered free competition amongst organisers of sporting events. Another significant case concerns the so-called “sporting bonds” applicable to under-23 football players, whose reintroduction raised doubts as to their compatibility with contractual freedom and the principle of equal treatment amongst clubs.
These interventions reflect a cultural and legal evolution: sports federations are no longer regarded as sovereign entities standing above market rules but as regulatory bodies required to balance sporting autonomy with competition responsibility. The objective is to safeguard the social function of sport without tolerating conduct that, under the guise of sporting purposes, produces economic distortion effects.
An area where regulatory and competition dimensions intersect is that of sports fraud and match manipulation. Sports federations, particularly the FIGC, have introduced stringent regulations to counter match-fixing, providing for severe sanctions, such as fines, points deductions, relegations, or exclusions from competitions. Whilst these rules pursue ethical and disciplinary aims, they also bear significant economic implications: manipulation of results can alter the value of broadcasting rights, undermine investor confidence, and affect the proper functioning of the sports betting market.
In such cases, AGCM intervention focuses not on the moral aspect of the conduct but on the competition effects it may generate. If, for instance, multiple actors coordinate fraudulent activities that impact the betting market or access to certain tournaments, such conduct may amount to a restrictive agreement or an abuse of a dominant position. Hence, cooperation between sports authorities and competition authorities is becoming increasingly necessary to ensure a fair and transparent competitive ecosystem in sport.
One of the most complex aspects of applying competition law to sport lies in defining the relevant market. Modern sport encompasses multiple interconnected markets: competition organization; broadcasting rights; sponsorship; and player representation. The interdependence of these markets makes it difficult to delineate their boundaries to assess effective competition and identify dominant positions. For this reason, the AGCM generally favours a case-by-case approach, grounded in economic and functional analysis rather than formalistic reasoning.
Within this perspective, sporting autonomy must be interpreted as a form of responsibility rather than an absolute prerogative. Sports federations are required to engage in ongoing self-assessment to evaluate the competitive impact of their decisions. The adoption of clear rules, consultation with stakeholders, and the establishment of internal review mechanisms are essential tools for mitigating the risk of competition disputes in an economic sense.
Dialogue with the AGCM, adherence to European guidance, and the training of sports officials on competition issues should form an integral part of modern sports governance. Only through such an approach can the demands of integrity and competitiveness, that characterise sport, be reconciled with the fundamental principles of the proper functioning of the market economy.
The Italian sports system, in light of recent reforms, is moving towards a model of “responsible autonomy,” in which sports federations rules must be justified, proportionate, and verifiable.
Sport can no longer be considered as a legal island detached from market logic and dynamics: it is an integral component of the national and European market economy and, as such, subject to the principles of fair competition.
We act in all aspects of sports competition law in Italy, including disputes, and further information is available from the Head of our Italian Law Practice, Avv. Sara Botti, by emailing her at botti@valloni.ch.