C-680/21, Royal Antwerp Football Club

Key Points to Note:

1. Facts:

◦ ‘4+4’ Rule: In the mid-2000s, the '4+4' rule was introduced in football, requiring teams to have a minimum of 8 locally trained players.

◦ Legal Challenge: Royal Antwerp FC challenged this rule, arguing it was a restriction on free movement and unfairly disadvantaged teams not complying with the requirement.

2. Outcome:

◦ Justification: The court held that the '4+4' rule was justified and proportionate. It was seen as a means to promote the development of local talent and maintain the integrity of national competitions.

◦ Special Nature of Sport: The ruling highlighted the unique nature of sports regulations, acknowledging that certain rules may be necessary to preserve competitive balance and promote local player development.

3. Impact and Analysis:

◦ Special Nature of Sport: The case reinforced the idea that sports have a 'special nature' that justifies certain regulatory exceptions. The Court recognised that some restrictions might be acceptable if they serve a legitimate objective in the context of sports, such as fostering local talent.

◦ Comparison to Other Sectors: The decision underscored the uniqueness of sports regulations compared to other sectors, like supermarkets, where similar restrictions might not be justifiable.

◦ Regulatory Balance: The ruling reflected the need to balance regulatory measures with compliance with EU law, ensuring that sports regulations are both fair and conducive to competition.