Italian Football Federation loses final appeal on abuse of dominant position

On 7 January 2026, Italian Administrative Court of Second Instance (the “Court”) upheld the Italian Competition Authority’s ("ICA") decision, which had imposed an administrative fine of EUR 4 million, finding that the Italian Football Federation ("FIGC") had abused its dominant position in violation of Article 102 TFEU.

Background

The case originated from complaints filed by Sports Promotion Bodies ("EPS"), which alleged that FIGC prevented its affiliated clubs and athletes from participating in youth competitions organised by EPS.

The ICA found that FIGC had pursued an exclusionary strategy aimed at extending its dominance from competitive youth football into the recreational and amateur youth market.

This strategy involved three main types of conduct: (i) FIGC persistently failed to conclude the conventions that would have allowed EPS to organise competitive youth football events; (ii) even for young children engaged in recreational activity (ages 5-12), FIGC required that conventions be signed with EPS and specific authorisations be obtained before FIGC-affiliated clubs could participate in events organised by EPS; and (iii) FIGC classified all football activity for athletes aged 12 to 17 as "competitive", regardless of the actual nature of the activity.

The Regional Administrative Court of first instance had annulled the ICA’s decision, emphasising among other things the regulatory and institutional dimension of FIGC’s activities and concluding that the conditions for classifying the FIGC’s actions as an abuse of a dominant position were not met.

The Court Ruling

The Court overturned the first-instance judgment and upheld the ICA’s findings on several critical grounds. In particular, the Court:

• held that antitrust enforcement operates independently of other legal frameworks—conduct may violate Article 102 TFEU even if lawful under other regulations;
• emphasised that whilst sports federations in dominant positions may legitimately defend their market position, they must do so through merit-based competition on quality, price, and innovation, not through restrictive practices;
• found that FIGC’s systematic refusal to conclude conventions with EPS was exclusionary, enabling FIGC to impose unilateral regulations that foreclosed access to FIGC-affiliated clubs;
• held that competitive sport requires intrinsic characteristics such as systematic training aimed at performance objectives, not merely age thresholds; and

• confirmed that potential anticompetitive effects suffice under Article 102 TFEU—proof of actual harm is unnecessary.

   

Key Takeaways

The Court's ruling shows that regulatory autonomy provides no antitrust immunity, meaning that sports federations exercising regulatory powers in economic markets must comply with antitrust law.

Moreover, the Court’s ruling reinforces that Article 102 TFEU targets conduct capable of restricting competition, with the relevant test being whether the conduct had the capacity to restrict merit-based competition rather than whether it ultimately succeeded in eliminating rivals or whether competitors subsequently survived or grew.

The Italian Administrative Court of Second Instance’s ruling (in Italian only) is available at the following link 

For more information, please contact Federico Marini Balestra, Lucia Antonazzi, Jacopo M. Orsi and Bianca Maria Gorlero 

VISIT OUR COMPETITION LAW HOMEPAGE