The establishment of a single market, in which goods and services can circulate freely, constitutes one of the founding objectives of the European Union. To achieve this goal, EU competition law plays a fundamental role. The elimination of barriers imposed by private operators on the internal market thus becomes one of the core objectives of EU competition law.

However, intellectual property rights represent one of the main obstacles to the full realisation of the internal market. Due to its territorial nature, these rights come into direct conflict with the common market, creating a tension between these two elements contained in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU): market integration and the respect of intellectual property rights.

This complexity is further intensified by the role of the internet, an essential tool in today’s society. Although it presents itself as a borderless space—ideal for the development of the internal market—it also offers private operators the means to create artificial barriers that hinder or even block the integration process.

In the field of sports event broadcasting, technology theoretically allows access from any location to a wide range of content via an internet connection. However, this potential is not realised in practice due to restrictions imposed through geoblocking techniques. Professional sports leagues and digital platforms prevent citizens from accessing online broadcasts of sporting events that are transmitted from outside their Member States of residence, justifying these practices on the grounds of protecting the intellectual property rights linked to such broadcasts.

Geoblocking practices were addressed in Regulation (EU) 2018/302, which prohibited such conduct with the aim of establishing a Digital Single Market. However, sports broadcasts were excluded from the scope of that Regulation, allowing these practices to persist. As these are coordinated practices between professional leagues and streaming platforms, they could fall within the scope of Article 101 TFEU.

Do these practices constitute a restriction of competition contrary to Article 101 by hindering market integration, or are they nevertheless justified by the protection of the intellectual property rights of the operators involved?