Javier Tebas assures that the sentence “does not validate” the Super League

MADRID, 27 May. (EUROPA PRESS) –

The president of LaLiga, Javier Tebas, has assured that the ruling of the judge handling the ‘Super League case’, in which he considers that UEFA and FIFA abuse their “dominant position” to “prevent” free competition, is not firm and that it does not “contribute anything new” and adds that it “does not validate” the creation of a Super League, a project that he sees as “abandoned” in terms of its initial terms.

“Regarding the partial estimation of the European Superleague demand, it is important to clarify that (in the same line as the CJEU) the Judge demands from FIFA and UEFA a regulation on new competitions that is transparent and guaranteed, but does not validate the Super League,” commented Tebas. on their social networks.

“What’s more, it is considered an abandoned project in its initial terms. Neither the sentence is final nor does it provide anything significant new,” added the president of LaLiga.

The judge of the Commercial Court Number 17 of Madrid has ruled that UEFA and FIFA have abused their dominant position and impede free competition by granting themselves the discretionary power to prohibit participation in alternative competitions and impose “unjustified and disproportionate” restrictions. thus partially estimating the demand of the European Super League Company SL (ESLC), owner of the football ‘Super League’, raised by the president of Real Madrid, Florentino Pérez.

In its ruling, reported by Europa Press, the court also orders UEFA and FIFA to cease the sanctioned anti-competitive conduct and prohibit its future repetition.

It also condemns them to immediately remove all the effects of anti-competitive actions that have occurred before or during the duration of this procedure.

It should be remembered that this procedure began on April 18, 2021, when ESLC announced the launch of a new professional football competition project known as ‘Super League’ and took actions in the area of ​​defense of competition in response to the response of the aforementioned institutions.