On 30 April 2026, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) released its much-awaited preliminary ruling, in Case C-133/24, CD Tondela and Others v Autoridade da Concorrência. The decision provides crucial guidance on when pandemic-era “no-poach” agreements may escape classification as by-object restrictions under EU competition law, and may be justified by the pursuit of a legitime public interest objective.

Pandemic context

The case arose during the first wave of the pandemic in 2020, when football faced significant disruption from suspended competitions and extended calendars. In this context, all Portuguese first-division clubs (and most second-division clubs), along with the national football association, agreed not to sign professional players who had unilaterally terminated their contracts due to pandemic-related difficulties. The Portuguese Competition Authority (AdC) rejected the clubs’ justifications, namely preserving contractual integrity and competitive fairness and avoid opportunistic conduct (by players), and imposed a €11.3 million fine in June 2022, treating the arrangement as a blatant no-poach agreement restricting players’ mobility among clubs.

Three questions for the ECJ

On appeal, the Portuguese Competition, Regulation and Supervision Court referred three key questions to the ECJ:

1. Sporting interest rule (Meca-Medina): Could the agreement benefit from the Meca-Medina exception and be defined as a rule of sporting interest pursuing a legitimate sporting objective?
2. Proportionality/necessity (Meca-Medina): If a legitimate objective exists, were the restrictions contained in the agreement inherent and proportionate to that legitimate objective?
3. Restriction by object: Was the agreement inherently harmful enough to competition in the internal market to qualify as a “by object” restriction?

What makes Tondela distinctive, compared to other no-poach cases, is the pandemic context. The clubs faced extraordinary pressure on stability, financial viability and sporting integrity. The central question asked to the ECJ was whether exceptional circumstances can justify what would otherwise be a clear-cut “by object” restriction of competition, namely a no-poach agreement?

The European Commission’s May 2024 competition policy brief concluded that no-poach agreements generally constitute by-object restrictions, a position it confirmed in a 2025 online food delivery decision. But in this landmark ruling, the ECJ largely followed the Advocate General’s opinion and took a more nuanced approach:

1. By-object analysis: The court reaffirmed that by-object restrictions must be interpreted strictly, examining the agreement’s content, economic/legal context, and objectives to determine whether the agreement reveals a sufficient degree of harm to competition. While the content of this no-poach agreement objectively restricts a key competitive parameter in professional football and could indirectly impact the players’ purchase price, the court emphasised the pandemic’s exceptional nature and its impact on football. In the present case, the specific legal and economic context of the pandemic and of football competitions could have justified maintaining competition integrity through this agreement that was limited to “freezing” the competitive relationship between clubs. However, the pandemic does not automatically exempt agreements from the prohibition – but it is a relevant factor in determining whether conduct qualifies as a by-object restriction. The court also noted an objective pro-competitive objective, namely ensuring player roster stability.
2. Legitimate sporting interest (Meca-Medina): The court first points out that the Meca-Medina framework could only be applied if the Portuguese court finds that the no-poach agreement does not constitute a “by-object restriction”. With regard to the assessment of the conditions to apply Meca-Medina, the court confirmed, in line with its consistent case law, that ensuring regularity in sporting competitions is a legitimate public-interest objective.
3. Proportionality/necessity (Meca-Medina): However, regarding the assessment of necessity and proportionality, the court clearly stated that it is for the Portuguese court to conduct an “in-depth examination of the suitability, necessity and proportionality” of the agreement to achieve that legitimate objective – leaving the ultimate outcome to the national court.

The ECJ's ruling goes well beyond football, potentially influencing the overall assessment of sports federations’ conduct, particularly in relation to the exceptional circumstances that may justify a “by-object” restriction. Furthermore, this decision is likely to shape the broader approach to analysing anticompetitive practices within the labour market.

Ramifications beyond football

The decision arrives amid growing EU scrutiny of anticompetitive conduct in labour markets – see our article on no-poach agreements in the EU. Notably, the draft EC merger guidelines, published on the same day as the ruling (30 April 2026), specifically highlight how mergers can harm competition by restricting worker mobility (where workers have access to few alternative employment options).