Abstract des Autors

In its recent Decision on the International Skating Union’s (ISU) Eligibility rules (‘Rule 102’), the European Commission found Rule 102 to be incompatible with Art. 101 TFEU, as it banned ISU-affiliated athletes from participating in non-authorised events and foresaw severe sanctions for non-compliance.
Besides framing Rule 102 as a loyalty clause, the paper will offer a discussion based on three concepts familiar to the sports law community: Specificity (should the sport sector’s private regulations receive special treatment?), Monopoly (and its implications) and Solidarity (as a reason to disregard Monopoly and to accommodate Specificity claims).
While the ISU case may be proof of an enforcement deficit, recent decisions by national competition authorities show a high awareness of the ubiquity, within the sports sector, of rules like ISU’s Rule 102, and of their potentially anticompetitive objectives and/or effects.