He believes that its wording affected the “true legal meaning” of the decision made by the Grand Chamber on the European Super League
MADRID, 27 Dic. (EUROPA PRESS) –
LaLiga has indicated that the press release that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued on its decision regarding the Super League, considering UEFA and FIFA's veto on the organization of said competition illegal, had wording that caused the “undeniable misinterpretation” of the sentence in the media.
“Given such a laudable effort by the Court to clarify and refrain from any assessment, the wording of the official press release published shortly after the sentence was read is surprising, whose significance and influence on the media caused an undeniable misinterpretation on their part of the true legal meaning of the ruling,” said Javier Tebas, president of LaLiga, in a recent letter sent to the CJEU itself.
This note from Tebas has joined another complaint from UEFA, according to the newspaper 'The Times', to demand that the CJEU modify its press text. Senior UEFA officials allege that it is “inaccurate” and “contradicts the ruling”, and they believe that it was embellished to gain attention.
In this context, the letter from Tebas has highlighted that the statement “expressed conclusions about ruling 2 that do not correspond to reality”, alluding to another CJEU ruling that clarified that sports organizations can request exemptions from competition rules. if they can demonstrate their public interest.
“It is to be expected, therefore, that the explanations given by the Press and Information Unit in relation to this statement, which remains available to the public on its Internet page, will not comply either. All of this is a practice contrary to the most basic codes ethics of journalism and communication,” continued Tebas.
Finally, the president of LaLiga regretted the impact of the statement on many media outlets. “Practically none of them have understood the practical effect of said sentence, on the contrary, they are informing in the wrong sense what the sentence really expresses”, he has argued about the wording of the text.