top of page

Case Analysis: International Skating Union (ISU) v. European Commission

Written by Mani Balaji S


The case of International Skating Union (ISU) v. European Commission is a pivotal legal battle that centers on the legality of the rules established by the ISU regarding the authorization of skating competitions and the eligibility criteria for athletes participating in such events. At the heart of the matter lies the question of whether these rules, as implemented by ISU, comply with the regulations set forth by the European Union regarding competition law, specifically Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).  The European Commission, following an investigation into ISU's regulations, concluded that these rules infringed upon EU competition law. Subsequently, the General Court upheld the Commission's decision, albeit with some dissent concerning the arbitration rules. This case analysis aims to dissect the legal arguments presented by both sides, explore the implications of the judgments rendered by the European institutions, and discern the practical significance of the rulings.


In essence, the case revolves around ISU's regulations, which mandate prior approval for the organization of international skating competitions and impose severe penalties on athletes who participate in unauthorized events. The crux of the matter lies in whether these regulations unduly restrict free competition within the skating sector and whether they confer unfair advantages to ISU over its competitors. Additionally, scrutiny is placed on the arbitration clauses embedded within ISU's rules, which dictate the recourse available to athletes in challenging ISU's decisions.


The legal arguments presented in this case are multifaceted. On one hand, ISU argues that its regulations are essential for maintaining the integrity of the sport, ensuring participant safety, and preserving the organization's ability to govern skating competitions effectively. Conversely, the European Commission contends that ISU's rules create barriers to entry for competitors, stifle innovation and competition, and confer undue advantages to ISU itself.


The implications of the judgments rendered by the European institutions extend beyond the realm of skating. They have far-reaching consequences for sports governance and competition law enforcement across various sectors. The rulings reaffirm the principles of transparency, non-discrimination, and proportionality in sports regulation. They underscore the need for sports governing bodies to balance regulatory powers with fair competition and market access. The ISU v. European Commission case represents a significant legal battle with implications for sports governance and competition law enforcement. By examining the legal arguments, implications, and practical significance of the judgments rendered, we gain insights into the complexities of applying EU competition law within the context of international sports regulation.


Legal context and Facts:


The legal context surrounding the case of ISU v. European Commission centers on the regulations set forth by the International Skating Union (ISU), the sole international governing body responsible for regulating and administering speed skating and figure skating. These regulations mandate that any international skating competition must receive prior approval from the ISU, and athletes who participate in unauthorized events face severe penalties, including potential exclusion from future competitions.


The genesis of the legal dispute arose when two professional skaters challenged ISU's regulations, alleging that they infringed upon the principles of free competition enshrined in EU law. Specifically, the skaters contended that ISU's rules acted as barriers to entry for competitors and inhibited their ability to participate in alternative skating events. Their complaint prompted the European Commission to initiate proceedings to investigate the matter further.


Upon conducting its investigation, the European Commission determined that ISU's regulations indeed violated EU competition law. The Commission found that these rules amounted to restrictions on free competition, as they granted ISU excessive control over the organization of skating competitions and imposed unjustifiable penalties on athletes for participating in unauthorized events. Consequently, the Commission took action against ISU, aiming to rectify the perceived breaches of EU law.


The legal proceedings continued as ISU contested the Commission's findings before the General Court of the European Union. While the General Court upheld the Commission's decision regarding the unlawfulness of ISU's regulations, it diverged on the issue of arbitration rules. Despite this discrepancy, the General Court affirmed the Commission's overall assessment that ISU's regulations contravened EU competition law.


 Analysis of Legal Arguments:


The core legal arguments revolve around whether ISU's rules infringe on EU competition law and if the arbitration clauses exacerbate the restrictive effects. The European institutions scrutinized ISU's regulations under Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, assessing their objectives, context, and proportionality.


Under Article 101 TFEU, the Court analyzed whether ISU's rules constituted agreements restricting competition by object. It considered the objectives pursued by ISU, including safeguarding the integrity of sport and protecting participants' health and safety. While acknowledging the legitimacy of these objectives, the Court emphasized the need for transparency, non-discrimination, and proportionality in the implementation of such rules.


Similarly, under Article 102 TFEU, the Court assessed whether ISU's regulations amounted to an abuse of its dominant position. It scrutinized the inherent conflicts of interest arising from ISU's dual role as a regulator and organizer of skating events. The Court highlighted the importance of ensuring fair access to the market for competitors and preventing arbitrary treatment in the application of authorization criteria.


Regarding the arbitration clauses, the Court examined whether they reinforced the restrictive effects of ISU's rules. It considered the athletes' limited recourse to challenge ISU's decisions before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and its implications for the effectiveness of EU competition law. While acknowledging the benefits of specialized sports arbitration, the Court emphasized the importance of ensuring effective judicial review and access to legal remedies.


Practical Significance and Implications:


The judgments rendered in the case of ISU v. European Commission carry profound practical implications for sports governance, competition law enforcement, and the broader landscape of international sports arbitration. These implications extend beyond the immediate parties involved and resonate throughout the sports industry, impacting athletes, sports governing bodies (SGBs), and stakeholders alike.


At its core, the ISU case reaffirms fundamental principles of EU competition law, including transparency, non-discrimination, and proportionality, as they apply to the regulation of sports activities. By scrutinizing ISU's regulations through the lens of these principles, the European Commission and the General Court have underscored the imperative for SGBs to exercise their regulatory powers in a manner that fosters fair competition and ensures equal access to the market for all stakeholders. This serves as a timely reminder to SGBs worldwide to align their regulatory frameworks with EU competition law standards, even if they operate outside the EU jurisdiction, given the global reach and influence of European competition principles.


Moreover, the case sheds light on the complexities and challenges associated with enforcing EU competition law within the realm of international sports arbitration. The scrutiny applied by the Court to arbitration clauses underscores the importance of ensuring effective judicial review and compliance with EU public policy, even in specialized arbitration settings. While acknowledging the benefits of specialized arbitration in resolving sports disputes efficiently, the Court's emphasis on safeguarding fundamental rights and ensuring access to justice highlights the need for mechanisms to address any potential imbalances or limitations inherent in arbitration procedures.


From a broader perspective, the ISU case serves as a precedent-setting milestone in the ongoing evolution of sports governance and competition law enforcement. It underscores the growing recognition of sports activities as economic endeavors subject to the same competition law principles that govern other sectors. This recognition carries implications for the future regulation of sports activities, as SGBs and other stakeholders navigate the complex interplay between regulatory oversight, commercial interests, and the preservation of fair competition.


Furthermore, the ISU case has sparked discussions and reflections within the sports community regarding the appropriate balance between regulatory autonomy and competition law compliance. It has prompted SGBs to reevaluate their regulatory frameworks and arbitration practices to ensure alignment with EU competition law standards and principles. Additionally, it has heightened awareness among athletes and other stakeholders of their rights and avenues for recourse in the event of perceived breaches of competition law.


The ISU case represents a watershed moment in the intersection of sports governance and EU competition law. Its practical significance and implications extend far beyond the confines of the courtroom, shaping the future landscape of sports regulation, competition law enforcement, and international sports arbitration. As the sports industry continues to evolve, the principles and precedents established in the ISU case will serve as guiding pillars for ensuring fairness, transparency, and accountability in sports governance and competition.




In conclusion, the case of ISU v. European Commission highlights the complexities of applying EU competition law to the regulation of sports activities. The judgments rendered by the European institutions underscore the importance of transparency, non-discrimination, and proportionality in sports governance. While recognizing the legitimate objectives pursued by sports governing bodies, the Court emphasizes the need to prevent abuses of regulatory powers and ensure fair competition in the sports sector. Ultimately, the case sets important precedents for the enforcement of EU competition law in the context of international sports arbitration and has implications for sports governance worldwide.

*The Author is a legal Scholar from India

(The Image used here is for representative purposes only)


  1.  European Union: ISU v. Commission - Judicial review of Court of Arbitration for Sport awards and EU public policy. (n.d.).,eligibility%20of%20athletes%20to%20participate   

  2. Paschalidis, P. (2024, January 11). ISU v Commission: Arbitration as a Reinforcement of Infringements of EU Competition Law - Kluwer Competition Law Blog. Kluwer Competition Law Blog. 

  3.  Cattaneo, A. (2021). International Skating Union v Commission: Pre-authorisation Rules and Competition Law. Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 12(4), 318–320. 

  4.  Expert, L. C. (2024, January 11). Case C- 124/21 P International Skating Union v Commission [Archived].   

  5. ISU v. Commission – the “Achmea moment” for sports arbitration and beyond? (n.d.). LUTHER Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH. 


bottom of page