- Home
- News & insights
- Insights
- Royal Football Club…
- On this page
16 September 2025
Disputes Quick Read – 104 of 103 Insights
Royal Football Club Seraing: CAS awards face extra time in EU courts
- Quick read
In Royal Football Club Seraing (Case C-600/23), the European Court of Justice has ruled that arbitral awards from non-EU courts, including those from the Court of Arbitration for Sport, can be the subject of judicial review to ensure compliance with EU law. This ruling emerged from Royal Football Club Seraing's dispute with FIFA over third-party ownership regulations, highlighting the tension between sports governance autonomy and EU legal supremacy.
The dispute
In 2015, Royal Football Club Seraing (Seraing) entered into agreements with Doyen Sports Investment Ltd that transferred portions of the club's economic rights over specific players in exchange for EUR350,000 in financial payments. FIFA's Disciplinary Committee determined that the contracts violated FIFA's global prohibition on third-party ownership (TPO) of players' economic rights, imposing a four-period registration ban and a CHF150,000 fine.
After FIFA's Appeal Committee dismissed their challenge, Seraing escalated the matter to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Switzerland - FIFA's designated forum for final appeals. Seraing argued FIFA's TPO ban violated EU law principles including free movement of workers, services, and capital, as well as EU competition rules. While the CAS acknowledged the applicability of EU law to the dispute, it rejected Seraing's arguments, finding TPO restrictions justified and proportionate for preserving sporting integrity. Although the CAS reduced the registration ban from four to three periods, it upheld the financial penalty. Switzerland's Federal Supreme Court rejected Seraing's challenge to the CAS award.
The legal saga continued in parallel proceedings before Belgian courts. When Seraing challenged the CAS award domestically, the Belgian Court of Appeal ruled that the award possessed res judicata force, preventing the Belgian courts from ruling on its validity. This prompted the Belgian Court of Cassation to seek guidance from the European Court of Justice (ECJ, which is one of the courts within the Court of Justice of the European Union or CJEU) through a preliminary reference.
The ECJ's decision
The ECJ's response was unequivocal. The Court emphasised that effective judicial protection constitutes a fundamental pillar of EU law, enshrined in Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Member States must ensure individuals can access meaningful judicial review of decisions affecting their EU law rights. Crucially, this protection must include the possibility of review by a court or tribunal that meets the requirements of Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - specifically, one capable of making preliminary references to the ECJ to assess compliance with EU public policy principles and fundamental rights.
In applying these principles to arbitral awards, the ECJ distinguished between voluntary commercial arbitrations and mandatory arbitrations, but avoided making this a decisive factor. However, the Court did recognise the special “forced” nature of sports arbitration in which the agreement to arbitrate is essentially imposed by the sports association on the individual beforehand, which included the FIFA arbitration clause that provided for an exclusive appeal to the CAS. The ECJ then considered what effective judicial review of EU public policy requires in the context of these unilaterally imposed arbitrations. Accordingly, it established four key requirements:
- Indirect judicial review must be available to ensure awards comply with EU public policy principles.
- Review powers must be comprehensive where awards involve EU public policy principles conferring individual rights.
- Remedial power must be effective where a court has identified that an arbitration award violates EU public policy. Courts must be able to draw on all appropriate legal conclusions and take corrective action when inconsistencies are found, otherwise the judicial review would be meaningless.
- National courts must have power to impose interim measures that preserve the effectiveness of their final judgment. Courts must set aside any national laws that would prevent them from exercising this power.
These requirements strengthen EU oversight of foreign arbitration awards, particularly CAS awards, and establishes that CAS awards implicating EU public policy principles are subject to meaningful judicial review by national courts across the EU. Crucially, the review requirements significantly limit the res judicata effect of the award where EU law is implicated and enables enhanced scrutiny of awards from mandatory arbitration systems.
Legal and practical consequences
EU perspective
This ruling signals the ECJ's continued commitment to protecting the autonomy and supremacy of EU law, even in specialised areas like sports regulation. However, it took a carefully balanced approach that preserves CAS's legitimacy as the primary forum for sports disputes while ensuring effective EU law oversight. The Court rejected the Advocate General's more radical position, which questioned CAS arbitration's validity entirely and advocated for a full merits review. Instead, the ruling acknowledges that while sports associations often impose mandatory CAS arbitration clauses, this doesn't automatically undermine the legitimacy of such arbitration.
However, CAS awards involving EU public policy matters, such as competition law and free movement rules, remain subject to review by EU courts regardless of the CAS being seated in Switzerland, preventing EU legal standards from being circumvented through offshore arbitration. Ultimately, this means that sports clubs, players, and other parties can continue to challenge CAS awards in national courts across the EU, potentially reopening settled disputes and forcing sports bodies to reconsider their regulatory approaches.
Challenges to sports association rules that potentially abuse dominant market positions or restrict competition must now undergo public policy review by ordinary EU courts. This extends EU oversight into previously insulated sporting decisions and could revive debates on contentious issues such as FIFA's TPO ban.
English perspective
Since Brexit, English disputes cannot reach the ECJ unless they involve a European element that is processed through an EU national court. Consequently, English law alone governs the review of sports arbitral awards and provides significantly less protection than the ECJ now mandates.
Sports arbitration agreements in England typically exclude enhanced judicial review. In particular, English football's governing bodies - the Premier League, EFL, and FA - all exclude appeals on points of law. In sharp contrast to the European position, players in English leagues facing lifetime bans or clubs facing points deductions have no recourse to judicial review on legal grounds.
Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 permits appeals on legal points only where the tribunal's decision was "obviously wrong" or involves "general public importance" with the decision being open to "serious doubt." The "obviously wrong" test is deliberately stringent and rarely satisfied. The "general public importance" gateway, while requiring only "serious doubt," remains a high hurdle for complex factual decisions. Crucially, sports associations routinely exclude Section 69 by agreement.
International Arbitration Framework
The global appeal of arbitration stems largely from the streamlined cross-border enforcement framework established by the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention). With 172 contracting states, arbitral awards benefit from significantly simpler international enforcement mechanisms compared to domestic court judgments. Under this framework, courts in contracting states are generally obligated to recognise and enforce foreign arbitral awards unless the resisting party demonstrates one of the Convention's narrowly defined grounds for refusal, including that enforcement would violate the enforcing country's public policy.
The ECJ adopted a measured approach to any conflict with the New York Convention, acknowledging the complex interplay between international arbitration obligations and EU fundamental rights. While noting that the New York Convention doesn't directly bind the European Union, the Court recognised that all Member States are parties to the Convention, as is Switzerland. Crucially, the ECJ identified a complementary rather than conflicting relationship: the Convention establishes that states must recognise foreign arbitral awards made under arbitration agreements, but this recognition obligation operates alongside a corresponding duty to conduct judicial review for public policy compliance. For EU Member States, this public policy review necessarily extends to ensuring consistency with EU public policy principles, creating a harmonious system where international arbitration commitments coexist with EU requirements for effective judicial protection of fundamental rights.
What lies ahead
This ruling curtails the long-standing assumption that CAS awards enjoy near-absolute finality across all jurisdictions, including EU Member States, and ensures that EU courts are the ultimate authority on matters of EU law in sports (and other mandatory) arbitrations. The extension of EU oversight into previously insulated sporting decisions also has the potential to place contentious issues such as FIFA's TPO ban back on the sports law agenda.
For sports organisations, this ruling necessitates a fundamental reconsideration of dispute resolution strategies. FIFA, UEFA, and other governing bodies can no longer assume that CAS awards will receive automatic recognition in EU courts when EU law issues are at stake. This may prompt sports bodies to either modify their arbitration procedures to ensure EU law compliance or accept that their awards may face additional scrutiny in EU jurisdictions.
From a legal practitioner's perspective, the decision opens new avenues for challenging sports arbitration awards in EU Member States. Clubs, players, and other stakeholders who believe their EU law rights have been inadequately protected in proceedings before the CAS now have a clearer path to seek domestic judicial review. However, this also introduces uncertainty and potential delays in sports dispute resolution.
Find out more
If you would like to learn more about how this decision may affect you or your business, please contact a member of our Disputes and Investigations team.
In this series
Opening the doors: how the January 2026 pilot will transform access to court documents
21 October 2025
by Multiple authors
Collective actions impacting big tech - Ireland set to test the boundaries in ICCL v Microsoft
11 June 2025
Wirral Council v Indivior plc: Court of Appeal upholds strike out of opt-in representative action securities claim
30 January 2025
What are the litigation trends in 2025?
22 January 2025
by Multiple authors
Changes to the privilege rules between companies and shareholders
6 December 2024
Victory for energy companies/defeat for the environment?
14 November 2024
Failure to prevent fraud offence to come into force in September 2025
14 November 2024
by Emma Allen
Essex Cricket Club charged by Cricket Regulator
30 October 2024
by Multiple authors
UK introduces mandatory reimbursement rules to combat APP fraud
15 October 2024
New SFO Director announces bold plans to tackle fraud
21 March 2024
by Emma Allen, Amy Cheng
First of its kind judicial guidance on the use of AI in the courts
14 December 2023
Witness familiarisation - does it affect the court's assessment of witness credibility?
13 December 2023
CAT to hear the first application for a collective settlement approval order
17 October 2023
Pre-Action Protocols – what is different?
12 September 2023
by Tom Charnley
Failure to prevent fraud – a new offence?
14 August 2023
by Multiple authors
Supreme Court rules that APP fraud victims cannot rely on Quincecare Duty
4 August 2023
by Multiple authors
The Law Commission's Consultation Process on the Arbitration Act 1996 – taking stock
21 July 2023
What does the latest decision of the CAT in the Mastercard/Visa proceedings mean for class actions?
10 July 2023
Disputes Quick Read: ClientEarth refused permission to pursue directors of Shell
1 June 2023
by Multiple authors
Disputes Quick Read – developments in the fixed costs regime
3 May 2023
by James Bryden
Disputes Quick Read: Service by email – are the rules any clearer?
20 April 2023
by James Bryden
Disputes Quick Read: Breaking the north/south divide?
5 April 2023
by Tom Charnley
Disputes Quick Read - What do practitioners think about making alternative dispute resolution (ADR) compulsory?
8 March 2023
Disputes Quick Read: What are the litigation trends for 2023?
2 March 2023
Disputes Quick Read: further guidance on witness statement preparation rules
14 February 2023
Disputes Quick Read: A cautionary tale – settlement agreement (un)wittingly releases all claims for fraud
13 February 2023
Disputes Quick Read: Why the UK should join the Hague Judgments Convention 2019
8 February 2023
Disputes Quick Read: extensive information orders granted against crypto exchanges following hack
19 January 2023
Disputes Quick Read: A new approach to giving evidence? WhatsApp with that?
3 October 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Ethereum Merge - what legal issues arise?
22 September 2022
by Emma Allen
Disputes Quick Read: New obligations on cryptobusinesses to report under the UK sanctions regime
9 August 2022
by Nick Maday
Disputes Quick Read: Disclosure - What information can be redacted?
25 July 2022
Disputes Quick Read: what claims exist when a smart contract is breached?
6 July 2022
by Emma Allen
Disputes Quick Read: New gateway for serving Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Bankers Trust orders out of the jurisdiction
Welcome news for those pursuing fraud claims in the English Courts
28 July 2022
by Emma Allen
Disputes Quick Read: Defining the duty - the limits of the responsibility assumed by professionals
27 July 2022
by Stuart Broom
Disputes Quick Read: Climate change litigation – successful challenge to government's Net Zero Strategy
29 July 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 – now in force
17 June 2022
Disputes Quick Read: an important reminder of the duty to disclose electronic documents in native format
13 June 2022
Disputes Quick Read: ENRC prevails in claim against former solicitor
26 May 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Climate change litigation update – McGaughey v Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited
31 May 2022
by Multiple authors
Don't lose your keys: Bitcoin developers do not have a duty to assist owners in recovering lost cryptocurrency
4 April 2022
by Emma Allen
Disputes Quick Read: The new witness statement preparation rules – a year on
5 April 2022
Disputes Quick Read: ClientEarth v Shell – climate change litigation shifts focus to UK companies
31 March 2022
by Multiple authors
Disputes Quick Read: High Court rules that failure to provide adequate data security is not a positive act
21 September 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Key changes to the Disclosure Pilot Scheme
13 September 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Judicial Review and Courts Bill – unpacking the UK government's proposed amendments
6 September 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Will litigants be compelled to participate in alternative dispute resolution?
2 August 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Freezing injunctions – maximum custodial sentence imposed for breach
21 July 2021
Disputes Quick Read: The online future of civil justice – the end of the legal profession or the end of legal drudgery?
15 July 2021
by Jess Thomas
Disputes Quick Read: Will the courts change forever post-COVID?
26 May 2021
Disputes Quick Read: One Blackfriars administrators cleared of misfeasance
5 May 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Not your prerogative – the Independent Review of Administrative Law reports its recommendations on judicial review
21 April 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Amendments to the Disclosure Pilot Scheme – a step in the right direction
31 March 2021
Disputes Quick Read: UK Supreme Court rules on the territorial extent of the SFO's powers
26 February 2021
by Tim Strong
Disputes Quick Read: No dropping anchor – parent company liability for environmental claims
24 February 2021
Disputes Quick Read: What lawyers need to know about new witness statement preparation rules
20 January 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Should you still choose the English courts to have jurisdiction in your international contracts after Brexit?
12 January 2021
by Tim Strong
Disputes Quick Read: Privilege lost in the EU post-Brexit (with exceptions)
23 November 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Law on interest applicable to US dollar awards reaffirmed
16 October 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Care required when drafting SPA claim notices
23 September 2020
by Stuart Broom
Disputes Quick Read: Why the modernised LCIA rules are a welcome update
7 October 2020
by Nick Storrs
Disputes Quick Read: COVID-19 and supply chain disruption – key issues
9 April 2020
by Multiple authors
Disputes Quick Read: High Court orders parties to explore options for 5-week remote trial
15 April 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Tomlin Orders – ensuring the confidentiality of settlement terms
27 April 2020
Disputes Quick Read: UK's OFSI fines Standard Chartered Bank £20 million for sanctions breaches
21 April 2020
Disputes Quick Read: A different approach to witness evidence
11 March 2020
by James Bryden
Disputes Quick Read: Coronavirus - a growth in virtual courts?
17 March 2020
by Stuart Broom
Disputes quick read: climate change activism by litigation
26 February 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Commercial Court's arbitral power shift
21 February 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Court stays evictions during COVID-19 – is this lawful?
2 June 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Will the civil justice system change forever post COVID-19?
16 June 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Retailers reign supreme in Visa and Mastercard proceedings
9 July 2020
Disputes Quick Read: The contra proferentem rule reconsidered?
21 July 2020
Disputes Quick Read: Scope of duty and the SAAMCo counterfactual following Manchester Building Society
3 December 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Facilitating transactions in cryptoassets - Lord Leggatt and the point of commercial law
24 November 2021
by Stuart Broom
Disputes Quick Read: Privy Council clarifies the law on freezing injunctions in aid of foreign proceedings
8 October 2021
Disputes Quick Read: Climate change litigation – what's the latest?
10 January 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Court decisions on the Disclosure Pilot Scheme – the 2021 roundup
20 January 2022
Disputes Quick Read: Assumption of responsibility - tax schemes and investors
22 March 2022
by Stuart Broom
Disputes Quick Read: Dealing in crypto? Be careful what you call it
7 April 2022
