EN Official Journal of the European Communities8. 1. 2000 L 5/55
COMMISSION
COMMISSION DECISION
of 20 July 1999
relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement
(Case IV/36.888 — 1998 Football World Cup)
(notified under document number C(1999) 2295)
(Only the French text is authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2000/12/EC)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area,
Having regard to Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, first Regulation implementing Articles 85
and 86 of the EC Treaty (
1
), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1216/1999 (
2
), and in particular Article
15(2) thereof,
Having regard to the Commission Decision of 25 August 1998 to initiate a proceeding in this case,
Having given the undertaking concerned the opportunity to make known its views on the objections raised
by the Commission, pursuant to Article 19(1) of Regulation No 17 and Commission Regulation No
99/63/EEC of 25 July 1963 on the hearings provided for in Article 19(1) of Regulation No 17 (
3
),
After consulting the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions.
Whereas:
I. THE FACTS
A. SUBJECT OF THE DECISION
(1)
This Decision concerns arrangements relating to the sale to the general public in 1996 and 1997 of
entry tickets for the 1998 Football World Cup finals tournament by the officially appointed local
organising committee.
B. THE CFO
(2)
The Comité français d'organisation de la Coupe du monde de football 1998 (CFO) was established as
a non-profit making organisation on 10 November 1992 by the Fédération Française de Football
(FFF) with the agreement of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), specifically
for the purpose of carrying on all activities relating to the technical and logistical organisation of the
1998 World Cup finals tournament in France, in compliance with various operational constraints
laid down by FIFA.
(
1
) OJ 13, 21.2.1962, p. 204/62.
(
2
) OJ L 148, 15.6.1999, p. 5.
(
3
) OJ 127, 20.8.1963, p. 2268/63.
EN Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 1. 2000L 5/56
C. TOURNAMENT
(3)
The 1998 World Cup finals tournament involved the participation of 32 football teams representing
countries from around the world. The tournament took place following the conclusion in 1997 of a
preliminary qualifying competition involving the participation of 172 representative teams. Both
Brazil, as winners of the previous tournament in 1994, and France, as host nation, were exempt
from the requirement to qualify and as such did not take part in the preliminary qualifying
competition.
(4) In the first phase of the finals tournament, commencing 10 June 1998, teams were divided into eight
groups of four teams each. The composition of those groups was determined by a ‘group draw’
which took place on 4 December 1997. Each team played a total of three matches against other
teams in the same group.
(5) Teams finishing either first or second in each of the eight first-phase groups qualified for the
second-phase. The second phase therefore involved the participation of 16 teams, the first round of
which was known as the ‘Round of 16’. This was followed by four quarter-final matches, two
semi-final matches, a match to determine the third and fourth-placed teams and, on 12 July 1998,
the World Cup final itself.
(6) Ten stadiums, each located in France, were used to host World Cup finals football matches. Each of a
team's first-phase matches was played in a different stadium. According to the CFO, this guaranteed
that each stadium would host at least two teams finishing top of their group in the first phase. In
relation to second-phase matches, each of the 10 World Cup stadiums hosted at least one match
taking place in the Round of 16 or one quarter final match.
D. TICKETING ARRANGEMENTS
(7)
As holder of all rights relating to World Cup tournaments, FIFA establishes regulations outlining the
general organisational framework of both preliminary and finals competitions. In relation to organi-
sational arrangements relating to the 1998 Football World Cup finals tournament, FIFA established
regulations providing that the CFO, subject to approval of the overall arrangements by FIFA (
4
), was
responsible for all matters relating to the price, distribution, and sale of entry tickets for finals
matches (
5
).
E. TICKET DISTRIBUTION — GENERAL
(8)
In total, some 2 666 500 entry tickets were made available by the CFO for subsequent distribution
either directly or through officially-appointed sales channels. Tickets were distributed as follows:
— 28,12 %, distributed by the CFO to the general public,
— 23,33 %, distributed by national football federations to the general public,
— 6,58 %, distributed by official tour operators to the general public worldwide,
— 13,48 %, distributed by the CFO to members of the ‘Famille du Football Français’ (
6
),
— 13,15 %, distributed by the CFO to sponsor organisations,
— 7,51 %, distributed by the CFO as Prestige/hospitality products principally to corporate bodies,
— 4,07 %, distributed by the CFO for miscellaneous purposes (
7
),
— 2,86 %, distributed by the CFO to public entities,
— 0,70 %, distributed to the handicapped,
— 0,20 %, unsold.
(9) Income derived from ticket sales represented 60 % of total CFO receipts.
F. TICKET SALES TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC
(10)
A total of 1 547 300 match tickets relating to all finals matches were made available exclusively for
sale to the general public, representing 58,03 % of all tickets distributed, and comprising ticket sales
by the CFO (28,12 %), by FIFA-affiliated national football federations (23,33 %) and by officially
appointed tour operators throughout the world (6,58 %), including tour operators selling within
Europe.
(
4
) Such approval did not, however, concern the arrangements at issue in this Decision.
(
5
) Article 34 of FIFA Regulation ‘Coupe du Monde de la FIFA 1998’ of 31 May 1995.
(
6
) Made up of football licence holders and club members in France.
(
7
) For example, youth programmes.
EN Official Journal of the European Communities8. 1. 2000 L 5/57
(11) Tickets were sold to the general public either on an individual basis or as a package comprising five
or six separate entry tickets marketed under the name ‘Pass France 98’. This Decision concerns
exclusively arrangements relating to the sale by the CFO in 1996 and 1997 of Pass France 98 and
individual entry tickets for World Cup finals matches.
Breakdown of sales
(12) The general breakdown of ticket sales to the general public, which took place both before and after
the group draw of 4 December 1997, can be summarised as follows.
Table 1
Sales of World Cup match tickets to the general public
Quantity %(
1
)
Sales by the CFO before 4. December 1997 to consumers providing an
address in France:
— Pass France 98 393 200 (
2
) 14,75 %
— individual tickets 181 000 6,79 %
Sales by the CFO 4. December 1997 to consumers providing an address
in the European Economic Area:
— individual tickets 175 500 23,33 %
Sales by national football federations after 4.12.97 (
3
):
— individual tickets 622 150 23,33 %
Sales by authorised tour operators after 4.12.97 (
3
):
— individual tickets 175 450 6,58 %
Total 1 547 300 58,03 %
(
1
) Figures reflect the percentage of total tickets distributed/sold for all finals matches.
(
2
) Figures represent the total number of individual entry tickets sold through Pass France 98.
(
3
) Figures reflect sales on a worldwide basis.
Timing of sales
(13) The specific dates and sequence of ticket sales to the general public by each of the official
distribution channels was:
27 November 1996 to 27 May 1997: 393 200 tickets were sold direct by the CFO to members of the
general public able to provide an address in France through Pass France 98. All Pass France 98 were
sold by 27 May 1997;
18 September to 18 October 1997: applications from the general public able to provide an address in
France could be lodged with the CFO for 181 000 individual entry tickets relating to the opening
match, quarter and semi-finals. third and fourth-place play-off and the final;
from 4 December 1997 (date of group draw): Following the group draw, individual entry tickets for
finals matches were allocated to national football federations by FIFA. Ticket sales to the general
public by national football federations relating to first-phase matches commenced shortly thereafter.
The majority of second-phase ticket sales by national federations took place during the course of the
tournament when the identities of teams participating in second-phase matches became known. A
total of 622 150 tickets relating to all finals matches were allocated in varying quantities to national
football federations worldwide;
EN Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 1. 2000L 5/58
from 15 December 1997: individual tickets relating to
finals matches were allocated to official tour operators
authorised to sell tickets within the UEFA (
8
) zone (here-
inafter referred to as ‘European tour operators’) (
9
). Of
the total number of entry tickets allocated to official
tour operators worldwide, an initial allocation of
approximately 79 150 entry tickets was made available
by the CFO to European tour operators. Further entry
tickets were made available by the CFO to European
tour operators following the return at a later date of
unsold tickets by national football federations. This addi-
tional allocation increased the total allocated to Euro-
pean tour operators by approximately 25 %;
from 22 April 1998: 175 500 entry tickets relating to
first phase and round of 16 matches were sold direct by
the CFO on an individual basis to the general public able
to provide an address within the EEA.
Tickets sold ‘blind’ to the general public
(14) Before the group draw of 4 December 1997 it was not
possible to know the composition of the eight first-
phase groups and hence the identities of teams partici-
pating in specific first-phase matches. For each first-
phase match, therefore, only the date of the match and
the venue at which it would take place was known. In
relation to all second-phase knock-out matches, the
identities of participating teams only became known
following completion of the relevant matches in the
round immediately preceding.
(15) With the exception of the opening match, therefore,
which was certain to involve the participation of Brazil
as winners of the previous finals tournament in 1994,
consumers purchasing entry tickets for first-phase
matches before the group draw of 4 December 1997 did
so on a so-called ‘blind’ basis, that is, at the time of
purchase, the identities of teams participating in the
matches concerned were not known.
(16) In relation to sales of tickets relating to second-phase
matches, consumers purchasing tickets before the
completion of the relevant matches in the immediately
preceding round also did so on a blind basis.
Effect of the group draw of 4 December 1997
(17) The group draw of 4 December 1997, which allowed
the general public to ascertain the identities of
competing teams for all first-phase matches, had a
profound effect in certain European countries on the
level of interest in the tournament and, more particu-
larly, on the demand for tickets relating to certain
matches which the quotas reserved by FIFA for certain
national football federations were unable to satisfy.
G. DIRECT SALES BY THE CFO TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC
Sales of Pass France 98
(18) Pass France 98 comprised a group of five or six separate
match tickets. Other than for matches taking place at
three of the 10 World Cup stadiums, Pass France 98
entitled the holder to attend matches taking place at a
single stadium involving all first-phase matches and a
match in the round of 16 (
10
). First-phase and round of
16 matches took place over a period of between 13 and
20 days, depending on the venue in question.
(19) In the event, Pass France 98 was marketed and sold
exclusively by the CFO to members of the general public
able to provide an address in France, such sales taking
place well in advance of the group draw of 4 December
1997 and therefore before the identities of teams partici-
pating in specific first-phase matches were known. Sales
of Pass France 98 before the group draw were consid-
ered necessary by the CFO in order, on the one hand, to
ensure as far as was possible that all first-phase and
Round of 16 matches were played in front of capacity
crowds regardless of the identities of participating teams
and, on the other, to provide necessary financing for the
CFO in the run-up to the tournament.
(20) A total of 393 200 blind entry tickets were sold by the
CFO through Pass France 98 to the general public
between 27 November 1996 and 27 May 1997, repre-
senting approximately 15 % of the total number of
tickets available for finals matches and 6 % of the CFO's
total ticketing income. While figures varied from
stadium to stadium, between 71 % and 91 % of all Pass
France 98 sold by the CFO were bought either by the
general public living in the Département in which a host
stadium was located or in the immediately surrounding
Départements.
Sales of individual entry tickets
(21) Individual entry tickets were sold to the general public
by the CFO in two separate tranches.
(
10
) Pass France 98 relating to matches taking place at the Saint-Denis
stadium did not entitle the purchaser to attend the opening match
of the tournament. Pass France 98 for matches taking place at the
Lyons and Nantes stadiums allowed access only to all first-phase
matches given that no round of 16 matches took place in those
stadiums.
(
8
) UEFA (l'Union des associations européennes de football) organises
various football competitions in Europe. Its members include (inter
alia) all national football federations in the EEA.
(
9
) Relating exclusively to matches involving the participation of at
least one representative team based in the UEFA zone.
EN Official Journal of the European Communities8. 1. 2000 L 5/59
First tranche (18 September to 18 October 1997)
(22) In its first tranche of sales, the CFO invited the general
public able to provide an address in France to apply for
approximately 181 000 match tickets relating to the
opening match, quarter and semi-finals, the third and
fourth-place play-off and the final.
(23) Applications for those tickets had to be lodged with the
CFO between 18 September 1997 and 18 October
1997. Following receipt of some 1 043 million applica-
tions, a lottery draw took place on 19 December 1997
to determine the identities of successful applicants. Sales
of individual entry tickets in 1997 represented approxi-
mately 7 % both of total tickets available for finals
matches and of the CFO's total ticketing income.
Second tranche (from 22 April 1998)
(24) In a second tranche of sales commencing 22 April
1998, the CFO sold some 175 500 individual entry
tickets to the general public able to provide an address
in the EEA, relating to all first-phase and round of 16
matches (other than the opening match). At the time of
those sales, the identities of teams participating in all
first-phase matches were known, while teams partici-
pating in each round of 16 match could be identified
from a list of no more than eight teams participating in
the first phase.
(25) For reasons of security, no more than approximately
10 % of entry tickets sold by the CFO in this second
tranche could be assigned to supporters of teams partici-
pating in any given match, taking into account the
limited number of seats which at that time remained
available for sale to the non-neutral public (see recital
57). All remaining entry tickets were sold exclusively to
‘neutral’ spectators who could be allocated seats reserved
specifically for that sector of the public.
(26) Approximately 45 % of entry tickets made available in
this second tranche of sales were purchased by the
general public in the EEA providing addresses outside
France, while some 38 % of all tickets sold were
purchased by consumers from countries whose teams
had qualified for the finals competition (
11
).
H. TICKET SALES TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC BY OTHER
DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS (EUROPEAN TOUR OPERA-
TORS AND NATIONAL FOOTBALL FEDERATIONS)
(27)
European tour operators and national football federa-
tions sold all entry tickets distributed to them by the
CFO on an individual basis after the group draw of 4
December 1997, when the identities of teams taking
part in each first-phase match were known. As such,
neither of those distribution channels sold Pass France
98 to the general public.
Sales of individual entry tickets to the general public
by European tour operators
Selection of tour operators
(28) Following meetings with the Commission in March
1997, the CFO submitted a notification on 11 June
1997 relating to its proposed system for the selection of
tour operators authorised to sell entry tickets for finals
matches in the UEFA zone (including, inter alia, all coun-
tries within the EEA). Given the stated urgency of the
notification, and following an assessment by the
Commission of the CFO's specific proposals, those
arrangements were approved by way of comfort letter
on 30 June 1997.
(29) Although the notification outlined in broad terms the
arrangements for the sale of entry tickets for finals
matches generally, at no time was the Commission
informed by the CFO of its intention to implement the
arrangements at issue in this Decision.
(30) On 24 November 1997 the CFO announced publicly, by
way of a press release, that 17 tour operators had been
appointed to sell tickets worldwide, of which five were
granted the exclusive right to sell tickets in the UEFA
zone.
CFO sales to European tour operators
(31) European tour operators ordered the maximum number
of tickets initially made available to them by the CFO,
representing some 79 150 in total. The CFO made addi-
tional allocations to European tour operators at a later
date, thereby increasing this initial figure by approxi-
mately 25 %.
Orders of Pass France 98
(32) As distributor of all entry tickets to finals matches, the
CFO offered European tour operators the opportunity to
purchase 100 Pass France 98 relating to games taking
place at each of the 10 World Cup stadiums. Taking all
venues together, this amounted to a maximum offer to
each European tour operator of some 5 500 individual
entry tickets. European tour operators were free to
decide whether to order Pass France 98 before or after
the group draw of 4 December 1997.
(
11
) As confirmed by the CFO in its letter of 4 June 1998 (Annex 3),
responding to the Commission's formal request for information of
15 May 1998.
EN Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 1. 2000L 5/60
(33) By the time of their appointment, and well after the
conclusion of sales of Pass France 98 by the CFO, Euro-
pean tour operators had already confirmed to the CFO
their intention to order the maximum number of tickets
made available through Pass France 98 after the group
draw of 4 December 1997, representing some 27 500
entry tickets in total. That being so, and notwithstanding
the fact that European tour operators could have
ordered and sold match tickets for first-phase matches
before the group draw, all such tickets were made avail-
able to the general public at a time when the identities
of the teams participating in first-phase matches were
known.
(34) Each European tour operator was permitted to sell
tickets making up Each Pass France 98 package on a
desegregated, individual basis. In the event, European
tour operators chose to sell all entry tickets allocated to
them through Pass France 98 on such a basis.
Orders of individual tickets
(35) In addition to orders of Pass France 98, the CFO offered
European tour operators the opportunity to purchase
entry tickets for first and second-phase matches on an
individual basis. In the event, each of the five European
tour operators ordered the maximum number of indi-
vidual entry tickets initially made available by the CFO
for first and second-phase matches. Taking orders by
European tour operators together, a total of 33 950 and
17 700 individual entry tickets were ordered for first
and second-phase matches respectively.
Sales by European tour operators
(36) The majority of first and second-phase entry tickets
offered for sale by European tour operators to the
general public were marketed as part of a package,
including, in addition to the ticket itself, the provision of
other services, including access to hospitality facilities
and, in relation to particular matches, the provision of
accommodation and travel services as well. Prices there-
fore reflected both the charge for the ticket and that for
the provision of additional services, thereby increasing
significantly the overall cost to consumers wishing to
purchase tickets from European tour operators. The
decision of each European tour operator to package
ticket sales with those of other services was taken inde-
pendently and without any interference from the CFO.
Sales of individual entry tickets to the general public
by national football federations
(37) Individual match tickets sold by national football federa-
tions to the general public were distributed to those
federations at the discretion of FIFA. FIFA reserved for
itself an allocation of up to 20 % of all available entry
tickets (excluding hospitality boxes and prestige tickets)
for subsequent distribution to national football federa-
tions. In the event, the CFO made some 25.2 % of entry
tickets available to FIFA for this purpose (representing
622 150 tickets in total).
(38) The overwhelming majority of tickets assigned by FIFA
to national football federations were sold to the general
public at a time when the identities of participating
teams were known.
(39) Of the 622 150 entry tickets allocated to FIFA, those
relating to first-phase matches were distributed to
national football federations throughout the world after
the group draw of 4 December 1997. At the same time
FIFA distributed a small proportion of their allocation of
tickets for second-phase matches to national football
federations. Distribution by FIFA to national football
federations of the significant majority of tickets for
second-phase matches commenced only after the
conclusion of the first phase of the competition on 26
June 1998 as and when the identities of teams involved
in each stage of the second-phase became known.
(40) National football federations therefore sold all tickets
relating to first-phase matches after the group draw at a
time when the identities of teams participating in those
matches were known. Similarly, in relation to second-
phase matches, national football federations receiving a
significant allocation of entry tickets (
12
) were not in a
position to sell most of those tickets to the general
public until after the identities of participating teams
became known.
(41) Table 2 reflects, inter alia, approximate ticket allocations
by FIFA to national football federations located within
the EEA prior to the beginning of the finals tournament
on 10 June for all first and second-phase matches.
Figures relating to second-phase entry tickets represent
the maximum number which could have been sold by
those federations to the general public on a blind
basis (
13
). For purposes of illustration only, the table
includes details of FIFA ticket allocations to the French,
English, Italian and Scottish football federations.
(
12
) Only federations whose teams qualified for second-phase matches
received significant allocations of tickets. Such allocations could
only take place after the identities of teams participating in second-
phase matches became known.
(
13
) The figures do not therefore reflect FIFA's allocation of tickets
made after the completion of the first phase of the competition on
26 June 1998.
EN Official Journal of the European Communities8. 1. 2000 L 5/61
Table 2
FIFA allocations to EEA national football federations prior to the finals tournament
EEA federa-
tions
France England Italy Scotland
Opening match 6 152 5 35 21 5 423 (
1
)
First phase (excluding opening) 153 983 13 355 16 840 14 113 5 926
Round of 16 5 000 0 320 510 5
Quarter finals — Final 5 966 70 340 790 64
Total allocated 169 927 13 430 17 535 14 320 11 388
(
1
) Scotland played Brazil in the opening match and consequently the Scottish federation's ticket allocation for that game was considerably
greater than for other federations.
I. CONDITIONS APPLYING TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC
PURCHASING ENTRY TICKETS DIRECT FROM THE CFO
CFO sales in 1996 and 1997
(42) Before the group draw, the CFO sold 574 200 entry
tickets direct to the general public in 1996 and 1997,
comprising sales of Pass France 98 (393 200) and indi-
vidual tickets relating to the opening match, quarter and
semi-finals, third and fourth-place play-off and the final
(181 000). All such tickets, other than those relating to
the opening match, were sold blind by the CFO.
(43) In relation to those sales, the general public could
purchase tickets subject to the condition that they
provided a postal address in France to which the tickets
could be delivered.
(44) The CFO informed the Commission in January 1998 (
14
)
that the general public was not required to indicate
French nationality or prove residence in France in order
to purchase entry tickets sold direct by the CFO, and
that the condition was imposed in order to facilitate
their safe delivery. In June 1998 (
15
), the CFO added to
the reasoning for imposing such a condition by stating
that the obligation was also imposed to ensure that
entry tickets were sold only to ‘neutral’ spectators. This
resulted from the CFO's decision to consider all
members of the general public providing an address in
France as ‘neutral’ (
16
).
(45) The CFO derived no commercial advantage by requiring
members of the general public wishing to purchase
entry tickets in 1996 and 1997 to provide an address in
France. Revenue from CFO sales of Pass France 98 and
individual tickets in 1996 and 1997 represented some
8 % of the CFO's overall turnover.
CFO sales in 1998
(46) In relation to sales of individual entry tickets from 22
April 1998, the CFO had originally intended to sell
those tickets under arrangements similar to those
already described. Following intervention by the
Commission, however, the CFO undertook to sell
175 500 entry tickets to the general public on condition
that purchasers provided an address in the EEA (
17
).
J. CONDITIONS APPLYING TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC
PURCHASING ENTRY TICKETS FROM NATIONAL FOOT-
BALL FEDERATIONS AND TOUR OPERATORS
National football federations
(47) Although entry tickets were allocated to national foot-
ball federations by FIFA, the CFO imposed conditions on
those federations relating to their resale (conditions
générales de vente). Those conditions included, inter alia,
the requirement to make tickets available for sale to all
members of the general public subject only to restric-
tions resulting from reasons of security. The CFO did
not, however, seek to influence the commercial deci-
sions taken by national football federations relating to
the means by which such tickets were sold.
(48) To the CFO's knowledge, only the English Football
Federation restricted sales to the general public,
choosing to offer tickets exclusively to members of a
supporters' club in order to prevent their purchase by
football hooligans.
(
14
) See CFO response of 27 January 1998 to the Commission's request
for information of 15 January 1998.
(
15
) See CFO response of 4 June 1998 to the Commission's request for
information of 15 May 1998. (
17
) See Commission letter of 20 February 1998 to the CFO asking it
to bring an end to what the Commission considered abusive prac-
tices under Article 82 of the EC Treaty.
(
16
) See point (b) at page 3 of the CFO's letter to the Commission of
11 June 1998.
EN Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 1. 2000L 5/62
European tour operators
(49) In relation to the sale of tickets by European tour opera-
tors, and at the request of the Commission following the
submission of the CFO's notification in June 1997 (
18
),
the CFO implemented arrangements which permitted
each to sell entry tickets throughout the EEA. Further-
more, the CFO allowed European tour operators to sell
entry tickets in any manner they chose, and accordingly
did not seek to influence any commercial decisions
taken by them. The Commission is not aware that any
European tour operator restricted the sale of tickets to
the general public, either territorially or otherwise.
K. MEANS OF RESERVING TICKETS SOLD BY THE CFO TO
THE GENERAL PUBLIC IN 1996 AND 1997
(50)
Subject always to the requirement that a purchaser
provided a postal address in France, the means by which
the general public could purchase Pass France 98 and
individual entry tickets direct from the CFO in 1996 and
1997 were as follows:
(a) written reservation (Pass France 98 and individual tickets):
Pass France 98 and individual entry tickets could be
reserved from the CFO in writing. For individual
entry tickets sold by the CFO via the draw on 19
December 1997, the return of a special application
form, available from branches of Credit Agricole in
France, was obligatory;
(b) reservation by Minitel (Pass France 98 only): Pass France
98 could be reserved using the electronic Minitel
system, available widely in France. The general
public outside France could benefit from this means
of reservation only by subscribing to the Minitel
service through the Internet at an additional cost of
FRF 350;
(c) reservation by telephone (Pass France 98 only): Pass
France 98 could be reserved over the telephone. The
telephone number provided for this purpose was not
accessible to the general public wishing to call from
outside metropolitan France;
(d) reservation through branches of Credit Agricole (Pass
France 98 only): Pass France 98 could be reserved
using Minitel services provided in 2 500 branches of
Credit Agricole located in France.
L. INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE CFO TO THE
GENERAL PUBLIC OVER THE WOLDWIDE WEB
(51)
On 6 May 1997 the CFO opened a website dedicated to
providing information and advice to the general public
in and outside France concerning, inter alia, the means
by which entry tickets for finals matches could be
obtained.
(52) Information made available to consumers outside France
stated expressly that tickets would not be sold by the
CFO to members of the non-French public (
19
). Those
consumers were advised instead to contact either an
authorised tour operator or their respective national
football federation in order to purchase entry tickets for
finals matches (
20
). On 6 May 1997, when the website
was opened, the overwhelming majority of Pass France
98 had already been sold by the CFO to the general
public able to provide an address in France (
21
).
M. SECURITY
European Convention on Spectator Violence and
Misbehaviour at Sports Events and in particular at
Football Matches (1985)
(53) The organisation of the World Cup raises issues relating
to security which must be taken into account.
(54) In this respect the CFO sought to implement a security
policy which would give effect to the principles estab-
lished by the European Convention on Spectator
Violence and Misbehaviour at Sports Events and in
particular at Football Matches (1985) (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the 1985 Convention’). The 1985
Convention requires that measures be taken to prevent
or control violence or misbehaviour at sporting events.
Such measures as referred to in the 1985 Convention
include the effective segregation of rival groups of
supporters and, in order to ensure such segregation, a
strict control over the sale of match tickets (
22
). The
1985 Convention does not, however, prescribe specific
measures to be adopted in order to achieve such segre-
gation and control.
(55) The CFO also took note of guidelines agreed in 1996 by
the Permanent Committee to the 1985 Convention
relating specifically to the control of ticket sales for
high-risk football matches. Those guidelines reiterate the
importance of maintaining a strict control over ticket
sales in order to ensure segregation of rival groups of
supporters at football matches (
23
).
(
19
) See lnternet document
http://www.france98.com/english/tickets/faq.html of 13 August
1998, at question 10. These arrangements were reaffirmed in
various CFO press releases which indicated that CFO sales in 1996
and 1997 were aimed specifically at the general public resident in
France.
(
20
) See Internet document
http://www.france98.com/english/tickets/out_france.html of 31
August 1998.
(
21
) As of 1 April 1997, all Pass France 98 relating to matches taking
place at eight of the is World Cup stadiums had been sold. Only a
limited number of Category 1 Pass France 98 for matches taking
place at the Montpellier and Saint-Etienne stadiums remained avai-
lable for sale. All such remaining tickets were sold by 27 May
1997.
(
22
) See Article 3(4)(b) and (c), of the 1985 Convention.
(
23
) ‘Recommandations relative à des lignes directrices pour le contrôle
de la vente des billets lors de rencontres à haul risque (adoptée à
la 5
e
réunion du Comité permanent de la convention européenne
sur la violence les débordements de spectateurs lors de manifest-
ations sportives et notamment de matches de football 1985)’,
Groupe de travail ad hoc sur les problèmes pratiques (Strasbourg,
14 novembre 1996).(
18
) See recital 28.
EN Official Journal of the European Communities8. 1. 2000 L 5/63
Security considerations relating to purchasers of blind
tickets
(56) The CFO has informed the Commission of the opinion
of experts who consider that blind Pass France 98 and
blind tickets generally are purchased by peaceful specta-
tors who do not present a specific security risk.
Conversely, the CFO considers that sales of entry tickets
in relation to which the identities of participating teams
are known attract supporters presenting a significantly
greater security risk (
24
).
Segregation of supporters by the CFO through ticket
sales
(57) With the provisions of the 1985 Convention in mind,
the CFO sought to implement arrangements which
ensured that supporters of teams participating in any
given match were placed at opposing ends of any given
stadium. Seats located in such areas were classified by
the CFO as ‘low risk’. Consequently. all tickets made
available to national football federations whose teams
took part in the tournament, and which were intended
for resale to the general public, related to low-risk seats.
As a general rule, seats which were not classified as low
risk were reserved for ‘neutral’ spectators, who were
deemed not to support either of the teams participating
in a given match. For security purposes and in accord-
ance with arrangements adopted by tournament orga-
nisers previously, the CFO considered members of the
general public from the host nation (in this case France)
as neutral spectators for the purposes of seat allocation
for all finals matches.
CFO sales in 1996 and 1997
(58) In relation to blind sales to the general public of Pass
France 98 and individual tickets by the CFO in 1996
and 1997, the CFO regarded as neutral spectators all
consumers able to provide an address in France (
25
).
CFO sales in 1998
(59) For sales of individual entry tickets to the general public
after 22 April 1998 relating to first-phase matches
(those which therefore took place at a time when the
identities of participating teams were known), the CFO
distinguished between applicants whose addresses were
located in one of the two countries whose representative
team was participating in the match for which the ticket
was required, and those whose addresses were located
elsewhere within the EEA. Those in the former category
were deemed to be supporters of one of the two partici-
pating teams and were accordingly attributed tickets
relating to seats in the stadium reserved specifically for
that group of supporter. Those in the latter category
were deemed to be neutral spectators and as such were
allocated seats reserved specifically for that group of
public.
Sales by European tour operators and national foot-
ball federations
(60) In relation to ticket sales by European tour operators,
the CFO required each tour operator to provide it with
information relating to the nationality of customers to
whom tickets had been sold, as well as the team
supported. In relation to ticket sales by national football
federations, the CFO required each to retain information
relating to the identity of each purchaser including
his/her name, address, and details of the team supported.
Other security measures
(61) In addition to the abovementioned arrangements, the
CFO took other measures to ensure, as far as was
possible, the effective maintenance of security at football
matches. Some 35 500 match tickets remained deliber-
ately unsold by the CFO in order to ensure, where
appropriate, a strict separation of supporters of partici-
pating teams. Measures intended to prevent black-
market ticket sales and to avoid the counterfeiting of
tickets were also taken by the CFO in this context.
N. ARGUMENTS OF THE CFO RELATING TO THE FACTS
(62)
During the course of the oral hearing the CFO suggested
that the total number of tickets allocated to the general
public included 359 500 entry tickets sold specifically to
members of the Famille du Football Français through
Pass France 98 and 18 550 entry tickets sold to handi-
capped spectators.
(63) The Commission does not accept such a view. Individual
consumers throughout the EEA were required to fulfil
specific conditions in order to qualify as members of
each of those groups which were different from those
required of consumers to which this Decision refers.
Thus, tickets made available to the general public cannot
properly include Pass France 98 reserved specifically for
sale to members of the Famine du Football Français and
individual entry tickets reserved for sale to handicapped
spectators. The Commission notes that the CFO had
itself always distinguished between ticket sales to the
general public and those to the Famille du Football
Français and handicapped spectators in previous deal-
ings with the Commission.
(
24
) See CFO letter of 4 June 1998 (point 24), responding to the
Commission's formal request for information of 15 May 1998.
(
25
) See letter from the CFO to the Commission dated 11 June 1998
(page 3, point (b)).
EN Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 1. 2000L 5/64
II. LEGAL ASSESSMENT
A. TERMS OF ARTICLE 82 OF THE EC TREATY AND
ARTICLE 54 OF THE EEA AGREEMENT
(64)
Pursuant to Article 82 of the EC Treaty and Article 54 of
the EEA Agreement, any abuse by an undertaking of a
dominant position within the common market or in a
substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible
with the common market in so far as it may affect trade
between Member States. Such abuse may, inter alia,
consist of direct or indirect imposing of unfair trading
conditions or limiting markets to the prejudice of
consumers.
B. UNDERTAKING
(65)
Any entity carrying on activities of an economic nature,
regardless of its legal form, constitutes an undertaking
within the meaning of Article 82 of the EC Treaty and
Article 54 of the EEA Agreement. An activity of an
economic nature means any activity, whether or not
profit-making, that involves economic trade. Given that
it. was responsible for the distribution of over 2,6
million match tickets of which approximately 1,55
million were sold to the general public, the CFO was
carrying out activities of an economic nature and as
such is an undertaking for the purposes of Article 82 of
the EC Treaty and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement.
C. RELEVANT PRODUCT MARKETS
(66)
The relevant product market can be determined by
considering the extent to which an undertaking's
competitors, if they exist, are capable of constraining its
behaviour and preventing it from acting independently
of competitive pressures. In determining the scope of the
relevant product market and the extent to which under-
takings are able to act independently on such a market it
is necessary to consider, inter alia, the manner in which
consumers are likely to react to changes in the price of
the product or service in question. In this context, a
relevant product market will usually be limited to a
single product or service if a small but significant
increase in the price of that product or service (for
example, 10 %) does not lead to any measurable change
in consumer demand in favour of substitutable products
or services.
(67) With regard to ticket sales by the CFO in 1996 and
1997 it is therefore necessary to consider the extent to
which (a) adequate substitutes existed for sales of World
Cup match tickets to the general public, (b) adequate
substitutes existed for the sale in 1996 and 1997 by the
CFO of blind Pass France 98 to the general public, and
(c) adequate substitutes existed for the sale in 1997 by
the CFO of blind individual entry tickets to the general
public.
Substitutes for Football World Cup finals entry tickets
(68) The nature of the World Cup finals competition is such
that an increase of at least 10 % in the price of match
tickets would not have resulted in a significant
switch in demand by the general public to otherwise
competing products. This is principally due to the
following:
(a) The popularity of football throughout Europe
and the world, over and above other sports
While other sports command strong regional
interest from the general public, only football is able
to generate a broad, sustained and loyal support on
a European and worldwide scale. Furthermore,
sports are different, and the general public interested
in one will not necessarily be followers of others.
Members of the general public seeking to attend
World Cup finals matches are accordingly unlikely
to have considered attendance at international events
involving sports other than football as adequate
substitutes, whether or not the price of tickets for
World Cup football matches was increased by (at
least) 10 %.
(b) The significance of the Football World Cup finals
competition, over and above other football tour-
naments
Football is played in many, if not all, European
countries at both national and international level. At
the national level, local teams usually play one
another on a weekly basis from one year to the next.
At the international level, the best players from each
qualifying nation participate in the European Foot-
ball Championships, the finals of which take place
every four years. While both national and European
tournaments are often well attended, however, only
the finals competition of the Football World Cup
provides the general public with an opportunity to
watch and assess the best players and the best teams
in the world in the course of a single tournament.
(c) The timing of the Football World Cup finals
competition vis-à-vis other football competitions
in Europe
Even if, in the minds of the general public, entry
tickets for European Football Championship matches
represented identical products to those of the finals
competition of the Football World Cup, attendance
at one cannot be considered as substitutable for
attendance at the other, given that the tournaments
take place two years apart.
(d) Evidence relating to demand for Football World
Cup finals entry tickets vis-à-vis the available
supply
Where the demand for match tickets significantly
exceeds available supply, consumers are unlikely to
change their behaviour in the event of a small but
significant rise in the price of those tickets. Given
that some 1 043 million applications were made by
the general public able to provide an address in
France for 181 000 individual tickets sold by the
CFO in 1997, it can be assumed that the demand
generally for entry tickets would remain unaffected
notwithstanding an increase in price of at least 10 %.
EN Official Journal of the European Communities8. 1. 2000 L 5/65
Substitutes for the sale by the CFO to the general
public of blind Pass France 98 in 1996 and 1997
(69) Pass France 98 sold by the CFO in 1996 and 1997
related to matches for which the identities of partici-
pating teams were unknown. The demand for Pass
France 98 was therefore limited to spectators who were
not concerned to watch a particular team or teams, but
who nevertheless wanted to attend a series of finals
matches taking place in a single stadium. Such sales
were in marked contrast to those by national football
federations and European tour operators, who sold indi-
vidual entry tickets after the group draw, at a time when
interest in and demand for entry tickets for finals
matches had increased significantly.
(70) In view of the limited number of entry tickets made
available on an individual basis at a much later date by
each national football federation, members of the
general public wishing to purchase blind Pass France 98
are unlikely to have regarded tickets sold by those
federations as substitutable products for blind Pass
France 98 sold direct by the CFO in 1996 and 1997.
(71) In relation to sales by European tour operators, similar
considerations apply. Furthermore, even if European
tour operators had chosen to sell some or all of their
limited allocation of tickets as Pass France 98, they are
likely to have sold most if not all of those products with
other services, thereby increasing significantly the price
at which Pass France 98 could be obtained. That being
so, the general public would not, at the time of CFO
sales of Pass France 98 in 1996 and 1997, have consid-
ered the uncertain prospect of future sales by European
tour operators as in any way substitutable for those sold
earlier by the CF0 (
26
).
Substitutes for the sale by the CFO to the general
public of blind individual entry tickets in 1997
(72) In relation to 181 000 individual tickets sold by the CFO
to the general public in 1997 for the opening match,
quarter and semi-finals, third and fourth-place play-off
and the final, only a very limited number of tickets for
those high-profile matches were made available to all
national football federations. Only those federations
whose teams progressed from one stage of the second
phase to another received significant additional alloca-
tions, most of which were sold to the general public
wishing to support the participating teams. In view of
this limited supply, consumers wishing to purchase
tickets for those matches in 1997 are unlikely to have
regarded national football federations as a suitable
alternative source of supply to the CFO.
(73) In relation to sales of second-phase entry tickets by
European tour operators, similar considerations apply
given the limited number of tickets made available to
them. Furthermore, European tour operators sold most
if not all of such tickets with other services, thereby
increasing significantly the price at which they could be
obtained. Consequently, the general public would not at
the time of CFO sales of 181 000 blind second-phase
entry tickets in 1997, have considered the prospect of
ticket sales at a later date by European tour operators as
in any way substitutable for those sold earlier by the
CFO (
27
).
Conclusion on the relevant product markets
(74) On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the relevant
product markets for the purposes of this Decision are:
(a) the market for the sale in 1996 and 1997 by the
CFO to the general public of 393 200 blind Pass
France 98, and
(b) the market for the sale in 1997 by the CFO to the
general public of 181 000 blind individual entry
tickets relating to the opening match, quarter and
semi-finals, third-place play-off and the final.
Arguments of the CFO relating to the relevant product
markets
(75) The CFO considers that the relevant product markets for
the purposes of ticket sales to the general public for the
1998 World Cup finals competition are (a) the market
for sales of Pass France 98, and (b) the market for sales
of individual entry tickets by the CFO, national football
federations and tour operators relating to all finals
matches, whether sold blind or at a time when the
identities of participating teams were known. This differs
from the Commission's conclusion in so far as it makes
no distinction between sales of individual entry tickets
by the CFO in 1997 and those in 1998 by each of the
three official distribution channels.
(
26
) Although no explanation is given, the CFO arrived at a similar
conclusion in relation to ticket sales by European tour operators in
its notification to the Commission of 11 June: ‘[Les tour-opera-
teurs] forment un marché spécifique …. Le marche peut donc,
selon le CFO, être défini comme le marché de la vente de billets
pour la Coupe du Monde 1998 par les professionnels du tourisme’
(at section 6.1). (
27
) See also footnote 26.
EN Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 1. 2000L 5/66
(76) The relevant markets as referred to in this Decision
explicitly recognise the different characteristics of Pass
France 98 vis-à-vis individual tickets. Nevertheless, the
CFO's argument that blind sales of individual entry
tickets by the CFO in 1997 are substitutable for sales by
the CFO and other outlets at a later date is not accepted.
The objective of defining relevant product markets is to
identify the actual competitors of an undertaking that
are capable of constraining the behaviour of that under-
taking and of preventing it from behaving independently
of effective competitive pressure. An analysis of the
conditions under which sales took place of individual
entry tickets relating to second-phase matches in 1997
by the CFO confirms that the CFO was able at that time
to act in an environment free from any such competitive
pressure. Those tickets related to prestigious matches for
which the number of applications from consumers able
to provide an address in France exceeded almost six
times the available supply, notwithstanding the fact that
the identities of participating teams were unknown at
the time of sale (
28
). In view of such demand levels, and
because consumers are unlikely in 1997 to have consid-
ered national football federations and European tour
operators as realistic alternative sources of supply, the
CFO was clearly able to operate, in relation to its sale of
such tickets, as a de facto monopolist free from any
competitive pressure from other undertakings.
D. RELEVANT GEOGRAPHIC MARKET
(77)
In view of the widespread demand for tickets
throughout the EEA (
29
), the geographic market relating
to the sale by the CFO to the general public of Pass
France 98 and individual entry tickets in 1996 and 1997
comprises at least all countries within the EEA. Notwith-
standing the widespread demand for those tickets, the
CFO's conditions of sale artificially limited sales to
members of the general public either resident or able to
provide an address in France.
Arguments of the CFO relating to the scope of sales of
Pass France 98
(78) In its response to the Commission's Statement of Objec-
tions and during the oral hearing, the CFO argued that,
in relation to sales in 1996 and 1997 of Pass France 98,
the requirement to provide a postal address in France
had no effect on consumers outside France and that the
geographic market did not, therefore, extend beyond
France. According to the CFO, only the general public
living close to World Cup stadiums would have wished
to purchase Pass France 98, given the unknown identity
of teams participating in matches to which those tickets
gave entry as well as the constraints imposed by such a
product on the purchaser (notably the requirement
either to secure accommodation near a stadium for a
significant period of time or to make as many return
trips as were necessary between one's place of residence
and the stadium in order to attend all matches).
(79) In support of this argument, the CFO referred the
Commission to evidence suggesting that between 71 %
and 91 % of Pass France 98 were bought either by the
general public living in the Département in which a host
stadium was located or in the immediately surrounding
Départements. The CFO also referred the Commission to
the decision by European tour operators not to offer
Pass France 98 to the general public, as well as those of
national football federations not to package the sale of
tickets into Pass France 98 type products, as evidence
that demand outside France for Pass France 98 was
non-existent and that the geographic market was there-
fore limited to residents local to World Cup stadiums in
France.
(80) The Commission rejects these arguments. In relation to
sales of Pass France 98, it cannot be ruled out that a
significant number of consumers outside France would
have wished to purchase such tickets, given the
Europe-wide interest that the finals competition
generated. This is supported in part by an assessment of
the purchasing habits of consumers outside France in
relation to individual ticket sales for first phase and
round of 16 matches by the CFO from 22 April 1998,
which demonstrates that consumers outside France were
not exclusively interested in watching matches involving
the participation of their national team (
30
).
(81) Had consumers outside France been given the oppor-
tunity to purchase Pass France 98 from the CFO, it is
quite probable that a significant number would have
chosen to make as many return trips as were necessary
to allow them to watch all the matches to which Pass
France 98 allowed access. While this applies notably to
Pass France 98 sold for matches taking place in Lens, in
view of its proximity to the Belgian border, it is reason-
able to assume also that consumers in other countries
would have been prepared to travel to other venues
given the ease with which those venues could be
accessed (stadiums located in Bordeaux and Toulouse,
for example, were easily accessible to consumers from
Spain while the stadium in Marseille was accessible to
consumers from Italy).
(
30
) See recitals 25 and 26, while some 38 % of individual entry tickets
sold by the CFO after 22 April 1998 were purchased by the
general public providing addresses outside France but in countries
whose teams had qualified for the finals competition, only 10 % of
entry tickets sold after this date could be purchased by supporters
of teams participating in any given match. As such, a significant
proportion of the general public outside France were interested to
attend matches not involving the participation of their national
team.
(
28
) Blind sales of such tickets can be contrasted with those of tickets
relating to first-phase matches which, in order to maximise the
participation of supporters, were packaged as Pass France 98.
(
29
) Evidenced by the outcome of CFO sales to EEA countries from 22
April 1998 when 45 % of tickets were sold to consumers outside
France.
EN Official Journal of the European Communities8. 1. 2000 L 5/67
(82) Furthermore, and notwithstanding the statistics referred to by the CFO, it is entirely foreseeable that
a significant number of consumers outside France might have wished to make arrangements to stay
in or near the town in which a host stadium was located for the duration of the first phase and
(where necessary) Round of 16 competition, thereby combining guaranteed attendance at a series of
finals matches with an extended stay in what is well known to be a popular destination for foreign
visitors.
(83) The decision by European tour operators to sell tickets distributed to them through Pass France 98
on a desegregated, individual basis cannot be interpreted as suggesting a lack of demand for Pass
France 98 outside France. Such a practice, involving as it did the sale of individual tickets together
with that of other services, was likely to have been motivated instead by a desire to maximise
revenues which sales of Pass France 98 would not have achieved. In relation to sales by national
football federations, the Commission does not consider their failure to sell Pass France 98-type
products as relevant, given the nature of tickets allocated to them (
31
) and the lack of any economic
incentive for them to do so.
E. DOMINANT POSITION
(84)
The CFO represented the sole outlet for blind sales to the general public in 1996 and 1997 of Pass
France 98 and individual entry tickets. As such, and in view of its ability to act independently and,
therefore, free from competitive restraint, the CFO held a dominant position on the relevant markets.
Responsibilities of the CFO as dominant undertaking on the relevant markets
(85) In accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities, an undertaking in a dominant position has a special responsibility not to
allow its conduct to impair undistorted competition on the common market. The actual scope of
that special responsibility must be considered in the light of the specific circumstances of the case,
reflecting a weakened competitive situation (
32
).
(86) The scope of the parties' responsibility must therefore be considered in relation to the degree of
dominance held by the parties and to any special characteristics of the market which might affect the
competitive situation.
(87) Taking particular account of the significant difference between the demand for and supply of Pass
France 98 and individual tickets sold by the CFO to the general public in 1996 and 1997, the CFO
was, as a de facto monopolist, under a prima facie obligation to ensure that entry tickets sold in 1996
and 1997 for finals matches were made available to the general public under non-discriminatory
arrangements throughout the EEA, even though demand from consumers outside France for certain
ticket products may have been relatively small as against the demand from the general public in
France. While exceptions to this general principle may apply, each must be considered on its
individual merits and in the light of an objective assessment of what is the minimum necessary to
achieve the stated aims.
F. ABUSE
(88)
In view of (a) the conditions of sale which applied in relation to CFO sales of blind tickets in 1996
and 1997, (b) the sales information made available by the CFO on its official World Cup website and
on which the general public outside France could have reasonably been expected to rely, and (c) the
restrictive means made available to the general public outside France for reserving entry tickets, the
CFO abused its dominant position on the relevant markets because its behaviour had the effect of
imposing unfair trading conditions on residents outside France which resulted in a limitation of the
market to the prejudice of those consumers.
(
31
) Which would have made the bundling of anything other than a very small number of tickets into Pass France 98
type-products impossible.
(
32
) Judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T/83/91 Tetra Pak II [1994] ECR II-755, at paragraphs 114 and 115.
In Case 7/82 GVL [1983] ECR 483, the Court of Justice had previously acknowledged the scope of a monopolist's
special responsibility in relation to discriminatory conduct on grounds of nationality or residence. The Court had
stated (inter alia): ‘Such a refusal [to manage rights] by an undertaking having a de facto monopoly to provide its
services for all those who may be in need of them but who do not come within a certain category of persons
defined by the undertaking on the basis of nationality or residence must be regarded as an abuse of a dominant
position within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 86 of the Treaty’ (at paragraph 56).
EN Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 1. 2000L 5/68
Requirement to provide a postal address in France
(89) The general public outside France were free to purchase entry tickets direct from the CFO on
condition that they provided a postal address in France to which the tickets could be delivered (
33
).
(90) At the time of CFO sales of Pass France 98 and individual tickets, the general public resident in
France had little difficulty in providing an address to which tickets could be delivered. However. only
by entering into wholly arbitrary, impractical and exceptional arrangements (
34
) could most of the
general public resident outside France have obtained tickets direct from the CFO in 1996 and
1997 (
35
). While it is questionable whether the general public outside France had ever been
adequately informed that tickets could be purchased direct from the CFO, the effect of the require-
ment to provide a postal address in France was to discriminate specifically against the general public
resident outside France, given that those resident in France were significantly better placed to meet
that requirement.
(91) This discrimination amounted in practice to an imposition by the CFO of unfair trading conditions
on residents outside France and resulted in a limitation of the market to the detriment of those
consumers in relation to CFO sales of 393 200 tickets through Pass France 98 and 181 000 tickets
relating to the opening match, quarter and semi-finals, third and fourth-place play-off and the final,
contrary to Article 82 of the EC Treaty and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement.
Sales information provided by the CFO
(92) From 6 May 1997 the CFO provided information on its official World Cup website relating to the
means by which the general public in and outside France could obtain match tickets for the finals
competition. Members of the general public resident outside France were advised to obtain tickets
either from authorised tour operators or national football federations. No indication was given that
entry tickets could be obtained direct from the CFO. Furthermore, information was provided to the
effect that the CFO would not sell tickets direct to the non-French public, and that accordingly a
non-French citizen visiting France and wishing to purchase entry tickets for finals matches would be
obliged to contact a national football federation or tour operator.
(93) The effect of such advice was to limit the demand for blind CFO sales of individual tickets in 1997
either exclusively to French citizens or to the general public resident in France. Conversely, that
advice would have deterred the non-French public or, at the very least, those not resident in France,
from seeking to purchase individual entry tickets direct from the CFO. This resulted in a strict
limitation of the market by the CFO to the prejudice of the general public resident outside France in
relation to CFO sales of 181 000 tickets for the opening match, quarter and semi-finals, third and
fourth-place play-off and the final itself, contrary to Article 82 of the EC Treaty and Article 54 of the
EEA Agreement.
Channels available for reserving entry tickets direct from the CFO
(94) Of the different means by which tickets could be reserved by the general public from the CFO, only
that of applying in writing was available to consumers resident outside France. Telephone reserva-
tions could be made only from within metropolitan France, while reservation by Minitel (an
information system used by and designed specifically for those living in France) was available only to
residents outside France via connection to the Internet, and then only at an additional cost of
FRF 350. Similarly, ticket reservations through branches of Crédit Agricole could only be made in
France.
(95) Given the anticipated high level of demand for Pass France 98 in relation to their limited supply, the
need to reserve tickets quickly would have been of paramount importance to the general public.
Thus, consumers for whom the only means of reserving tickets was by written request would have
been at a disadvantage vis-à-vis those who were able to avail themselves of other, quicker means of
ticket reservation.
(96) In relation to individual entry tickets sold direct by the CFO in 1997, the general public was required
to submit applications between 18 September and 18 October 1997. Although such tickets were not
allocated on a first-come-first-served basis, members of the general public resident in France were
favoured over those resident elsewhere in the EEA, given that application forms were made available
only through branches of Credit-Agricole based in France.
(
33
) Responding to the Commission's formal request for information of 15 January 1998.
(
34
) Examples include use of poste restante or embassy services.
(
35
) Given the emphasis which the CFO placed in its sales information on the requirement to be resident in France and
the advice given to the general public that it would not supply to the non-French public, it is open to doubt
whether residents abroad would have been permitted by the CFO to avail themselves of these alternatives in practice.
EN Official Journal of the European Communities8. 1. 2000 L 5/69
(97) Consequently, the means by which Pass France 98 and individual tickets could be obtained direct
from the CFO in 1996 and 1997 discriminated against the general public resident outside France.
Arguments of the CFO as to abuse
(98) In its response to the Commission's Statement of Objections, the CFO argued that. on the basis of
previous Commission practice and the case-law of the Court of Justice, the CFO could not have
abused a dominant position, given that certain of the conditions necessary for the application of
Article 82 of the EC Treaty (
36
) were not fulfilled.
Conduct having an effect on the structure of competition
(99) The CFO argued that conduct in breach of Article 82 must affect the structure of competition in a
given market to the detriment of a dominant undertaking's competitors, given that the provision is
not intended to protect, in a direct manner, the interests of consumers (
37
). The CFO contends
therefore that its conduct does not fall within the scope of Article 82, as the requirement to provide
an address in France for ticket sales in 1996 and 1997 did not affect the structure of competition on
the relevant markets.
(100) The Commission rejects such an interpretation of Article 82. While the application of Article 82
often requires an assessment of the effect of an undertaking's behaviour on the structure of
competition in a given market, its application in the absence of such an effect cannot be excluded.
Consumers' interests are protected by Article 82, such protection being achieved either by prohi-
biting conduct by dominant undertakings which impairs free and undistorted competition or which
is direct prejudicial to consumers. Accordingly, and as has been expressly recognised by the Court of
Justice (
38
), Article 82 can properly be applied, where appropriate, to situations in which a dominant
undertaking's behaviour direct prejudices the interests of consumers. notwithstanding the absence of
any effect on the structure of competition.
Commercial advantage
(101) The CFO argued that an undertaking abuses its dominant position only if it makes use of the
opportunities arising out of its dominant position in such a way as to reap trading benefits which it
would not have reaped if there had been normal and sufficiently effective competition. The CFO
derived neither a financial nor competitive advantage by requiring consumers to provide an address
in France for ticket sales in 1996 and 1997, and thus derived no trading benefits as a result of its
actions.
(102) The Commission rejects such an argument. While evidence that a dominant undertaking has secured
for itself a financial or competitive advantage as a result of its actions may support a conclusion of
abuse, it is not essential to a finding of abuse (
39
). In this case, the effect of the CFO's behaviour was
to discriminate against residents outside France, which indirect amounted to a discrimination against
those consumers on grounds of nationality, contrary to fundamental Community principles. Such
conduct cannot, in this case, be considered to fall outside the scope of Article 82 on the grounds that
the CFO, as a dominant undertaking, failed to derive a commercial or other advantage from its
actions.
(
36
) All comments by the CFO in this regard are equally pertinent to the application of Article 54 of the EEA Agree-
ment.
(
37
) In this context, the CFO argued that Article 82 must be read in the light of Article 3(g) of the EC Treaty, which
requires that competition in the internal market is not distorted.
(
38
) Case 6/72 Continental Can [1973] ECR 215 at paragraph 26: The Court held that Article 82 ‘is not only aimed at
practices which may cause damage to consumers directly, but also at those which are detrimental to them through
their impact on an effective competition structure’.
(
39
) For example, cases concerning excessive pricing require an assessment of the extent to which (if at all) a dominant
undertaking charged a price which was excessive in relation to the economic value of the product or service. Hence,
the extent to which that undertaking was able to obtain a commercial advantage, which it otherwise would not have
been able to obtain under conditions of normal competition, must usually be determined before any conclusions
concerning excessive pricing can be drawn.
EN Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 1. 2000L 5/70
Limitation of markets
(103) The CFO contests the Commission's view that it abused its dominant position under Article 82(b) by
limiting the market for sales of Pass France 98 and individual tickets to the prejudice of consumers
outside France, for the following reasons:
(a) Had European tour operators decided to sell Pass France 98 as foreseen by the CFO, no such
limitation of the market would have occurred, since consumers outside France would have been
able to obtain Pass France 98 without being required to provide an address in France. In relation
to sales of individual tickets, the CFO's conduct did not limit the market. since tickets were
offered to the general public throughout the EEA at various times by each of the three
distribution channels;
(b) According to the case-law of the Court of Justice (
40
), an undertaking abuses its dominant
position through a limitation of the market under Article 82(b) only where it benefits from the
absence of competitive pressure by failing to improve its performance which it would have
otherwise been required to do. Given that the number of match tickets was necessarily limited
and that CFO sales arrangements had no effect on the quality of the product consumed, the CFO
argues that the existence of competitive pressure in the market would not have resulted in any
such improvement in performance by the CFO, and that as such its conduct cannot be qualified
as abusive under Article 82(b).
(104) The Commission rejects each of those arguments. As the dominant undertaking on the relevant
product markets, the CFO was under an obligation not to artificially limit ticket sales, whether or not
other economic operators could or did sell such tickets. In relation to the CFO's arguments
concerning the scope of application of Article 82(b), the requirement to provide an address in France
had the undeniable effect of limiting the geographic market for the sale of entry tickets by the CFO
in 1996 and 1997 to the prejudice of consumers resident outside France. The implementation of
those arrangements represents an abuse of the CFO's dominant position in accordance with the
specific wording of Article 82(b), a conclusion which is in no way inconsistent with the case-law of
the Court of Justice to which the CFO has referred (
41
). The CFO's argument that it could not have
improved its performance under conditions of competition is, therefore, irrelevant.
G. SECURITY
(105)
Ensuring effective security at football matches is essential and may, in particular circumstances,
justify the implementation of special ticket sales arrangements by tournament organisers. Neverthe-
less, in order to determine whether and, if so, to what extent, security considerations may justly
ticketing arrangements which would otherwise be deemed to infringe Community law, each set of
arrangements must be considered on their individual merits in the light of an objective assessment of
what is necessary to achieve reasonable security objectives.
Security at football matches
(106) The principal concern of the CFO was to ensure, in compliance with the provisions of the 1985
Convention, that rival groups of supporters of teams participating in any given match were separated
from one another in each of the World Cup stadiums.
(107) The CFO sought to achieve such a segregation through the allocation to national football federations
whose teams were participating in a given match of tickets relating to seats located at opposite ends
of the stadium. Thus, tickets reserved for rival groups of supporters were not sold blind by the CFO
but were made available at a time when the identities of participating teams were known.
(108) Tickets sold blind by the CFO in 1996 and 1997 related to seats reserved for neutral spectators. The
CFO sold such tickets exclusively to members of the general public able to provide an address in
France, who were classified in relation to all matches as neutral spectators. The CFO has, however,
(
40
) Cases cited by the CFO: Case 41/90 Hofner [1991] ECR 1979 and Case 179/90 Merci [1991] 5889.
(
41
) See footnote 40.
EN Official Journal of the European Communities8. 1. 2000 L 5/71
previously referred the Commission to expert opinion which considers that consumers purchasing
blind tickets generally are peaceful spectators who do not represent a specific security risk. Such an
analysis appears reasonable, given that consumers purchasing such tickets are evidently doing so
because they wish to attend a football match irrespective of the teams involved, and are not therefore
motivated by their support for any particular team.
(109) It follows therefore that any consumer, regardless of nationality, purchasing entry tickets on a blind
basis should not, in principle, be regarded as a supporter of any particular team for purposes of
security. Accordingly, such consumers should not, in principle, be subject to arrangements relating
to the segregation of rival groups of supporters as envisaged under the 1985 Convention. The
obligation to provide a postal address in France, imposed on consumers wishing to purchase blind
tickets from the CFO in 1996 and 1997, was therefore excessive and failed to contribute in any
material way to maintaining or improving security at football matches.
Arguments of the CFO relating to security
(110) In its response to the Commission's Statement of Objections and during the oral hearing, the CFO
sought to justify its discriminatory sales arrangements on security grounds. According to the CFO, if
it had sold tickets in 1996 and 1997 to the general public throughout the EEA, supporters of
participating teams are likely to have found themselves located in those parts of the stadium reserved
for neutral spectators. That being so, the CFO considers that for the purposes of ticket sales in 1996
and 1997 it was unable to treat all spectators throughout the EEA as neutral without at the same
time contravening the provisions of the 1985 Convention as well as the relevant guidelines, which
required an effective separation of rival groups of supporters of participating teams.
(111) The CFO also argued (a) that it was not possible to sell tickets on a blind basis in 1996 and 1997
and to determine the placement of ticket holders at a later date when the identities of participating
teams were known, and (b) that no comparison could be made between CFO sales in 1996 and
1997 to the general public able to provide an address in France and CFO sales in 1998 to the
general public able to provide an address within the EEA, given that sales in 1998 took place after
the group draw when the identities of participating teams in first-phase matches were known.
(112) The CFO's argument that it could not have treated all members of the general public in the EEA in
1996 and 1997 as neutral is rejected. The 1985 Convention refers specifically to the need to ensure
an effective segregation of rival groups of supporters through (inter alia) a strict control over ticket
sales. While the CFO considered it necessary to treat all members of the general public other than
those able to provide an address in France as a potential rival supporter in 1996 and 1997 for the
purposes of ticket sales, such a policy was excessive because it failed to take into account the
generally peaceful nature of consumers purchasing tickets at a time when the identities of partici-
pating teams are not known. As the CFO has itself previously confirmed (
42
), consumers purchasing
tickets on a blind basis would not have represented a specific security risk. Thus, the CFO was wrong
to have considered members of the general public who were unable to provide an address in France
but who wished to purchase tickets from it in 1996 and 1997 as potential rival supporters for the
purposes of security.
(113) In any event, even if consumers purchasing tickets on a blind basis could properly have been
considered to represent a specific security risk (which is not accepted by the Commission). it is
unlikely in the extreme that anyone, having purchased a ticket on a blind basis (thereby entitling
admission to that part of the stadium reserved specifically for the neutral public) and having by
chance found himself attending a match involving the participation of his home team, would be
located next to or within the vicinity of supporters of the opposing team, given that at the very least
the latter must also have been fortunate enough, having purchased tickets on a blind basis, to find
themselves also attending a match involving the participation of their home team in that part of the
stadium reserved for the neutral public. Hence, any risk that the CFO might have breached the terms
of the 1985 Convention by implementing non-discriminatory sales arrangements in 1996 and 1997
was, in statistical terms, insignificant.
(
42
) See CFO letter of 4 June 1998 (point 24), responding to the Commission's formal request for information of 15
May 1998.
EN Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 1. 2000L 5/72
(114) In view of the above, the CFO's supposed inability to determine the siting of blind ticket holders after
the identities of participating teams became known, as well as its contention that sales arrangements
implemented in 1998 cannot be compared with those adopted previously, are irrelevant for the
purposes of this Decision (see recital 111).
H. SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE COMMON MARKET
(115)
Since the CFO held a dominant position on the relevant markets, and since it determined the
conditions under which consumers within the whole of the EEA could purchase Pass France 98 and
individual tickets in 1996 and 1997, the CFO's dominant position extended to at least the whole of
the EEA, and, accordingly, a substantial part of the common market for the purposes of Article 82 of
the EC Treaty.
I. EFFECT ON TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES
(116)
In relation to ticket sales on the relevant product markets, the CFO imposed conditions of sale on
the general public which had the effect of denying the overwhelming majority of residents outside
France access to those markets. Thus, the requirement to provide an address in France for sales of
Pass France 98 and individual entry tickets in 1996 and 1997 appreciably affected trade between
Member States.
Arguments of the CFO relating to effects on trade
(117) The arguments put forward by the CFO concerning the effect of its conduct on trade between
Member States are considered above in recitals 78 to 83.
J. THE NOTIFICATION OF 11 JUNE 1997
(118)
In its response to the Statement of Objections, the CFO argued that as the general arrangements for
the distribution of tickets were explained to the Commission at the time of the notification in June
1997, any objections relating to those arrangements should have been raised at the time. The CFO
argues further that as no such objections were raised by the Commission it was entitled to assume
that its general ticketing arrangements were in compliance with Community law. The CFO considers
therefore that the Commission's decision to initiate proceedings against the CFO represented a
breach of the principle of legitimate expectation as defined by the Court of Justice.
(119) The Commission rejects the CFO's assertions in this regard. While it accepts that in the notification
the CFO explained the means by which tickets would be sold through each of the officially
appointed distribution channels, the Commission was not made aware, at the time, of the require-
ment obliging consumers to provide a postal address in France for CFO sales in 1996 and 1997 (
43
).
Indeed, the CFO expressly told the Commission that Pass France 98, while intended principally for
sale to football supporters and the local and regional public, would in fact be accessible to all (
44
).
(120) Furthermore, an undertaking which notifies specific agreements or arrangements cannot, as a matter
of principle, be permitted to argue at a later date that it was legitimately entitled to assume that
agreements or arrangements which did not form part of the notification but which may have been
communicated to the Commission at the time of the notification were in accordance with the
competition provisions of the EC Treaty. As the CFO's notification concerned exclusively arrange-
ments relating to the proposed system for the selection of tour operators authorised to sell entry
tickets for finals matches in Europe, the Commission was under a legal obligation to consider those
arrangements only, and cannot therefore be criticised at a later date for deciding to initiate
proceedings in relation to other arrangements upon which it was not formally requested to take a
view.
K. FINES
(121)
In accordance with Article 15 of Regulation No 17, the Commission may, by decision, impose on an
undertaking which either intentionally or negligently infringes Article 82 of the EC Treaty and
Article 54 of the EEA Agreement, a fine of between EUR 1 000 and EUR 1 million, or a sum in
excess thereof but not exceeding 10 % of the undertaking's turnover in the preceding business year.
(
43
) It should be noted further that at the time of the notification the CFO had already sold all Pass France 98 to the
general public under the arrangements in question.
(
44
) At section 4.1(ii) of the CFO's notification of 11 June 1997.
EN Official Journal of the European Communities8. 1. 2000 L 5/73
(122) The abusive conduct to which this Decision refers, the effect of which was to discriminate in favour
of consumers able to provide an address in France, indirectly amounts to discrimination on grounds
of nationality, since ticket sales were artificially and predominantly limited by the CFO to residents
located within a single Member State. Such conduct represents a breach of fundamental Community
principles.
(123) The Commission notes that the ticketing arrangements as implemented by the CFO were similar to
those adopted for previous World Cup finals tournaments, and that the issues raised in relation to
the application of EC competition rules are of such a specific nature as not to enable conclusions to
be easily drawn from previous Commission decisions or case-law of the Court of Justice. The
Commission has therefore concluded that the CFO was not, at the time, aware that its sales
arrangements in 1996 and 1997 were in breach of Community law.
(124) The Commission acknowledges further that the CFO took positive steps to ensure, to the extent that
it considered it necessary, that ticketing arrangements for the 1998 Football World Cup complied
with Community and national law through formal and informal contacts with the Commission and
competition authorities in France. The Commission notes also the decision taken by the CFO, at the
former's request, to amend its sales arrangements in order to give consumers throughout the EEA the
chance to reserve 175 500 individual entry tickets directly from the CFO in 1998.
(125) Every abuse of a dominant position should normally be penalised by a fine varying in accordance
with the gravity and duration of the infringement. In view of the foregoing arguments, however, the
Commission considers it appropriate to impose only a symbolic fine on the CFO of EUR 1 000.
This does not, however, represent a policy to be adopted in all future similar cases,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The Comité français d'organisation de la Coupe du monde de football 1998 (CFO) has infringed Article 82
of the EC Treaty and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement by applying discriminatory arrangements in 1996
and 1997 relating to the sale to the general public of entry tickets for World Cup finals matches. Those
arrangements involved the imposition of unfair trading conditions on consumers outside France which
resulted in a limitation of the market to the prejudice of those consumers in relation to the sale of 393 200
tickets through Pass France 98 and 181 000 tickets relating to the opening match, quarter and semi-finals,
third and fourth-place play-off and the final.
Article 2
A fine of EUR 1 000 is hereby imposed on the CFO in respect of the infringement referred to in Article 1.
Article 3
The fine shall be paid in euro within three months of the date of notification of this Decision to the
following account:
Account No 310-0933000-43
European Commission
Banque Bruxelles-Lambert
Agence Européenne
Rond Point Schuman/Schumanplein 5
B-1040 Brussels.
After three months, interest shall automatically be payable at the rate applied by the European Central Bank
to its repo operations on the first working day of the month in which this Decision was adopted, plus 3,5
percentage points.
EN Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 1. 2000L 5/74
Article 4
This Decision is addressed to:
Comité français d'organisation de la Coupe du monde de football 1998 (CFO)
23-25 Rue de Berri
F-75008 Paris.
This Decision is enforceable pursuant to Article 256 of the EC Treaty.
Done at Brussels, 20 July 1999.
For the Commission
Karel VAN MIERT
Member of the Commission
