Introduction

A significant legal opinion from Advocate General (AG) Tamara Ćapeta issued on 16/01/2025 in the context of the case C-600/2023 could challenge the autonomy of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), if adopted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

The opinion argues that national courts must have the authority to conduct a full judicial review of CAS awards to ensure that FIFA’s regulations comply with EU law.

This recommendation, if adopted by the CJEU, could reshape the legal framework governing international sports arbitration.

Background of the Case

• The case concerns a dispute involving Royal Football Club Seraing, a Belgian club that entered into an agreement with Doyen Sports, a Maltese investment company, regarding third-party ownership (TPO) of players’ economic rights.
• FIFA's regulations prohibit such arrangements, and the club faced disciplinary action, upheld by CAS and later by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.
• Doyen Sports and Seraing subsequently challenged the legality of FIFA’s rules before Belgian courts, arguing that they violate EU law.
• However, Belgian courts refused jurisdiction, citing domestic law that grants CAS rulings finality under commercial arbitration principles.

Key Arguments from AG Ćapeta

• AG Ćapeta’s opinion stresses that the principle of effective judicial protection under EU law requires that national courts must be able to fully review CAS decisions, particularly when they involve rules affecting market competition and economic freedoms within the EU.
• She distinguishes sports arbitration from commercial arbitration on two major grounds:

1. Lack of Voluntary Consent: Unlike commercial arbitration, where parties freely agree to arbitration clauses, FIFA’s arbitration system is mandatory for clubs and players, leaving them with no choice but to accept CAS jurisdiction. This lack of genuine consent undermines the justification for limiting judicial oversight.
2. Independent Enforcement by FIFA: Unlike typical arbitral rulings that require enforcement through courts, FIFA has the power to implement sanctions (e.g., competition bans) independently. This makes it imperative that national courts can review FIFA's regulatory framework to ensure compliance with EU law.

Potential Implications for Sports Arbitration

• If the CJEU adopts AG Ćapeta’s recommendation, it could significantly limit the finality of CAS decisions and reinforce the authority of national courts in reviewing FIFA regulations.
• This would mark a major shift in the balance between private sports arbitration and public judicial oversight.
• The ruling could also influence ongoing debates about the governance of international sports organizations, emphasizing that their regulations must comply with EU legal principles, particularly competition law and fundamental rights.

Conclusion

• AG Ćapeta’s opinion underscores the growing tension between sports arbitration and EU legal principles. While the CJEU is not bound to follow the Advocate General’s recommendations, its final decision could have profound consequences for the future of dispute resolution in sports, potentially reshaping the relationship between CAS, FIFA, and national courts.
• This case highlights the broader legal question of whether sports governing bodies can operate under separate arbitration frameworks without sufficient judicial oversight.
• If national courts gain greater review powers over CAS awards, it could pave the way for increased legal challenges against FIFA’s regulatory framework in the EU.