CJEU Rules on FIFA Agent Regulations, Leaves Matter to German Court

On July 16, 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), Fifth Chamber, delivered its judgment in FT, RRC Sports GmbH v Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), [Case C-209/23]. The case concerned FIFA rules on multiple representation, agent remuneration, licensing, approaches to prospective clients and the communication of information. The agents argued that the rules were incompatible with EU law, including the prohibitions on cartels and abuse of a dominant position, the freedom to provide services and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The judgment followed the CJEU’s decision of July 9, 2026, in ROGON GmbH & Co. KG and Others v Deutscher Fußball-Bund eV (DFB), [Case C-428/23]. In ROGON, the Court held that the Wouters/Meca-Medina framework may apply to sports-federation regulations governing the use of services provided by third-party undertakings outside the federation, provided that the regulations pursue legitimate public-interest objectives and are appropriate, necessary and proportionate.

Application of Article 101 TFEU

The Court examined whether the FFAR constitute decisions of an association of undertakings and restrict competition under Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

On multiple representation, the Court held that the relevant provisions did not constitute a restriction of competition by object. It left the referring court to assess whether those provisions produce restrictive effects on competition.

The Court similarly found that the service-fee cap and several remuneration provisions were not, by their nature, restrictions by object. However, Article 14(12)(a) FFAR, insofar as it could result in an agent losing remuneration due in respect of an earlier transaction, was identified as a restriction by object.

Regarding approaches to clients, the Court found that Article 16(1)(b) and (c) constituted a restriction by object insofar as they gave agents already bound by an exclusive representation agreement an advantage over other agents. The Court noted that the relevant restriction did not apply in the same way to agents already representing the client.

Legitimate Objectives and Proportionality

The Court stated that restrictions may be justified where they pursue legitimate public-interest objectives and the measures are appropriate, necessary and proportionate. It identified objectives including avoiding conflicts of interest, setting ethical standards, protecting players and coaches from abusive practices, protecting clients and agents, and guaranteeing the integrity of the transfer system and sporting competitions. The referring court assessed these requirements.

FIFA’s Dominant Position and Freedom to Provide Services

Under Article 102 TFEU, the Court held that FIFA may be regarded as occupying a dominant position on the market for agent services relating to international transfers of professional players and coaches and on the employment market for players and coaches, arising from its regulatory, supervisory and sanctioning powers. Whether the contested rules constitute an abuse was left to the referring court.

Under Article 56 TFEU, the Court identified rules limiting multiple representation, certain licensing requirements and the rules on “approaches” as obstacles to the freedom to provide services. The referring court assessed whether those restrictions could be justified by legitimate public-interest objectives and satisfied proportionality.

General Data Protection Regulation

The Court examined FIFA’s collection and disclosure of personal data under Article 6(1)(f) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). It noted that the GDPR applies only to processing data relating to natural persons.

The Court left it to the referring court to assess whether the processing of information communicated to FIFA is necessary for legitimate interests and whether the rights and freedoms of data subjects override those interests.

However, the Court found that the GDPR precludes a federation such as FIFA from disclosing and publishing any sanction imposed on agents or their clients, and detailed information on all transactions involving agents.

FIFA’s Response

FIFA welcomed the judgment and said the Court confirmed that key elements of the FFAR, including the licensing requirement, service-fee cap, prohibition of multiple representation, client-pays rule and pro-rata payment rule, can be justified.

FIFA stated that it would continue analysing the judgment and its practical implications and intends to invite agent representatives to discussions aimed at reaching a consensual solution, particularly in light of the new transfer system scheduled to enter into force on January 1, 2027.