The 14th Update | November'25
November 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 ed. 16 of the 14th Update, where we unpack some of the most compelling updates from November 2025, including noteworthy updates for agents and key regulatory updates across 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
António Sousa Cardoso has officially started his traineeship required under the Portuguese Bar with 14 Sports Law, under the guidance of Luis Cassiano Neves, at the Porto office.
Luís Cassiano Neves was back at his alma mater, Lisbon University, to discuss agent regulations and players transfers with 1st and 2nd year law students.
FFAR Final Verdict on Hold: Business as Usual for the Upcoming Winter Window
The Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) won’t be handing down its long-awaited decision in the FIFA Football Agent Regulations (“FFAR”) case before the end of 2025. According to the CJEU’s official calendar, no judgment is scheduled for December 2025.
Advocate General Emiliou delivered his opinions in RCC Sports v FIFA (C-209/23) and ROGON v German Football Association (C-428/23) on 15 May 2025, following which the verdicts were expected in late 2025 (and now in early 2026, although there is no clarity as to the precise timeline).
The Advocate General, in the said opinions (non-binding in nature) had rejected a blanket condemnation of the FFAR and had considered that the FFAR are not restrictive by object, meaning they are not inherently anti-competitive. Further, if they are found to be restrictive by effect (a factual assessment) they may still be justified under the Meca-Medina framework.
Ultimately, the opinions in RRC Sports and ROGON do not close the door on FIFA’s ability to justify the contested FFAR provisions. But equally, they stop short of endorsing them, leaving FIFA with the burden of proof to demonstrate compliance with EU legal standards.
For now, the status quo means that FIFA can breathe easy, and so can the market. With no fresh legal disruption expected, the 2026 winter transfer window should proceed under the current framework. In other words: for agents, it’s business as usual (at least for a little while longer).
CAS to FIFA: You Went Too (F)Far – Agent Suspension Overturned
In CAS 2025/A/11173 Tullio Tinti v. FIFA, the CAS ruled that FIFA overstepped its authority by suspending Italian agent Tullio Tinti’s licence earlier this year. CAS found that the FIFA General Secretariat lacked the regulatory power to impose what became, in effect, a permanent ban. FIFA had suspended Tinti in January 2025 over a 2012 FIGC sanction, long served and settled. While FIFA claimed that Article 5 of the FFAR rendered him ineligible, CAS held that only the FIFA Disciplinary Committee could issue such a definitive ruling; and that body’s powers remain on hold following the temporary suspension of Article 21 FFAR.
The Agent’s license was accordingly re-instated. This award reinforces that FFAR enforcement must respect due process and competent authority, and that any measure that prevents an agent from working amounts to a disciplinary action and must face strict judicial scrutiny. As the football-agent framework continues to evolve, the ruling serves as a timely reminder of the delicate balance between regulatory oversight and the protection of agents’ professional rights worldwide.
CJEU to Test the Limits of Publishing Doping Sanctions
The European Court of Justic is set to decide whether publishing the names of athletes sanctioned for doping breaches the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). The case stems from Austria, where four athletes challenged the planned online publication of their suspensions by the Austrian Anti-Doping Agency (“NADA”).
In his opinion, Advocate General Spielmann confirmed that anti-doping activity falls within the scope of EU law and must comply with the GDPR. He emphasised that national anti-doping bodies must weigh public transparency against proportionality and data protection, assessing each case individually. If the CJEU follows this reasoning, the ruling could reshape how sports bodies across Europe publish disciplinary sanctions, potentially limiting automatic disclosure of athletes’ personal details in the name of privacy.
Fake Papers, Real Consequences: FIFA Sanctions Malaysia FA and Players
On 3 November 2025, FIFA’s Appeal Committee has upheld all sanctions issued against the Football Association of Malaysia (“FAM”) and seven players for submitting forged or falsified documents related to their eligibility to represent Malaysia. FIFA found that documents provided to justify the players’ Malaysian heritage contained major inconsistencies and signs of falsification, violating Article 22 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code (forgery and falsification).
FAM was handed fine of CHF 350,000 while the seven players (Arrocha, Garcés, Holgado, Machuca, Figueiredo, Irazábal, Hevel) were handed a 12-month ban from all football activities worldwide and fines of CHF 2,000 fine each. The case has triggered a national controversy in Malaysia, not to mention that it underscores a zero-tolerance stance on document manipulation, especially in cases involving nationality, eligibility and player registration.
Russian Athletes in Limbo Ahead of Milano-Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics
CAS has issued two notable rulings shaping the participation of Russian athletes in the lead-up to the Milano–Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics, underscoring the legal complexity of sport’s ongoing response to the war in Ukraine. In the first case, brought by the Russian Luge Federation (“RLF”) and six athletes against the International Luge Federation (“FIL”), CAS held that a blanket suspension of Russian athletes was disproportionate, yet upheld the exclusion of the RLF itself from FIL competitions. Crucially, the decision allows individual Russian athletes meeting the “neutral status” criteria to compete.
In contrast, CAS dismissed the appeal of speed skater Daria Kachanova against the International Skating Union (“ISU”) after confirming her affiliation with CSKA Moscow, a club under the Russian Ministry of Defence. Similar appeals from the Russian Ski Association remain pending before CAS. Together, the rulings reveal a case-by-case approach, permitting limited neutrality while maintaining safeguards against institutional or state-linked participation, as the Olympic movement continues to navigate a delicate geopolitical landscape.
FIBA Reinstates British Basketball Federation
The International Basketball Federation (“FIBA”) has lifted its temporary suspension on the British Basketball Federation (BBF), clearing the way for Great Britain’s participation in the FIBA Basketball World Cup 2027 European Qualifiers, which tip off on 27 November 2025.
However, the BBF’s authority to license and oversee domestic men’s competitions remains suspended. In the interim, FIBA has signed a direct recognition agreement with Super League Basketball (“SLB”), the collective of nine top-tier clubs that had opposed BBF’s earlier move to grant a 15-year league licence to GBB League Ltd. The dispute centred on allegations of governance lapses and anti-competitive conduct, prompting FIBA’s intervention in October 2025 and the creation of a dedicated task force to review regulatory compliance within British basketball. While international participation resumes, domestic oversight remains under scrutiny.
IOC Moves Towards Global Ban on Transgender Women in Female Categories
The International Olympic Committee (“IOC”) is reportedly moving toward a comprehensive ban on transgender women competing in female categories, marking a major shift in its long-standing stance of leaving gender policy to individual sports federations. The future eligibility of athletes with differences in sexual development (“DSD”) remains unclear.
The development follows the IOC’s “Fit For The Future” review, led by President Kirsty Coventry, and updates shared last week by Dr. Jane Thornton, IOC Director of Health, Medicine and Science. Early findings from the Committee’s scientific review indicate that athletes assigned male at birth may retain physiological advantages even after testosterone suppression. While no formal and final decision has yet been made, sources suggest that the ban (if adopted) would take effect after the Milano–Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics, likely ahead of the Los Angeles 2028 Games. The move has sparked intense debate across the sporting world, with critics warning it could redefine the balance between inclusion, science, and fairness in elite competition.
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.