Hasonlóan látom, bár hosszabb távon (10-20 év) egyáltalán nem zárom ki a ligásodás lehetőségét az európai klubfutballban, de - jelenlegi tudásunk szerint - az UEFA (és a FIFA) aktív részvételével, minimálisan is amolyan külső irányításával, ahogy a nemzeti ligák esetén a szövetségek eljárnak jelenleg is. Voltak már 2021-ben is arról szóló hírek, hogy egyébként az ESL a FIFA támogatásában bízott, és nem véletlenül, mert kapott ígéreteket. Csak aztán az UEFA nagyon erős ellenállása miatt visszakozott a FIFA. (Nem ugyanaz a szint, de a FIFA a CAS-sal közösen Afrikában azóta megcsinálta az eredetileg African Super League-nek elnevezni szándékozott, majd az ESL európai sikertelensége miatt African Football League-nak keresztelt sorozatot.)
Na most, ebből az alapállásból kiindulva a nem h bírósági határozatogy nem előrelépés, de még egy helyben toporgásnak is jóindulatúan nevezhető, és inkább az ESL médiafelhajtása a jelentős.
Maga a bírósági határozat igen hosszú, de a lényege néhány pontban rejlik, és ennek a magja az, hogy az UEFA engedélyére igenis szükség van, viszont az engedély kiadására konkrét szabályzatot kell létrehozni, ami átlátható és objektív. Ami az UEFA számára valamennyire kellemetlen, az az, hogy nem lehet diszkriminatív, és ebből a szempontból a - Bíróság által még nem vizsgált - 2022-es szabályozásnak az a pontja lehet kérdéses (de még ez sem eldöntötten jogellenes, erről is érdekes vita lesz még), ami szerint az UEFA akkor engedélyezi az új sorozatot, ha a saját versenyeit nem érinti hátrányosan.
A határozat - szerintem - lényege szó szerint az alábbi néhány pont:
"143 The sport of football is not only of considerable social and cultural importance in the European Union (see, to that effect, judgments of 15 December 1995, Bosman, C‑415/93, EU:C:1995:463, paragraph 106, and of 16 March 2010, Olympique Lyonnais, C‑325/08, EU:C:2010:143, paragraph 40), but also generates great media interest; its specific characteristics include the fact that it gives rise to the organisation of numerous competitions at both European and national levels, which involve the participation of very many clubs and also that of large numbers of players. In common with other sports, it also limits participation in those competitions to teams which have achieved certain sporting results (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 December 1995, Bosman, C‑415/93, EU:C:1995:463, paragraph 132), with the conduct of those competitions being based on matches between and gradual elimination of those teams. Consequently, it is, essentially, based on sporting merit, which can be guaranteed only if all the participating teams face each other in homogeneous regulatory and technical conditions, thereby ensuring a certain level of equal opportunity.
144 Those various specific characteristics support a finding that it is legitimate to subject the organisation and conduct of international professional football competitions to common rules intended to guarantee the homogeneity and coordination of those competitions within an overall match calendar as well as, more broadly, to promote, in a suitable and effective manner, the holding of sporting competitions based on equal opportunities and merit. It is also legitimate to ensure compliance with those common rules through rules such as those put in place by FIFA and UEFA on prior approval of those competitions and the participation of clubs and players therein.
145 Since such rules on prior approval and participation are thus legitimate in the specific context of professional football and the economic activities to which the practice of that sport gives rise, neither their adoption nor their implementation may be categorised, in terms of their principle or generally, as an ‘abuse of a dominant position’ (see, by analogy, in respect of a restriction of freedom to provide services, judgment of 11 April 2000, Deliège, C‑51/96 and C‑191/97, EU:C:2000:199, paragraph 64).
146 The same holds true for sanctions introduced as an adjunct to those rules, since such sanctions are legitimate, in terms of their principle, as a means of guaranteeing the effectiveness of those rules (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 July 2006, Meca-Medina and Majcen v Commission, C‑519/04 P, EU:C:2006:492, paragraph 44).
147 Be that as it may, none of the specific attributes that characterise professional football makes it possible to consider as legitimate the adoption nor, a fortiori, the implementation of rules on prior approval and participation which are, in a general way, not subject to restrictions, obligations and review that are capable of eliminating the risk of abuse of a dominant position and, more specifically, where there is no framework for substantive criteria and detailed procedural rules for ensuring that they are transparent, objective, precise and non-discriminatory, when they confer on the entity called on to implement them the power to deny any competing undertaking access to the market. Such rules must be held to infringe Article 102 TFEU, as follows from paragraphs 134 to 138 of the present judgment.
148 Similarly, in the absence of substantive criteria and detailed procedural rules ensuring that the sanctions introduced as an adjunct to those rules are transparent, objective, precise, non-discriminatory and proportionate, such sanctions must, by their very nature, be held to infringe Article 102 TFEU inasmuch as they are discretionary in nature. Indeed, such a situation makes it impossible to verify, in a transparent and objective manner, whether their implementation on a case-by-case basis is justified and proportionate in view of the specific characteristics of the international interclub competition project concerned."
