![\"\"](\"https:\/\/valloni.ch\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/Winter-Inspiration-Digital-Visual-VALLONI.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The ticketing policies of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) have come under scrutiny in the light of a recent complaint filed by the European ticketing platform\u00a0Ticombo<\/strong>\u00a0with the\u00a0European Commission<\/strong>. The complaint challenges the IOC ticketing and resale policies for major sporting events, notably the forthcoming\u00a02026 Winter Olympic Games in Milan-Cortina<\/strong>, Italy.<\/p>\n Ticombo, based in Berlin, Germany, contends that the IOC has granted itself exclusive rights over ticket resales through a single authorised platform, which prevents resales via independent operators. Fans unable to attend events are obliged to use this IOC platform and may only resell tickets at face value, plus a platform fee, irrespective of market conditions. According to Ticombo, this system eliminates price flexibility; excludes alternative platforms, such as Ticombo; and ultimately limits consumer access to more affordable resale options.<\/p>\n The complaint builds upon the earlier action that Ticombo took against\u00a0UEFA<\/strong>, which operates a similar exclusive resale system for its events, including the UEFA European Championship. In both cases, Ticombo alleges that these practices breach\u00a0Article 101 of The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)<\/strong>, by constituting anti-competitive agreements, and\u00a0Article 102 TFEU<\/strong>, by abusing a dominant position in the market for high-demand sporting events.<\/p>\n From a legal standpoint,\u00a0Article 101 TFEU prohibits agreements and concerted practices between undertakings that restrict competition.<\/strong>\u00a0Ticombo claims that the IOC resale rules constitute vertical restraints, including resale price maintenance, which hinder competition in the secondary ticketing market.\u00a0Article 102 TFEU addresses abuses of dominant position.<\/strong>\u00a0By exercising exclusive control over resale channels and pricing, the IOC allegedly abuses its dominant position, distorting market access and consumer choice.<\/p>\n Ticombo draws a parallel with its complaint against UEFA, where it accuses the European football governing body of engaging in resale price maintenance by prohibiting resale below face value. Ticombo also challenges the public safety justifications advanced by sports events organisers, arguing that such concerns do not warrant monopolistic control over secondary ticketing markets, particularly when they suppress consumer access and competition.<\/p>\n In a related case, Ticombo and several consumers have filed legal action before the\u00a0Brussels Court of First Instance<\/strong>, challenging Belgian legislation that grants exclusive resale rights to sports events organisers. The Court has been asked to seek a preliminary ruling from the\u00a0Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)<\/strong>\u00a0on whether this national framework creates structural inequality between such organisers and independent platforms, reinforcing unjustified market monopolies.<\/p>\n At the core of the Ticombo complaint against the IOC is the claim that these resale restrictions are disproportionate and cannot be justified by legitimate objectives, such as fraud prevention or consumer protection. By limiting dynamic pricing and third-party resale, the IOC allegedly distorts secondary markets; prevents efficient ticket redistribution; and consolidates its own commercial control.<\/p>\n Ticombo highlights that its platform delivered substantial consumer benefits during the\u00a0Paris 2024 Olympic Games<\/strong>: over\u00a028,800 tickets<\/strong>\u00a0were listed below face value, resulting in more than\u00a0\u20ac2.2 million (around Sw. Frs. 2.061 million) in savings<\/strong>\u00a0for buyers. A further\u00a0\u20ac900,000 (around Sw. Frs. 843,000) in potential savings<\/strong>\u00a0was estimated. These figures underscore the value of open and competitive resale markets for consumers, benefits that the IOC restrictive policies would prevent.<\/p>\n Ticombo is represented in these proceedings by the law firm of Dupont-Hissel<\/strong>, well known for its involvement in major EU sports law cases, including the landmark\u00a0Bosman<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0European Super League<\/em>\u00a0rulings.<\/p>\n According to\u00a0SportBusiness<\/em>, the IOC has not yet responded publicly to the complaint.\u00a0At the time of writing, the European Commission has not confirmed whether it has formally opened an investigation following Ticombo\u2019s complaint, in line with its usual practice of treating antitrust submissions as confidential during the preliminary assessment stage.<\/em><\/p>\n Ticombo has also indicated that it may pursue additional legal actions in other jurisdictions<\/strong>, signalling a broader challenge to restrictive resale practices across the sports industry.<\/p>\n