The Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) recently ruled on two requests for interim measures in the sports sector (see attached press releases). While both requests were denied, the cases are strikingly different from a substantive point of view.

Football

The first case concerns football. Three clubs of the Challenger Pro League (D1B), Royal Francs Borains, Koninklijke Sporting Club Lokeren, and Royal Football Club Seraing (the Clubs), sought interim measures against new rules adopted by the Royal Belgian Football Association (RBFA).

The Challenger Pro League includes both regular football clubs and teams of young players (the U23 Teams) that belong to professional clubs playing in the top professional league, the Jupiler Pro League (D1A). The challenged new rules created a quota providing for at least four U23 Teams in the Challenger Pro League and made it more difficult for the U23 Teams to be relegated to an amateur league in case of poor performance (the Quota). The Clubs considered the Quota to discriminate against the regular teams competing with the U23 Teams in the Challenger Pro League and filed a complaint, which triggered the opening of an investigation. The Clubs also sought the suspension of the Quota for the new season of D1B.

In its preliminary assessment of 1 August 2025, the Competition College found that the Quota is discriminatory and likely to affect competition on sporting grounds as it is liable to reduce the incentives for U23 Teams to field strong teams for matches with lower stakes. According to the Competition College, this form of discrimination could unlawfully distort competition in the market for the sale of football entertainment. Additionally, the Competition College found that the possibility offered to the Jupiler Pro League clubs which own the U23 Teams to switch players between their D1A team and their U23 Team could infringe the competition rules.

Despite these findings, the Competition College did not grant the suspension sought by the Clubs because it was of the opinion that their harm would only materialise at the end of the season based on their ranking and was thus not sufficiently imminent and certain.

Inline hockey

The second case concerns inline hockey. On 13 August 2025, the Competition College denied a request for interim measures directed against the Royal Belgian Ice Hockey Federation (RBIHF).

Eight players were penalised by the RBIHF for their participation in an alternative competition called the Deutsche Inline Hockey Liga (DIHL), organised by the Deutscher Inline Hockey Verband e.V. (DIHV). The players and the DIHV filed a complaint with the BCA, arguing that the RBIHF’s regulations and the sanctions infringed the competition rules, and the BCA opened an investigation on 20 June 2025. On 23 June 2025, the complainants sought interim measures to prevent the RBIHF from imposing the penalties and allow the players and their team, the Panthers, to participate in the DIHL.

However, on 1 July 2025, the RBIHF stopped regulating the inline hockey competition and, as a result, the sanctions no longer apply. In light of this new development, the Competition College found that there was no longer any harm justifying the grant of interim measures.

In both the football and the inline hockey cases, the investigation on the merits is still ongoing