header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
07 November 2025 / Dr Estelle Ivanova
Issue: 8138 / Categories: Features , Profession , Sports law , Arbitration , International , EU , Competition , Public
printer mail-detail

RFC Seraing v FIFA: Final score?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
235029
The whistle has blown on RFC Seraing v FIFA, in which sports arbitration was pitted against EU competition law: Dr Estelle Ivanova explains the result at full time
  • In RFC Seraing v FIFA, the Belgian football club challenged sanctions imposed by FIFA in relation to third-party ownership rules, arguing that the rules are incompatible with EU law.
  • The Court of Justice of the European Union held that Court of Arbitration for Sport awards are legally binding, and that they may indeed be reviewed by EU member state courts, but only where such awards relate to matters of EU public policy.
  • The judgment was unequivocal: the full effectiveness of EU law takes precedence, even over the cherished doctrines of res judicata and procedural autonomy.

The long-awaited judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the case of RFC Seraing v FIFA (Case C-600/23) was handed down on 1 August 2025. The case posed the delicate question: to what extent can arbitral awards rendered by the Court

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: No such thing as a ‘Welsh seat’
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
NLJ this week: Jury reform risks justice for efficiency’s sake
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
NLJ this week: Crypto fightback offers ‘new frontier for law’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
NLJ this week: Time to revive the duty to report crime?
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
NLJ this week: When are experts truly ‘necessary’?
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll