On 17 March 2026, the French Competition Authority (FCA) sent a powerful message to the sports sector by imposing a €3.4 million fine on the leading French ski instructor union (Union) for restricting member instructors’ freedom to offer their services outside ski schools run by the Ecole du ski français (ESF) – a practice that had been in place since 2006, and reinforced in 2013. 

This non-compete, embedded into ESF’s standard instructor agreement, bars instructors from working for competing schools or independently, effectively blocking them from developing their own client base. The agreement also bans membership in other unions, further curtailing instructors’ professional freedom. The consequences for non-compliance are severe: automatic expulsion from both the Union and ESF. Such risk of expulsion created a strong deterrent effect, as demonstrated by the average uninterrupted Union membership of 19 years.

These restrictions were found to violate instructors’ freedom of enterprise – given their self-employed status – and severely limit competition in the French ski instruction market. This long-standing constrained adherence illustrated how the clause operated as a powerful mechanism of control rather than a proportionate organisational rule.

While sport-governing bodies may limit instructors’ professional activities, the FCA made clear that such limitations cannot go so far as to harm competition. In essence, the FCA characterised the non-compete as a "by object" infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article L420-1 of the French Commercial Code, as it amounted to a decision of an association of undertakings that resulted in anticompetitive foreclosure in the national ski instruction market. 

The FCA’s assessment was further shaped by the Union’s dominant position, representing more than 80% of ski instructors in France, and by the structural advantages of the ESF network. These factors created an environment in which competing ski schools faced significant barriers to entry and growth due to limited access to qualified instructors. By locking instructors into a single network, the non-compete deprived rival schools of essential workforce, reinforced existing asymmetries in market structure and ultimately constrained consumer choice. 

Echoing the European Superleague Company and FIFA v. BZ ECJ judgments, the FCA reiterated the consistent message that sporting activities are not exempt from the application of competition law. The Union cannot rely on its regulatory role to impose rules that unjustifiably limit its members’ freedom of movement and restrict market competition.

Overall, the decision forms part of a broader trend of heightened scrutiny of sports federations across the EU, reflected in recent enforcement actions in cycling, football, and other disciplines. It also aligns with the EU-wide growing focus on anti-competitive "no-poach" agreements, as seen in the FCA’s recent decision in IT consulting.

Key takeaway: Sports federations and professional associations are subject to antitrust scrutiny when adopting sector‑specific rules, particularly where they restrict members’ freedom to operate or affiliate elsewhere.

Stay tuned for further information once the FCA decision is published.