FIFA’S TRANSFER RULES UNDER FIRE:

HOW A CJEU RULING SPARKED A MULTIBILLION-POUND CLAIM BY 100,000 PLAYERS

Enzo Marasà, Portolano Cavallo, Italy (Antitrust & Competition Group)

Mykhailo Lazoryshynets, Arzinger, Ukraine (Sport Group)

 

In August 2025, FIFA was served with notice of a multibillion-pound collective action that could rival the most important legal battles in football history. The claim, brought by the Justice for Players foundation, follows an October 2024 ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) that FIFA’s transfer rules breached EU competition law and the free movement of workers 1,2,3. The foundation says it represents about 100,000 current and former players, with claims stretching back to 2002. Economist analysis filed with the case suggests players would have earned roughly 8% more over their careers if the unlawful restrictions had not been in place 1.

 

 

What the CJEU decided — in plain English

The CJEU found that FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) constitute a decision by an association of undertakings that falls under EU competition law, and imposed unlawful barriers to trade and free circulation of workers within the EU/EEA, including:

  • Heavy and unpredictable compensation liabilities when players terminate contracts before their natural expiration due to unclear and vague criteria for assessing compensation levels, which are not necessarily connected to an established breach of contract by players or clubs and grant excessive discretion to FIFA;
  • Automatic joint and several liability for clubs that did not necessarily cause the player to breach contracts, due to the provision of a blanket presumption that the new club would have induced the player to terminate the contract earlier, leading to severe sporting sanctions; and
  • The obligation for national associations to withhold International Transfer Certificates (ITCs) in case of contract dispute, blocking moves.

Together, the Court said, these rules constituted disproportionate restrictions on the free movement of workers contrary to Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and, in addition, an anti-competitive agreement entered into between undertakings within their association, which distorted competition in the labour market for football players in breach of Article 101 TFEU2,4, Notably, in line with the seminal precedents in Superleague and International Skating Union, the CJEU established that the rules of the RSTP at issue are anti-competitive ‘by-object'. This means not only that they are unnecessary to protect legitimate sport objectives – namely, to maintain a certain degree of stability in the composition of teams and continuity of contracts to ensure regularity of interclub football competition – but also that they are inherently capable of significantly harming competition, therefore making it unnecessary to demonstrate that said rules produced actual distortive effects on the relevant markets. More specifically, said rules are held liable to restrict, in a generalised and drastic manner, the competition between professional football clubs established in different Member States in relation to the recruitment of players already under contract with a given club. Indeed, according to the CJEU, under the pretext of preventing aggressive recruitment practices, these rules correspond "in fact, to non-poaching agreements between clubs which, in essence, result in artificially partitioning the national and local markets, to the benefit of all clubs".

As a result, the contested rules of the RSTP are unlawful and unenforceable and those who suffered damages because of their application are entitled to compensation pursuant to EU laws and principles. The case was triggered by former France midfielder Lassana Diarra, who challenged FIFA’s refusal to register him with Belgian club Charleroi after a contractual dispute 1,2,3.

The claim: who, where, how big

The collective action will be filed in the District Court of Midden-Nederland, chosen because Dutch law allows claims from anyone who has worked in the EU or UK 1,5. FIFA and the FAs of France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Denmark have been named; England’s FA may be added later1,3.

Defendants have until September 2025 to respond to the letter before action 1,3. The claim value is framed as “multibillion”, based on economist models showing a career-earnings shortfall of ~8% since 2002 1. Likely, the defendants will try to oppose that, in a hypothetical counterfactual scenario where the infringing elements of the rules at issue were removed, plausibly the claimants would have not been better off since they may have not been hired in any case or would have been offered similar economic terms.

Why this could be football’s next Bosman

The natural comparison is with the Bosman ruling of 1995, when the CJEU held that out-of-contract footballers were free to move between clubs without a transfer fee being paid. That decision dismantled restrictions that tied players to clubs even after contracts expired, and it transformed European football’s transfer system.

The Diarra case echoes Bosman but goes further. It targets core transfer mechanics—compensation, clearance rules, and sanctions—not just the narrow issue of out-of-contract moves 2. The follow-on claim also seeks financial damages for two decades of under-earnings 3. And once again, Jean-Louis Dupont, the lawyer who argued Bosman, is at the centre, advising the claimants 1,3.

What has changed already — and why players say it’s not enough

Following the CJEU judgment, FIFA amended parts of the RSTP. But the international players’ union FIFPRO has explained that the Court found key rules unlawful and has urged deeper reform 6. For now, player groups argue that FIFA’s initial fixes fall short 1. The impact of the recent FIFA amendments is already visible in the ongoing case of Lucas Ribeiro Costa v. Mamelodi Sundowns FC. Following the Diarra precedent, FIFA issued an ITC for the transfer of the Brazilian player despite his unilateral termination of the agreement with Mamelodi Sundowns, while his new club, Spain’s Cultural Leonesa, has not been held jointly liable in the compensation proceedings 9. The amount of any sanctions on the player under the new rules are still to be determined.

Meanwhile, Lassana Diarra himself has filed a €65m personal claim against FIFA and the Belgian federation, underscoring that individual lawsuits may run in parallel with the mass action 7.

What to watch next

  • Filing: Justice for Players Foundation expects to file the claim in the first quarter of 2026 8.
  • Collective action certification: the Dutch court will decide whether the case qualifies under its mass-claims regime, and how far the class definition extends 5.
  • FIFA’s defence: expect challenges to causation (whether wages would truly have been higher) and quantum (the ~8% figure)1,3.
  • Ripple effects: even before judgment, governing bodies may be pressured into further reform of transfer rules to comply with EU principles 2,6.
  • Challenging FIFA rules in other jurisdictions: the geographic scope of the FIFA RSTP is global and not limited to the EU. Many jurisdictions outside the EU have their own competition laws that may prevail over the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) and its arbitral awards, therefore FIFA rules could also be challenged there. For instance, Ukraine has been harmonizing its competition law and approaches with the EU acquis for the past decade 10, and the FIFA RSTP may potentially be challenged by the Ukrainian competition authority. Affected players could even seek double damages before Ukrainian courts.

Conclusion

The Diarra ruling has already shaken the legal foundations of football’s transfer system. If the Justice for Players claim proceeds, it could do more than force reform: it could rewind two decades of earnings and trigger billions in compensation. Just as Bosman redefined football’s future in the 1990s, this case may redefine its past. Whatever the outcome, one principle is clear: sports governance is subject to the same competition laws that apply to every other industry.

Publication Date: October 2025