In a decision of 17 March 2026, the French Competition Authority (Autorité de la concurrence – ADLC) imposed a €3.4 million fine on the Syndicat national des moniteurs du ski français (SNMSF), the professional union that organises and governs the École du Ski Français (ESF) network which gathers ski instructors in France, for infringing French and EU competition law.
The ADLC found that, since 2006, the SNMSF had imposed a broad exclusivity obligation on ski instructors affiliated with ESF, preventing them from teaching ski either independently or within competing ski schools. This restriction applied to all instructors, regardless of status or teaching format, and covered the entire year, not only the ski season. From 2013, non-compliance was sanctioned by automatic exclusion from both ESF and the union, accompanied by the loss of seniority-related rights affecting income and access to lessons.
The ADLC held that this exclusivity clause constituted a restriction of competition by object under Article 101(1) TFEU and Article L.420‑1 of the French Commercial Code. Given that the SNMSF represents approximately 80% of ski instructors in France and that ESF operates in almost all French ski resorts, the ADLC concluded that the practice locked the national market for ski instruction, limited instructors’ freedom to operate as independent professionals, and significantly hindered the emergence and development of competing schools.
In determining the fine, the ADLC took into account the exceptional duration of the infringement (nearly 20 years), its generalised scope, and its serious effects on labour mobility and market access, while also considering the collective nature of the sanctioned entity. In addition to the fine, the SNMSF was ordered to amend its standard contract, inform its members, and bring its practices into compliance before future seasons.
This decision expressly with the ADLC’s recent enforcement trend against restrictions on labour mobility. The ADLC referred to its Decision No. 25‑D‑03 of 11 June 2025, which sanctioned non‑solicitation and no‑poaching agreements in the engineering, consulting and IT services sectors. In that earlier case, the ADLC held that agreements limiting the mobility of workers constitute anticompetitive practices by object, regardless of whether they directly affect prices or output. The ESF decision confirms that this reasoning applies equally to professional associations and sports activities, where rules coordinating behaviour may unlawfully restrict competition in labour markets.
