Competition law developments in Sport: Key takeaways from Breakfast Roundtable held on 10 June 2025

The intersection of sports governance and competition law is undergoing a period of significant transformation. The Sports Trilogy judgments (Superleague, International Skating Union and Royal Antwerp) handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Union, reshaped how courts assess sporting rules under competition law. 

These decisions have brought longstanding assumptions about the “special status” of sport into question, and they carry implications for governing bodies, clubs, and regulators alike. Our recent roundtable, held at the Bird & Bird London office, brought together leading voices from legal practice, academia, and the sports industry to unpack these developments and to consider how stakeholders should adapt in the face of increasing regulatory and litigation risk.

Main takeaways:

• The narrowing scope of what had historically been referred to as the “sporting exception.” Previously, sporting rules could, to a degree, be shielded from competition law under the premise that they served the unique nature of sport. However, the Trilogy judgments (and case law issued since) make clear that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is no longer inclined to grant such latitude.
• Sports, while commercial in nature, remain structurally distinct and offer an inherent ‘social value’ to society. Unlike other industries, sports competitions require a level of cooperation between rivals, and the health and success of the sporting competition often depends on its competitive balance. Overly aggressive economic competition can damage the core appeal of sport, and governance structures have traditionally aimed to preserve this balance.
• A broad interpretation of the Sports Trilogy could paralyse governance. If every deviation from the transparency-proportionality-non-discrimination framework is treated as a possible breach of competition law, governing bodies may struggle to implement rules fundamental to the operation of competitions. The courts appeared to acknowledge this nuance, yet the legal standard remains ambiguous, creating uncertainty for sports regulators and increasing litigation risk.
• A technical discussion unfolded around the nature of restrictions “by object” versus “by effect.” The Sports Trilogy signals a growing tendency to classify restrictions as “by object,” which limits the ability of governing bodies to justify their rules under traditional defences (such as Meca-Medina). Not least, there is concern that this doctrinal shift imposes, from a competition law perspective, public law-like obligations on sports bodies. This development raises the bar for defending sporting rules and invites a wave of challenges that could destabilise the ecosystem. However, this shift in approach means recourse to using more traditional competition law mechanisms when considering the robustness of legal analysis.
• Governing bodies should consider their rule-making procedures. To reduce the likelihood of challenges, rules should be drafted with precision, anchored in legitimate objectives, and framed within a structure that ensures consistency, fairness, and limits discretion, also providing procedural safeguards. Transparency and the availability of effective review mechanisms must be embedded from the outset.
• Although the UK is no longer bound by post Brexit EU jurisprudence, EU case law remains influential. UK Courts have begun referencing the Sports Trilogy in domestic decisions, embedding these principles into the local legal lexicon. However, there may be scope for argument on this front.

This event was held under the Chatham House Rule, enabling open discussion whilst protecting the identity of speakers and participants.

For more information or guidance on this topic, please reach out to Dr. Saskia King or Richard Bush.

VISIT OUR COMPETITION LAW HOMEPAGE