by: Alessia Raven Garcia

If you mention the word, ‘competition’ to a sports fan, it is likely they’d start imagining their favourite sports events, like a football league final or a tennis masters tournament. The last thing on their mind would be to connect ‘competition’ to competition law as it doesn’t seem relevant to sports. After all, what does competition law – that area of law which strives to preserve the competitive balance in our market to ensure efficiency and consumer welfare – have to do with two teams or athletes battling it out for sporting glory?

Quite a lot, actually. 

In recent years, the international sports world has seen lots of shake ups in the form of sensationalised class action lawsuits. The professional tennis tours and golf tours, UFC, and even FIFA, have all faced allegations of antitrust/anticompetitive violations. Notably, the NCAA in the US has faced many challenges to its amateurism model, all under the guise of antitrust class action lawsuits. While the facts of each case in each sport differ, the legal argument claimed in each of the cases is the same: that certain sporting rules and/or decisions of the National Sporting Association/International Federation of that respective sport is restricting competition to the detriment of its athletes. 

The Power Players: NSAs, IFs, Professional Leagues, and the GAB

In the Philippines, National Sports Associations are defined in Republic Act 6867. National Sports Associations, or NSAs, have broad autonomous powers in conducting their respective sports. NSAs must be recognised by the Philippine Sports Commission and by the International Organisation of their sport. Examples of NSAs include Philippine Athletics Track & Field Association, Inc. (PATAFA), Samahang Basketbol ng Pilipinas, Inc. (SBP), Philippine Football Federation, Inc. (PFF), and the Philippine National Volleyball Federation (PNVL), among others. The International Federations which govern these sports on an international level are World Athletics, FIBA, FIFA, and FIVB, respectively.

Professional leagues and tours work in partnership with either the NSA, the IF, or both. For example, the PBA has a (not always harmonious) relationship with SBP which allows PBA players to play for Gilas Pilipinas in competitions where they represent the country. In volleyball, the FIVB has a list of recognised leagues and clubs whose tournaments they recognise – these include the Superlega in Italy and the SV league in Japan. Our very own Alex Eala plays on the WTA circuit, which is the professional tour for women’s tennis. The international organisation responsible for tennis is the International Tennis Federation, and the WTA, the ATP (the men’s professional tour), and the Grand Slams work together to ensure the smooth operation of the sport.  

In the Philippines, the regulation of professional sports leagues is overseen by the Games and Amusements Board. Each professional league must obtain a licence from the GAB in order to operate. Although the professional leagues and tours are not NSAs, their commercial power gives their decisions a lot of weight in the regulation of their sport.

What is Competition Law?

Competition law serves to help regulate the market in making sure it remains as free and fair as possible. In theory, a free and fair market ensures efficiency and promotes consumer welfare. When entities in the market are in competition for customers, they are incentivised to innovate and produce the best product or service, and keep prices at a level consistent with the demand of that product or service. When competition is not regulated, firms in the market are able to work with each other to control price and production of goods and services, which will inevitably lead to a bad product or service.

In the Philippines, Republic Act 10667 contains the provisions of competition law and also establishes the Philippine Competition Commission, which it empowers to implement its provisions. 

Chapter III contains the list of prohibited acts, and for this article, section 14(c) is most important: 

‘Agreements […]which have the object or effect of substantially preventing, restricting or lessening competition shall also be prohibited: Provided, those which contribute to improving the production or distribution of goods and services or to promoting technical or economic progress, while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefits, may not necessarily be deemed a violation of this Act.’

Competition Law in Sports

So what does competition law have to do with sports? If we look at the organisation of sports as a distinct market (easier now considering the billions that the worldwide sports industry brings in yearly), it can be seen that the dynamics of the market are skewed due to the autonomous nature of NSAs and IFs. NSAs control nearly every aspect of their respective sports – from athlete eligibility, to organising sports events, to determining appropriate sanctions in the event of infringements. All at once, they hold the power to create the rules, determine when these rules have been broken, and punish those they find responsible. This power imbalance between athletes and NSAs creates an environment that is ripe for anticompetitive practices, causing harm to athletes, and even fans. 

One way that this power imbalance has manifested is in the case of new tournaments or breakaway leagues. For athletes of team sports, a multitude of clubs and leagues allows them to choose the best option for themselves; at the same time, it allows clubs to compete fairly for the services of a player, thus benefiting the athlete.  However, any entity that wished to enter the sport and establish a tournament would need to obtain prior authorisation from the governing body of that sport before they could stage an official competition. This is important as it is unlikely that an athlete or a team would be willing to play an unsanctioned event, especially as they could face consequences which would affect their standing with the NSA. 

This is exactly what happened in the (in)famous Superleague case. In that instance, a group of the top European football teams wanted to break away and create their own ‘super league’ called the European Super League. FIFA and UEFA (the continental governing organisation of football) threatened to suspend any team who decided to play for this league, relying on the legal provisions in the FIFA and UEFA statutes that required all competitions to obtain prior authorisation. This dispute escalated all the way the Court of Justice of the European Union and, although the super league plan was eventually abandoned, the court ruled that – depending on the facts, which would have to be determined by the Madrid courts where the case was originally filed – the act committed by FIFA and UEFA could potentially amount to a violation of European competition law. 

In the Philippines, while we haven’t had much disruption in the form of new leagues, we have had instances of leagues fining their players for concurrently playing in other leagues/exhibitions. In basketball for example, the PBA has fined multiple players for participating in the so-called ‘Ligang Labas’ and other exhibition style tournaments. And while this seems like a rational decision considering players are on contract with their respective teams and playing extra tournaments puts them at risk of fatigue and injury, it could also be argued that, for the players that aren’t big stars with multiple endorsement deals to their names, these tournaments present opportunities for much needed extra income. It is well known that athletes tend to live short careers; many start quite young and the physical stress of constant play and competition doesn’t make for a lifelong career. Therefore, athletes pursuing all streams of income available to them when they can, seems logical and even necessary. Applying the rules of competition law to this dilemma, it can be observed that the PBA is most likely placing an anticompetitive restraint on their players’ trade. However, whether this is a salient enough issue for players to raise does not seem too likely, especially as athletes playing in team sports are typically on contract where they receive salaries like regular employees. 

Individual Sports

In individual sports though, it is a different story. These athletes fend for themselves – they will usually fund all their own expenses (including that of their coaches, physiotherapists, etc) from travel to accommodation to sports equipment. Of course, the top athletes will have sponsors but, until you reach that status, you’re on your own. Alex Eala, for example, wins prize money for every round in each tournament she plays. Simply put, if she does not play, she does not earn. So it would make sense that a tennis player would want more tournaments, especially those that are looking to rise in rankings and reap the benefits of that status, such as more exposure and direct entry into big tournaments. 

But the governance of the world of tennis is highly controlled. New tournaments cannot just seek entry onto the calendar easily. And, just like in team sports, if this tournament is not sanctioned by the NSA, then the athlete would be putting themselves at a huge risk if they decided to play. 

This is what happened in the world of speed skating. The International Skating Union (ISU) threatened lifetime bans on any speed skater who would compete in an unsanctioned skating event. As a result, this meant that the ISU de facto controlled the earning opportunities of the speed skaters, even if they were not under contract and, in theory, would allow them to control the amount of prize money available for these athletes. The final judgement of the Court of Justice of the EU is complex regarding the analysis of the restriction but these rules were found to be restrictions on competition and incompatible with EU law. 

In 2025, the world of tennis had a similar experience. The Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA) filed cases in multiple jurisdictions alleging anticompetitive practices by the tours, Grand Slams, and governing bodies of tennis. Among many claims, they cited the difficulty of new tournaments to enter the tour as a restraint on their ability to earn. Further, they claimed that the governing bodies were controlling the prize money that was allowed to be given to tennis players, and that this was another violation of competition law. The logic of this lay in the idea that tennis players have no choice but to play on the tours as these are the only events they can play without compromising their standing with the international federations. However, because of the players being ‘locked-in’, the tournaments have no incentive to raise prize money because the players will compete either way. As a result, they’re stuck in this cycle where they feel that they are unfairly compensated but have to play anyway because it’s either get paid little or get paid nothing. The choice is, sadly, obvious.

What Now?

It should be noted that there are myriad ways in which competition law is engaged in sports. Really, in theory, while NSAs are definitely in a position to commit anticompetitive acts, athletes are also capable of claiming that any sporting rule that limits their ability to play is in contravention of competition law. There have been cases of athletes claiming that stringent anti-doping regulations – arguably necessary for the integrity of the sport – is a restriction on competition. The court in that case held that there are justifications available for restrictions whose goal, or object, is not meant to harm competition (so-called ‘effect’ restrictions).

It is also important to recognise that, in many of the cases I have mentioned, a lot of the NSAs argued that the disputed rule was necessary in order to effectively govern and carry out the sport. In a way, they aren’t wrong. The sports industry is not a typical market. In sports, the product that is on offer is competition itself – in order to effectively produce this for the fans, a certain degree of intervention by the NSA is required. Consider, for example, if there were an alternate tournament or league offering a huge payout to Manchester City scheduled the same weekend as the Premier League finals – if FIFA and UEFA did not have the power to disallow this, then what is stopping Man City from playing that tournament instead (perhaps finally giving Arsenal a chance to come first in the Premier League!) If a tennis player were allowed to pick which tournaments to play based on prize money, how would the smaller tournaments – usually in smaller cities trying to grow a tennis culture – stay on tour? Imagine too, if a basketball team only played matches in leagues where their toughest rival was not playing so as to increase their chances of winning. How would this sit with the fans? More than just scheduling, all of these situations would put the integrity of the sport at risk, opening up allegations of teams and players only playing for money, when sports is unique in that it is one of the only industries left that does not always equate profits with success. 

Successful sports governance requires a strong balancing act. Athletes should not have to suffer doing what they love, but NSAs clearly have a duty to preserve the integrity of the sport. To take a recent example in the Philippines, the recent Atletang Ayala World Pole Vault Challenge held in Makati on 21 September 2025 was a sanctioned event by World Athletics, with PATAFA and Asia Athletics supporting the competition. Apart from the risk of running afoul with PATAFA and World Athletics, it was important to get the competition approved in order to incentivise other pole vaulters to come to the Philippines and compete. As a sanctioned event, the results of the competition would count towards their current world ranking and, if they achieved a new personal best or a world record, this would also be recognised. By all reports, the event was a huge success, and this demonstrates the great opportunities for NSAs, IFs, and star athletes have if they decide to work together to grow their sport. 

In conclusion, competition law has now been introduced to the world of sports and is being used as a lethal weapon for athletes seeking more say in the governance of their sport. Like the example above, one can only hope for less hostile cases and more collaboration to the benefit of all stakeholders. 

Alessia Raven Garcia is a law graduate from King’s College London who is pursuing a career in international sports law—partly because it’s a rewarding industry, mostly because she needs a good reason to continue her bad habit of staying up until ungodly hours following her favorite sports.