Belgian justice suspends the exclusivity clause of the Fédération Équestre Internationale for infringement of competition law

The concept of the Global Champions League is that of a series of international competitions between sponsored teams of riders. This concept is thus comparable to that of the Formula 1 World Championship for motorsports according to the organizers.

However, an international competition must receive the prior approval of the FEI to be considered as a "accredited competition".

According to FEI regulations, any athlete, horse or official participating in a non-accredited competition is excluded, for the following six months, from participation in any national or international competition accredited by the FEI. This rule, called "Exclusivity clause"is provided for by Articles 113 (4) - (6) of the General Regulations of the FEI.

For the auditor of the Belgian Competition Authority, whose conclusions will be taken up by the College of the Authority in its final decision, "the FEI is not only the regulator of equestrian sport, but also an organizer of equestrian sports competitions".

Also, the FEI may be qualified, within the meaning of Community competition law, "company". According to the auditor, the same is true of the National Federations,"who also organize equestrian sports competitions, and / or have commercial interests in competitions organized by the FEI".

Consequently, the regulations as well as the decisions adopted by the FEI must be characterized as decisions of an association of undertakings.

For the applicants, "within the framework of the economic activities which it develops as a company in the market of the organization and the promotion of international show jumping competitions, the FEI competes with the independent organizers and promoters, in both segments of this market: it competes with independent organizers and promoters in order to attract, primarily, athletes and, in a subsidiary capacity, sponsors, broadcasters and spectators to their competitions".

That said, the auditor recalls that "any agreement between undertakings or any decision of an association of undertakings which restricts the freedom of action of the parties or of one of them does not necessarily fall under the prohibition of Article 101 (1) , TFEU. In order to apply this provision to sporting rules, the Court specified in the Meca-Medina case that it is first necessary to “… take into account the global context in which the decision of the association of undertakings in question has been taken or unfolding its effects, and more particularly its objectives. It is then necessary to examine whether the restrictive effects of competition which result therefrom are inherent in the pursuit of those objectives and whether they are proportionate to them '".

In conclusion of his report, the auditor, although understanding that the exclusivity clause "pursues a goal of protecting the welfare of horses and the integrity of the competition", notes that this rule:

• is not proportional to the aim pursued because it imposes on the actors of the sector restrictions which are not essential to achieve these objectives and
• gives the FEI the possibility, for a substantial part of the products in question, of eliminating competition.

Also, according to him, the FEI is committing an infringement of article 101 TFEU.

This is why the Belgian Competition Authority suspended the application of this exclusivity clause.

According to the Court of Appeal, the FEI has failed to demonstrate that the suspension of this clause could cause it serious and irreparable damage.

The Court also added that the FEI "operated without the Exclusivity Clause for over 90 years and only introduced it when it was strongly developing its business activities. However, history has confirmed that the sport of show jumping can work perfectly without"this Clause.

The suspension of the clause is therefore confirmed.