Old synthetic turf recycling may not seem like gripping reading at first glance. But the European Commission’s latest Statements of Objections to several companies in the synthetic turf sector prove otherwise. Behind this lie two pressing antitrust questions: When does sustainability cooperation cross the line into anticompetitive coordination, and when do mere talks about minority stakes become a channel for collusion?
The European Commission’s Statements of Objections
On 21 May 2026, the Commission issued Statements of Objections to several companies in the synthetic turf sector over two alleged cartels, one in the Netherlands and one in Germany (press release).
The Dutch strand concerns Oranjewoud, TenCate Grass and Sports & Leisure Group (incl. spin-off Domo Sports Grass Nederland). According to the Commission, the companies coordinated their commercial conduct following the creation of the recycling vehicle GBN-AGR in 2019, a subsidiary of Oranjewoud in which the other two held minority stakes.
A 2021 press release by GBN-AGR described the collaboration as follows: “The collaboration between the GBN-AGR partners in the Netherlands is unique. While the artificial grass market is extremely competitive on the ‘front’ side, the same players collaborate closely with each other on the ‘back’ side, i.e. the recycling of artificial turf in order to make circular products.”
The alleged antitrust infringements included commitments not to compete with GBN-AGR in synthetic turf recycling, the exclusive use of its recycling services, and price-setting intended to avoid competition between the parties while disadvantaging third parties. In the Commission’s view, this conduct could have strengthened GBN-AGR’s position in recycling, protected the parties’ position in the adjacent market for the installation and replacement of synthetic turf, and excluded competitors in the upstream supply market. The Commission also suspects a further agreement aimed at marginalising providers of sustainable disposal services competing with GBN-AGR.
According to the Commission, synthetic turf recycling is a growing market, and the industry has been moving away from landfill and incineration towards recycling. That matters in practice because the removal and disposal of old synthetic turf can form a significant part of the costs of a new sports pitch.
Green is not a safe harbour
Sustainability cooperations have become a recurring theme in European antitrust policy – and on this blog. We have looked at animal welfare initiatives, the Commission’s sustainability guidance in agriculture and ESG-related antitrust risks. The Commission’s Horizontal Guidelines also dedicate a full chapter to sustainability agreements, but the bar for cooperations to be permissible might remain high. Sustainability may justify cooperation under certain circumstances; however, it does not give competitors a free pass for anticompetitive collusion.
The synthetic turf case is an enforcement-side reminder of that principle. Sustainability framing does not legitimise arrangements that exclude rivals, coordinate prices or entrench market positions. Commission Executive Vice-President Teresa Ribera’s quote in the press release therefore carries particular weight: “We cannot accept attempts to distort competition under the guise of environmental action.”
The Delivery Hero/Glovo echo
The German strand of the case is significant because of the minority shareholding angle. The Commission alleges that Oranjewoud and Sport Group coordinated their conduct between 2020 and 2023. At that time Oranjewoud was exploring a German expansion of GBN-AGR and Sport Group was developing its own recycling solution, FormaTurf.
According to the Commission, the parties discussed possible cooperation, including a potential cross-acquisition of minority stakes in GBN-AGR and FormaTurf. The transactions ultimately never happened. In the Commission’s view, however, the discussions themselves may have been used to exchange confidential information on prices and production capacities without adequate safeguards.
That concern echoes two things:
- First, the Delivery Hero/Glovo case, where the Commission found that a non-controlling minority shareholding in a competitor had facilitated cartel conduct. Delivery Hero held a minority stake in Glovo while both companies remained active in online food delivery. Although holding a stake in a competitor is not unlawful in itself, the Commission found that, in the specific circumstances of the case, the shareholding facilitated anticompetitive contacts between the two competitors at several levels. Allegedly, it gave Delivery Hero access to commercially sensitive information, enabled it to influence Glovo’s decision-making and contributed to the alignment of the parties’ business strategies, including through the exchange of commercially sensitive information, geographic market allocation and no-poach arrangements. The synthetic turf case moves that logic to an earlier stage. The minority stakes were never acquired, but the concerns of the Commission already extend to the negotiations themselves.
- Second, increasing interest of regulators in information exchange in the context of M&A transactions. The case at hand shows again that information exchange as part of transaction planning is not a theoretical risk, but that appropriate safeguards are advisable to avoid regulatory scrutiny and fines.
The practical takeaway
After Delivery Hero/Glovo, minority stakes in competitors are firmly on the Commission’s radar and it is true what antitrust lawyers have been telling you for a while: Preliminary discussions with competitors in an M&A context are not an antitrust-free zone. Clean teams and strict need-to-know protocols are therefore not mere procedural hygiene. They can be crucial safeguards to keep cooperation talks within the limits of antitrust rules.
The synthetic turf case adds a further message: Sustainability may be a policy priority, but it does not confer antitrust immunity. This matters all the more with regard to emerging sustainability topics, where competition may help determine which technologies, providers and disposal solutions prevail.
No infringement has yet been established, and the addressees can now respond to the allegations. Whatever the outcome, the signal is already clear.
Antitrustpolitics.com 