Game changer in sports arbitration?

In its ruling of 1 August 2025 (C-600/23, RFC Seraing v FIFA), the ECJ significantly strengthened legal protection in international sports arbitration. The decision is in line with recent ECJ case law - such as International Skating Union v Commission (C-124/21) and European Super League (C-333/21) - which clarifies that sports associations are subject to the limits of European competition law when organising competitions and may not abuse their rules to foreclose the market.

Background

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), based in Lausanne, is the central authority for disputes in international sport and has long been considered almost untouchable. This has been criticised for two main reasons: Firstly, there is often a lack of genuine voluntariness, as clubs and athletes have to sign a CAS arbitration agreement if they want to take part in certain competitions. Secondly, CAS arbitration awards have so far escaped final review by European courts.

Facts of the case

FIFA imposed a transfer ban and a fine on the Belgian football club RFC Seraing because the club had violated certain FIFA rules, specifically the ban on third-party ownership.

RFC Seraing's appeal against this before the CAS was unsuccessful; in particular, the CAS confirmed the compatibility of the FIFA rules with EU law. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court also rejected RFC Seraing's subsequent appeal against the CAS ruling.

At the same time, RFC Seraing brought an action before the Belgian courts for a declaration that the FIFA rules were unlawful under EU law; however, the Belgian court considered the CAS award to be final as a result of the decision in Switzerland.

The Belgian Court of Cassation then referred the matter to the ECJ to clarify whether it was compatible with EU law - in particular Art. 19 TEU in conjunction with Art. 267 TFEU. Art. 267 TFEU and Art. 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights - is it compatible with EU law to attribute legal force to an arbitration award reviewed by a third country.

Decision of the ECJ

The ECJ has confirmed the reviewability of CAS arbitration awards under EU law and clarified that recourse to arbitration must not jeopardise the fundamental EU rights of athletes, clubs and other economically active players in sport. CAS arbitration awards must therefore be subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with fundamental procedural rights and compatibility with mandatory EU law - especially if the decision affects the exercise of fundamental freedoms or competition in the internal market.

This means that CAS arbitration awards can be reviewed not only by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, but also by national EU courts for violations of EU public policy. While the ECJ did not follow the Advocate General's far-reaching proposal in this respect, it clarified that European antitrust law (Art. 101 et seq. TFEU) and fundamental freedoms (Art. 45 et seq. TFEU) are part of the public policy of the Union and can be reviewed by the EU courts. Interim legal protection must also be possible before national courts. Association rules such as the FIFA rules, which exclude this, may not be applied.

At the same time, the ECJ confirmed the fundamental permissibility of compulsory arbitration in sport: continuing its previous case law, it expressly clarified that the CAS arbitration agreement is "unilaterally imposed" on individuals by the associations. However, this could in principle be justified by legitimate objectives of sport, "such as ensuring uniform treatment of legal disputes in connection with the sporting discipline within its jurisdiction or enabling a consistent interpretation and application of the rules applicable to that discipline" and thus be permissible. However, the binding nature of the CAS should not lead to the exclusion of access to effective legal protection under EU law.

Classification

The judgement probably does not mean the end of the CAS as the authoritative arbitration body in international sport. Nevertheless, it marks a turning point: the ECJ opens the door wide for a review of CAS arbitration awards by national EU courts. This breaks with the previous system of exclusive review by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, which does not guarantee effective legal protection under EU law.

It remains to be seen how the CAS will react. One conceivable reaction could be to introduce additional arbitration centres within the EU into the CAS system in addition to the current arbitration centre in Lausanne. This could enable the review of CAS arbitration awards by EU courts. The European football association, UEFA, has already implemented a similar procedure in response to the ECJ judgements mentioned above and has included Dublin as a possible place of arbitration in its procedural rules alongside Lausanne.