Recent Developments in Football: EU Court Rulings Balancing the Unique Nature of Sport and EU Law

At the heart of these disputes are the rules governing player transfers, arbitration processes, and competition structures, all of which have been found to conflict with fundamental EU laws on free movement and competition. These rulings signal a significant shift in how sports governance must align with EU law and open the door to changes in football’s regulatory framework.

One of the recent issues shaking up the football scene revolves around the handling of legal disputes by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Switzerland, outside the EU. This system raises concerns as there is no assurance that a Swiss court will preserve the rights protected under EU law. On 16 January 2025, Advocate General Tamara Ćapeta rendered her legal opinion in case C-600/23 concerning the Royal Football Club Seraing. She considered that decisions issued by the CAS should be subject to review by national courts within the EU to guarantee compliance with the bloc’s law.

Initially, RFC Seraing initiated legal proceedings before the Belgian courts, arguing that FIFA’s global prohibition on player ownership by investors violated EU competition law by restricting competition in the player transfer market. Belgian judges then escalated the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), questioning whether the CAS ruling could hold legal authority within the Belgian judicial system. The future CJEU’s intervention may pave the way for a more balanced system, ensuring fairer implementation of FIFA’s regulations​​.

One of the landmark rulings from October 2024 involved the case of Lassana Diarra, a former French international footballer. The CJEU found FIFA’s transfer rules disproportionately restrictive, violating EU competition law and principles of free movement. Specifically, rules preventing players from leaving their clubs mid-contract were likened to “no-poach” agreements, limiting competition between clubs for talent. The court criticised these measures as excessive and unjustified, emphasising their negative impact on players’ career opportunities and contractual freedom​​.

In response, FIFA announced temporary adjustments to its transfer regulations, including provisions on compensation for contract breaches and joint liability for clubs. However, the Union Nationale des Footballeurs Professionnels criticised these provisional measures considering “These new rules remain contrary to the [EU Court of Justice’s] judgment and seek in fine to maintain a ‘transfer system’ that is fundamentally illegal”. FIFA prepares for broader consultations to establish permanent reforms ​and invited stakeholders to comment and propose ideas on this reform. 

FIFA’s management of the international match calendar has also drawn ire. In June 2024, FIFPRO Europe and several of its members, including UNFP, filed a lawsuit against FIFA before the Brussels Enterprise Court. The lawsuit challenges the legality of FIFA’s unilateral imposition of the “International Match Calendar” and new competitions, such as the “2025 Club World Cup”, arguing that they violate the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and EU competition law. LaLiga has now joined this legal action alongside FIFPRO Europe.

Additionally, on October 14, FIFPRO Europe, European Leagues and LaLiga submitted a complaint to the European Commission, raising the same concerns.

FIFPRO Europe is currently exploring the implementation of a potential class action lawsuit against FIFA. This action would seek compensation for all players affected by FIFA regulations that have been deemed illegal by the CJEU.

On 21 December 2023, the CJEU delivered significant rulings regarding the prior approval and sanctions regimes implemented by international sports federations like FIFA and UEFA. These decisions addressed the fundamental balance between sport specificities and compliance with EU internal market and competition rules. The CJEU emphasised that the unique nature of sports does not exempt them from EU competition regulations.

In Superleague v FIFA and UEFA(C-333/21), the Commercial Court of Madrid referred to the CJEU a case where FIFA and UEFA threatened punitive measures against clubs and players involved in a new competition (the Super League project). FIFA and UEFA’s rules conferring them the power to approve inter-club football competitions in the EU and exploit the various media rights related to those competitions have been challenged.

The CJEU underlined the economic nature of organising inter-club football competitions and the exploitation of media rights, and therefore asserted that such activities fall under EU competition rules and the fundamental principles of free movement. Despite the specific characteristics of sports governance, including the regulatory powers wielded by associations like FIFA and UEFA and their ability to impose sanctions, the CJEU stressed that FIFA and UEFA’s regulatory framework lacked transparent, objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria in determining access to the market, concluding that the exercise of their authority constituted an abuse of dominant position.

In SA Royal Antwerp Football Club v URBSFA (C-680/21), the CJEU delved into the intricacies of rules mandating a minimum number of home-grown players, scrutinising their compatibility with the freedom of movement for workers enshrined in Article 45 TFEU. The CJEU observed a potential infringement, noting that such regulations might indirectly discriminate against players from other EU member states.  

While the Commercial Court of Madrid upheld the CJEU’s findings and concluded that UEFA and FIFA had infringed Articles 101 and 102 of the TFEU in the Superleague case, it remains to be seen what the Belgian court will decide in the Royal Antwerp Football Club case.

The European Union’s top courts’ recent judgments mark a pivotal moment for football governance. While the governing bodies defend their regulatory framework as essential to preserving competitive balance and financial solidarity in football, the EU court rulings demand a recalibration. They challenge longstanding practices and emphasise the importance of aligning sports regulations with EU competition law and fundamental rights.

FIFA’s ongoing reforms and the resolution of antitrust complaints will shape the future of football, balancing the interests of players, clubs and governing bodies in a more equitable framework.

In a recent press release, the UNFP emphasised the urgent need to formalise the “European Social Dialogue” as soon as possible. This initiative aims to establish clear and lasting regulations for the EU football labour market while ensuring full compliance with EU law. It will not only address issues related to player contracts but also focus on player health and workload management.

As football governing bodies grapple with these challenges, the broader football community eagerly awaits how these reforms will unfold, potentially setting a precedent for other sports worldwide. By heeding the CJEU’s guidance, sport federations can significantly mitigate the risk of infringing EU law. One thing is clear: the era of unchecked dominance in football governance is coming to an end.