You may not have heard of competition law, but you have definitely heard of the European Super League. Or LIV Golf splitting up the professional game. Or tennis stars suing the sport’s governing bodies. What ties all these together? They are not just headline-grabbing dramas – they are all about two things: who gets to compete and on what terms. Enter competition law. At its core, competition law is about keeping powerful players in check. In most industries, that means making sure big companies do not gang up to fix prices, shut out rivals or strangle innovation. It exists to protect choice – for consumers, businesses or new challengers trying to break through. It governs the agreements companies make with each other, stops dominant players from abusing their position and blocks acquisitions if they risk killing competition. Sport might seem like a world apart – built on passion, tradition and rivalries, not market share. However, when a single body controls who can play, where they can play and under what rules, competition law starts to matter. In recent years, we have seen legal battles erupt over breakaway leagues, media rights, youth player transfers and even agent regulations – all testing whether the rules of sport are fair, or designed to keep control in the hands of the few. Regulators have made it clear: sport governing bodies cannot just protect their turf, they must justify their rules. In the European Super League and the International Skating Union cases, the European Court of Justice confirmed any restrictions on new competitions must be fair, transparent and proportionate – not simply a way to block rivals. In golf, LIV's challenge to the PGA Tour raised the question of whether banning players from one tour for joining another was anti-competitive. The case remains unresolved, but the two tours have proposed a merger, which will be scrutinised closely by competition regulators. In tennis, the newly formed Professional Tennis Players Association has launched actions against the sport’s governing bodies, alleging the current structure unfairly limits players’ earnings and freedom. In skiing, attempts to centralise global media rights triggered lawsuits from national federations who argued they were being shut out of their own markets. In Scotland, a complaint to the UK Competition and Markets Authority alleges youth transfer rules in football unfairly restrict player movement. However, sport is not just a commercial sector and the law needs to recognise that. Its appeal lies in a shared structure, a pyramid where everyone, from grassroots to elite, plays by the same rules. Arguably, sport’s entertainment value depends on its top athletes competing in the same tournaments, creating compelling rivalries, drama and continuity that fans and broadcasters crave. Break that up with splintered competitions, parallel rankings or clashing calendars and the magic fades. Look at boxing; with multiple governing bodies and rival titles, some of the biggest fights fans want to see never happen. That’s why many rules to restrict entry or protect formats are not illegal. Sporting rules just need to be proportionate, explainable and genuinely aimed at preserving the integrity of the sport. So yes, competition law now matters in sport – not to dictate who wins, but to ensure the game itself stays fair. It is a tool, not a solution. When used well, it protects innovation and progress. However, used bluntly, it risks breaking the very structure that gives sport its meaning. The challenge now is ensuring competition regulators strike the right balance. Viktoria Tsvetanova is a Senior Associate, Dentons