On 1 August 2025, the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) rejected an application for interim measures filed by three professional football clubs. The clubs had challenged the Royal Belgian Football Association’s (RBFA) new rules requiring a minimum quota of four under-23 (U23) teams in Belgium’s second-tier Challenger Pro League from the 2025-26 season onwards.

Whilst the BCA declined to grant interim measures because of a lack of urgency, it found it “not manifestly unreasonable” that the quota system could constitute illegal discrimination affecting competition in the football spectator market.[1] This suggests that substantive competition law concerns will remain very much alive in the pending investigation on the merits.

The controversial U23 quota system

Belgium’s second-tier professional football division, the Challenger Pro League, has two types of teams: regular professional teams and U23[2] teams belonging to clubs that also compete in Belgium’s top-tier Jupiler Pro League. 

On 16 June 2025, the RBFA adopted new rules requiring a minimum of four U23 teams in the Challenger Pro League and amended the promotion and relegation system accordingly. Under the new rules, the possibility to relegate a U23 team depends on the number of U23 teams in the division and whether the minimum quota of four is fulfilled, as well as the eligibility of another U23 team for promotion. These changes took effect on 1 July 2025.

The competition law challenge

The claimants, three regular teams playing in the Challenger Pro League, argued that the RBFA’s reform infringed competition law by creating a discriminatory promotion and relegation system, treating U23 teams more favourably than regular teams. Specifically, they claimed the reform artificially segments the market and creates unequal competitive conditions among undertakings within the same relevant market. With four of the 17 D1B positions effectively reserved for U23 teams, the claimants asserted that only 13 league positions remain genuinely competitive.[3]

The claimants argued that this competitive distortion would cause imminent and serious harm by unfairly favouring U23 teams. They warned that this imbalance would likely lead to the relegation of regular teams, resulting in substantial financial and structural losses for them – consequences that could not be rectified once the season had commenced. Accordingly, they sought interim measures to prevent the rules from taking effect.

The RBFA responded by asserting that the quota constituted an ancillary restriction supporting the main commercial agreement for selling broadcasting rights (commercial ancillary restriction) and pursuing the legitimate objective of promoting young players (regulatory ancillary restriction).

The BCA’s analysis and decision

The BCA dismissed the request for interim measures as it considered the potential harm to be neither sufficiently serious nor urgent. In particular, the BCA considered that the quota merely increases the risk, but does not lead to relegation with certainty.[4] Since any impact would only materialise at season’s end, the BCA found there was no clear threat of significant, imminent or irreparable damage to the clubs or the wider economy.

At the same time, however, the BCA did observe that the RBFA’s reforms implement different promotion and relegation systems for U23 teams and regular teams in D1B. In particular, the BCA considered that although U23 teams can theoretically be relegated, chances of that happening are based on factors external to sporting merit that, according to the BCA, are also unlikely to occur in practice.[5] As a result, the BCA provisionally concluded that U23 teams enjoy quasi-certainty of avoiding relegation, which may undermine their incentive to compete genuinely with other clubs. The BCA provisionally considered that changes to clubs’ competitive incentives in D1B could negatively impact their revenue potential. This, in turn, could affect the league’s competitive balance. Referring to the Competition Prosecutor General’s written observations, the Competition College considered that the RBFA’s reform risks lowering the overall quality of the Challenger Pro League season and reducing consumer interest.[6] The BCA also considered that the RBFA “merely alleged” that the new rules created benefits, without demonstrating their necessity or exploring less restrictive alternatives.

These provisional findings are an important indicator of what is to follow during the BCA’s investigation as to the substance, which is still pending. They suggest that while interim measures have not been granted, the competition law discussion will remain very much alive in the procedure on the merits.

If you need more information or further guidance in this area, please contact Baptist Vleeshouwers and David Wouters.

Bird & Bird has a consistent track record advising on competition law in the sports sector. See here for the key takeaways from a recent breakfast roundtable on competition law developments in sports. 

VISIT OUR COMPETITION LAW HOMEPAGE
 

[1] BCA, 1 August 2025, RFB - KSC Lokeren - RFC Seraing (25-RPR-30), paragraph 115.

[2] U23 refers to the fact that players are younger than 23 years old.

[3] Ibid, para. 92.

[4] Ibid, para. 156.

[5] BCA, 1 August 2025, RFB - KSC Lokeren - RFC Seraing (25-RPR-30), paragraph 108.

[6] Ibid, para. 106.