The 14th Update
[March 2025]
After a thrilling and hectic few weeks/months, balancing intense litigation with a dynamic winter transfer window, we are excited to bring to you a quick roundup of some numbers in this edition. A huge thanks to our friends and clients for their trust in shaping key moves.
This edition will unpack certain recent and important updates, from Jannik Sinner’s anti-doping case to Luis Rubiales’ case before the CAS, not to mention the latest FIFA & CAS Annual Report, publication of FIFA’s discussion paper on Article 17, RSTP, and much more!
As always, we invite you to share your thoughts, feedback, and questions with us at [info@14sportslaw.com].
Happy reading!
Best,
Luis Cassiano Neves
Founding Partner, 14 Sports Law
Founding Partner Luis Cassiano Neves was in Miami, Florida on 27 & 28 February 2025, for the “FIFA Football Law Annual Review 2025” organised at the University of Miami, USA.
January culminated with a whirlwind of action for the team, and the numbers speak for themselves. We played a role in 57 transfers, including 48 permanent deals and 9 loan moves, spanning 50 clubs across 21 countries and 4 continents; this extends to deals worth over € 22 million in fees and contingent, marking an incredible winter window.
Hearing at the CJEU in the FFAR Case
On 12 February 2025, a hearing was conducted at the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) concerning the pending case (Case C-209/23) involving key provisions of the FIFA Football Agent Regulations (“FFAR”), such as the client pays principle, the service fee caps, prohibition of dual representation, amongst others.
Now, on 8 March 2025, the Advocate General shall provide an “Opinion” to the CJEU on the questions which form the bone of contention in this case. Albeit as a matter of record, the CJEU tends to usually follow the opinions delivered by the Advocate Generals, it is to be noted that such opinion is not binding in any sense, and is merely considered as a recommendation to the Court. The timing of the decision is not yet decided; however, the judgments are typically delivered within 3-4 months after the publication of the opinion.
The provisions of the FFAR suspended by virtue of FIFA Circular No. 1873 dated 30 December 2023, remain suspended at least until the judgment in this case, which can be expected to be delivered mid-2025. We shall continue to monitor all developments pertaining to the said case.
Selective Justice? WADA Tracks Back in its Appeal Before the CAS in Jannick Sinner’s Case
WADA has reached a “case resolution agreement” (“CRA”) with Italian tennis star Jannik Sinner, imposing an 85-day ban following his positive test for clostebol in March 2024. The sanction, which falls between the Australian Open and the clay season, marks an unusual shift from WADA’s initially aggressive stance, where it appealed a tribunal’s decision (first instance) that had absolved Sinner of fault. Despite recognizing that Sinner’s exposure was unintentional and did not enhance his performance, WADA pursued an appeal to CAS before opting for a settlement under Article 10.8.2 of the WADA Code. Under the terms of the agreement, Mr. Sinner will serve his period of ineligibility from 9 February 2025 to 11:59 pm on 4 May 2025 (which includes a credit for four days previously served by the athlete while he was under a provisional suspension).
The leniency in this case raises concerns about WADA’s selective approach in applying (and approving) CRAs. While Sinner benefitted from a swift resolution, many lower-profile athletes, often from nations with limited access to high-calibre legal teams, have faced harsher and more rigid penalties for similar offenses (or similar “exceptional circumstances” so to say). This inconsistency in WADA’s approach warrants scrutiny, particularly as it continues to shape the global anti-doping landscape. To know more about the background behind this case, we refer you back to Edition 6 of the 14th Update, wherein we had covered the analysis of this case at first instance, prior to the appeal that was preferred by WADA, to no avail due to the CRA now.
CAS Upholds FIFA’s Ban on Luis Rubiales
The CAS has dismissed Luis Rubiales’s appeal against his three-year ban from all football-related activities, confirming that FIFA’s sanction was not disproportionate. Rubiales, the former president of the Royal Spanish Football Federation (“RFEF”), was sanctioned after his controversial kissing scandal involving Spanish footballer Jennifer Hermoso during Spain’s Women’s World Cup victory celebrations. FIFA found his actions in violation of Article 13 of its Disciplinary Code, citing offensive behaviour and breaches of fair play principles. After the FIFA Disciplinary and Appeal Committees upheld the ban, Rubiales took his case to CAS. However, on 21 February 2025, the CAS panel confirmed that his conduct constituted multiple serious infringements and ruled that the original sanction should stand.
Premier League’s Former APT Rules Declared Void in Manchester City’s Arbitration
Manchester City has secured a significant legal victory against the Premier League as an arbitration tribunal ruled the league’s former Associated Party Transactions (“APT”) rules void and unenforceable. The decision, issued on 13 February 2025, found that three unlawful provisions were integral to the framework, rendering the entire system invalid. The now-defunct APT rules were designed to regulate sponsorship deals and financial transactions involving club-related entities, ensuring fair market value assessments. The APT rules were introduced following Newcastle United’s Saudi-led takeover to curb clubs from securing inflated sponsorships linked to their owners, circumventing financial regulations. When Manchester City’s deals with Etihad Airways and First Abu Dhabi Bank were blocked in 2023, the club legally challenged the rules, arguing they were unlawful. Now, the arbitration panel has concluded that these rules were legally flawed, potentially opening the door for legal claims from clubs affected by past enforcement measures.
While the ruling does not impact the revised APT rules introduced in November 2024, Manchester City has already launched a second arbitration challenge against the new framework. If this latest challenge succeeds, the Premier League’s entire financial regulatory structure could face significant overhaul, potentially allowing clubs to claim financial compensation for deals previously restricted under the old system.
Diarra’s Follow-Through – FIFA Publishes Discussion Paper on Article 17 and Related Provisions
In response to the Diarra judgment delivered by the CJEU in case C-650/22 on 4 October 2024, an Interim Framework along with Explanatory Notes were published by FIFA on 23 December 2024, by virtue of Circular No. 1917, enunciating upon the relevant amendments (temporary) in the FIFA RSTP (January 2025 Edition) as well as the Procedural Rules (January 2025 Edition). For a background of the changes brought about, please refer to the January 2025 edition of the 14th Update, wherein the same has been covered.
As a follow-through, it is imperative to note that FIFA has also published a Discussion Paper on Article 17 and other provisions of the FIFA RSTP directly impacted by the Diarra judgment, wherein solutions have been highlighted vis-à-vis problems identified in the Diarra judgment with respect to the conflicted regulations.
These solutions essentially align with the Interim measures as aforementioned – the discussion paper underscores the following: i) proposition to introduce clear and predictable set of rules which do not refer to any national law, in the interest of a homogeneous regulatory framework; ii) more concrete and codified definition of “just cause”; (iii) clear calculation criteria for compensation ascertainment, also codifying the positive interest principle as developed by long-standing and established precedent; iv) burden on the party requesting compensation to quantify and prove the damage suffered; v) removal of automatic application of joint and several liability and automatic presumption of inducement against the new club; vi) proposition to remove the possibility of a former MA refusing the issuance of an International Transfer Certificate (“ITC”); and (vi) maintaining the concepts of evidentiary requests and adverse inferences as introduced in the Interim framework.
Latest FIFA and CAS Annual Report (2024 Edition)
The CAS & Football Annual Report 2024 published by FIFA presents key trends in football-related arbitration at the CAS. Of the 916 cases registered across all sports, 657 (72%) were football-related, marking a decline from 82% in 2023. FIFA was involved in 139 CAS decisions, and with regards to cases involving FIFA on merits, the numbers show 74% upholding its rulings, 19% overturning them, and 7% deemed inadmissible. Appeals accounted for 70% of CAS proceedings, with 476 cases challenging decisions from FIFA and other football bodies. The average case duration in 2024 was 430 days.
New Tool Launched by FIFA – Change of Associations Platform
The FIFA Change of Association Platform tracks players who have successfully changed their “sporting nationality” by obtaining a decision via the FIFA Football Tribunal. It provides transparency on eligibility for international competitions, ensuring compliance for MAs, clubs, agents, and all stakeholders. Until a player's association change request is approved, they cannot represent their new national team.
WADA Releases Second Draft of 2027 Code: Major Revisions Introduced
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has unveiled the second draft of the 2027 Code, bringing significant changes that will redefine the handling of anti-doping cases.
One of the most notable updates is the expansion of the “Contaminated Source” definition, which now includes food, drinks, and even inadvertent physical contact as possible contamination routes. Additionally, a revamped sanctioning framework has been introduced, focusing on intent and recklessness in determining penalties.
Under the new structure, an athlete faces a four-year ban unless they can prove their use of a prohibited substance was unintentional, which is the similar starting point as the current code as well. If the use/violation is deemed reckless but not intentional, the sanction shall be reduced to three years, while a zero to two-year ban applies in cases where neither recklessness nor intent is established, based on the application of degree of fault doctrine, as developed through anti-doping jurisprudence over the years.
The new draft envisages better examples, expansion of definitions, improvements in NADO operational independence, recommendation that for national-level TUE appeals the appellate body include at least one physician with experience in the care and treatment of Athletes and a sound knowledge of clinical, sports and exercise medicine, and certain other changes. Certain considerations, especially concerning retroactive TUEs are still unresolved and under discussion.
Disclaimer: This Newsletter is the intellectual property of 14 Sports Law. Readers are strictly advised not to take any action based solely upon the information and analysis provided herein without seeking professional advice. The authors as well as 14 Sports Law explicitly disclaim any and all liability to anyone who has read this Newsletter, or otherwise, in respect of anything, and of consequences of anything done, or omitted to be done by any such person in reliance upon the contents herein. It is imperative that readers exercise caution and seek legal counsel before relying on the information presented in the Newsletter.