Background
ZD and MI were directors of Juventus Football Club. In 2022, the Italian Football Federation (FIGC) imposed 24-month prohibitions on each from pursuing professional activities within football following allegations that they participated in creating a system of artificial capital gains exceeding €60 million. The scheme involved falsely presenting player transfers in Juventus’s 2020–2021 financial statements as independent transactions when they were actually exchanges, designed to evade international accounting standards and overstate the club’s profits and assets.
The sanctions were upheld through FIGC’s internal sports judicial bodies (Federal Court, Federal Court of Appeal, and Sport Guarantee Board) and subsequently extended globally by UEFA and FIFA. ZD and MI then sought judicial review in the Regional Administrative Court (Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio), which referred preliminary questions to the CJEU regarding the compatibility of Italian law with EU law on judicial protection and freedom of movement.
The referring court was uncertain whether Italian Law No 280/2003—which reserves disciplinary decisions to sports bodies and limits administrative court review to monetary compensation, excluding annulment or suspension—complied with EU requirements for effective judicial protection and freedom of movement when sanctions have cross-border effects.
The Court’s Holding
The Court partially admitted the preliminary ruling. It found inadmissible the questions concerning Articles 49 (freedom of establishment), 101 and 102 TFEU (competition rules), and Article 6 TEU because the referring court did not adequately explain the connection between those provisions and the disputes at issue or provide sufficient factual basis for how the sanctions would restrict establishment rights or competitive dynamics.
However, the Court found admissible the questions concerning Articles 45 and 56 TFEU (freedom of movement for workers and freedom to provide services). Although the underlying disciplinary matter involves an Italian sports federation and Italian club, the sanctions had an essential cross-border dimension: they were extended to UEFA and FIFA at the FIGC’s request and subsequently granted global effect by FIFA. This international scope means the sanctions restrict the directors’ ability to work across the EU and globally in their professional capacity, bringing them within the scope of EU law on freedom of movement. The Court emphasized that even situations confined to a single Member State can trigger EU law obligations when they involve restrictions on freedom of movement with cross-border effects.
Key Takeaways
- EU law on freedom of movement (Articles 45, 56 TFEU) applies to sports disciplinary sanctions that have cross-border effects, even if the underlying sports matter is governed by national sports law.
- Procedural compliance with preliminary ruling requirements is strict: referring courts must clearly explain the factual link between the national legislation and specific EU provisions, particularly in complex fields like competition and sports law.
- A sanction confined to domestic Italian football would fall outside EU scope, but extension to international federations (UEFA, FIFA) transforms it into a matter affecting freedom of movement.
- National sports autonomy does not create an exception to EU law where sanctions restrict workers’ or service providers’ fundamental freedoms across borders.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the boundary between national sports autonomy and EU law oversight. While sports federations retain significant autonomy under national law to regulate sporting conduct, that autonomy does not permit unrestricted restriction of professional activities when sanctions extend internationally. The ruling signals that disciplinary measures affecting access to work across Europe and the world are subject to EU scrutiny, particularly regarding proportionality and the availability of effective judicial remedies. This has profound implications for how national sports bodies—from football to other disciplines—can exercise their enforcement powers, especially when they have authority to request global sanctions through international federations.
The decision also reinforces that procedural requirements for preliminary rulings are not technical niceties but essential safeguards ensuring that EU courts and national courts cooperate meaningfully. By holding the referring court to a high standard of clarity regarding the EU law issues at stake, the CJEU preserved the integrity of preliminary ruling cooperation while advancing the substantive principle that restrictions on fundamental freedoms cannot be shielded from scrutiny merely by characterizing them as “sport.”