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.