From the Bench: Challenging FIFA’s agent rules

On 15 May 2025, Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered two highly anticipated non-binding opinions in the cases RRC Sports v FIFA (C‑209/23) and ROGON v DFB (C‑428/23). Both proceedings raise fundamental questions about the legality of the FIFA Football Agent Regulations (FFAR) in terms of EU competition and internal market law.

The Advocate General’s conclusions could reshape how sports governing bodies regulate agent activity in Europe, and serve as a warning that sports rules are not exempt from EU law simply because they are labelled as “sporting”.

The cases in brief

RRC Sports v FIFA: This case was brought by German agency RRC Sports, challenging FIFA’s new Football Agent Regulations on several grounds, mainly: (i) Commission caps on agent earnings (max. 3–6%); (ii) Mandatory licensing; (iii) Exclusive representation limits; (iv) Obligatory use of the FIFA Clearing House, and (v) Data disclosure rules that may violate the GDPR.

RRC Sports argued that these rules distort the market for agency services and restrict their ability to compete freely under Articles 101 and 56 of the TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). These challenges reflect a broader concern within the agency industry that the FIFA Football Agent Regulations disproportionately affect independent operators while reinforcing FIFA’s regulatory dominance.

ROGON v DFB: In this parallel case, ROGON Sportmanagement GmbH and another agency challenged the German Football Association (DFB) for implementing the FFAR at national level through the “RfSV” regulations. The plaintiffs claim the DFB rules: (i) Replicate FIFA’s fee caps; (ii) Violate EU rules on the freedom to provide services, and (iii) Impose unjustified restrictions on upstream agent activity.

The Advocate General’s Opinion: A Three-Part Framework

Advocate General Emiliou used both cases to set out a consistent EU legal framework for assessing sports rules:

Firstly, a sporting exception applies narrowly. The so-called “sporting exception” (where EU law doesn’t apply) is limited. If a rule has significant economic effects, EU competition and internal market law applies. Labelling a rule as “sporting” is not enough to escape scrutiny.

“Where a rule produces significant economic effects, it cannot be immune from the application of EU law simply because it is adopted by a sports body,” Emiliou said.

Secondly, the Meca‑Medina Test is central. Emiliou reaffirmed the Meca‑Medina test (C‑519/04 P), requiring that: each rule pursues a legitimate sporting objective; It is inherently necessary; and It is proportionate (i.e. no less-restrictive alternative exists).

The test applies to each contested provision individually, not just the framework as a whole. This granular approach places a heavy evidential burden on FIFA and the DFB to prove that each rule within the FFAR is legally sound.

Thirdly, FIFA and the DFB must justify every restriction.

FIFA and DFB must demonstrate:

• (a) Why caps, licensing, or exclusivity rules are necessary for the integrity of football;
• (b) Why alternative models (e.g. self-regulation or national flexibility) would not work;
• (c) And how such restrictions are balanced against the agents’ rights to provide services and earn fees.

Emiliou argued that failure to justify each element could trigger a breach of Article 101(1) (anti-competitive conduct) unless saved by Article 101(3) (pro-competitive justification).

The Implications of the Opinion for football regulation

Stronger oversight of sports governance: This opinion limits the power of FIFA and national associations to impose blanket rules on agents without rigorous economic and legal justifications. Regulatory bodies must ensure that their rules are individually reviewed for compliance with EU law standards.

Agent rights strengthened: Agents may now have stronger legal grounds to challenge fee caps, exclusivity rules, or licensing barriers under EU law. The ruling reinforces that agents are independent service providers within the EU single market, entitled to fair access and free competition.

The future of the FIFA agent framework

If the CJEU follows Emiliou’s reasoning, parts of the FFAR might be invalidated or require substantial revisions. FIFA could be forced to rethink the way it balances global uniformity with EU-specific legal obligations.

This is not the final judgment—but the Advocate General’s opinions are highly persuasive. The final decision of the court will set a precedent for sports governance, competition law, and agent rights across Europe.

The main takeaway is that sport bodies can regulate, but not without limits. In the EU legal order, rules affecting the economy must comply with EU law, even when made in the name of the game.

The judgment of the European Court of Justice CJEU is usually expected within six to nine months of the AG’s opinion. The ruling could appear between late 2025 and early 2026. Until then several key provisions of the FIFA Football Agent Regulations (FFAR) are currently suspended worldwide, pending a final decision by the CJEU.

FIFA implemented the suspension following a preliminary injunction issued by the District Court of Dortmund in Germany on May 24, 2023.

Clive Gerada, LL.D., MA in Football Business, is an associate at AB&A Advocates