The Advocate General's opinions in cases C-209/23, C-428/23, and C-133/24 highlight the tension between sports governing bodies' self-regulation and EU competition law. The Advocate General, Nicholas Emiliou, asserts that while sports associations can regulate their activities, such regulations must not significantly contravene EU competition and internal market rules.

In the first case, C-209/23, two football agents challenge the rules set by an international sports association, claiming they violate EU laws on freedom to provide services and competition. FIFA defends these rules as essential for maintaining the integrity of football.

Case C-428/23 involves a similar dispute where consultancy firms for football players argue against national regulations that they believe could cause irreparable harm. The Advocate General's opinion suggests that while sports associations can impose regulations, they must be justified if they have significant anticompetitive effects.

In the third case, C-133/24, Portuguese football clubs agreed to refrain from signing players who terminated contracts due to COVID-19. The Advocate General discusses the legality of such agreements, suggesting that they may not be restrictive 'by object' due to their specific context and could potentially be justified.

Overall, the Advocate General emphasizes a narrow interpretation of the 'sporting exception' in EU law, indicating that while sports bodies have autonomy, their regulations must align with EU competition principles, especially when they affect economic activities.