The Supreme Court sanctions ACB with 200,000 euros for demanding “discriminatory” compensation

The Supreme Court fined the Association of Basketball Clubs (ACB) with a fine of 200,000 euros for participating in “anti-competitive behavior by establishing disproportionate and discriminatory economic conditions for clubs that wanted to advance from the LEB Oro League. The Supreme Court of Justice considers that the request for income tax in ACB league which was suppressed seven years ago “had an effective effect on the promotions and relegations that were due to take place between the 2011-2012 and 2015-2016 seasons, as of the ten teams (two per season) due to be promoted only three managed to meet all the necessary economic and administrative conditions”.

Until the National Market and Competition Commission (CNMC) abolished the ACB registration fee (4.7 million euros plus VAT in 2016), only three clubs that were not previously members, Obradorio, Murcia and Andorra, managed to fulfill all the conditions for promotion to the highest category. Andorra was the only one to pay the fee, as Obradoiro and Murcia were excluded from the season ticket as a result of “exceptions”.

“The payment of the entry fee and the fund for the regulation of promotion and relegation implies a clear disadvantage for new candidates, which limits their ability to access the said competition. And it significantly limits their ability to compete, since the basketball team from the LEB Oro League needs a minimum of five seasons of participation in the ACB League to be able to amortize the imposed entry fee,” the Supreme Court points out in a publicly announced judgment this Wednesday.

reduced responsibility

Supreme Court confirms the existence of a violation by ACBbut it halves the amount of the fine imposed by the Competition Authority (€400,000), which was later overturned by the National Court, assessing that “only the anti-competitive effect was accredited for five years (compared to 25 for the CNMC)”, a regulatory body that agreed with CB Tizona de Burgos and condemned the controversial canon.

The Supreme Court recalls that the economic conditions were approved by the Spanish Basketball Federation and, in its opinion, “although this does not serve to release the ACB from responsibility, it must be taken into account in order to reduce its liability, since the said Federation was able that during that time they act convinced that they have acted in accordance with the law.

“The members of the ACB themselves exempted the founders of the mentioned professional league from paying the entry fee and the fund for the regulation of promotion and relegation, which is why some clubs never paid it,” reminds the Supreme Court. This court recognizes that “by establishing the demanding economic conditions for promotion, the clubs that were already part of the ACB league had a clear benefit, not only because they shared the amount of that entry fee, but also because in the event that any of the teams that had the right promotions could not meet the imposed economic conditions, the club with the highest placement in the relegation position had the option of remaining in the ACB league”, as, among others, was the case with Estudiantes.