Cofece: the fine to Justino Compeán Palacios and 7 other executives
Last September, Cofece fined Justino Compeán Palacios and 7 other executives related to Liga MX, from Mexico.
According to Cofece, there were two misconducts in which the eight criminals committed.
The first (Conduct One) is related to absolute monopolistic practices that consisted of contracts, agreements, arrangements or combinations that resulted in a segmentation of the transfer market of professional soccer players in terms of providers, consisting of the economic agents located, with the cooperation of the Mexican Football Federation (FMF), agreed to respect their respective inventories of free contract male players, establishing the obligation to have the consent or authorization of the owner club of the First Contracting Option to be able to contract them, -authorization that it could be subject or not to the payment of an economic consideration – before being able to contract them.
On the other hand, the second (Conduct Two) is related to absolute monopolistic practices consisting of contracts, agreements, arrangements or combinations to fix, arrange or manipulate the amount of the maximum salaries of the soccer players of the clubs affiliated to Liga MX. Feminine
In general, Cofece sanctioned 17 Liga MX clubs, the FMF and the eight individuals in September for colluding in the transferring market for footballers.
La Cofece and the eight managers
Justino Compeán Palacios
For having contributed, promoted or induced, on behalf or on behalf of the Mexican Federation of Soccer Association, AC, in the commission of the absolute monopolistic practice called Conduct One in terms of section III of article 53 of the Federal Law of Economic Competition (LFCE), in accordance with the provisions of this resolution.
Decio Eugenio de María Serrano
For having contributed, promoted or induced, on behalf or on behalf of the Mexican Federation of Soccer Association, AC, in the commission of the absolute monopoly practice called Conduct One in terms of section 111 of article 53 of the LFCE, as to what is stated in this resolution.
Enrique Bonilla Barrutia
For having assisted, promoted or induced, in representation or on behalf and order of the Mexican Federation of Soccer Association, A.C., in the commission of the absolute monopolistic practice called Conduct One in terms of section III of article 53 of the LFCE; and in the commission of the absolute monopolistic practice called Conduct Two in terms of section I of article 53 of the LFCE, in terms of this resolution.
Anna Esther Peniche Adame
For having assisted, promoted or induced, in representation or on behalf and order of the Mexican Federation of Soccer Association, A.C., in the commission of the absolute monopolistic practice called Conduct One in terms of section III of article 53 of the LFCE; and in the commission of the absolute monopolistic practice called Conduct Two in terms of section I of article 53 of the LFCE, as indicated in this resolution.
Margarita de Jesus Iglesias Flores
For having contributed, promoted or induced, on behalf or on behalf of the Mexican Federation of Soccer Association, AC, in the commission of the absolute monopoly practice called Conduct One in terms of section 111 of article 53 of the LFCE, as to what is stated in this resolution.
Victor Garza Valenzuela
For having assisted, promoted or induced, on behalf or on behalf of the Mexican Federation of Soccer Association, AC, in the commission of the absolute monopolistic practice called Conduct One in terms of section III of article 53 of the LFCE, as to what is stated in this resolution.
Victor Leon Guevara Gallegos
For having assisted, promoted or induced, in representation or on behalf and order of the Mexican Federation of Soccer Association, A.C., in the commission of the absolute monopolistic practice called Conduct One in terms of section III of article 53 of the LFCE; and in the commission of the absolute monopolistic practice called Conduct Two in terms of section I of article 53 of the LFCE, as indicated in this resolution.
Guillermo Luis Cantó Sáenz
For having assisted, promoted or induced, on behalf or on behalf of the Mexican Federation of Soccer Association, AC, in the commission of the absolute monopolistic practice called Conduct One in terms of section III of article 53 of the LFCE, as to what is stated in this resolution.
The market
The Opinion of Probable Responsibility (DPR) issued by the Head of the Investigative Authority (AI) of Cofece on April 8, 2021 in the DPR File indicates that based on the information provided by the Al, it considered that there were sufficient elements that allowed to suppose the possible existence of an absolute monopolistic practice in the investigated market by indicating indications that there was a Gentlemen’s Pact between the clubs by which they refrained from acquiring or hiring certain players and with which they respected the assignment and distribution of these.
Also because there are indications of a possible obligation to hire only those players who have the corresponding authorization from the club for whom they had been playing.
In addition, there were communication channels that facilitated the exchange of information for anti-competitive purposes.
According to the DPR, the conducts investigated in the file refer to acts consisting of probable contracts, agreements, arrangements or combinations that would have arisen between competing economic agents, whose purpose or effect would have been to set, raise, arrange or manipulate wages of the professional soccer players registered in the Liga MX Femenil; as well as dividing, distributing, assigning or segmenting the transfer market for professional male soccer players in the national territory.
