Chalking up a legal challenge: analysing the proposed snooker breakaway league claim in the Competition Appeal Tribunal

The subject of breakaway competitions has been on the lips of sports fans since football’s European Super League saga started in April 2021. In January 2025, snooker became the latest sport with a would-be competitor bringing governance structures under a competition law lens – NST Worldwide Limited (NST Worldwide) launched a competition damages claim in the UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) against the World Snooker Tour (WST) and the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA). 

In this blog, we break down what the claim is about and how snooker was ahead of its time given a previous competition law challenge, before exploring the evolving picture of breakaway league challenges and why sports governing bodies should be taking steps to mitigate risk.

The claim and NST Worldwide’s allegations

NST Worldwide describes itself as a new entrant in the market for organising and promoting professional snooker events. It claims that the contracts entered into between the WST, the WPBSA and professional snooker players, in order for players to be eligible to play in the WST, restrict players from participating in events organised by competitors that conflict with the WST’s calendar.

NST Worldwide alleges that these contractual arrangements breach competition law in two regards: 

1. First, under section 18 of the Competition Act 1998 (the Act), that the WST and the WPBSA abused their dominant position in two sports markets: (a) the market for the supply and purchase of professional snooker players’ services to professional events/tournaments; and (b) the organisation and marketing of professional snooker tournaments and the exploitation of various rights relating to those tournaments (the Chapter II Prohibition); and 
2. Second, under section 2 of the Act, that the WST and the WPBSA engaged in agreements, decisions, and/or concerted practices which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition (the Chapter I Prohibition).

Amongst other remedies, NST Worldwide is looking to pocket a reported £10.2 million in damages as a result of allegedly being prevented from entering the market and collecting the resulting profit from broadcasting rights, sponsorship deals and ticket sales.

A potted history - snooker’s first breakaway league attempt

Despite being a sport that is well liked for its many traditions, snooker was decades ahead of its time in terms of attempted breakaway competitions. Back in 2002, a rival tour, The Sportsmasters Network (TSN), took the WPBSA to the English High Court in Hendry v World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association [2001] 10 WLUK 166 (Ch D). The case was a root and branch challenge to the WPBSA’s rules and management of professional snooker for alleged breaches of the Chapter I and II Prohibitions under the Act and equivalent requirements of EU law. 

TSN attacked many aspects of the WPBSA’s rules including its sanctioning of other competitions, restrictions on logos worn by players, limitations on player interviews and promotional work at tournaments and the snooker ranking system. The High Court found that the WPBSA was dominant in the market as between professional snooker players and promoters of snooker tournaments and that one aspect of its rules, Rule A5, was a restriction of competition by effect, and an abuse of dominance. 

Rule A5 of the WPBSA’s rules prevented members from entering or playing in any snooker tournament, event or match without the prior written consent of the WPBSA Board, except in circumstances where (i) such event was organised after the WST tournament events had been fixed for the season, and (ii) it did not adversely affect those WST events.

In coming to this decision, the Court recognised that the WPBSA had a legitimate interest as the governing body for snooker in spreading the benefit of broadcasting contracts and prize money with a wider group of players than TSN. However, it found that a legitimate interest alone was not enough to justify a restriction. The restriction must be no more than is reasonably required to protect the body’s legitimate interest, which the Court found not to be the case here.

Even so, Rule A5 had subsequently been removed from the WPBSA’s rules, and TSN’s remaining claims otherwise failed. The Court found that TSN’s broader claims were not made out on the facts (e.g. in respect of the rankings system) and that the other measures in the WPBSA’s rules were entirely reasonable and did not have an object or effect that was anti-competitive (e.g. in respect of rules on logos and promotional work). 

Despite the finding on Rule A5, no damages were awarded. Crucially, the TSN tour was already abandoned (having been rendered unviable after failing to secure a broadcasting contract) before the WPBSA introduced the infringing rule. The Court therefore found that there was no loss and no entitlement to damages. 

This previous case will provide an interesting point of comparison for the CAT. From a liability perspective, NST Worldwide may seek to leverage the previous finding of the WPBSA’s dominance in what appears to be a similar (if not the same) market, but it will have the difficulty of overcoming a very narrow finding from the High Court in terms of previously infringing conduct. From a quantum perspective, it remains to be seen how NST Worldwide can evidence the alleged loss, which was a key part of TSN’s undoing.

The case for the defence? The WST’s response to previous exhibition issues

In more recent times, the WST’s current contractual arrangements and sanctioned competitions have been under the spotlight again. In October 2023, the WST threatened to sanction players for playing in an exhibition tournament which clashed with the final stages of one of its competitions.

Although the players were subsequently permitted to enter the exhibition tournament, once rescheduled, given the similar issues in play, the WST’s statement at the time may give an indication of some of its lines of defence:

• It stressed that it “[runs] the sport for all 130 players on the WST, and this will always be [its] guiding principle”. 
• The WST asserted that it afforded players a level of freedom “unlike any other sport where players have voluntarily opted to enter contracts with their club/organisation”. 
• The WST said it is “supportive of a player’s earning opportunities outside of the WST” where there are gaps in the WST calendar, but that it limits players from doing anything that is “detrimental to the WST or a WST event”. In the WST’s opinion, a player’s decision to play in a non-sanctioned event that conflicted with a WST event would have such a detrimental impact because of the sizeable financial implications to the WST as a result, including lost broadcast income, sponsorship, ticket revenue and reputational damage. 

Looking ahead

More antitrust legal challenges in sport could be yet to come. Tennis recently became the latest in a line of sports to face sweeping competition law challenges. The Professional Tennis Players Association announced in March that it had launched legal action in the US, EU and UK against various governing bodies in respect of (amongst other allegations) rules fixing prize money, participation in alternative tournaments, the tournament schedule and even practices around anti-doping and match-fixing investigations. 

Meanwhile, despite its very public collapse in the days that followed its launch, the remaining proponents of the European Super League (re-branded and reformatted as the “Unify League”) have publicly confirmed that they have written to UEFA and FIFA to seek approval to launch the competition, whilst continuing to allege that the governing bodies’ respective rules do not comply with competition law.

As the CAT prepares to sink its teeth into this developing area of case law following the Court of Justice of the European Union’s rulings in the European Super League and International Skating Union cases, what remains clear is that sports governing bodies should be alive to the risk of claims and the need to get on the front foot. To mitigate the risks of significant damages claims and regulatory investigations, and associated reputational harm, sports governing bodies will need to actively consider their governance structures, rules and contractual frameworks to ensure compliance with competition law as well as their strategy in the event of a challenge to existing formats.

Sign up to SportingLinks for more dedicated legal opinion on topical issues in the sports sector.