![\"\"](\"https:\/\/valloni.ch\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Sport-and-Competition-Law-in-Tuerkiye-VALLONI-2026.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Sports organisations are no longer merely institutions responsible for organising sports competitions: they have evolved into complex economic actors managing substantial financial resources and operating within multi-layered markets. Professional sports leagues, particularly association football leagues, generate media content of considerable economic value, and broadcasting rights have become one of the most significant revenue streams within the global sports economy.<\/p>\n
With this transformation, sport has moved from a time in which it was often treated, from a legal point of view, as exceptional due to its alleged \u201cspecificity,\u201d towards a new regulatory paradigm in which sports organisations are increasingly subject to general principles of economic law, including competition law and market regulation.<\/p>\n
In this environment, the commercialisation of broadcasting rights, sponsorship agreements, merchandising, and digital content distribution has placed sports clubs and federations at the centre of sophisticated economic ecosystems. The centralised marketing of broadcasting rights and the use of exclusive licensing agreements create a complex balance between ensuring financial sustainability for sports competitions and maintaining effective competition in media markets.<\/p>\n
In T\u00fcrkiye, the intersection between sports law and competition law has been most visible in the context of the centralised sale of S\u00fcper Lig broadcasting rights and the regulatory role of the Turkish Football Federation (TFF). These developments have generated significant legal debate regarding whether sports federations and clubs should be treated as undertakings within the meaning of competition law and whether collective marketing systems may restrict competition.<\/p>\n
The application of competition law presupposes that the relevant entity qualifies as an \u201cundertaking.\u201d Under Turkish competition law, undertakings are defined broadly as entities engaged in economic activities regardless of their legal form.<\/p>\n
The Turkish Competition Authority (TCA) has consistently held that professional sports clubs fall within this definition because they possess independent legal personality and engage in economic activities, such as player transfers, sponsorship agreements, merchandising, and broadcasting agreements.<\/p>\n
A notable precedent concerned an agreement between the Turkish football clubs Galatasaray, Be\u015fikta\u015f, and Fenerbah\u00e7e in which they agreed not to transfer players from one another. The Competition Board evaluated this arrangement as an agreement between undertakings restricting competition in the player transfer market.<\/p>\n
The TFF occupies a dual institutional position within the Turkish sports system. On the one hand, it functions as the governing authority responsible for regulating professional football competitions; on the other hand, when organising the collective marketing of broadcasting rights, it operates as an association of undertakings representing the economic interests of member clubs.<\/p>\n
Consequently, decisions of the TFF may fall within the scope of Articles 4 and 6 of Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (Law No. 4054), which prohibit anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant positions.<\/p>\n
Debates concerning competition law in Turkish sport have primarily focused on the centralised sale of S\u00fcper Lig broadcasting rights through the so-called \u201cpool system.\u201d This system emerged in the 1990s and later when broadcasters, such as Cine5 and Teleon, became institutionalised through long-term agreements with Digit\u00fcrk, which currently operates under the beIN Sports brand.<\/p>\n
This centralised marketing model allows the TFF to sell broadcasting rights collectively on behalf of Turkish football clubs through competitive tender procedures. Whilst this system improves revenue distribution amongst the clubs and strengthens competitive balance within the league, it may also restrict competition in the broadcasting market.<\/p>\n
3.1 Exemption Regime under Law No. 4054<\/strong><\/p>\n The TCA has generally considered collective selling arrangements to constitute decisions of an association of undertakings that restrict competition. However, such systems may qualify for exemption under Article 5 of Law No. 4054 if four cumulative conditions are satisfied:<\/p>\n In its decision numbered 08-32\/421-147, the TCA concluded that the S\u00fcper Lig broadcasting pool system satisfied these criteria, particularly because revenue sharing enhances competitive balance within the league and allows consumers to access all matches through a single platform.<\/p>\n 3.2 Recent TCA Decisions (2022\u20132024)<\/strong><\/p>\n More recent investigations by the TCA have focused on ensuring transparency in broadcasting tenders and preventing foreclosure in downstream media markets.<\/p>\n In Decision No. 22-10\/124-47, the TCA emphasised the importance of transparent and non- discriminatory tender procedures whilst recommending that broadcasting rights be divided into multiple packages in order to facilitate entry by competing broadcasters.<\/p>\n The TCA has also examined certain contractual provisions in dealership agreements concluded by Digit\u00fcrk, particularly clauses restricting passive sales, from the perspective of potential abuse of a dominant position.<\/p>\n Turkish competition law practice closely parallels the legal framework established under Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).<\/p>\n 4.1 UEFA Champions League Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n In its landmark decision concerning the UEFA Champions League broadcasting rights, the European Commission accepted the centralised sale of broadcasting rights under a system of conditional exemption.<\/p>\n The Commission required that broadcasting rights be divided into separate packages; that multiple broadcasters be able to enter the market; and that exclusivity periods be limited.<\/p>\n 4.2 European Super League Judgment<\/strong><\/p>\n In its 2023 judgment in European Super League<\/em> (C-333\/21), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that approval systems implemented by sports governing bodies must be based on transparent, objective, precise, and non-discriminatory criteria.<\/p>\n The absence of such criteria may allow sports federations to abuse their gatekeeping powers and restrict competition.<\/p>\n 4.3 The Lassana Diarra Case<\/strong><\/p>\n In Diarra<\/em> (C-650\/22), the CJEU ruled that certain FIFA rules governing player transfers violated both the free movement of workers and EU competition law.<\/p>\n The CJEU characterised these rules as effectively creating a \u201cno-poach\u201d arrangement between football clubs and concluded that such restrictions constitute a restriction of competition by object.<\/p>\n Financial Fair Play regulations introduced by UEFA and implemented by national federations, including the TFF, aim to ensure financial stability within professional football. However, these rules have also raised competition law concerns.<\/p>\n In proceedings involving Galatasaray\u2019s financial sustainability obligations, the Court of Arbitration for Sport upheld UEFA sanctions whilst recognising that financial stability constitutes a legitimate objective provided that regulatory measures remain proportionate.<\/p>\n The TFF Club Licensing and Financial Sustainability Regulations may, therefore, be characterised as decisions of an association of undertakings within the meaning of Law No. 4054.<\/p>\n The structure of sports broadcasting markets is undergoing rapid transformation due to the emergence of digital platforms, OTT streaming services, and sports data markets.<\/p>\n Match footage controlled by the primary broadcaster may function as an essential facility, and restrictions on access to highlights or news footage may create bottlenecks in media markets.<\/p>\n Furthermore, technological infrastructures introduced under Law No. 6222 on the Prevention of Violence and Disorder in Sports, such as electronic ticketing systems, must be implemented through competitive procurement mechanisms to avoid conferring structural advantages on particular technology providers.<\/p>\n Conclusions<\/strong><\/p>\n The growth of the sports economy has made it necessary for sports governance to be guided not only by sporting considerations but also by the fundamental principles of competition law.<\/p>\n In T\u00fcrkiye, the collective sale of broadcasting rights remains a viable model for preserving competitive balance within professional football. However, transparency, reasonable exclusivity periods, and non-discriminatory access conditions are essential safeguards to ensure compliance with competition law.<\/p>\n Recent judgments of the CJEU, particularly the European Super League and Lassana Diarra cases, may also have significant implications for the future development of sports governance in T\u00fcrkiye.<\/p>\n Ultimately, maintaining a sustainable balance between financial stability in sport and competition in media and transfer markets will require a deeper integration of competition law principles into the regulatory frameworks of sports governing bodies of professional sport in T\u00fcrkiye.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n