The Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) has recently ruled on two requests for interim measures against sports federations. In one case, the BCA examined new rules in Belgian football that require a minimum number of Under-23 (U23) teams in the second division. In the second decision, the BCA looked at how the national ice hockey federation treated a group of inline hockey players who wanted to play in a German league. Both decisions again highlight that competition rules apply to sports federations and show that interim measures procedures before the BCA can be a powerful tool to change market behaviour before a decision on the merits is taken, even if no interim measures are imposed.
A. Case 1: Football U23 Quota – What Happened?
This first decision of 1 August 2025 concerns a request for interim measures brought by three professional football clubs – Royal Francs Borains, Koninklijke Sporting Club Lokeren, and Royal Football Club Seraing – against the Belgian Football Association (URBSFA).
As background on the structure of Belgian football competitions, D1A (Jupiler Pro League) and D1B (Challenger Pro League) are the top two professional divisions. Since 2020, U23 teams have been allowed in D1B, initially as a pilot project without quotas.
The dispute centred on a set of new regulations introduced by the URBSFA for the competitive season 2025-2026, which mandated that at least four U23 teams, affiliated with clubs playing in the Jupiler Pro League top division, must participate in the second division (D1B). This decision imposing at least four U23 teams in the D1B division formed part of a broader agreement on the championship's format and the allocation of TV rights.
The three clubs challenged these new rules, arguing that this system created an uneven playing field, as U23 teams were less likely to be relegated regardless of their sporting performance, and their parent clubs could move U23 players between squads playing in the first and second divisions to gain a competitive advantage. Furthermore, the clubs contended that the new structure distorted the distribution of television revenue and undermined the principle of merit-based competition.
The prosecutor general added that the specific rules on the relegation of U23 clubs also favoured these clubs compared to traditional clubs. Moreover, he added that the fact that 4 teams out of 16 receive some immunity against relegation might also impact the interest of spectators for this competition and thus the derived economic rights. Finally, it would also give an advantage to the clubs in the first division who have a U23 team playing in the second division as they could play with U23 players from their second division team in the first division competition without having to comply with the strict player transfer rules.
The URBSFA, joined by the Pro League (representing the Belgian professional football clubs and manager of the TV rights) as an intervener, justified the rules as necessary to promote the development of young talent and to ensure the league's financial stability. They insisted that U23 teams can still be relegated under certain conditions, and the allocation of players between D1A and D1B remained strictly regulated. Furthermore, the difference in treatment was justified by the different roles and objectives of U23 and traditional teams, while the challenging clubs maintained that these objectives could be achieved through less discriminatory and more balanced measures.
A.1. What Did the BCA Decide?
When assessing a request for interim measures, the BCA's College must determine first whether there is a prima facie infringement of competition laws (i.e. that it is not unreasonable to consider that the contested rule or practice could constitute an infringement of competition rules) and second that there is an urgent need to prevent a serious, imminent and irreparable harm.
The BCA first determined that the quota system requiring at least four U23 teams in the D1B division cannot fall under the so-called "sporting exception" as it determines the organisation of the football competition with a direct effect on the conditions under which the professional football clubs can exercise their economic activity. Therefore, it must be assessed under competition law. It found that the new rules imposed by the URBSFA established different standards for U23 teams and traditional clubs within the same competition, thereby undermining the principle of equal treatment, equal chances and sporting merit that characterise football competitions. The BCA further recognised that these measures could distort competition by reducing the risk of relegation for U23 teams and altering the incentives and strategies of all participating clubs. Additionally, the difference in treatment was not justified by the objectives put forward, and that less restrictive alternatives might exist. On that basis, the BCA found that it was not manifestly unreasonable to consider that the new rules could constitute a prima facie infringement of competition law.
However, the BCA refused to grant immediate interim relief to the complainants. It held that there was no urgent need to prevent a serious, imminent and irreparable harm, reasoning that the potential harm to traditional clubs – such as relegation or financial losses – was neither imminent nor certain at the time the BCA decision was adopted. While the quota would affect the likelihood that traditional D1B clubs may be relegated at the end of the season, this does not result in a relegation with certainty. The effects would only materialise at the end of the season. This was different in the Virton II and Foodinvest decisions to which it referred where the relegation was an immediate and certain consequence of the measures that formed the object of the request for interim measures. The risk, the BCA noted, would ultimately depend on the season's outcome and potential future developments, such as further reforms by the URBSFA or a new possible decision on interim measures by the BCA. The College also explicitly pointed to that the fact that the clubs having a U23 club in D1B will need to integrate in their strategy the risk that the quota could be challenged again and therefore play integrating the risk of relegation at the end of the season. Lastly, the BCA considered that suspending the rules on the eve of the new season would cause significant disruption and uncertainty for all clubs involved, as these rules formed part of a wider agreement between the clubs approved with a two-thirds majority after months of negotiations, and would take significant effort to renegotiate.
As a result, the BCA concluded that, although there was a prima facie case of infringement of competition law, the conditions for interim measures were not met and so the request for interim measures was rejected. However, by determining the existence of a prima facie infringement, pointing to the fact that during the football season new interim measures could be requested and possibly imposed if the situation would become urgent, the BCA appears to be strongly encouraging the URBSFA to change its contested rules proactively to avoid further proceedings and possible sanctions. By signalling that interim measures could be imposed later in the season and/or a formal infringement decision could follow in the proceedings on the merits if no action is taken, the BCA may still have an effect on competition and the rules imposed by URBSFA, even if no interim measures have (as yet) been imposed.
B. Case 2: Inline Hockey – What Happened?
The second decision of 13 August 2025 addresses a request for interim measures filed by eight Belgian inline hockey players and the Deutscher Inline Hockey Verband e.V. (DIHV) against the Fédération Royale Belge de Hockey sur Glace/Koninklijke Belgische Ijshockey Federatie (RBIHF). Inline Hockey is a variant of Ice Hockey that is played on a hard, smooth surface.
This dispute arose when these eight Belgian inline hockey players, seeking to continue their activities after the RBIHF ceased organising national inline hockey competitions in Belgium, joined a team (the 'Panthers') to participate in the Deutsche Inline Hockey Liga (DIHL), a competition organised by the DIHV.
RBIHF's internal regulations required prior approval for player participation in non-RBIHF competitions, with sanctions for non-compliance. In early 2025, RBIHF became aware of the Panthers' DIHL participation and responded by prohibiting these players from participating in non-sanctioned competitions, threatening them with disciplinary sanctions, and instructing referees not to officiate their matches. The federation also suspended the players from the national team, effectively limiting their opportunities to compete at both the domestic and international levels. The players did not receive a reasoned decision and were allegedly simply notified by a WhatsApp message about their suspension.
The players and the DIHV complained to the BCA, asking for urgent protection through interim measures. They contended that the RBIHF's actions constituted an unjustified restriction on their freedom to participate in alternative competitions and amounted to an abuse of regulatory power, causing significant harm to their sporting careers and reputations. The RBIHF, for its part, maintained that its actions were in accordance with its established rules, which were designed to preserve the sport's integrity and orderly administration.
However, during the proceedings, the RBIHF announced its withdrawal from all inline hockey activities and stated that a new body, the Belgian Inline Hockey Association (BIHA), formed by the clubs, would take over responsibility for the inline hockey sport. RBIHF would further only focus on ice hockey. The RBIHF informed the BCA that it no longer organised or regulated inline hockey and, as a result, had no longer the authority to sanction players for participating in the DIHL and that this would also be publicly communicated. Therefore, the players would not be subject to the RBIHF's rules for inline hockey any longer, could freely participate in the DIHL competition and none of the sanctions imposed would be maintained.
B.1. What Did the BCA Decide?
The BCA first declared that the players' application for interim measures was admissible, as the RBIHF's actions had the potential to cause immediate and significant harm by restricting their ability to participate in alternative competitions and by imposing disciplinary measures.
However, the BCA noted that the factual circumstances had changed materially in the course of the proceedings very shortly after the complaint and application for interim measures had been filed: the RBIHF decided to formally cease all involvement in inline hockey activities, relinquished its regulatory authority over the sport, and provided assurances that all sanctions and threats of penalties would be lifted.
The BCA concluded that, in light of these developments, there was no longer an urgent or ongoing risk of harm that would justify the imposition of interim measures. As it was already established that this condition for imposing interim measures had not been fulfilled, the BCA refrained from determining whether RBIHF's conduct constituted a prima facie infringement of competition law at the moment of the request for the interim measures.
Despite rejecting the request for interim measures and the disappearance of the urgency that initially prompted the complaint and the developments in the case, it remains to be seen whether the BCA will nonetheless pursue its investigation on the merits in the still pending proceedings on the merits.
C. Conclusion
The possibility of the BCA imposing interim measures within a very strict time frame is a powerful tool for addressing competition law infringements and for stopping anti-competitive effects within short timeframes. In contrast to the European Commission, the BCA has repeatedly made use of its power to impose interim measures, including in sports matters.
A closer look at these recent decisions reveals that interim measures procedures before the BCA can have significant effects, even if no interim measures are imposed. Although interim measures have not been formally granted in either case, the application for interim measures and the BCA's involvement have still produced meaningful outcomes and opened solution paths for all the parties.
In the football case, the BCA identified a prima facie issue with the new U23 quota rules, recognising their potentially discriminatory and anti-competitive effects. However, the BCA decided not to impose interim measures immediately, reasoning that the most serious consequences of the new rules would only materialise at the end of the season and that intervening at the start of the competition could cause major disruption and uncertainty. By doing so, the BCA has effectively put the football authorities on notice: although the rules remain in place for now, failure to address these issues could prompt more decisive action from the BCA in the still pending proceedings on the merits or following a new potential application for interim measures later in the football season.
In the inline hockey matter, the very act of bringing the complaint combined with the application for interim measures and the BCA's scrutiny prompted the federation to relinquish its role in governing inline hockey, transferring responsibility to a new association. This move effectively and quickly addressed the players' concerns, demonstrating that the opening of an investigation by the BCA alone can drive significant change, even without a formal BCA decision imposing interim measures or a decision on the merits.
These cases illustrate that the BCA's influence extends beyond the granting of interim measures. The BCA's willingness to investigate, highlight potential legal issues, and articulate its expectations can itself prompt sports organisations to reconsider and adapt their practices.
Sports remains on competition authorities' agendas. Sports clubs and federations are recommended to proactively ensure that their rules and practices are fair, transparent, and justifiable to avoid being caught in investigations and legal proceedings and to ensure the smooth running and continued success of the sport they regulate for the benefit of organisers, participants and spectators.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
