- Commercial exploitation of a sports infrastructure is economic in nature.
- The operator of such infrastructure is an undertaking regardless of whether it is owned by the state, it is not-for-profit, it has certain public interest tasks, its fees are regulated and its revenue is reinvested in the infrastructure.
- Providing access to the infrastructure to amateur sport clubs and schools free of charge is non-economic in nature.
- The Commission checks whether public funding constitutes state aid at four different levels: ownership, construction, operation/management, users.
Table of Contents:
- Introduction
- Part I
- The need for aid
- Budget
- Emergency measures
- Commission assessment
- Economic activity and the concept of undertaking
Introduction
In January 2026, Greece notified to the Commission an individual measure to support the restoration and upgrading of the main Olympic Stadium of the Olympic Athletic Centre of Athens [“OAKA”]. A little over a month later, the Commission approved the measure in decision SA.118613.[1]
The short period between formal notification and approval belies the fact that the notification was preceded by extensive discussions and meetings between the Commission and Greek authorities. The length of the decision [309 paragraphs over 53 pages] indicates the complexity of this case. The complexity was the result of a number of factors. Some structural remediation measures to improve the operational safety of the Stadium were undertaken before the formal notification to and approval of the Commission. Contracts were awarded without a prior competitive selection. The operator of the Stadium was entrusted with certain public-interest tasks. Some of its activities did not appear to be economic in nature.
Because the project was multifaceted, the Commission decision is lengthy and its reasoning very detailed, this article is divided in two parts. Part I provides background information and reviews the assessment of the Commission on whether the operation of the Stadium was economic in nature. Part II that will be published next week reviews the Commission findings concerning the presence of advantage, given that the fees charged were regulated, and the assessment on the compatibility of state aid with the internal market.
Part I
OAKA is the largest multi-purpose sports facility in Greece and the main venue for national and international sporting events in Athens. The Stadium was built in 1982, while the whole complex was renovated and upgraded in the runup to the 2004 Athens Olympics.
The Stadium constitutes public property and it is owned by the state which has rights over part of the land and the Hellenic Olympic Committee [HOC], a non-profit legal person who also owns part of the land and certain facilities. In addition, OAKA operates the Stadium. HOC was founded in 1894 and even though it is autonomous it remains under the supervision of the state. OAKA is state owned and is also under the supervision of the state.
However, after the Commission examined the legal framework concerning the Stadium it concluded that “(51) the ownership of the Stadium rests with the HOC, which holds only proprietary rights and no operational competence.”
“(52) The management and operation of the facility are carried out exclusively by the OAKA Operator, a legal entity governed by private law that belongs to the public sector, wholly owned, controlled and supervised by Greece. This statutory arrangement ensures continuous public ownership, oversight and accountability for the Stadium.”
Access to the Stadium is managed by OAKA. “(54) Rental fees for the use of the Stadium are determined on the basis of independent valuations …, approved by the OAKA Operator’s Board of Directors and subject to legality control by the Minister responsible for Sports. According to the Greek authorities, this procedure ensures that all users have equal, transparent and non-discriminatory access and that rental conditions reflect prevailing market levels.”
According to the Commission decision, “(40) the Stadium serves as a multifunctional public-interest facility. It is designed to host large-scale athletics competitions, football matches and other national or international sporting events, as well as concerts, cultural festivals and institutional gatherings. Its layout and capacity make it suitable both for elite-level competitions and for events of social or cultural significance.”
The need for aid
The objective of the notified measure is to support the restoration, rehabilitation, modernisation and energy upgrading of the Stadium.
The aid consists of an investment grant provided entirely from public resources, combining EU funding from the Recovery and Resilience Facility with national co-financing.
Greece considered that there was a need for public support because the restoration and modernisation of the Stadium required substantial capital investment that could not be provided by HOC, using the Stadium’s own resources or those of OAKA who is the beneficiary of the aid.
“(72) To substantiate the need for public intervention, Greece commissioned an independent Funding Gap Analysis (‘FGA’) to determine the project’s financial viability and the level of public support required. The analysis was carried out in line with the Commission’s Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide and the Economic Appraisal Vademecum 2021–2027. It compared two scenarios – a counterfactual ‘as-is’ scenario without restoration and an investment ‘to-be’ scenario with the planned rehabilitation – over a 24-year reference period (2023 – 2047). Cash flows were discounted using a weighted average cost of capital reflecting market conditions. The results demonstrated that the project’s expected revenues from fees collected for sporting and cultural events and related ancillary activities would not cover investment and operating costs and that the project therefore presents a structural 100 % funding gap. Consequently, no part of the investment could be financed under market conditions, and the restoration would not take place without public support.”
“(73) The FGA also examined the project’s sensitivity to potential increases in rental and user fees, including scenarios assuming higher tariffs and higher utilisation rates. The analysis showed that, even under such optimistic assumptions, the incremental revenues generated would remain insufficient to cover the investment and operating costs of the Stadium. The Greek authorities further explained that any future adjustment of rental tariffs is subject to independent valuation and mandatory ministerial approval under the OAKA Leasing Rules and must remain consistent with the public-interest and non-commercial character of the facility. Accordingly, the possibility of increasing fees was found not to be capable of eliminating or materially reducing the funding gap identified by the analysis.”
“(74) In addition, the analysis assessed the feasibility of private participation, including concession or public–private partnership schemes, but concluded that such options were economically unviable given the project’s public-interest character and limited commercial potential. The Stadium is primarily used for public sporting events, training activities and cultural performances that do not generate stable revenue streams capable of attracting private investors or supporting the recovery of capital costs.”
Budget
The total estimated budget of the project amounts to EUR 76.7 million, including VAT, with “net value” of EUR 61.8 million and VAT of EUR 14.8 million. The decision does not provide information on the discount rate that was used to derive the net value. Normally, VAT is not eligible cost because it is recoverable. The Commission decision explained that “(79) the RRF contribution covers the net investment cost of the project, excluding VAT. The national [funding] complements the RRF financing by covering those parts of the project cost that are not financed through the RRF financial envelope, in particular the non-recoverable VAT amount … and certain ancillary administrative costs.”
Emergency measures
A structural report on the condition of the Stadium that was finalised in September 2023, found that “(59) the roof structure no longer complied with applicable national and European safety and seismic standards. It identified widespread corrosion and metal fatigue in joints, connectors and welds, significantly compromising the structural integrity of the roof. It further found that the connections between the steel arches and the concrete stands showed weaknesses that could not be remedied by local repairs. It therefore concluded that continued operation of the Stadium in its existing condition would entail serious safety risks for spectators, athletes and staff. Following these findings, the Greek authorities immediately suspended all sporting and cultural activities at the venue as a precautionary measure.”
Because of safety concerns, the Stadium was closed and urgent remedial work was undertaken. “(83) Certain limited preparatory and safety-related works were carried out on an urgent basis prior to the main restoration project in order to mitigate the identified security risks and ensure public safety. To that end, certain contracts for urgent works have already been awarded, including those pertaining to the provision of technical inspection services and the preparation for the removal of the polycarbonate panels of the Stadium, as well as the removal of polycarbonate panels covering the Stadium. The carrying out of those works covered by the abovementioned contracts resulted in an interim permission for the provisional reopening of the Stadium.”
“(84) The relevant urgent works were awarded through negotiated public procurement procedures without prior publication, conducted in accordance with Article 32(2)(c) of Directive 2014/24/EU ( 27) for reasons of extreme urgency and public safety, brought about by events unforeseeable by the contracting authority. According to the Greek authorities, competitive tension was nevertheless ensured, as invitations to submit offers were sent to at least three potential economic operators for each contract. Furthermore, the amounts to be paid were limited to the minimum necessary and reflected market prices, as the contracting authority relied on updated market price references to determine the remuneration for all contracts awarded under those procedures, while ensuring respect for the principles of transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination.”
“(85) The total expenditure disbursed for these urgent interventions amounts to approximately EUR 5.8 million, of which around EUR 3.3 million corresponds to emergency works undertaken immediately after the closure of the Stadium. The Greek authorities confirmed that these limited disbursements exclusively concern preparatory and safety-related actions, carried out in late 2023 and early 2024 following the structural assessment and suspension of the Stadium’s activities, in order to allow its provisional reopening pending the implementation of the main restoration works. Those urgent measures are therefore distinct from, and do not anticipate, the main investment contract for the structural and energy rehabilitation of the roof, which constitutes the core of the notified measure and has not yet been awarded or implemented.”
The fact that state funded work before the formal notification to the Commission immediately raised two questions. First, was the aid granted lawfully. Second, did the aid have an incentive effect? The Commission addressed these two questions in its assessment.
Commission assessment
In determining whether the measure constituted state aid, the Commission examined first the presence of advantage. But for the purposes of this article it is better to consider the reasoning of the Commission on whether OAKA was an undertaking before looking at the issue of advantage.
Economic activity and the concept of undertaking
The prohibition of state aid in Article 107(1) TFEU applies only to public measures that support undertakings. The Commission carried out a detailed assessment of the activities of OAKA. The Commission, first, recalled that “(172) according to settled case-law, an economic activity is any activity consisting in offering goods or services on a market. In the Aéroports de Paris judgment, the General Court held that the operation of an airport constitutes an economic activity. Furthermore, in Leipzig/Halle, the Court confirmed that, where airport infrastructure is intended to be commercially exploited, its construction also constitutes an economic activity. As noted in paragraph 202 of the NoA, while those cases concern airports, the principles developed by the Union Courts equally apply to the construction or operation of other types of infrastructure that are indissociably linked to an economic activity.”
“(174) The beneficiary of the notified measure, the OAKA Operator, was established by the OAKA Law as a legal entity governed by private law … belonging to the public sector. It is wholly owned and supervised by Greece through the Minister responsible for Sports and is registered in the Register of General Government Entities. Although under public ownership and ministerial supervision, it possesses legal personality, administrative autonomy and financial independence within the limits set by its founding law and its internal rules”.
“(175) The OAKA Operator is entrusted for an indefinite period with the management, operation and exploitation of all facilities of the complex, including the Stadium … The OAKA Operator is therefore empowered to make the facilities available to third parties and to derive revenue from their use”.
“(176) The use of the Stadium by sports clubs, event organisers or private entities is subject to contractual arrangements and the payment of user fees or rental charges designed to cover at least part of the operating and maintenance costs … The OAKA Operator also generates income from ancillary services such as the leasing of commercial premises, the operation of catering outlets, advertising rights and sponsorship agreements”.
“(177) The operation and commercial exploitation of sports and multipurpose venues, when access is granted against payment, are in general regarded as economic activities, similar to the operation of airports, conference centres or exhibition halls”.
“(178) The fact that the OAKA Operator is wholly owned by the State and pursues objectives of public interest does not alter the economic nature of its activities insofar as it offers the use of the Stadium and related services on a market and for remuneration. The charges applied may be limited or regulated, and the revenues may be reinvested in maintenance, yet the activity remains economic because the Operator competes – at least potentially – with other venues capable of hosting comparable events in the Athens metropolitan area.”
“(179) It follows that the OAKA Operator carries out both economic and non-economic activities. Its public-interest functions, such as providing access to amateur sports, school competitions or other events free of charge, constitute non-economic activities falling outside the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU. Conversely, the operation and commercial exploitation of the Stadium for professional and revenue-generating events, and the related ancillary services, qualify as economic activities.”
“(180) Consequently, the OAKA Operator must be considered an undertaking within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU to the extent that it commercially exploits the Stadium by offering its use and related services to third parties for remuneration.”
The rest of the Commission assessment and especially its findings on the presence of advantage will be reviewed next week.
Notes:
[1] The full text of the Commission decision can be accessed at:https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases1/202614/SA_118613_66.pdf
