Ethics CasesSport

Cases · CAS / CJEU · 2015–2026

Who Reviews Sport's Court? Seraing and the Limits of CAS Finality

Athletes and clubs who want to compete must accept that disputes with federations like FIFA go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, with only narrow review by Switzerland's Federal Supreme Court. Belgian club RFC Seraing, sanctioned by FIFA for selling shares of its players' economic rights to an investment fund, lost at CAS and in Switzerland, then went to Belgian courts, which held the CAS award was final. On August 1, 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that, because CAS arbitration is imposed unilaterally, its awards touching economic activity in the EU must be open to in-depth review by EU national courts for consistency with EU public policy. The case asks whether sport's private courts should be reviewable by national courts.

By Tanner Simkins, editor

Timeline

  1. FIFA's ban on third-party ownership of players' economic rights takes effect.
  2. RFC Seraing signs contracts transferring shares of four players' economic rights to Doyen Sports Investment.
  3. FIFA's Disciplinary Committee bans Seraing from registering players for four registration periods and fines it CHF 150,000.
  4. CAS upholds the sanctions, reducing the registration ban to three periods, and rejects the club's EU law arguments.
  5. Switzerland's Federal Supreme Court dismisses Seraing's challenge.
  6. The Brussels Court of Appeal holds that the CAS award has res judicata effect and dismisses the club's claims.
  7. In International Skating Union v Commission, the CJEU finds that mandatory CAS arbitration can undermine effective protection of EU competition law.
  8. Advocate General Ćapeta proposes that CAS awards be open to full review for compliance with EU law.
  9. The CJEU rules that EU courts must be able to review CAS awards for consistency with EU public policy.
  10. The UEFA Congress in Brussels approves amendments to the UEFA Statutes.
  11. UEFA's amended statutes allow Dublin or Lausanne as the seat of CAS proceedings.

The ethical issues

  • Whether compulsory arbitration imposed by a monopoly governing body is genuinely consensual.
  • The balance between finality and uniformity in sports disputes and the right to effective judicial review.
  • Whether a private, Swiss-based system can adequately protect rights under EU law.
  • The risk of fragmentation and delay if national courts can reopen sports decisions.
  • Accountability of governing bodies whose rules are reviewed by a tribunal within their own system.

Stakeholders

StakeholderInterests & obligations
Athletes and clubsFair hearings and effective remedies when their livelihoods are affected.
FIFA, UEFA and other federationsUniform, fast and final resolution of disputes worldwide.
Court of Arbitration for SportIts authority and the finality of its awards.
EU and national courtsEnsuring EU law is applied consistently and rights are protected.
Investors and agentsLegal certainty about rules such as third-party ownership bans.
Competitors and fansConsistent rules and timely outcomes.

The case

Professional sport runs on a promise of uniform rules and quick, final decisions. To compete, athletes and clubs accept that disputes with governing bodies go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, with limited review by Switzerland’s Federal Supreme Court. A small Belgian football club challenged that system and, in August 2025, won a ruling from the EU’s highest court that CAS awards affecting economic activity in the EU must be open to in-depth review by national courts. The case asks whether sport’s private courts should have the final word.

Background

In 2015, FIFA banned third-party ownership, in which investors buy a share of a player’s “economic rights,” the right to a portion of future transfer fees. The ban took effect on May 1, 2015.[1] FIFA argued that such arrangements threatened integrity, club independence and fairness.[5]

Between January and July 2015, RFC Seraing signed contracts with Doyen Sports Investment, a Malta-based company that provided financing to European clubs. Under the first contract, Doyen acquired 30 percent of the club’s economic rights over three players for EUR 300,000; a second transferred 25 percent of a fourth player’s rights for EUR 50,000.[1]

On September 4, 2015, FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee found that Seraing had breached the ban, prohibited it from registering players for four consecutive registration periods and fined it CHF 150,000.[1]

The rules and governance

FIFA’s statutes require that appeals against its final decisions go to CAS, and that member associations ensure their clubs and players submit to CAS jurisdiction.[1] A CAS award can be challenged only before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, which reviews awards on narrow grounds. CAS says that on average 6 percent of its decisions are appealed to that court each year.[3]

The Swiss court is not an EU court and cannot ask the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a ruling on EU law.[2] For EU-based athletes and clubs, this means EU law arguments may never reach an EU court.

The CAS and Swiss proceedings

Seraing argued at CAS that the ban violated EU free movement and competition law. On March 9, 2017, CAS rejected those arguments, finding the ban pursued legitimate aims linked to “preserving the integrity of competitions” and was proportionate. It upheld the fine but reduced the registration ban to three periods.[1] In its April 2017 media release, CAS said it had confirmed the validity of Articles 18bis and 18ter of FIFA’s transfer regulations under EU law, covering free movement, competition law and human rights, and under Swiss law, but considered the original sanction “too severe.”[8] Commentator Despina Mavromati noted that the panel of three EU-qualified arbitrators devoted much of its award to EU law.[5]

On February 20, 2018, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court dismissed Seraing’s appeal. Under its case law, an award violates public policy only if it disregards “essential and widely recognised values,” and “competition rules are not part of substantive public policy.”[1]

The Belgian proceedings

Seraing had also gone to the Belgian courts, seeking a declaration that the ban was unlawful, injunctions and EUR 500,000 in provisional damages.[1] In December 2019, the Brussels Court of Appeal held that the CAS award had res judicata effect (the status of a final judgment) and that Seraing could not reargue its EU law claims against FIFA.[1] The Belgian Court of Cassation then asked the CJEU whether that was consistent with EU law.[2]

The ruling

The CJEU had already signaled concern. In its December 2023 judgment in International Skating Union v Commission, it agreed with the European Commission that the ISU’s arbitration rules, which sent challenges exclusively to CAS, had been rightly called into question.[4] In January 2025, Advocate General Tamara Ćapeta proposed that CAS awards be open to full review for compliance with all EU law.[3] Her opinion, which did not bind the Court, distinguished sports arbitration from commercial arbitration on two grounds. First, commercial arbitration rests on both parties freely accepting the arbitration clause, which justifies limiting court review to public policy. FIFA’s clauses, by contrast, are mandatory: those subject to its rules “have no option but to submit their disputes” to FIFA’s bodies and then to CAS. Second, FIFA’s system is “self-sufficient.” FIFA can enforce an award itself by barring players or clubs from its competitions, without ever needing a court.[9]

On August 1, 2025, the CJEU’s Grand Chamber ruled. It accepted that compulsory arbitration may be justified by “legitimate objectives such as ensuring the uniform handling of disputes.”[1] But it found that, “in reality,” arbitration is “imposed beforehand” by sports associations on those subject to their rules.[1] Because of that, the Court said, “it is essential that recourse to arbitration does not undermine the rights and freedoms” EU law guarantees.[2]

The Court held that national courts must be able to carry out “an in-depth judicial review” of whether CAS awards are consistent with EU public policy, including competition law and free movement, and must be able to grant interim relief, refer questions to the CJEU, award damages and stop unlawful conduct.[2] A CAS award cannot have res judicata effect in an EU member state unless it has first been reviewed in that way, and courts must disapply national laws or sports rules that prevent such review.[1][2]

The International Council of Arbitration for Sport noted that the Court “did not follow the opinion of Advocate General Ćapeta in full” and limited review to EU public policy. It said CAS “already applies EU law when required.”[3] Mavromati wrote that national courts would remain bound by CAS’s factual findings and that the ruling’s practical scope was “relatively limited,” while warning of “delay in finality and the potential fragmentation” of sports dispute resolution.[5]

Aftermath

The CJEU did not decide whether FIFA’s third-party ownership ban is lawful; that question returned to the Belgian courts.[2] Governing bodies began adjusting. UEFA’s member associations approved amendments to its statutes at the 50th UEFA Congress in Brussels in February 2026.[11] From July 1, 2026, the seat of CAS proceedings under UEFA’s rules can be Dublin as well as Lausanne, so that the Irish High Court, which can refer questions to the CJEU, would review awards.[6] The 2026 edition of the statutes also states that any party before CAS may raise mandatory provisions of foreign law, “which may include European Union public policy laws.” It keeps CAS awards “final and binding,” but without prejudice to challenges to their recognition or enforcement “on grounds of public policy (which may include European Union public policy laws),” or to complaints to a competent competition authority.[10] According to the law firm Ogier, 779 of 1,005 CAS cases in 2025 related to football.[6] In July 2026, Ogier reported, the CJEU applied similar reasoning to disciplinary sanctions imposed by Italy’s football federation, holding that individuals must be able to obtain effective judicial review where sanctions affect EU free movement rights.[7]

The core dilemma

Sport benefits from a single, expert tribunal whose decisions apply everywhere. But athletes and clubs do not truly choose CAS; they must accept it to compete, and its awards are reviewed only by a court that cannot apply EU law through the CJEU. The dilemma is whether the efficiency and uniformity of centralized sports arbitration justify limiting access to national courts, and how to preserve both.

Competing values

  • Finality vs. accountability: quick, final decisions help competitions run; review protects rights.
  • Uniformity vs. legal pluralism: one global tribunal ensures consistency; national courts ensure local legal protections.
  • Autonomy vs. rule of law: federations want to govern their own sports; courts insist that autonomy has limits.
  • Consent vs. compulsion: arbitration is legitimate when agreed, but sports arbitration is imposed.
  • Expertise vs. independence: CAS has specialist knowledge, but sits within the system it reviews.

Strongest arguments

For limiting national review: A single tribunal ensures consistent application of rules across countries.[1][5] CAS already considers EU law, as it did in Seraing’s case.[3][5] The CJEU itself recognized legitimate reasons for compulsory arbitration.[1] Review by courts in 27 member states could lead to delay and fragmentation.[5] Only a small share of CAS awards involve EU law.[3][5]

For effective national review: Arbitration imposed by a monopoly governing body is not truly voluntary.[1] The Swiss court does not treat competition rules as part of public policy and cannot refer questions to the CJEU, so EU rights may go unprotected.[1][2] Without review, a governing body’s rules could escape accountability under EU law.[2][4] An EU seat, as UEFA adopted, shows that review and specialist arbitration can coexist.[6]

Applying the frameworks

Justice & fairness (Rawls)

Behind a veil of ignorance, not knowing whether you would be a powerful federation or a small club facing sanctions, you would want a dispute system with independent review, especially when you cannot opt out. Fair procedures matter most for those with the least bargaining power. The CJEU’s emphasis on the imposed nature of CAS arbitration echoes this concern.

Rights-based

A rights view emphasizes access to an effective remedy. EU law grants rights to free movement and competition; those rights are hollow if no court can enforce them. The Court framed its judgment around effective judicial protection under Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.[1]

Utilitarian

A utilitarian weighs the benefits of fast, uniform decisions for competitions and participants against the costs of wrongful decisions that cannot be corrected. Limiting review to EU public policy and moving CAS’s seat for EU cases may maximize overall welfare by preserving efficiency while correcting serious legal errors.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

  1. Spot the issue: A sanctioned club argues that a governing body’s rule violates EU law, but the only review of CAS’s decision is by a non-EU court.
  2. Gather facts: The rule, the sanction, the arbitration clause, how CAS addressed EU law and the scope of Swiss review.
  3. Test options: Treat CAS awards as final; allow full review of all EU law; allow review limited to EU public policy (the CJEU’s approach); offer an EU arbitration seat.
  4. Check codes and law: FIFA statutes, the CAS Code, Article 47 of the EU Charter, Articles 19 TEU and 267 TFEU, and the New York Convention.
  5. Decide and document: Publish clear rules on where disputes can be reviewed and on what grounds.
  6. Communicate and follow up: Inform athletes and clubs of their options and monitor delays and consistency.

What’s settled and what’s contested

  • Settled: FIFA sanctioned Seraing for third-party ownership; CAS and the Swiss court upheld the sanctions; the CJEU ruled in August 2025 that CAS awards must be open to in-depth review by EU courts for consistency with EU public policy; UEFA now permits a Dublin seat.[1][2][6]
  • Contested: whether FIFA’s third-party ownership ban is compatible with EU law; how deep national review will be in practice; whether other federations will follow UEFA; whether the ruling will fragment sports dispute resolution.[2][5][6]

Why this case matters

Many institutions require participants to accept private dispute resolution as a condition of entry. The Seraing ruling shows that efficiency and expertise do not override the right to an effective remedy, especially when consent is not freely given. It also shows that governance systems can adapt, preserving specialist arbitration while opening a path to independent review.

See also: Diarra v FIFA: Contract Stability or a No-Poach Rule?.

See also: Is the Court of Arbitration for Sport Independent Enough?.

See also: Regulator and Rival: The EU Court’s 2023 Sport Governance Rulings.

Key terms

Due process
Fair procedures before a sanction: notice, a chance to respond, an impartial decision-maker and a right of appeal.
Institutional accountability
Structures that make a sport organization explain its decisions and face consequences: clear authority, transparency, appeals, independent oversight and enforcement.
Agency
An athlete’s ability to make decisions and act independently about their body, career and voice.
Stakeholders
Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.
Conflict of interest
A situation where a person’s private interest could improperly influence a decision they make in an official role.
Trust
The public’s belief that what they are watching is real. Integrity failures are ultimately failures of trust.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

  1. Is arbitration still 'consensual' if you must accept it to play professional football?
  2. Should CAS awards be final everywhere for the sake of uniformity, or should national courts be able to review them?
  3. The CJEU limited review to EU public policy, not all EU law. Is that the right line?
  4. Does the possibility of review in 27 member states risk inconsistency and delay? How could sport respond?
  5. Should a federation's own rules, enforced by its own chosen tribunal, ever have the last word on their legality?

Sources

  1. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), Case C-600/23, Royal Football Club Seraing — Court of Justice of the European Union
  2. Press Release No 104/25: Judgment of the Court in Case C-600/23, Royal Football Club Seraing — Court of Justice of the European Union
  3. ICAS statement on review of CAS awards by European courts for matters of EU public policy — International Council of Arbitration for Sport
  4. Press Release No 202/23: Judgment in Case C-124/21 P, International Skating Union v Commission — Court of Justice of the European Union
  5. The Seraing v. FIFA Judgment of the CJEU: Essential Takeaways — Sportlegis
  6. CAS arbitration in Ireland expected after UEFA's landmark statute amendment — Ogier
  7. Game changer: CJEU confirms sports arbitration awards may be subject to EU court review — Ogier
  8. Media release: CAS confirms the validity of the FIFA regulations on the prohibition of third-party ownership (TPO) — Court of Arbitration for Sport
  9. Press Release No 6/25: Advocate General's Opinion in Case C-600/23, Royal Football Club Seraing — Court of Justice of the European Union
  10. UEFA Statutes, Edition 2026 — UEFA
  11. UEFA Congress 2026: All the key decisions — UEFA