FIFA will no longer be able to openly publish data on sanctions against football agents
20:26, 21 July 2026
296
The football federation cannot disclose information about sanctions against agents, their clients, and transfers without restrictions.
Follow the latest news on SUD.UA social networks
The Court of the European Union concluded that FIFA cannot publish information without restrictions about sanctions imposed on football agents and their clients, as well as detailed information about all transfers involving agents. Such disclosure may conflict with the requirements of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). At the same time, the EU Court did not automatically declare FIFA’s rules illegal, leaving the final assessment of their compliance with EU law to the national court of Germany.
Case C-209/23 (RRC Sports) arose after two football agents appealed to a court in Germany demanding a ban on the application of several provisions of the International Federation of Football (FIFA) regulations governing the activities of football and coach agents.
The plaintiffs believe that certain FIFA rules violate European Union legislation, in particular the rules on competition protection, freedom to provide services, and personal data protection.
The German court referred a request to the Court of the European Union for interpretation of the relevant EU law provisions.
Which FIFA rules were challenged
The dispute concerned a number of requirements established by FIFA for football agents. In particular, the challenged provisions related to:
- the prohibition of simultaneously representing two or three parties during the transfer of a footballer or coach (player or coach, the receiving club, and the releasing club);
- setting a maximum agent fee calculated as a percentage of the transfer amount or the annual salary of the footballer or coach;
- conditions for obtaining and maintaining a FIFA license;
- rules for establishing contacts with potential clients;
- the obligation to transmit certain information to FIFA, other agents, clubs, leagues, footballers, and coaches.
What the EU Court said about competition
The EU Court emphasized that the national court must ultimately determine whether the disputed FIFA rules violate the cartel prohibition or whether they can be justified.
At the same time, the Court noted that indications of competition law violations may include a provision prohibiting an agent from contacting or concluding a contract with a client who already has a valid exclusive contract with another agent, except for two months before the expiration of such contract.
According to the Court, such a prohibition does not apply to an agent who already represents this client, as they can freely review the terms of the current contract or conclude a new one. This potentially creates an unjustified competitive advantage for them.
Can FIFA abuse a dominant position
The EU Court stated that FIFA can be considered an entity holding a dominant position:
- in the market for football agent services related to international transfers of footballers and coaches;
- in the employment market for footballers and coaches.
Such a position, according to the Court, results from FIFA’s regulatory, supervisory, and disciplinary powers.
However, the final decision on whether the disputed rules constitute an abuse of a dominant position must also be made by the German court, taking into account the criteria defined by the EU Court.
What the Court said about freedom to provide services
The EU Court also analyzed whether certain FIFA requirements may restrict the freedom to provide services within the European Union.
Potential restrictions may include:
- rules regarding representation of multiple parties in one agreement;
- requirements for obtaining an agent license, including dependence of its issuance on the absence of certain criminal or disciplinary sanctions;
- rules on establishing contacts with potential clients.
In addition, the Court noted provisions under which an agent must agree to the application of FIFA rules, and in unresolved matters — Swiss law, as well as the jurisdiction of FIFA, its national federations, and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
Such requirements may be considered a restriction on the freedom to provide services only if they actually deter agents from working in other EU member states.
At the same time, the Court noted that such restrictions may be justified if they pursue a legitimate public interest, including:
- prevention of conflicts of interest;
- establishment of minimum ethical standards;
- protection of footballers and coaches, especially at the beginning of their careers, from possible abuses;
- enhancement of protection for agents’ clients and the agents themselves through a unified regulatory system;
- ensuring the integrity of the transfer system and sporting competitions.
Whether such restrictions are justified in a specific case must be assessed by the German court.
What the EU Court decided regarding GDPR
The EU Court separately analyzed the issue of personal data protection.
The Court recalled that GDPR applies exclusively to the processing of personal data of natural persons.
The national court must verify whether the processing of personal data that agents are obliged to transmit to FIFA is necessary for the federation’s legitimate interests and whether in this case the rights and freedoms of the persons concerned do not prevail.
At the same time, the EU Court made an important conclusion: GDPR prevents a federation such as FIFA from disclosing and publishing all sanctions imposed on football agents or their clients, as well as detailed information about all transfer operations involving agents.
Popular news
DNA confirmed the paternity of the deceased serviceman, but his mother disagreed with the court’s decision: what the appeal decided
Military serviceman died of a heart attack — The Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center blocked access to 15 million UAH, but the court sided with the family
Persons who confidentially cooperated with intelligence and the SBU may receive combatant status
Mobilization is not “irreversible” if a man was drafted despite an active deferment — court decision
Mandatory share in inheritance prevails over the will: The Supreme Court recognized inheritance certificates as invalid
The Pension Fund will not be able to demand documents for a pension if the information is in state registers – law
Read also
Fines up to 85 thousand hryvnias: how illegal apartment rentals are punished
How Much Money Is Needed for a Comfortable Life Abroad: Ukrainians Named Real Amounts
Significant Compensation May Be Paid to Military Personnel for Unused Leave: Who It Concerns
Fine for faulty brake lights: when a driver can be punished and whether it is allowed to continue driving
The investigation is still ongoing: can this be a reason not to consider the deceased soldier’s family’s claim for 15 million UAH
