The 14th Update
August 2025
Welcome back to the 14th Update, a Newsletter curated by 14 Sports Law, where the world of sports law unfolds with the rhythm of a well-struck penalty kick.
We’re delighted to bring you the 14th edition of the 14th Update, unpacking some of the most compelling case-law updates from July-August, including the CJEU’s landmark ruling in the Seraing case, ECtHR’s final decision in Semenya, notable decisions from the CAS, and key regulatory updates from the world of sports.
Our mission remains unwavering: to decode the complexities of sports law and present them to you in an engaging format. 14th Update is your passport to the latest developments in the arena of sports law, business, and technology.
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
The Summer 2025 transfer window is in full swing, and the 14 Sports Law team is already breaking personal records, having advised on almost […] deals already, with almost a month still to go at the time of writing. Here’s a quick look at some of the high-profile moves we’ve had the privilege of being involved in:
Darwin Núñez from Liverpool to Al-Hilal
Luis Suárez from UD Almería to Sporting CP
Marc Pubill from UD Almería to Atlético Madrid
Ricardo Mangas from Spartak Moscow to Sporting CP
Enzo Barrenechea from Aston Villa to Benfica
Franjo Ivanovic from Union Saint-Gilloise to Benfica
Ruben Kluveirt from Casa Pia to Lyon
… and many more! We’ll share a full breakdown and report of the staggering number of deals we’ve advised on in our upcoming edition (stay tuned!)
CJEU Reshapes Legal Boundaries of Sports Arbitration in RFC Seraing Ruling
On 1 August 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) delivered a landmark judgment in RFC Seraing v. FIFA, UEFA & URBSFA (Case C-600/23), fundamentally altering the relationship between the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) and EU National Courts. The CJEU held that when arbitration is unilaterally imposed by sports governing bodies (such as FIFA), CAS awards must remain open to judicial review within EU Member States to ensure compliance with EU law and public policy.
By way of quick background, let us note that the dispute traces back to sanctions imposed on the Belgian club RFC Seraing by FIFA for breaching its regulations on third-party ownership through financing agreements with Doyen Sports Investments. CAS upheld FIFA’s decision in 2017, and the Swiss Federal Tribunal (“SFT”) confirmed it, rendering the award final and binding under Swiss law. However, when the jurisdiction of Belgian Courts was invoked, they declined to revisit the case, citing res judicata. Subsequently, the Belgian Court of Cassation referred the matter to the CJEU, questioning whether res judicata effect was compatible with EU law. Now, the CJEU has ruled that arbitration clauses imposed by sports federations cannot absolutely bar national courts from scrutinizing CAS awards. National courts must be granted judicial review powers, if the CAS/SFT awards in question conflict with EU freedoms (such as movement of workers) or competition law (Articles 101 and 102 TFEU), and must have the power to grant interim relief, damages, and injunctions, and potentially the invalidation of the awards. All in all, the CJEU further rejected any system granting unconditional res judicata effect to CAS decisions without prior judicial review by an EU Court capable of making preliminary references to the CJEU.
The decision aligns with the recent landmark precedents in European Super League and International Skating Union, reaffirming that while sports arbitration promotes uniformity, efficiency, and integrity in competitions, it cannot override the right to effective judicial protection under EU law. Moreover, the Court noted that arbitration in this context is not truly voluntary, inasmuch as acceptance is a precondition for participation in organised sport. This ruling may drive a wave of challenges to CAS awards in national courts, potentially compel sports bodies to revise their arbitration frameworks, and narrow the scope of “final and binding” provisions. One potential ramification (already being considered) could be the CAS changing its seat of arbitrations from Switzerland to an EU Member State.
Caster Semenya’s Partial Victory at ECtHR
On 10 July 2025, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) delivered its final judgment in Semenya v. Switzerland, ruling that Switzerland violated Caster Semenya’s right to a fair hearing under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). The ECtHR found that the SFT failed to carry out the required “particularly rigorous” review, deemed to be a necessary condition when examining appeals against CAS awards involving fundamental rights. The ECtHR underscored that the compulsory nature of CAS arbitration, coupled with the structural imbalance inherent in the sports governance framework, demands heightened safeguards to protect the rights of individuals challenging such awards.
Semenya had challenged the World Athletics Eligibility Regulations for the Female Classification (Athletes with Differences of Sex Development) (2018 Edition) (“DSD Regulations”), which require certain female athletes with naturally high testosterone levels to undergo medical treatment to reduce these levels to a defined limit for competing in specific events. CAS upheld the rules in 2019, calling them discriminatory yet proportionate, and the SFT later dismissed Semenya’s appeal in 2020, applying only a narrow public policy review under Article 190(2)(e) of the Swiss Private International Law Act. Subsequently, in July 2023, the ECtHR’s Chamber had found Switzerland in breach of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), Article 8 (right to respect for private life), and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the ECHR, prompting Switzerland to appeal the decision to the Grand Chamber in October 2023.
The recent 2025 judgment by the Grand Chamber marked a departure from the ECtHR’s earlier 2023 Chamber judgment, insofar as the discrimination and privacy claims were dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. As a result, the ECtHR basically avoided ruling directly on the legality of the DSD Regulations themselves. To wit, in the 2023 decision, the Chamber had determined that once a person brings a civil action in the courts or tribunals of a State, there exists a “jurisdictional link” between that person and the State, and that this is the case even if there is an extraterritorial aspect to the events which gave rise to the action. However, in the recent 2025 decision, the Grand Chamber held that Switzerland had no “control” over Semenya’s situation, given her South African nationality, residence outside Europe, and the fact that the contested DSD Regulations were adopted by Monaco-based World Athletics. This reasoning essentially overruled the 2023 Chamber’s broader jurisdictional approach and avoided ruling on the substantive discrimination issues, marking a shift from a substantive to a procedurally focused outcome. All in all, the recent decision offers procedural vindication and a possible reopening of Semenya’s challenge in Switzerland, though the substantive battle over DSD regulations remains unresolved.
CAS Bars FK DAC from UEFA Conference League over MCO Breach
On 14 July 2025, the CAS dismissed Slovak club FK DAC 1904’s appeal against a UEFA Club Financial Control Body (“CFCB”) ruling that excluded it from the 2025/26 UEFA Conference League. UEFA CFCB found that FK DAC and Hungary’s Győri ETO FC were under the common control and influence of EEA Holding B.V., with overlapping governance and key executives holding senior roles at both clubs, constituting a breach of Articles 5.01(b) and 5.01(c)(iv) of the UEFA Club Competitions Regulations on multi-club ownership.
DAC argued that UEFA CFCB’s decision was procedurally flawed, citing an arbitrary and retroactive change of the regulatory “assessment date” from 3 June to 1 March 2025, and denying that EEA’s structure enabled decisive influence. CAS rejected these claims, confirming that the change of the assessment date was in accordance with the procedures established by the UEFA Statutes, while also confirming that the shared management structure amounted to decisive influence and a clear violation of rules designed to protect competition integrity and prevent conflicts of interest. The grounds of the decision are not published yet.
Crystal Palace’s CAS Appeal Over Europa League Relegation Dismissed
On 21 July 2025, Crystal Palace lodged an appeal before the CAS against UEFA, Nottingham Forest, and Olympique Lyonnais (“OL”) challenging UEFA CFCB’s decision dated 14 July 2025 to relegate Crystal Palace from the Europa League to the Conference League for the 2025-2026 season. The sanction arose from UEFA CFCB’s finding that both Crystal Palace and OL breached its multi-club ownership rules, insofar as both are controlled by John Textor through Eagle Football Holdings.
The dispute began when OL successfully overturned a domestic financial sanction and secured its Europa League spot, while Palace, qualifying as FA Cup winners, was demoted to the Conference League under Articles 5.02–5.04 of the UEFA Club Competition Regulations. Crytal Palace’s appeal sought reinstatement to the Europa League and the exclusion of Nottingham Forest, or alternatively OL, from the competition. The CAS dealt with the matter on an expedited basis, and an operative award (without grounds) was rendered on 11 July 2025, dismissing the appeal and observing that the UEFA Regulations do not provide flexibility to clubs that are non-compliant on the assessment date. The grounds of the decision are not published yet.
Latest Edition of the FIFA Clearing House Regulations (August 2025 Edition)
Following the FIFA Council’s decision on 9 May 2025, the latest edition of the FIFA Clearing House Regulations (August 2025 Edition) has come into force as of 1 August 2025. Let’s take a look at what has changed from the January 2025 Edition. Amendments have been made to Article 15, which now embodies in paragraph 8 the use of the FIFA Clearing House Client Portal for all official communications between the Clearing House & Clubs/Member Associations. Paragraph 10 of Article 15 mentions that a party shall receive an accreditation upon completion of the compliance assessment, which shall be valid for a set period of time to be decided by the internal policies of the FIFA Clearing House, until a renewal is requested from the party. Further, definitions have been provided for “First Failure of the Compliance Assessment” and “Second Failure of the Compliance Assessment” and changes have been made to the content of Article 16, removing the transitionary measures provided earlier, along with the change in wording (essence being the same) of the provisions established therein. Furthermore, an addition has been made to paragraph 3 of Article 17, establishing a sanction of a fine for a Member Association for failure to provide contact information of its affiliated clubs.
Moreover, FIFA has also recently announced that as of July 2025, over 500 million USD has been allocated in training compensation, out of which 300 million USD has already been distributed to more than 7000 clubs worldwide. All in all, despite the ongoing challenges and disputes relating to the implementation of the FIFA Clearing House Regulations since 2022, FIFA seems to be making more efforts to foster training rewards and financial transparency.
UK’s Independent Football Regulator Becomes Law
The UK’s Football Governance Act received Royal Assent on 21 July 2025, formally creating the Independent Football Regulator (“IFR”) to license clubs across England’s top five tiers and oversee financial resilience and governance. The Act empowers the IFR to run a mandatory licensing regime, vet incumbent and prospective owners and directors, and crucially- use “backstop” powers to impose a binding settlement on revenue distribution if the Premier League and EFL cannot agree a deal. It can also prevent clubs from entering unapproved breakaway competitions (in the aftermath of the Super League controversy). Implementation begins later this year, with consultation on the IFR’s rules and licensing approach before it goes live.
Sanctions under the regime include significant fines for non-compliance (public briefings have long trailed penalties up to 10% of turnover) and the ability to block stadium relocations or sales without approval. Media executive David Kogan OBE is the government’s preferred chair and has already signalled that the backstop is a last resort, urging the leagues to strike a deal themselves. In essence, the IFR will not run competitions; its remit is financial sustainability, good governance, and safeguarding the pyramid.
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.
A woderful and insightful work summary.