Edited by Chase Skender, Sean Sudalaimani, and Rohith Raman
Abstract
As the economic conduct surrounding sports becomes increasingly international, it is important to compare how different countries respond, with the EU and U.S. commonly cited as leaders in antitrust jurisprudence. To keep sports market entry and access fair, antitrust law is important, as it provides the regulatory framework to prevent and punish monopolization. While some existing research has suggested that the two regulatory regimes share similarities, fundamental differences remain. This paper demonstrates that EU law is better equipped to mitigate the risks associated with concentrated regulatory and commercial power in contemporary sports governance by comparing these frameworks across key areas such as monopolization, structural conflicts of interest, and pro-competitive justifications. It ends by suggesting a limited hybrid approach for the United States' judicial system, using stricter evidentiary standards and greater scrutiny of discretionary gatekeeping to better align antitrust enforcement with the realities of the modern sports market.
