Introduction

In the space of just one week, the EU’s top court, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”), delivered two important judgments that clarify the scope of sport rule-making activities that can benefit from an antitrust exemption: the ROGON judgment on 9 July 2026, and the much more detailed RRC Sports judgment on 16 July 2026, which builds on and develops ROGON.  The sporting rules at play in these cases concerned football players’ agents, and more specifically those adopted by the German Football Association (ROGON judgment), and FIFA (RRC Sports judgment).  However, the principles set out in the ROGON and RRC Sports judgments will resonate beyond sport arenas to find potential application to rule-making by self-regulatory bodies in other sectors. 

Key Takeaways

• The EU’s so-called ‘Meca Medina’ antitrust exemption can cover rules destined to ensure a league’s proper operation.  The ECJ recognizes that sports leagues operate as “ecosystems” and inevitably will need to adopt restrictions to ensure the proper functioning of such ecosystems.  It implies that the specificities of professional sport, where driven by public policy considerations, may justify exempting activities that would otherwise remain caught by the EU antitrust laws (Article 101 TFEU).
• The Meca Medina antitrust exemption can apply to any part of these “ecosystems”.  The ECJ confirms that this exemption is not confined to league rules governing its members (aka clubs and players); it can also apply to league rules governing services rendered by other participants in the ecosystem, such as agents.
• Determining whether a sporting rule qualifies for the Meca Medina antitrust exemption requires an individual assessment.  The ECJ looks at each agent-related rule or set of rules regulating the same aspect to determine whether it restricted competition by its very object and, if not, could meet the other conditions to get immunity from the EU antitrust laws.  In conducting this assessment, the ECJ gives a strong steer that most of the agent rules at play should not constitute “by object” restrictions and therefore could qualify for Meca Medina immunity.   
• The Meca Medina antitrust exemption can only apply to sporting rules that pursue a public interest objective, making it critical to identify the dividing line between purely commercial objectives and public interest objectives.  That said, the exemption can apply to dual-faced sporting rules, namely rules that pursue both a public interest and a commercial objectives.      
• The Meca Medina antitrust exemption is not limited to the rules on restrictive agreements (Article 101 TFEU) – it can also apply to single firm conduct (Article 102 TFEU) and restrictions to the EU free movement rules.  In the wake of its Superleague judgment, the ECJ aligns the analytic framework across both Article 101 and Article 102 TFEU.  The ECJ also confirms that this alignment extends to the EU free movement rules, such that the Meca Medina antitrust exemption can exempt impediments to the freedom to provide services protected by Article 56 TFEU.

Background

ROGON and RRC Sports both concern internal regulations on football players’ agents and the extent to which such regulations can be exempted from EU antitrust rules.  In ROGON, two German-based agent firms challenged the German Football Association’s agent regulations, which set out registration requirements, fee disclosure obligations, and restrictions on agent commissions.  Similarly, in RRC Sports, agents challenged FIFA’s global agent regulations adopted in December 2022, which introduced detailed rules setting out agent licensing requirements, commission caps, restrictions on dual representation, restrictions on solicitation, and transaction data disclosure requirements.  In both cases, the agents brought their claims before German courts, which in turn posed questions to the ECJ to help them adjudicate the matters.  Both cases raised the same core question for the ECJ to resolve: can football agent regulations fall foul of the EU competition rules and, if so, can they benefit from the so-called Meca Medina antitrust exemption?

The Meca Medina antitrust exemption gets to play in “Sport Ecosystems”

The Meca Medina antitrust exemption immunizes rules that would otherwise fall foul of Article 101 TFEU (the EU antitrust rule on anti-competitive agreements) when they pursue a genuine public interest objective, are not by their very nature problematic (i.e., ‘by object’ restrictions of competition) and are proportionate and necessary to attain this objective.

In ROGON, the ECJ recognizes that sport leagues operate as “ecosystems” and that the fair and ethical conduct of the sport requires setting boundaries on the various actors in this ecosystem — clubs, players, agents, etc.  Both judgments imply that the specificities of these ecosystems and the needs of the sport they regulate may justify exempting rules that would otherwise remain caught by the EU antitrust laws (Article 101 TFEU).  In particular, the ECJ confirms that certain sporting rules regulating agents can qualify for a Meca Medina antitrust exemption. 

The ROGON and RRC Sports judgments signal a broader approach to its application in the sports sector, in keeping with the direction of travel observed in the ECJ’s recent Tondela judgment (about no-poach agreements between Portuguese soccer clubs during the Covid-19 pandemic; please read our blog here for more on Tondela).  In Tondela, the ECJ clarified that the Meca Medina antitrust exemption is not limited to formal sporting rules issued by a federation or league; it may also apply to ad hoc arrangement between the federation and its members intended to regulate the sport (in casu an arrangement prompted by the Covid pandemic).  In ROGON and RRC Sports, the ECJ clarifies that the Meca Medina antitrust exemption is not confined to a sport federation’s regulations governing (or arrangements with) its direct members (clubs and players), and endorses its potential application to other parts of its ecosystem such as agents (who are not direct members of the federation).

Qualifying for Meca Medina requires a rule-by-rule assessment to rule out a by object classification

However, the ECJ also reiterates that qualifying for a Meca Medina antitrust exemption requires clearing a first test, namely ascertaining that the sporting rule in question does not constitute a ‘by object’ (i.e. inherently harmful) restriction of competition.  This assessment looks at each individual sporting rule (or set of similar sporting rules) one-by-one.

The rule-by-rule review has practical importance for leagues and federations alike, as it avoids that one by-object restrictive sporting rule automatically contaminates all other rules on the same topic and prevents them all from benefiting from a Meca Medina exemption.  Of course, the practical impact of one invalidated rule will depend on whether the remaining valid rules retain sense and can function on their own. 

Accordingly, the ECJ looks at each rule (or set of similar rules) governing player agents (e.g. agent registration requirements, commission caps, presumptions denying entitlement to commissions, basis to calculate commissions) to give a strong steer to the referring courts that it sees virtually all of FIFA’s agent rules as falling outside the by-object box – and thus potentially qualifying for a Meca Medina exemption.  The ECJ reaches this preliminary view in particular on the basis that the respective rules tend to focus on regulating the modalities of competition rather than its intensity.  For example, the ECJ considers that the rules on commissions focus on payment modalities or the reference base to calculate commissions, and as such do not prevent agents from competing on the actual prices for their services.  The ECJ identifies two agent rules only as potentially falling in the ‘by object’ box: a specific rule preventing agents from receiving commissions when transfers occur after the end of their agency contract owing to its (in the ECJ’s view) arbitrary character; and a rule on player solicitation that applies differently depending on whether the agent has an ongoing contract, on the basis of (in the ECJ’s view) its discriminatory nature.  

The Meca Medina antitrust exemption can apply to dual-faceted sporting rules but requires drawing a line between public interest considerations and purely commercially-driven rules  

The ECJ recognizes that one and the same sporting rule may pursue both commercial and public interest objectives.  These dual-faceted rules may benefit from the antitrust exemption under Meca Medina. 

Whilst reiterating that, conversely, the pursuit of purely commercial objectives cannot qualify for a Meca Medina exemption, the ECJ provides some helpful guidance as to where it sees the boundaries between commercial and public interest objectives. For example, remedying asymmetry of information or lack of transparency about agents’ remuneration as well as avoiding that agents become “gatekeepers” of transfers fall into the category of commercial objectives.  In contrast, ensuring core ethical standards, protecting players and coaches, in particular at the start of their careers, from abusive practices by agents, or ensuring the integrity of the transfer system and sporting competitions more broadly reflect public interest objectives (and thus fall within the purview of Meca Medina). 

The Meca Medina exemption applies across Articles 101 and 102 and the EU Free Movement Rules

In line with the position it sketched out in its Superleague judgment, the ECJ confirms that the Meca Medina exemption applies not only to the EU antitrust rules on anti-competitive agreements (Article 101 TFEU) but also to those on abuse of dominance (Article 102 TFEU).  The ECJ also confirms its application beyond the antitrust field to allow Meca Medina to exempt restrictions to the EU free movement principles (e.g. the freedom to provide services across the EU).  This coherence provides both legal certainty and simplicity since oftentimes the same sporting rules get challenged under Articles 101 and 102 TFEU as well as the EU free movement rules.   

What gameplay for the Sports Industry … and beyond?

The ROGON and RRC Sports judgments vindicate sports federations’ rule-making to ensure the proper functioning of their ‘ecosystems’.  However, the judgments do not provide a carte blanche: to qualify for antitrust immunity, sports organizations will still need to undertake a detailed self-assessment of their regulations to ensure that individual rules: (i) are not inherently harmful to competition; (ii) aim at ensuring the fair and ethical functioning of that ecosystem; and (iii) are devised proportionately to serve that purpose.  Having said that, the ECJ has paved the way for the Meca Medina antitrust exemption to play a greater role in the sport sector by recognizing that it can immunize arrangements to regulate actors of the ecosystem beyond players and clubs.  The reasoning underpinning these judgments arguably reverberates beyond sport fields.  Any sector relying on self-regulatory bodies overseeing an ecosystem, such as in the financial / crypto services sector and other sectors, may find the ECJ’s ecosystem analysis and pragmatic application of Meca Medina relevant to their own self-regulating activities.