header-logo header-logo

07 November 2025
Issue: 8138 / Categories: Legal News , Sports law , Arbitration , International , Profession , EU , Competition , Public
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: EU law trumps sports arbitration

235029
RFC Seraing v FIFA, in which the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) reaffirmed that awards by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) may be reviewed by EU courts on public-policy grounds, is under examination in this week's NLJ by Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law, Zurich

The case stemmed from FIFA’s ban on third-party ownership of players’ rights, challenged as anti-competitive.

Ivanova notes that the judgment upholds CAS efficiency while asserting EU law’s supremacy—competition law being central to EU public policy. Crucially, if an arbitral award has not been subject to judicial review within an EU jurisdiction, it cannot claim finality (res judicata) when EU principles are engaged.

The decision, Ivanova writes, integrates sports arbitration into the EU legal order, ensuring fundamental rights prevail even over arbitral autonomy.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll