On Monday, April 19th, 2021, twelve of Europe’s elite football clubs triggered a figurative earthquake upon the landscape of professional football. The ‘European SuperLeague’ was a de facto coup d’etat against UEFA and perhaps epitomized the unbridled impact of commercialization on the game of football as the dubbed ‘Super Clubs’ sought a greater share of the financial pie. As a student of the game, I was both fascinated and disturbed by this event but ultimately it laid the inspiration for me to write this thesis. My research involved a thorough examination of the legality of UEFA’s vice grip on the organization of professional football in Europe. In response to the SuperLeague, UEFA moved to secure their position by banning the clubs from participating in UEFA competitions and fining them for breach of the UEFA Statutes. The article of UEFA’s statutes under scrutiny is article 49 which enables UEFA to prohibit any member club from participating in external events that are not sanctioned by UEFA. In other words, this prevented clubs from participating in unsanctioned breakaway leagues which had been rumoured by the games power figures for a long time. As such, I decided to test Article 49 for its compatibility with EU competition law and this thesis provides a simulation of a Commission investigation and decision were it ever to materialize. It must be noted that the CJEU recently heard a preliminary ruling hearing on this matter with a decision expected in late 2022/early 2023. UEFA is a complex organization to say the least. Unravelling the intricacies of its composition meant that this thesis, and a prospective Commission decision, proved this issue is more complicated than a simplification of “UEFA=monopoly”. In fact, my contention is that a case brought against UEFA would be best brought under the auspices of article 101, rather than the more obvious article 102. In chapter 3, I outline why this is the more strategically sound route for the Commission. Moreover, this thesis details the extensive body of jurisprudence on EU competition and sports law with commentary on the decisions of, inter alia, Bosman, Meca-Medinah, ISU and Wouters. To the best of my knowledge, this is the only substantial body of research carried out on this topic since the European SuperLeague was announced last year. Prior research is plentiful but limited to speculation as to how a breakaway league would look and operate which means that the conclusions drawn can’t be fully sure of whether a SuperLeague would be pro or anti-competitive. In fact, this is the premise of my concluding chapter where I delve into the concept of competitive balance in professional sport and how it squares (or not) with the ideals of European competition law. Comparison is drawn to professional sports in the US which are given autonomy to deviate from antitrust law in order to produce a sustainable and lasting product. I analyse whether such a model would be appropriate in Europe in light of some fundamental differences in how European sport operates such as the promotion/relegation concept and professional/amateur solidarity mechanisms. The light shone on the competitive merit of UEFA’s organizational approach is incisive and definitive. It is designed to give a snapshot of how the inevitable CJEU case between the SuperLeague and UEFA will pan out. Moreover, it is pressing as other professional sports such as golf face breakaway threats from their status quo systems. The reality is that professional sport for too long remained in competition law limbo, and this is the beginning of an era of significant upheaval