Latest News
Heightened antitrust/competition law risk for sport governing bodies facing new market entrants
In recent years, the European Commission (EC) and National Competition Authorities (NCA) have shown increased appetite to investigate sport governing bodies in relation to rules that restrict competition from new market entrants (principally, “outsider” commercial event organisers). These rules most commonly operate by either imposing on new market entrants to respect the rules and regulations of the sport as conceived by the governing body, and/or by disciplining athletes (and other participants, such as coaches, match officials etc.) if they participate in events that are not sanctioned (i.e. approved) by the governing body.
The most notable recent case in relation to such rules is the EC’s continuing investigation into the eligibility rules of the International Skating Union (ISU). This case represents the most significant intervention by the EC in this area since the landmark Fédération Internationale de Sport Automobile (FIA) case in the late 90s/early 00s, in which the EC expressed concerns that the FIA was using its regulatory powers to exclude competing events for its own commercial benefit, ultimately leading to significant structural changes in the organisation of Formula One following commitments offered in order to meet those concerns.
The ISU is the sole body recognised by the International Olympic Committee to regulate the sports of figure skating and speed skating on ice. Its members are national ice skating associations (the ISU is therefore at the top of the ‘pyramid’ for ice skating).
The ISU’s eligibility rules impose bans on ice skaters, potentially for life, if they participate in events not approved by the ISU. A complaint about these rules was made by two Dutch professional speed skaters, Mark Tuitert and Niels Kerstholt, resulting in the EC opening proceedings in October 2015. On 27 September 2016 – despite the ISU making changes to its rules in June 2016 – the EC sent a Statement of Objections to the ISU, stating that the EC’s preliminary view was that the ISU’s rules unduly restricted the athletes’ commercial freedom and prevented new entrants from organising alternative events, because they were unable to attract top athletes.
In announcing the Statement of Objections, Commissioner Vestager alluded to the balance that is to be struck:
‘International sports governing bodies play a unique role in setting the rules of the game and ensuring standards of conduct. They are responsible for both the health and safety of athletes and for the integrity of competitions. We have concerns that the penalties the ISU imposes on skaters through its eligibility rules are not aimed at preserving high standards in sport but rather serve to maintain the ISU’s control over speed skating.’
The ISU’s immediate reply, by way of press release (also dated 27 September 2016), was a robust one. It stated:
‘Any allegation that the ISU’s rules are somehow anti-competitive appears to be based on a misplaced understanding of the governance structure of sport and the Olympic movement. The European Union’s founding Treaty as well as the EU institutions have long recognized the autonomous governance structure of sport as being essential to the protection of the integrity, safety and health in sport. These rules benefit sports organizers, sportspersons and spectators…
It appears then that the European Commission has failed to take adequate account of the importance of the legitimate objectives pursued by the ISU’s eligibility rules. A neoliberal and deregulated approach to sport could destroy the Olympic values underpinning sport.’
The ISU case is not the only recent case, and NCAs have either opened or decided cases such as:
- Italy, in relation to provisions of the Federazione Italiana Sport Equestri (FISE) providing it with exclusive jurisdiction over sporting and/or recreational activities and restricting FISE members (riders, technicians, trainers, etc.) from participating in events outside FISE’s jurisdiction;
- Sweden, in relation to rules of the Swedish Bodybuilding Federation (SKKF) under which members were suspended or fined if they participated in events not affiliated to SKKF; and
- Belgium, in relation to the ‘unsanctioned events’ rule of the Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI), according to which the FEI had the power to suspend for up to six months riders, horses and officials from participating in FEI-promoted events if they participated in events not approved by the FEI.
The ‘pyramid structure’ of sports governance
Those involved in European sport will be familiar with the pyramid structure of sports governance, whereby a sport will have one international federation sitting above continental and/or national federations (which might in turn sit above a number of regional federations). Indeed, the pyramid model is one unique characteristic of sport that the EC has long recognised: the so-called “specificity of sport” includes:
‘…a pyramid structure of competitions from grassroots to elite level and organised solidarity mechanisms between the different levels and operators, the organisation of sport on a national basis, and the principle of a single federation per sport.’
The pyramid structure has a number of advantages for the governance of sport, including:
- enabling sports to define uniform rules, both on and off the field (including the rules of play, anti-doping regulations, anti-corruption regulations etc.);
- aiding the equitable distribution of revenue from the elite to the grassroots level, encouraging participation, development and competitive balance; and
- the prevention of conflict within sport, which is desirable for the selection of national athletes and teams, and the identification of champions at each level of the sport.
The pyramid structure is justified and it should not be automatically offensive from a competition law perspective, and there are several good reasons why sports governing bodies will seek to protect it by introducing rules which may have an anti-competitive effect. Indeed, these rules could negatively impact the economic interests of “outsider” event organisers and any participants who may wish to participate in events organised by them. Drawing the line between these competing interests is not a straightforward exercise.
The relevant legal test
Put very simply, it is settled that sporting rules with economic effects are compatible with EU competition law if they pursue a legitimate objective and if the restrictions that they create are inherent and proportionate to reaching that objective.
So, for example, it would be a legitimate objective for a governing body to seek to ensure uniform application of anti-doping regulations across participants in its sport, for instance by testing athletes prior to their participation in events. However, it may be disproportionate for a governing body to prevent any participation of athletes to events organised by new entrants and to ban an athlete for life should he/she participate in such an event without the possibility of an appeal.
Concluding remarks
Competition law challenges can represent a significant burden on the resources of sport governing bodies, and significant penalties can arise in the event of a finding of infringement (up to 10% of their global turnover).
There is a clear recent trend for governing bodies to be challenged by competition authorities at both the European and national level. This trend is likely to continue as rules that restrict competition are common to sports that adopt the pyramid model (which is most sports across Europe), and athletes and new entrants demonstrate continued and perhaps increasing willingness to challenge the perceived anti-competitive behaviour of sports governing bodies.
On the one hand, competition law respects the ability of sport governing bodies to pursue legitimate sporting objectives in a proportionate manner. On the other hand, their decision making process must ensure that their regulatory power is not misused to grant them a commercial advantage. Sports governing bodies would therefore be well advised to review their rulebooks to ensure that they mitigate the risk of antitrust challenge.
Latest News
Kambi Group plc repurchase of shares during 6 November – 12 November 2024
Kambi Group plc (“Kambi”) has during the period 6 November to 12 November 2024 (the “Buyback Period”) repurchased a total of 54,000 ordinary B shares (ISIN: MT0000780107) as part of the share buyback programme, within the mandate approved at the Extraordinary General Meeting on 20 June 2024 (the “Programme”).
The objective of the Programme is to achieve added value for Kambi´s shareholders and to give the Board increased flexibility with Kambi´s capital structure by reducing the capital. The Programme is being carried out in accordance with the Maltese Companies Act, EU Market Abuse Regulation No 596/2014 (“MAR”) and other applicable rules.
From the beginning of the Programme, which started on 6 November, until and including 12 November 2024, Kambi has repurchased a total of 54,000 ordinary B shares at a volume-weighted average price of 111.87 SEK per share.
During the Buyback Period, Kambi has repurchased shares as follows:
Date | Aggregated daily volume (number of ordinary B shares) |
Weighted average share price per day (SEK) |
Total daily transaction value (SEK) |
6 November 2024 | 14,000 | 117.27 | 1,641,822 |
7 November 2024 | 10,000 | 115.17 | 1,151,709 |
8 November 2024 | 10,000 | 110.08 | 1,100,826 |
11 November 2024 | 10,000 | 107.82 | 1,078,240 |
12 November 2024 | 10,000 | 106.81 | 1,068,130 |
All acquisitions have been carried out on Nasdaq First North Growth Market in Stockholm by Carnegie Investment Bank AB on behalf of Kambi. Following the acquisitions and as of 12 November 2024, Kambi’s holding of its own shares amounted to 1,428,678 and the total number of issued shares in Kambi is 31,278,297 ordinary B shares. Under the Programme Kambi is authorised to repurchase a maximum of 3,127,830 ordinary B shares, up to a maximum amount of €12.0 million.
A full breakdown of all transactions carried out during the Buyback Period is attached to this announcement.
Information on the Programme is available on Kambi’s website, kambi.com/investors/share-information/
Latest News
Zillion Games launches Storm Fruits 2
Zillion Games launches Storm Fruits 2, an exciting sequel to the popular Storm Fruits. With 4,096 ways to win and a Bonus Buy option, players can jump straight into the action for even more chances to win. This refreshed classic fruit theme combines timeless charm with modern thrills for a truly engaging experience.
Accumulated Bonus
During gameplay, bonus symbols accumulate, and when five symbols land, a special feature may trigger, adding the missing symbol to activate the Hold and Ring bonus mode.
Hold and Ring with Jackpots
In this bonus mode, players can win one of three jackpots: Mini, Minor, or Major. Fill all 20 grid positions to unlock the Grand Jackpot.
Free Spins with Random Walking Wilds
Wild symbols can appear in varying amounts on each new spin, moving to random positions and potentially leading to big wins. In Free Spins mode, landing three scatter symbols will trigger additional free spins for even more chances to win!
Latest News
Growe Partners Named Best Affiliate Program. Once Again.
Growe Partners, an affiliate program, which has skyrocketed its performance in the iGaming industry in just a year, has received yet another recognition as the Best Affiliate Program at the SiGMA Europe Awards 2024.
The ceremony took place in Valletta, Malta on Nov, 12th, and the victory was achieved through a combination of public votes on the award page and evaluations by a distinguished jury panel.
In just a year Growe Partners has rightfully reserved a place amongst industry leaders, who have been in the game for a lot longer, and as they say themselves — they are not going anywhere. Today Growe Partners is a network with over 32 thousand partners, operating in more than 10 locations worldwide.
“This achievement reflects our commitment to investing in our people, our partners, our ideas, and continuously implementing new innovative approaches. We are proud of the strong team we have built, which is always on the lookout for ways to develop and better themselves. And whose dedication resulted in this victory.
With winning this award we would like to once again emphasize that everything is possible in our industry if you set the right goal and work hard for it.” , — commented Dima Mariievskyi, Head of Growe Partners.
-
Africa7 days ago
EveryMatrix secures largest African turnkey deal with MBet partnership
-
Asia7 days ago
Nazara Publishing announces playtest for FAU-G: Domination at India’s oldest and biggest game developer conference IGDC 2024
-
Asia7 days ago
8Bit Creatives partners with NODWIN Gaming as the exclusive talent partner for DreamHack India
-
Asia6 days ago
VSPO, the largest esports company in Asia, rebranded Hero Esports to support global growth strategy
-
Balkans7 days ago
BEGE celebrates 15 years as Eastern Europe’s premier gaming expo
-
Gaming7 days ago
Getting ready for Xmas: SplitMetrics partnership with Wargaming helps World of Warships app sail to new heights with 15% uplift in organic conversions
-
Latest News6 days ago
Week 45/2024 slot games releases
-
Latest News7 days ago
AC MILAN AND SPRIBE ANNOUNCE NEW PARTNERSHIP AND WELCOME AVIATOR AS THE CLUB’S OFFICIAL CRASH GAME