The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that arbitration decisions made by the Lausanne-based Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) may be subject to in-depth review by national courts within the European Union, provided such decisions impact public policy under EU law.
The judgement challenges long-standing assumptions about the legal finality of CAS awards and alters the balance of power in international sports governance.
The decision follows a case brought by Belgian football club RFC Seraing and its commercial partner, Maltese fund Doyen Sports, against FIFA. In 2015, the club was sanctioned with a two-year transfer ban and a fine of CHF 150,000 (€157,000) for breaching FIFA regulations that prohibit third-party ownership of player economic rights. The penalty, upheld by CAS and later by the Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT), led Seraing to contest the matter before a Belgian commercial court, which in turn sought guidance from the ECJ.
The ECJ stated that while arbitration remains a legitimate dispute resolution mechanism, it must not override the legal protections guaranteed under EU law. “It is essential that recourse to arbitration does not undermine the rights and freedoms that the fundamental rules of EU law guarantee athletes, clubs and, more broadly, any other person practising a professional sport or pursuing an economic activity linked to that sport,” the court said.
The ruling addresses the structural issue of compulsory arbitration imposed unilaterally by international sports federations. In Seraing’s case, FIFA required disputes to be resolved exclusively through CAS, without allowing the club the freedom to choose a forum of adjudication. The court held that such forced arbitration, when imposed in a way that forecloses access to judicial review within the EU, is incompatible with the bloc’s legal order.
In practical terms, the judgement means that EU national courts must be empowered to carry out an “in-depth judicial review” of CAS rulings that raise questions under EU public policy, including competition law and the protection of economic freedoms.
Lawyers for RFC Seraing, Jean-Louis Dupont and Martin Hissel, described the outcome as a significant step forward for legal accountability in international sport. “It is clear that the particularly severe disciplinary sanctions imposed on RFC Seraing by FIFA, and upheld by the CAS, were the result of a procedure that was completely unlawful under EU law,” they said. “The serious damage caused must now be fully compensated.”
The pair, both experienced in EU sports litigation, argued that the ruling effectively puts an end to what they termed a “procedural deception” — the practice of binding athletes and clubs to arbitration tribunals outside the EU that are not subject to proper judicial scrutiny.
The ECJ further stated that national laws or internal association rules that treat CAS awards as immune from challenge are incompatible with EU legal standards. “A national court or tribunal is required to disapply of its own motion any national legislation or rules of a sports association that would hinder such effective judicial protection,” the ruling said.
This is not the first occasion on which the ECJ has curtailed the autonomy of international sports bodies. In previous rulings — including the 2023 decision on the failed European Super League and the case concerning the International Skating Union’s ineligibility rules — the court held that sports regulations must comply with EU competition law when they affect economic activity within the internal market.
CAS, for its part, responded by noting that the ruling concerns only matters governed by EU public policy and does not affect the vast majority of cases it handles, which involve purely sporting or contractual issues. “Whilst the vast majority of cases before CAS concern contractual and disciplinary issues not governed by EU law, matters related to EU competition law can already be challenged before EU state courts,” CAS said in a statement.
Nonetheless, the decision marks a shift in how international sport is regulated within the EU. The ECJ has signalled that compulsory arbitration must not override core legal principles applicable to economic actors operating in the Union. This may prompt other clubs, athletes, or investors to pursue claims previously considered closed.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport, founded in 1984, resolves around 900 cases annually and serves as the principal forum for disputes arising in Olympic sports. In 2023, FIFA contributed CHF 2.5 million to CAS operations — more than 10% of its annual revenue.
While the Swiss Federal Tribunal retains jurisdiction over appeals on procedural grounds, the ECJ ruling confirms that such limited oversight cannot preclude EU courts from intervening where fundamental legal rights are at stake.
With this latest decision, the European Court of Justice has clarified that the final word on legal compliance within the Union rests not with international tribunals, but with the EU’s own judiciary.
