Clubs accuse Competition of not knowing the industry and ignoring the context of the pandemic

Clubs fined 11.3 million euros for restricting competition in the labor market on Monday accused the regulator of not knowing the sector and ignoring the context of the pandemic in which the messages that started the process were published.

In opening presentations that began this Monday at the Court of Competition, Regulation and Supervision (TCRS) in Santarém against the decision on appeals filed by the Portuguese Professional Football League (FPFP) and 31 sports societies, the defense offered -proved concluded in April 2020 agreement to not hire football players unilaterally dismissed for reasons related to covid-19 aims to “prevent the flight” of players, in order to ensure sports competition.

In May 2020, the Antimonopoly Office (ADC) took a preventive measure and filed an administrative offense for restricting competition in the labor market following the issuance of two LPFP communiqués dated April 7 and 8, 2020 implementing an agreement not to hire players who left another club due to covid-19 pandemic.

Both prosecutors and the AdC offered this Monday to prove in a trial that there was a violation and that the clubs and the League acted with awareness of the illegality, and prosecutor Paulo Vieira believes the published communiqués reveal the same “lack of modesty and arrogance” by attitude towards workers.

An AdC spokesman said the agreement, made at a time when the competition was suspended due to the sanitary regime, was not negotiated with the players’ union, as it was the result of “deliberate and guilty” behavior aimed at restricting demand and freedom of contract. .

League and club officials expressed regret that the AdC’s decision did not contain any framework for a “real hecatomb that befell the world” in January 2020, noting that the LPFP decided to suspend competition on March 12, days before the state of emergency was declared. who closed the country.

“In addition to ignoring the context, it ignored the impact on the economy and football,” said a lawyer representing the LPFP and 21 sports societies, citing research data on the impact of the pandemic on a sector with millions of euros. in losses and appeals to loans, wage agreements and “layoffs” that called “the very survival of the sector into question”.

Accusing the AdC decision of containing “mistakes” in terms of market definition and geographic measurement, and of ignoring features such as “transfer windows” that occur in January and July/August, the defense stressed that reports were released when the winter window had already closed and the summer window had not yet opened, and at a time when the extension of the season (which normally closes on 30 June) and “the risk of clubs not having squads” were being discussed.

On the other hand, they stated that with the application of a preventive measure in May, the agreement was suspended without effect, disputing that the ADC intends to prove the existence of an agreement that restricts competition in the subject matter (it is not necessary to prove the consequences).

As far as defenders are concerned, by stating that the legal action brought against the clubs is unprecedented, the AdC contradicts the need for solid and common practice that this type of behavior implies.

For Vitoria de Guimarães and lawyer Maritimo, the agreement was intended to “avoid chaos in football” as “the state has resigned” to protect the sector, an example of what would happen if 30 players left the team, leading to stability competitions.

“It can only be said through ignorance of sports law that the goal was not to pay wages,” he said, stressing that the laws imposing this were in place and that this non-compliance could result in the loss of points. and demotion of the division.

In the process, the AdC was confused with the Employment Environment Authority and wanted to place itself “in the media forums”, according to a Sporting spokesperson.

Sport Lisboa e Benfica (SLB) and Futebol Clube do Porto (FCP) were fined the most (around €4.2m and €2.6m respectively), while Sporting Clube de Portugal was fined around €1.7m. euro.

The process, which was originally presided over by Judge Mariana Gomes Machado, who in December established the provision of guarantees, was transferred to Judge Vande Miguel, given that the holder of decision 1 TCRS was appointed on 1 May as an international adviser to the courts of first instance of Timor-Leste as part of cooperation between the two countries.