Ethics CasesSport

Cases · FIFA · 2022–2026

Capping the Middlemen: FIFA's Football Agent Regulations in Court

In December 2022 FIFA approved new Football Agent Regulations that reintroduced licensing exams, capped agents' fees (generally 3% to 5% of a player's pay, and 10% of a transfer fee for agents of selling clubs) and limited agents to representing one side in a deal, with one exception. FIFA said the rules would curb conflicts of interest and abusive practices in a market where clubs paid a record $888.1 million in agent fees on international transfers in 2023. Agents' groups sued across Europe. The Court of Arbitration for Sport upheld the rules, but a German court issued an injunction, and on December 30, 2023, FIFA suspended key provisions worldwide pending a ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union. On July 16, 2026, that court ruled that FIFA holds a dominant position and that some rules restrict EU freedoms, leaving the German court to decide whether they are justified. The case asks how a governing body can regulate a market it also dominates.

By Tanner Simkins, editor

Timeline

  1. The FIFA Council approves the FIFA Football Agent Regulations (FFAR).
  2. Applications for FIFA agent licences open.
  3. A Dortmund court issues a preliminary injunction against key FFAR provisions.
  4. CAS dismisses an agents' association challenge to the FFAR.
  5. The requirement to use a licensed agent takes effect.
  6. FIFA reports record agent fees of $888.1 million on international transfers in 2023.
  7. FIFA Circular 1873 suspends key provisions worldwide pending the EU court's ruling.
  8. The Court of Justice of the European Union rules in Case C-209/23, RRC Sports.

The ethical issues

  • Conflicts of interest when one agent represents several parties in a deal.
  • Whether a governing body should cap the earnings of a private profession.
  • Protecting young players from abusive agents.
  • Whether FIFA can be both regulator and dominant market actor.
  • Transparency versus privacy in publishing agent data.

Stakeholders

StakeholderInterests & obligations
PlayersLoyal, competent representation at a fair cost.
AgentsFreedom to work and earn, and fair regulation.
ClubsLower costs and transparent deals.
FIFAIntegrity of the transfer system and its regulatory authority.
National associationsApplying FIFA rules consistently with national law.
Courts and competition authoritiesApplying competition and free-movement law to sport.

The case

Agents are central to modern football. They negotiate players’ contracts, broker transfers and, increasingly, work for clubs as well as players. For years FIFA left the business largely unregulated. In December 2022 it changed course, approving rules that required agents to be licensed, capped their fees and banned most dual representation. FIFA said the goal was integrity and protection of players. Agents said FIFA was using its power to restrict a profession. The fight went to courts across Europe and, in July 2026, to the European Union’s highest court. The case shows the ethical and legal limits of a governing body that both runs a market and regulates it.

Background

FIFA had licensed agents until 2015, when it replaced that system with lighter rules on “intermediaries.” Fees grew quickly. In its 2023 report, FIFA said clubs had paid a record $888.1 million in agent service fees on international transfers that year, up 42.5% from $623.2 million in 2022. English clubs paid more than $280 million, and Saudi clubs paid $86.0 million to agents acting for them.[5] These figures covered only club payments declared in FIFA’s transfer system for international transfers.[6]

A recurring concern was conflicts of interest. An agent might represent a player while also being paid by the buying club, or even the selling club. In principal-agent terms, the agent’s incentive to complete a deal, and to maximize fees, may not match the player’s interest in the best contract or club.

The rules and governance

The FIFA Council approved the FIFA Football Agent Regulations (FFAR) on December 16, 2022.[4] Among the key rules:[1]

  • Agents must pass an exam and hold a FIFA licence. Licensing opened on January 9, 2023, and from October 1, 2023, players and clubs had to use licensed agents.
  • Fees were capped. When representing a player or a buying club, an agent could earn 5% of the player’s annual pay up to $200,000, and 3% above that; for dual representation, where allowed, 10% and 6%. An agent for a selling club could earn up to 10% of the transfer fee.
  • An agent could act for only one party in a transaction, with one exception: an agent could act for both a player and the buying club with prior explicit written consent from both.
  • The client must pay its own agent, with limited exceptions, and payments were to go through a FIFA clearing house, with details published.

FIFA said the rules had been adopted after a broad consultation with agents, players, clubs, leagues and associations.[8]

The first exams

FIFA said it received 19,973 licence applications in 2023. Of the 9,207 people who sat the exams in April and September 2023, 32.6% passed.[5]

Agents and agents’ associations filed lawsuits across Europe. FIFA later called this “a coordinated litigation strategy … to challenge the legality of the FFAR and to delay their entry into force.”[4]

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) heard a challenge by the Professional Football Agents Association (PROFAA). On July 24, 2023, it dismissed the claim, finding the rules lawful and proportionate.[2][3] But on May 24, 2023, the District Court of Dortmund in Germany had issued a preliminary injunction ordering FIFA to suspend several provisions, including the fee cap, the client-pays rule, the ban on double representation and the publication rules.[4] Separately, a court in Mainz had referred questions about the rules to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).[7]

On December 30, 2023, FIFA issued Circular 1873. It said the injunction was inconsistent with other decisions, but suspended the affected provisions worldwide until the CJEU ruled, saying that applying the injunction only to transfers linked to the EU would create unequal standards. It recommended that national associations suspend their equivalent rules.[4] The licensing requirement was not among the suspended provisions.

The EU court’s ruling

On July 16, 2026, the CJEU ruled in Case C-209/23, RRC Sports. It said it was ultimately for the German court to decide whether the rules broke EU competition law or could be justified, but gave guidance:[7]

  • A rule barring agents from approaching players already under exclusive contracts outside a two-month window “appears, in any event, to be incompatible with the prohibition on cartels.”
  • FIFA “may be regarded as occupying a dominant position” in the market for agent services in international transfers, because of its regulatory and sanctioning power.
  • Limits on multiple representation, some licence conditions and the approach rules are obstacles to the freedom to provide services, which can be justified only by legitimate objectives such as avoiding conflicts of interest, protecting players from abusive practices and protecting the integrity of the transfer system.
  • Under the EU’s data protection law, FIFA may not publish certain detailed information about agents’ transactions and sanctions.

Aftermath

FIFA welcomed the judgment the same day. It said the court had confirmed that key elements, including licensing, the fee cap, the ban on multiple representation and the client-pays rule, “can be justified.” Chief legal and compliance officer Emilio García Silvero said FIFA would “invite agent representatives to a meeting in the coming weeks with the aim of reaching a consensual solution” before FIFA’s new transfer system takes effect on January 1, 2027.[8] This case does not confirm whether the suspended provisions have since been restored.

The core dilemma

FIFA has good reasons to regulate agents: conflicts of interest, high fees taken out of the game and young players who may be exploited. But FIFA is not a neutral regulator. It controls the transfer system and, as the EU court found, may hold a dominant position in the market it is regulating. Capping what agents earn and limiting whom they can work for affects a whole profession. When does regulation protect integrity, and when does it overreach?

Competing values

  • Integrity vs. economic freedom: protecting players and the transfer system against agents’ right to work and set fees.
  • Uniform global rules vs. national and EU law: one system for the world against local legal limits.
  • Transparency vs. privacy: publishing fee data against protecting personal information.
  • Regulatory authority vs. accountability: FIFA’s power to set rules against the need for checks on that power.

Strongest arguments

For FIFA’s rules. Agents’ fees reached record levels, and some practices, such as one agent taking fees from several sides, create obvious conflicts of interest. Licensing, conflict rules and payment through a clearing house can protect players, especially young ones, and improve transparency. CAS upheld the rules, and FIFA says the EU court accepted that key elements can be justified.

Against. A fee cap set by a dominant body restricts competition and the earnings of a profession that FIFA does not employ. Some rules, such as the approach window, appear to protect established agents. Publishing transaction data raises privacy concerns, as the EU court confirmed. Agents argue the rules were imposed without real consent.

For narrower rules. One could support strong conflict-of-interest and licensing rules while questioning price caps, arguing that transparency and a ban on dual payments address the main harms with less restriction.

Applying the frameworks

Utilitarian

A utilitarian would weigh the benefits of the rules, such as fewer conflicts, lower fees for clubs, more money kept in the game and better protection for players, against the costs to agents, possible reduced service quality and the expense of years of litigation. The record fee numbers and the suspension show that the rules’ benefits depend on whether they can be enforced.

Justice and fairness

A justice lens would ask whether the rules are fair to everyone affected. Do they treat agents, players and clubs evenhandedly? The EU court’s finding that the approach rule favored agents already holding exclusive contracts is a fairness concern. Procedural fairness also matters: rules made by a dominant body need meaningful input from those they bind.

Rights

A rights lens would focus on players’ right to loyal representation and agents’ right to practice their profession, along with privacy rights under data protection law. It would favor rules that protect players’ interests without unduly limiting agents’ freedoms or exposing personal data.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

  1. Spot the issue. You are on FIFA’s legal team after the July 2026 ruling. Stakeholders include players, agents, clubs, leagues, national associations, regulators and fans. The codes in play are the FFAR, EU competition and free-movement law, data protection law and the FIFA Statutes.
  2. Gather facts. Which provisions does the ruling question, and which may be justified? What evidence shows harm from conflicts and high fees? Watch for institutional bias: a body defending its own rules may see justification where a court might not.
  3. Test options. Reinstate the suspended rules as written; revise them to fit the ruling; or negotiate new rules with agents. Run each through consequences, fairness and rights.
  4. Check codes and law. Make sure each rule has a legitimate aim and is necessary and proportionate, as EU law requires. Remove the approach rule and revise publication rules.
  5. Decide and document. Explain which rules stay, which change and why. Include agents, players’ unions and clubs in the drafting.
  6. Communicate and follow up. Publish the final rules and how they will be enforced, and report each year on fees, conflicts and disciplinary cases.

What’s settled and what’s contested

Settled

  • FIFA approved the FFAR in December 2022, with licensing, fee caps and limits on multiple representation.
  • CAS upheld the rules in July 2023, but FIFA suspended key provisions worldwide in December 2023 after a German injunction.
  • On July 16, 2026, the CJEU found that FIFA may hold a dominant position, that the approach rule appears incompatible with EU cartel law and that some data publication is precluded by EU data protection law.

Contested

  • Whether the fee cap and ban on multiple representation are justified under EU law, which the German court must decide.
  • Whether FIFA and agents can reach a consensual solution.
  • Whether fee caps are the right tool, or whether transparency and conflict rules are enough.

Why this case matters

The agent regulations show how sport governance meets competition law. Courts increasingly ask governing bodies to justify their rules, not just announce them. The lesson reaches beyond agents: regulators must show that their rules serve a legitimate purpose, are proportionate and treat those affected fairly. For a related ruling on FIFA’s transfer rules, see Diarra v FIFA: Contract Stability or a No-Poach Rule?.

Key terms

Conflict of interest
A situation where a person’s private interest could improperly influence a decision they make in an official role.
Principal–agent problem
When those acting on others’ behalf (agents such as executives, officials or agents) have interests that diverge from the people they serve.
Controls
Concrete safeguards that make ethics operational: training, disclosure forms, testing, monitoring, hotlines. Ethics needs principles, process and controls.
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.
Codes and guardrails
Written rules of conduct, backed by real consequences, that turn values into expected behavior. Without enforcement they are decoration.
Institutional accountability
Structures that make a sport organization explain its decisions and face consequences: clear authority, transparency, appeals, independent oversight and enforcement.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

  1. Is a cap on agents' fees a fair way to protect players, or a restriction on a profession?
  2. Why is representing both a player and a buying club a conflict of interest? Can it ever be managed?
  3. Should FIFA, which runs the transfer system, also regulate agents? Who else could?
  4. How should transparency about agent fees be balanced with privacy?
  5. What would you include in a 'consensual solution' between FIFA and agents?

Sources

  1. FIFA Football Agent Regulations — FIFA
  2. Arbitral award CAS 2023/O/9370 PROFAA v. FIFA — Court of Arbitration for Sport
  3. FIFA welcomes CAS decision on FIFA Football Agent Regulations — FIFA
  4. Circular no. 1873: FIFA Football Agent Regulations, update on implementation — FIFA
  5. Agent service fees reach all-time high in 2023 — FIFA
  6. Football Agents in International Transfers (November 2023) — FIFA
  7. Press Release No 110/26: Judgment in Case C-209/23, RRC Sports — Court of Justice of the European Union
  8. FIFA welcomes Court of Justice of the European Union decision on FIFA Football Agent Regulations — FIFA