The document outlines a legal dispute involving UEFA, AEK Athens, and SK Slavia Prague regarding UEFA's rule prohibiting clubs under common ownership from participating in the same UEFA competition. The case was adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which upheld UEFA's rule, emphasizing its necessity to maintain fair competition and prevent conflicts of interest. The dispute arose when UEFA introduced the contested rule in May 1998, preventing clubs with shared ownership from competing in the same tournament. Both AEK Athens and SK Slavia Prague, majority-owned by ENIC plc, challenged the rule, arguing it violated Swiss civil law, European Community (EC) competition law, and principles of procedural fairness.
The CAS panel, comprising Massimo Coccia, Christoph Vedder, and Dirk-Reiner Martens, ruled that UEFA's regulation was justified to safeguard the integrity of competitions. The panel found that the rule did not violate EC competition law (Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty) or Swiss law, as it served a legitimate sporting purpose. The panel acknowledged procedural fairness concerns, noting UEFA had enacted the rule too late for clubs to adjust, but this defect did not warrant annulling the rule entirely. Instead, the CAS granted interim relief, allowing both clubs to participate in the 1998/99 UEFA Cup while extending the stay of the rule until the end of the 1999/2000 season to ensure fairness.
The decision highlighted the tension between multi-club ownership structures and competitive integrity in football. The panel recognized that common ownership could create conflicts of interest, undermining public trust in the sport's fairness. UEFA's rule was deemed a proportionate measure to prevent such conflicts, aligning with regulations in other leagues and sports. The panel rejected alternative proposals, such as ethical codes or case-by-case assessments, as impractical or insufficient to address the inherent risks of multi-club ownership.
The ruling reinforced UEFA's authority to regulate competitions while balancing the interests of clubs and the broader football community. It set a precedent for addressing multi-club ownership issues, emphasizing the importance of clear, preventive rules to maintain the sport's credibility. The CAS decision underscored the unique challenges of sports governance, where regulatory measures must align with legal standards while preserving the essence of fair competition. The case concluded with a phased implementation of the contested rule, ensuring clubs had adequate time to comply without disrupting ongoing competitions.