Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão (Portugal) lodged on 16 February 2024 – CD Tondela – Futebol, SAD and Others v Autoridade da Concorrência

(Case C-133/24, CD Tondela and Others)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: CD Tondela – Futebol, SAD; Clube Desportivo Feirense – Futebol, SAD; Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional (LPFP); Académico de Viseu Futebol Clube, Futebol SAD; Os Belenenses – Sociedade Desportiva de Futebol, SAD; Boavista Futebol Clube, Futebol SAD; Sporting Clube de Braga, Futebol, SAD; Sporting Clube da Covilhã – Futebol, SDUQ, Lda; Estoril Praia – Futebol, SAD; Gil Vicente Futebol Clube – Futebol, SDUQ, Lda; Leixões Sport Clube, Futebol, SAD; Clube Desportivo de Mafra – Futebol, SDUQ, Lda; União Desportiva Oliveirense – Futebol, SAD; Futebol Clube de Paços de Ferreira, SDUQ, Lda; Futebol Clube de Penafiel, SA; Portimonense Futebol, SAD; Rio Ave Futebol Clube – Futebol SDUQ, Lda; Santa Clara Açores – Futebol, SAD; Varzim Sporting Club – Futebol, SDUQ, Lda.; União Desportiva Vilafranquense, Futebol SAD; Futebol Clube de Famalicão – Futebol SAD; Moreirense Futebol Clube – Futebol, SAD; Marítimo da Madeira, Futebol, SAD; Vitória Sport Clube – Futebol, SAD; Futebol Clube do Porto, Futebol, SAD; Sporting Clube de Portugal – Futebol, SAD; Sport Lisboa e Benfica, Futebol, SAD; Associação Académica de Coimbra – Organismo Autónomo de Futebol, SDUQ, Lda.

Defendant: Autoridade da Concorrência

Questions referred

(A)    Does an agreement concluded online via the Zoom or Microsoft Teams platforms on 7 April 2020 by all of the First-Division incorporated professional football clubs and to which most of the Second-Division incorporated professional football clubs of a Member State subsequently signed up, by the same mechanism on the following day, in both cases in collusion with the association whose purpose in that Member State is to support and regulate professional football activities, and under which those clubs agreed as between themselves not to sign up any professional footballers in those divisions who had unilaterally terminated their employment contract on account of issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic or from any exceptional decision adopted as a result of that pandemic, in particular to extend the sports season, constitute a rule of sporting interest for the purposes of the case-law in Meca-Medina (Case C-519/04 P, Meca-Medina [and Majcen v Commission, EU:C:2006:492]), in the circumstances described in this request for a preliminary ruling?

(B)    For the purposes of the case-law arising from the judgments of 19 February 2002, Wouters and Others (C-309/99, EU:C:2002:98, paragraph 97), and of 18 July 2006, Meca-Medina and Majcen v Commission (C-519/04 P, EU:C:2006:492, paragraph 42), may a rule, arising from an agreement concluded online via the Zoom or Microsoft Teams platforms on 7 April 2020 by all of the First-Division incorporated professional football clubs and to which most of the Second-Division incorporated professional football clubs of a Member State subsequently signed up, by the same mechanism on the following day, in both cases in collusion with the association whose purpose in that Member State is to support and regulate professional football activities, and under which those clubs agreed as between themselves not to sign up any professional footballers in those divisions who had unilaterally terminated their employment contract on account of issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic or from any exceptional decision adopted as a result of that pandemic, in particular to extend the sports season, and having the characteristics and objectives, and applying in the circumstances, described in this request for a preliminary ruling, be regarded as proportionate and appropriate and therefore, in accordance with Article 165 TFEU, compatible with Article 101(1) TFEU?

(C)    Does Article 101(1) TFEU preclude an interpretation to the effect that an agreement having the characteristics and objectives, and applying in the circumstances, described in this request for a preliminary ruling, concluded online via the Zoom or Microsoft Teams platforms on 7 April 2020 by all of the First-Division incorporated professional football clubs and to which most of the Second-Division incorporated professional football clubs of a Member State subsequently signed up, by the same mechanism on the following day, in both cases in collusion with the association whose purpose in that Member State is to support and regulate professional football activities, and under which those clubs agreed as between themselves not to sign up any professional footballers in those divisions who had unilaterally terminated their employment contract on account of issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic or from any exceptional decision adopted as a result of that pandemic, in particular to extend the sports season, may be classified as a restriction of competition by object on the ground that it presents a sufficient degree of harm to competition?

____________