The role of sports arbitration in light of the public order of the EU and the issue of potential violations of European competition law by FIFA regulations.

Authors I Nataša Pipan Nahtigal, Grega Paternoster and Domen Humar

An arbitral award is, as a rule, final, since pursuant to Article 38 of the Slovenian Arbitration Act (Zakon o arbitraži – ZArbit), it has the effect of a final court judgment between the parties. Finality, of course, is subject to exceptions. Article 40 of ZArbit sets out the circumstances under which an arbitral award may be challenged by filing an action for annulment. Moreover, an arbitral award may also be challenged on the grounds of incompatibility with the public order of the European Union (EU), which includes compliance with EU competition law.

On 1 August 2025, the CJEU once again addressed these issues in the case RFC Seraing v. FIFA / CAS (C-600/23), in which it examined the compatibility and reviewability of decisions of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) considering the requirements of the EU public order.

RFC Seraing, a football club from Belgium, was sanctioned by FIFA for transferring the economic rights of its players to the Maltese company Doyen Sports, thereby violating FIFA’s prohibition on Third-Party Ownership (TPO) of players’ rights under its regulations on contracts and player transfers[1]. The club subsequently challenged the sanction before both the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and the Belgian national courts. The CAS upheld the sanction, a decision later confirmed by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.

Before the Belgian courts, the club argued that the relevant provisions of the FIFA regulations were contrary to EU competition law. The Belgian courts initially ruled that they lacked jurisdiction to review the matter due to the final and binding nature of the CAS arbitral award, but the Belgian Court of Cassation ultimately decided to refer two preliminary questions to the CJEU.

The preliminary questions concerned the legal validity of CAS arbitral awards under EU law and whether such awards possess res judicata effect that would preclude judicial review by the national courts of EU Member States. Specifically, the issue was whether an international arbitral award can be regarded as having res judicata status when its compliance with EU law has been reviewed solely by a court or arbitral body outside the EU, which is not entitled to refer preliminary questions to the CJEU.[2]

Main findings of CJEU:

• • • Although international sports arbitration has a legitimate role, the guarantees provided under EU law must take precedence. In this regard, the CJEU followed its reasoning from the cases European Superleague Company (C-333/21) and International Skating Union v. Commission (C-124/21 P).[3]
    • CAS decisions that concern matters falling within the EU public order (i.e., the Fundamental Freedoms) must always be subject to effective judicial review by the national courts of EU Member States, to ensure compliance with EU public order.[4] This includes review from the perspective of EU competition law.
    • The seat of the arbitral tribunal (in this case, Switzerland) does not exclude the possibility of reviewing the arbitral award, provided that direct or indirect judicial oversight by the courts of EU Member States is available within the EU legal order.[5]
    • National laws of Member States that confer res judicata status on such CAS decisions without judicial review must be disapplied where this would contravene the right to an effective remedy under EU law.[6]

The CJEU judgment thereby provides a more precise delineation of the relationship between the autonomy of sports arbitral tribunals and the fundamental principles of the EU legal order.

The judgment establishes the following:

• • • Clubs, players, and intermediaries may challenge arbitral awards rendered by sports arbitral bodies before national courts where the public order of the EU is at stake, particularly where the dispute concerns sport as an economic activity within the EU.[7] This includes judicial review by national courts regarding EU competition law.
    • Sports organizations are under an obligation to amend their dispute resolution clauses in such a way as to ensure that access to effective judicial protection within the EU is not impeded.[8]
    • EU law may, where necessary, limit even mandatory systems of arbitration in the field of sport.[9]

The CJEU emphasized that arbitration must not serve as a means of circumventing or abusing the rules of the EU legal order, such as EU competition law. In such cases, access to judicial review therefore remains open.

[1] Contrast Law, ‘Arbitration: final destination or simple stopover?’ (Contrast Law, September 2025) <https://www.contrast.law/en/newsletters/in-the-picture/arbitration-final-destination-or-simple-stopover/> accessed 7 October 2025.

[2] White & Case, ‘Court of Justice of the European Union delivers ruling in Royal Football Club Seraing (C-600/23)’ (White & Case, 1 August 2025)  <https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/court-justice-european-union-delivers-ruling-royal-football-club-seraing-c-60023>, accessed 7 October 2025.

[3] Case C-600/23 Royal Football Club Seraing v Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) and Others [2025] ECLI:EU:C: 2025:617, [94]-[95], https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62023CJ0600.

[4] Case C-600/23 Royal Football Club Seraing v Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) and Others [2025] ECLI:EU:C: 2025:617, [91], [100], [108].

[5] Case C-600/23 Royal Football Club Seraing v Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) and Others [2025] ECLI:EU:C: 2025:617, [99]-[100].

[6] Case C-600/23 Royal Football Club Seraing v Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) and Others [2025] ECLI:EU:C: 2025:617, [120], [124].

[7] Case C-600/23 Royal Football Club Seraing v Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) and Others [2025] ECLI:EU:C: 2025:617, [91], [100], [108].

[8] Case C-600/23 Royal Football Club Seraing v Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) and Others [2025] ECLI:EU:C: 2025:617, [95], [99]-[100].

[9] Case C-600/23 Royal Football Club Seraing v Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) and Others [2025] ECLI:EU:C: 2025:617, [92], [95], [122].