Playing the final in Luxembourg: The Court of Justice and the future of transnational sports governance

A. Duval
{"title":"Playing the final in Luxembourg: The Court of Justice and the future of transnational sports governance","authors":"A. Duval","doi":"10.1177/1023263X221130238","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Luxembourg, in early July, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) heard two cases, commonly known as the ISU and European Super League cases, which have the potential to upend the way in which many sports are governed and international competitions organized. The hearing room was packed with a large (for legal proceedings, but small in sporting standards) audience of journalists, lawyers, civil servants, sports administrators and academics (myself included). This was an exceptional sight as the attention of the sports/football community is rarely turned to Luxembourg and the CJEU probably had not witnessed this level of interest from the media and the wider public since the Bosman hearing in 1995. At the same time, it is also the first instance in which a sporting case has been referred to the Grand Chamber, a sign that the Court itself deemed them deserving of specific attention and careful deliberation by a wide spectrum of members of the Court. Furthermore, both cases will be blessed with an Opinion of Advocate General Athanasios Rantos, which, coincidentally, will be released on ‘Bosman day’ (15 December 2022). What is at stake in these cases? Both are challenging the legitimacy and capacity of international federations (IFs) to regulate their sports and organize international sporting competitions. In practice, most European sports are governed primarily through a regulatory pyramid constituted of private associations. An IF (often, though not always, based in Switzerland) sits at the apex, such as the International Skating Union (ISU) or the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), and regulates the international dimension of a particular sport through rules and decisions imposed onto its members – the national associations – and its members’ members – the clubs and/or the athletes. These IFs are often acting as (almost natural) monopolies on the","PeriodicalId":39672,"journal":{"name":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","volume":"29 1","pages":"409 - 412"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X221130238","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In Luxembourg, in early July, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) heard two cases, commonly known as the ISU and European Super League cases, which have the potential to upend the way in which many sports are governed and international competitions organized. The hearing room was packed with a large (for legal proceedings, but small in sporting standards) audience of journalists, lawyers, civil servants, sports administrators and academics (myself included). This was an exceptional sight as the attention of the sports/football community is rarely turned to Luxembourg and the CJEU probably had not witnessed this level of interest from the media and the wider public since the Bosman hearing in 1995. At the same time, it is also the first instance in which a sporting case has been referred to the Grand Chamber, a sign that the Court itself deemed them deserving of specific attention and careful deliberation by a wide spectrum of members of the Court. Furthermore, both cases will be blessed with an Opinion of Advocate General Athanasios Rantos, which, coincidentally, will be released on ‘Bosman day’ (15 December 2022). What is at stake in these cases? Both are challenging the legitimacy and capacity of international federations (IFs) to regulate their sports and organize international sporting competitions. In practice, most European sports are governed primarily through a regulatory pyramid constituted of private associations. An IF (often, though not always, based in Switzerland) sits at the apex, such as the International Skating Union (ISU) or the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), and regulates the international dimension of a particular sport through rules and decisions imposed onto its members – the national associations – and its members’ members – the clubs and/or the athletes. These IFs are often acting as (almost natural) monopolies on the
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在卢森堡进行决赛:法院与跨国体育治理的未来
7月初,在卢森堡,欧盟法院大庭审理了两起案件,通常被称为国际单项体育联合会和欧洲超级联赛案件,这两起案件有可能颠覆许多体育项目的管理方式和国际比赛的组织方式。听证会室里挤满了记者、律师、公务员、体育行政人员和学者(包括我自己)(用于法律诉讼,但以体育标准来看,人数很少)。这是一个特殊的景象,因为体育/足球界的注意力很少转向卢森堡,而且自1995年博斯曼听证会以来,欧盟委员会可能从未见过媒体和广大公众如此关注卢森堡。同时,这也是第一次将体育案件提交大法庭审理,这表明法院本身认为这些案件值得法院广泛成员的特别关注和仔细审议。此外,这两起案件都将获得检察长阿萨纳西奥斯·兰托斯的意见,巧合的是,该意见将在“博斯曼日”(2022年12月15日)发布。这些案件的利害关系是什么?两者都在挑战国际单项体育联合会管理其体育运动和组织国际体育比赛的合法性和能力。在实践中,大多数欧洲体育运动主要通过私人协会组成的监管金字塔进行管理。国际单项体育联合会(通常,但并不总是总部设在瑞士)位于国际滑冰联盟(ISU)或国际足球联合会(FIFA)等组织的顶端,通过强加给其成员(国家协会)及其成员的成员(俱乐部和/或运动员)的规则和决定来管理特定运动的国际层面。这些国际单项体育联合会通常在
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊最新文献
Non-contractual liability of the EU: Need for a ‘diligent’ administrator test The European Arrest Warrant and the protection of the best interests of the child: The Court's last word on the limits of mutual recognition and the evolving obligations of national judicial authorities OP v. Commune d’Ans: When equality, intersectionality and state neutrality collide DPA independence and ‘indirect’ access – illusory in Belgium, France and Germany? Chilling effect: Turning the poison into an antidote for fundamental rights in Europe
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1