FIFA, CAS Decisions Can Now Be Challenged By Tribunals Outside Switzerland, Rules EU Top Court
In a landmark ruling, the European Union's highest court determined on Friday that decisions made by FIFA, world football's governing body, can be contested in courts outside of Switzerland.
Why is this monumental?
Well, the decision significantly weakens the long-standing requirement that legal challenges against sports rulings must go through Swiss-based arbitration.
EU Courts Can Review CAS Rulings
The European Court of Justice (ECJ), based in Luxembourg, stated that courts within the 27 EU member states must have the authority to conduct a thorough review of arbitral decisions to ensure they align with European Union law.
'Tribunals in the 27 EU member states must be able to carry out an in-depth review of those awards for consistency with the fundamental rules of EU law," the ECJ said in an official statement.
This ruling effectively allows national courts within the EU to review and potentially overturn decisions made by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), the Lausanne-based tribunal that handles disputes in global sports.
According to the ECJ, the arbitration awards made by CAS cannot be immune to judicial scrutiny, especially where fundamental rights and public policy of the EU are concerned.
'The awards made by the CAS must be amenable to effective judicial review," the Court emphasized.
It added that 'national courts or tribunals must be empowered to carry out … an in-depth judicial review" to ensure these awards conform to 'EU public policy."
Neither FIFA nor CAS issued immediate responses following the ruling.
A Decade-Long Legal Battle
The decision stems from a case brought by Belgian football club RFC Seraing and Maltese investment firm Doyen Sports, who began their legal fight against FIFA in 2015.
The dispute centered on FIFA's ban on third-party ownership (TPO) of players' economic rights—an arrangement where external investors hold a stake in a player's financial value, often influencing transfer decisions.
RFC Seraing and Doyen challenged the rule in a Belgian commercial court, arguing that the prohibition on TPO violated EU competition law. However, FIFA's regulations required that any challenge to its rules be taken to CAS, where the ban was upheld.
The ECJ's ruling now potentially reopens the door for such challenges within national legal systems.
Impact on Switzerland-Based Sports Tribunals
CAS was established in 1984 by the International Olympic Committee to serve as a centralized venue for resolving sports-related disputes.
Based in Lausanne, it has traditionally held binding authority in cases involving FIFA, UEFA, and other major sporting organizations headquartered in Switzerland.
However, Friday's ruling marks the latest legal blow to the dominance of Swiss sports bodies within the EU.
It follows two other significant ECJ judgments that challenged FIFA and UEFA's control under EU competition law. One was the high-profile European Super League case, and the other involved French footballer Lassana Diarra, whose transfer dispute also questioned the legitimacy of FIFA regulations under EU law.
(with AP inputs)
News18 Sports brings you the latest updates, live commentary, and highlights from cricket, football, tennis, badmintion, wwe and more. Catch breaking news, live scores, and in-depth coverage. Also Download the News18 App to stay updated!
First Published:
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
13 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
‘Living in California, lecturing a billion Indians?': Billionaire shreds millionaire over tweet about India
In a recent tweet, Billionaire Harsh Goenka lashed out at Indian-origin Hotmail co-founder Sabeer Bhatia for his post about India. Goenka criticised Bhatia for 'lecturing Indians' while leaving the country and settling in California, USA. Billionaire Harsh Goenka criticised millionaire Sabeer Bhatia on X for his tweet about India. (File Photo) It all started with a post by Bhatia where he claimed that he was being branded as 'anti-national' for sharing posts that criticise India. 'Say India is unsafe for women - you're anti-national. Question inflated economic numbers - you're anti-national. Call out elected leaders' lies - you're anti-national. Mention lost aircraft - you're anti-national. So if truth = anti-national… then who's a national? The one who lies to you?' Harsh Goenka reshared the X post and slammed Bhatia for leaving the country. 'Living in California and lecturing a billion Indians back home? We live here. We vote, work, pay taxes. We love this country- and we'll fix what's broken. India doesn't need sermons from those who packed up and left,' Goenka tweeted. Harsh Goenka's tweet for Sabeer Bhatia. (X/@hvgoenka) How did social media react? The tweet prompted a flurry of mixed reactions. While some sided with Harsh Goenka, others supported Sabeer Bhatia. An individual commented, 'Excellent response... Sabeer is now heading into a dormant phase!' Another questioned, 'Don't we celebrate these same Indians with their achievements in the USA. We are so obsessed that we want to claim. Tulsi Gabbard or Sunita Williams, even. Why this selective outrage against one individual???' A third added, "At least he is supporting the truth.' A fourth wrote, 'Sabeer seems deeply frustrated because of something very personal, otherwise, there's no reason to be so overly emotional, exaggerate every word, and constantly speak ill of your own motherland.' Sabeer Bhatia's response to Harsh Goenka: After being criticised by the Indian billionaire, the US-based millionaire shared a response. He wrote, 'I've been hearing that sob story for more than 30 years now. It's only getting worse because we have fantastic lecturers and no doers. Lots of Chiefs and no Indians…' What is Harsh Goenka's net worth? According to Forbes, the chairman of conglomerate RPG Enterprises has a net worth of $3.8 billion. He ranked 76th on India's 100 Richest 2024 list. What is Sabeer Bhatia's net worth? Sabeer Bhatia is an Indian-American businessman who co-founded Hotmail, which he later sold to Microsoft for $400 million.
Mint
41 minutes ago
- Mint
Has the world entered the era of ‘slowbalisation'?
Under Trump 2.0, it appears that even the fig leaf of environment sensitivity has been dispensed with, and a robust and aggressive protectionist stance is the strong flavour of his Second Coming. In the EU, German and French industrial policies include huge subsidies and protectionist 'Buy European' clauses. India's 'Atmanirbhar Bharat Abhiyan' (self-reliance campaign) and 'Vocal for Local' programmes are illustrative of the rapidly changing global economic landscape. Inherent in this new phase is the risk of deglobalization. A December 2022 Goldman Sachs report, The Path to 2075: Slower Global Growth, But Convergence Remains Intact, covering 104 countries, underlines that two decades of emerging markets convergence has resulted in a more equal distribution of global incomes. But while income inequality between countries fell, income inequality within countries has risen. This poses a major challenge to the future of globalization. The Economist, on the other hand, argues that we have entered the 'slowbalisation' era: World trade rose from 39 per cent of the world GDP in 1990 to 61 per cent in 2008, and fell to 58 per cent by 2019, mostly because of a slowdown in trade from emerging markets. Cross-border investments and bank credit flows are down too…. Services are playing a growing role in global value chains. Trade flows based on labour-cost arbitrage are declining in some value chains. And global value chains are becoming more knowledge-intensive. The question posed by Marcos Troyjo, former president of the New Development Bank (NDB), in 2021 is still as relevant as it was four years ago—'With so much disconnect around the world, the question today is: will deglobalisation linger or are we walking into something else?' To this, we may add our own queries: What will be the defining characteristic of this different phase we are entering? Is globalization metamorphosing yet again? First, the purchasing power and relative economic clout of various nations are changing. As of end-2021, the combined GDP, measured in PPP terms, of the G7 was over 21 per cent less than that of the seven leading emerging economies, including China. This marks a historic and historical geo-economic shift with profound consequences for the wealth of nations and the well-being of their citizens. These consequences also relate to, as Adam Smith originally noted in his formulation of a comprehensive system of political economy, the fourth or final stage of commercial interdependence. One view is that emerging markets are increasing their commercial exchange with each other, and may offer a larger market for trade in the wake of creeping protectionism in OECD states. The second characteristic concerns how GVCs are being rerouted by the burgeoning presence of emerging economies. This phenomenon is much broader than global supply chains as consumption will also be impacted. Geopolitics is an important driving force in reconfiguring these new value chains. Equally, if not more, significant is the evolution of some of the world's most major economies. China, experts say, is no longer a low-cost country or a simple manufacturer of low-value-added goods; it has become one of the most important sources of FDI. It is leading the world in many state-of-the-art technologies, and accounts for an increasing share of high-technology embodied manufacturing products. As a result, some lower-value-added economic activity has migrated from China to neighbours such as Vietnam, Indonesia, Myanmar and Bangladesh, and a trickle to India. It is a phenomenon that is not new in history—in the 1970s and 1980s, the Asian Tigers displaced Japan as low-cost, low-wage manufacturers in the region. Simultaneously, international trade and investment agreements are influencing the rerouting of GVCs. A prominent example is the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) which was signed by 15 Asia-Pacific nations in November 2020. There is consensus among experts that in a trade system 'where the term 'international" applies to the exchange of goods even at an intra-firm level', it should come as no surprise that these trade agreements influence the flows of investment. The regional consolidation of trade in the post spaghetti-bowl era holds the danger of India being left out. Ambitious countries are also promoting domestic economic reforms that allow their economies to become more business-friendly, and open to FDI while being nimble about addressing core security concerns. A case in point is China, which announced in March 2024 that it would 'further shorten the negative list for foreign investment and implement pilot programs to ease access for global companies in the fields of scientific and technological innovation […] and broaden market access for foreign investment.' The PRC has also promised to remove restrictions on foreign participation in the manufacturing sector, and continues to increase its openness in hi-tech sectors such as telecommunications and healthcare. Its stated policy is that foreign financial entities will be granted greater access to the country's banking and insurance sectors, and the operational scope for foreign financial institutions will be expanded in China's domestic bond market as well. In parallel, the disarray in the WTO has been exemplified by the tariffs imposed on ally and adversary alike by Trump in 2025, which follow the unilateral imposition of higher tariffs on select commodity exports to China by the US in 2018, and the passing of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) by the EU in 2022. These measures are considered to be violative of the most favoured nation (MFN) principle of the organization. The US' virtual boycott of the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) has seriously dented the WTO's ability to oversee a rules-based multilateral trading order. The final issue impacting globalization is talent. In this context, talent means going beyond the economic theory of comparative advantage. 'Countries need to ask themselves: What can I do besides what I am already very good at?' This is also the basis of Michael Porter's compelling argument that it is 'competitive advantage' and not the traditional comparative advantage that drives world trade flows. Countries which build their competitive advantage through the accumulation of human talent, technology, and an ecosystem supportive of enterprise have outscored others which had a comparative advantage but could not convert it to their benefit. The striking contrast between Asian economies including China and their Latin American counterparts is ample proof of this phenomenon of the supremacy of competitive advantage. India will have to learn from this contrasting experience. Excerpted with permission from Rupa Books from Everything All At Once: India and the Six Simultaneous Global Transitions by Rajiv Kumar and Ishan Joshi.
Time of India
43 minutes ago
- Time of India
Second US appeals court open to blocking Trump's birthright citizenship order
Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills U.S. President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship appeared on Friday to be headed toward being declared unconstitutional by a second federal appeals court , as judges expressed deep skepticism about a key piece of his hardline immigration agenda.A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sharply questioned a lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice as to why they should overturn two lower-court judges who blocked the order from taking lower-court judges include one in Boston who last week reaffirmed his prior decision to block the order's enforcement nationally, even after the U.S. Supreme Court in June curbed the power of judges to broadly enjoin that and other San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week became the first federal appeals court to hold Trump's order is unconstitutional. Its ultimate fate will likely be determined by the U.S. Supreme Department attorney Eric McArthur said on Friday that the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the U.S. Civil War, rightly extended citizenship to the children of newly-freed enslaved Black people."It did not extend birthright citizenship as a matter of constitutional right to the children of aliens who are present in the country temporarily or unlawfully," he the judges questioned how that argument was consistent with the Supreme Court's 1898 ruling interpreting the clause in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood as guaranteeing American citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents."We have an opinion by the Supreme Court that we aren't free to disregard," said Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron, who like his two colleagues was appointed by a Democratic executive order, issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" court to consider the order's merits has declared it unconstitutional, including the three judges who halted the order's enforcement nationally. Those judges included U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston, who ruled in favor of 18 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, who had swiftly challenged Trump's policy in court."The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens," Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued on 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 sided with the administration in the litigation by restricting the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directing lower courts that had blocked Trump's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their the ruling contained exceptions, allowing federal judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and the 9th Circuit to issue new decisions stopping Trump's order from taking effect rulings on appeal to the 1st Circuit were issued by Sorokin and the New Hampshire judge, who originally issued a narrow injunction but more recently issued a new decision in a recently-filed class action blocking Trump's order nationwide.
