Sports law – litigation and regulation are on the rise

Football continues to serve as one of the most prominent areas for high-stakes litigation.

FIFPRO v FIFA

In 2024, a coalition of players’ unions, including FIFPRO Europe and national associations from the UK and France filed a lawsuit before the Belgian courts against FIFA with the intention of having the case referred to the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”).

They allege that the organisation’s decision to expand the Club World Cup and unilaterally dictate the football calendar infringes upon players’ fundamental rights, such as their entitlement to annual paid leave and protections against excessive workload.

Simultaneously, a formal complaint was lodged with the European Commission, alleging abuse of dominant position by FIFA for bypassing key stakeholders in its decision-making.

FIFA has defended its position stating that the expanded Club World Cup is essential for the global growth and commercial sustainability of football. It argues that the international match calendar is developed following extensive consultation with stakeholders and complies with applicable employment and competition laws, maintaining that player welfare remains paramount in its decision making.

The case touches aspects of both competition and employment law and its outcome could set a significant precedent for how scheduling and consultation are legally handled across professional sport.

FIFA v BZ

Player transfer regulations were in the spotlight after former player Lassana Diarra brought proceedings against FIFA after he found that FIFA’s transfer rules prevented him from changing clubs after his contract with Lokomotiv Moscow was terminated following a dispute over unpaid wages in 2015.

The case was brought before the Belgian courts, which referred it to the ECJ.

In a landmark ruling issued in October 2024, the ECJ found that FIFA’s rules – which imposed financial penalties and restricted players from joining new clubs following contract termination - violated key EU principles, including freedom of movement and competition law.

The judgment led to FIFA amending its transfer regulations in December 2024 to bring them into compliance.

Barcelona v La Liga

FC Barcelona has recently been involved in proceedings following La Liga’s initial refusal to register two of its players for non-compliance with financial fair play regulations (“FFP”). The case is centered on conflicting assessments of projected income used by the club to justify its player salary budget.

Three independent audit firms reviewed the club’s financial accounts. Two of them declined to validate certain projected incomes as “reasonably expected”. La Liga expressed concern that these unverified figures might have been used to inflate artificially the club’s allowable spending under the 1:1 income-to-expenditure ratio applied by the FFP rules.

Despite La Liga's initial assessment, the Spanish sports authorities reversed that decision and allowed the players to be registered. However, the decision was based on technical legal grounds rather than FC Barcelona’s financial position.

The decision, made by Spain’s National Sports Council, was based on procedural grounds – specifically, that the joint Spanish football federation and La Liga committee which imposed the registration restrictions was not authorised to make such decisions and did not follow the appropriate procedures within the relevant regulations.  

The case has a number of legal ramifications, as La Liga has expressed its willingness to take action against the only auditing company that validated FC Barcelona’s revenues and to appeal the decision of the sporting authorities.

LA Liga v Cloudfare

La Liga has been undertaking sustained efforts to combat illegal streaming of football matches, seeking to protect the commercial interests of rights holders and licensed broadcasters. A recent ruling by Barcelona’s 6th Commercial Court (1005/2024-H) granted La Liga authority to implement a dynamic IP blocking system targeting pirated content.

However, the decision has seen significant opposition from certain internet service stakeholders, particularly Content Delivery Networks (“CDNs”). In response to the enforcement of these measures, several parties filed applications to annul the ruling. Their primary concern was that the blocking of entire IP addresses, without more precise filtering parameters, could inadvertently restrict access to legitimate content hosted on those same IPs.

Despite criticism regarding the proportionality of the measure, its compatibility with net neutrality principles and potential interference with fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, the courts have upheld the system twice: first in the initial ruling, and again in response to a challenge brought by Cloudflare, a US company that provides CDNs and other services.

Cloudflare has subsequently filed an appeal with the Spanish Constitutional Court, on the basis that La Liga’s blocking measures are disproportionate. Cloudflare argues that La Liga’s blocks should be an option of last resort and should never be applied to technologies such as DNS or VPN services.

 Cloudflare also suggests that parties affected by improper blocking should be compensated and that rights holders and service providers should work together to combat piracy, rather than blocking being implemented at the network level.

La Liga’s blocking measures are the subject of increasing controversy and political debate. The decision of the Constitutional Court will be eagerly awaited by the rights holders and service providers alike.

PTPA v ATP

The spotlight has also recently turned to professional Tennis. In March 2025, the Professional Tennis Players Association (“PTPA”), supported by elite players including Novak Djokovic, has launched coordinated legal action across multiple jurisdictions in the US, UK, and EU.

The PTPA’s filings allege that tennis’s governing bodies - the ATP, WTA, ITF, and ITIA - have operated as a “cartel” engaging in anti-competitive behaviour, overburdening players with excessive scheduling, and consistently excluding them from critical decisions affecting their earnings, health, and professional calendars.

The claim highlights a growing trend of players seeking more control over their sporting schedule, citing health concerns similar to those raised in the FIFPRO claim. However, the PTPA case also seeks greater commercial autonomy for tennis players.

Tennis’s governing bodies have strongly denied the allegations, with the ATP calling the lawsuit “entirely without merit”.

Players v World Rugby

Significant litigation is unfolding in the UK in relation to Rugby, where over 300 former professionals are suing World Rugby, the Rugby Football Union, and the Welsh Rugby Union in the UK in relation to allegations that head injuries sustained whilst playing the sport have led to neurodegenerative disorders (also known as the ‘Concussion Litigation’).

Former players, many of whom have been diagnosed with various medical conditions including early-onset dementia and chronic traumatic encephalopathy allege that the governing bodies failed to take reasonable steps to protect them from repeated head injuries.

They claim that medical evidence about the long-term impact of concussions was ignored and that governing bodies allowed excessive match loads and insufficient recovery time, particularly at the professional level.

The case represents one of the most serious player welfare challenges faced by a governing body to date and has opened wider discussions about duty of care, informed consent, and liability in contact sports.

The proceedings are currently ongoing.

The litigation landscape of sport across the UK and Europe is changing rapidly. Athletes, unions, and governing bodies are increasingly turning to the courts to define the rules of engagement in areas previously governed by internal processes or informal negotiation. From landmark challenges to international match calendars and transfer systems, to claims around player health, anti-competitive conduct, and financial governance, sports-related litigation is no longer niche—it is becoming a central part of how modern sport is structured and regulated.

The cases discussed above show a clear trend: legal scrutiny is intensifying as the commercial value of sport continues to balloon, resulting in an increasing number of legal challenges against sports’ governing bodies.

As commercial pressures mount and player welfare moves further up the agenda, litigation risk in sport will continue to rise, particularly where regulatory frameworks lag behind evolving legal and social standards. Stakeholders must now view legal strategy not merely as a reactive measure to emerging issues, but as an active, integral part of shaping and sustaining success in the business of sport.