May 22, 2026 11:00

The European Commission has decided to proceed with investigations against several companies active in the synthetic turf sector for sports pitches, suspected of having participated in two alleged cartels and adopted business practices restricting competition in Germany and the Netherlands, with particular reference to the recycling service for end-of-life pitches.

The investigations were launched three years ago with inspections at the premises of several companies in the sector.

Statements of Objections have been sent to Dutch companies Oranjewoud and TenCate Grass, as well as to Belgium-based Sports & Leisure Group. At this stage, the sending of the Statements of Objections does not prejudge the outcome of the investigations.
The suspicion is that the three companies coordinated their commercial conduct to restrict competition in the synthetic turf sector in the Netherlands from 2019, when they established GBN-AGR, a recycling company based in the Netherlands, renamed AGR as of December 2024, controlled by Oranjewoud, with minority shareholdings held by TenCate and Sports & Leisure Group.

In tenders for pitch replacement, the installer does not only source and lay a new synthetic turf surface, but also removes and disposes of the old one. According to the Commission, the cost of this disposal is an important competitive parameter in such tenders.

Investigators are concerned that the companies agreed not to compete with GBN-AGR in recycling activities, to use its services exclusively and to fix its prices in such a way as to avoid competition between them, while at the same time disadvantaging third parties.

The Commission suspects that the companies acted in this way to secure a strong position for GBN-AGR in the recycling market and, over time, to monopolise that market by excluding competitors; as well as to maintain their leading position in the market for the installation and replacement of synthetic turf, excluding competitors from the upstream supply market.

In addition, the companies are suspected of having entered into a further agreement one year after the establishment of GBN-AGR, aimed at marginalising providers of sustainable disposal services that competed with GBN-AGR’s recycling services and allegedly threatened GBN-AGR’s growth.

The Statements of Objections were also addressed to Domo Sports Grass Nederland, which in May 2025 was spun off from Sports & Leisure Group to become an independent business in the installation of synthetic turf pitches.

As regards the second line of investigation, concerning Germany, the antitrust authority has preliminary concerns that, between 2020 and 2023, Oranjewoud and Germany-based Sport Group colluded on the recycling of synthetic turf for sports facilities. During that period, Oranjewoud was assessing the expansion of GBN-AGR into other Member States, including Germany, while Sport Group was working on a recycling solution through a dedicated company, FormaTurf.

The Commission is concerned that, while discussing potential cooperation for the German market - including a possible cross-acquisition of minority shareholdings in GBN-AGR and FormaTurf, which ultimately did not take place - Oranjewoud and Sport Group may have engaged in anticompetitive conduct by exchanging confidential and strategic information on current and future prices and production capacities.

Brussels also intends to verify whether, at a later stage of these negotiations, the two companies fixed the main price element for the recycling of synthetic turf, namely the gate fee.

PROCEDURE. The Statement of Objections is a formal step in the Commission’s investigations into suspected violations of EU antitrust rules. The parties concerned are informed in writing of the objections raised against them. They can then examine the documents in the Commission’s investigation file, reply in writing and request an oral hearing to present their views on the case before representatives of the Commission and national competition authorities.
If, after the parties have exercised their rights of defence, the Commission concludes that there is sufficient evidence of an infringement, it can adopt a decision prohibiting the conduct and imposing a fine of up to 10% of the company’s annual worldwide turnover. The Commission may also impose on the company any remedies proportionate to bring the infringement effectively to an end.

© Polimerica -  Reproduction prohibited, all rights reserved