Collective Selling in Sports - Walking the Antitrust Tightrope

The US national governing bodies (NGBs) for cycling, fencing, rowing, sailing and squash announced this month that they have formed a strategic partnership to sell sponsorships together.

USA Cycling, USA Fencing, USRowing, US Sailing and US Squash have agreed to unify their commercial and media rights to establish a singular platform, the United Sports Collective, to offer partnership opportunities across multiple sports.

There are clear commercial incentives and synergies for the individual NGBs in forming a joint sponsorship collective to attract corporate partners – the collective will seek to capitalise on their combined reach, which includes 350,000 members and thousands of sanctioned events.

While such an initiative could enhance commercial opportunities for underrepresented sports, it may also raise competition law concerns; a key proposition underpinning competition law is that competing companies should act independently on markets. The United Sports Collective will need to be cognisant of the application of US antitrust law, namely the Sherman Act 1890 and the FTC Act 1914, to such a venture. But what if the equivalent UK sports governing bodies were to enter into a similar partnership?

In this short article I highlight the potential risks associated with such an arrangement, the factors that influence the extent of those risks, and the steps governing bodies can take to mitigate legal risk.

1. Competition Law Risks

Anti-competitive agreements

UK and EU competition laws prohibit agreements between undertakings that prevent, restrict, or distort competition. If a group of governing bodies collaborates to jointly market sponsorships, this could amount to an anti-competitive agreement if it:

• Fixes prices or sponsorship terms across the different sports;
• Divides the market by allocating specific sponsors or industries to particular governing bodies; and/or
• Imposes restrictions on individual NGBs, preventing them from securing independent sponsorships (and thereby resulting in the loss of existing competition between NGBs).

Market foreclosure and the abuse of collective dominance

If the collective entity becomes the sole or dominant route for sponsorship deals in the affected sports, this could lead to market foreclosure, particularly if:

• Sponsors are pressured to work exclusively with the collective, reducing alternative sponsorship options;
• Non-member organisations (such as independent leagues or clubs) are prevented from competing for sponsorships due to collective market power; and/or
• Existing sponsors face worse terms or higher costs because of reduced bargaining power.

If the collective exerts substantial market power, it could be susceptible to allegations of engaging in an abuse of dominance, potentially leading to regulatory scrutiny and enforcement action.

Impact on competition for sponsorships

If the collective results in higher sponsorship costs, less choice for sponsors, or reduced innovation in sponsorship arrangements, it may be argued that the arrangement distorts market dynamics. This is especially relevant where the governing bodies involved represent a significant portion of the UK sports sponsorship market.

2. Factors Influencing the Extent of Risk

Market power of the NGBs. Where the sports are relatively niche, the competition law risk may be less acute. However, if the collective controls a significant share of the sports sponsorship market, risk of scrutiny increases.

Freedom of individual NGBs. If each NGB remains free to secure independent sponsorships, the risks are reduced. However, if the agreement prevents or disincentivises independent sponsorship deals, competition authorities may intervene.

Pro-competitive justifications. The collective must demonstrate that its main purpose is efficiency-enhancing, for example by making it easier for sponsors to access multiple sports. If the collaboration lowers transaction costs and increases sponsorship opportunities, it may be justifiable under competition law.

3. Mitigating the Risk

Ensure participation is voluntary. NGBs should retain the right to pursue independent sponsorships if they choose. The agreement should not impose exclusive obligations that prevent individual negotiation of sponsorships.

Avoid price fixing or market allocation. The collective should avoid setting fixed sponsorship fees or dividing industries among NGBs. Sponsorship deals should remain subject to market forces rather than predetermined pricing structures.

Establish clear pro-competitive justifications. NGBs should be prepared to demonstrate the collective’s benefits, such as: increasing visibility for underrepresented sports; making it easier for corporate sponsors to access multiple sports; and enhancing investment and growth opportunities. The arrangement should not create artificial barriers to competition.

4. Takeaway

In summary, while a collective sponsorship initiative among NGBs could present significant opportunities for attracting investment, it also carries competition law risks. The most likely concerns involve potential collusion, market foreclosure, and restrictions on commercial freedom. By taking active steps, governing bodies can reduce the risk of regulatory intervention while still benefiting from a coordinated sponsorship approach.