by Matteo Croce, PR Account Executive

The class action against FIFA is not just a sports dispute. It is an emblematic step in redefining the legitimacy of private regulatory authorities in markets of high economic importance.

To view it exclusively as a compensation dispute would be to diminish its significance. In reality, the case offers a broader interpretation: how the limits of private self-regulation are evolving when economic power, labour mobility and fundamental rights come into conflict.

The class action brought in the Netherlands by the Justice for Players foundation, potentially extending to tens of thousands of footballers active in the European Union and the United Kingdom since 2002, stems from the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Diarra case. This decision marked a turning point in the relationship between Lex Sportiva and EU law.

The CJEU ruled that certain FIFA regulations on contract termination and international transfers violate fundamental principles of European law, in particular the free movement of workers and competition rules. It was not a single provision that was called into question, but a regulatory framework based on:

• broad and discretionary criteria for determining compensation;
• automatic liability of clubs that sign a player;
• sporting sanctions and ITC blocking as enforcement tools.

For over twenty years, the transfer system has operated as a vertically integrated regime, supported by FIFA’s regulatory autonomy. 2025 marks a turning point: that model is being brought back within the limits of European public law.

But even before it is legal, the break is reputational. A system that has functioned for years as a self-sufficient regulatory architecture is now subject to public scrutiny that questions its proportionality, balance and concentration of power.

The regulator’s response, through an Interim Regulatory Framework that redefines the notion of just cause, eliminates the automatic liability of new clubs and imposes certain timelines for the release of ITCs, confirms that this is not a marginal adjustment, but a recalibration of the regulatory architecture.

In this context, class action should not be seen solely as a means of compensation. Its main function is to rebalance not only the regulatory system but also the relationship of trust between the regulator and the regulated.

The very structure of the action demonstrates this. The initiative is supported by nine national unions and could reach between 25,000 and 35,000 players and former players, with estimates suggesting a potential value of up to €100 million.

In a sector where over 45% of footballers earn less than $1,000 per month, the issue concerns not only the elite of international football, but a large group of workers whose bargaining power has historically been limited.

Another important factor is the role of litigation funding: the financier will be entitled to up to 25% of any compensation awarded. This figure is a sign of the maturity of European collective litigation. Without an adequate financial infrastructure, actions on this scale would be difficult to sustain.

In regulated markets, however, private autonomy is based on intangible capital: trust. When this is called into question on a collective and transnational scale, the impact goes beyond the economic risk of litigation and affects the credibility of the entire governance model.

Class actions therefore act as a lever for indirect governance. By demanding compensation for past damage, they help to redefine the future limits of FIFA’s regulatory autonomy and the relationship between private regulation and fundamental rights.

The consequences are already visible in the market: greater attention to liquidated damages clauses, reduced deterrent power of sporting sanctions, pressure on the economic models of clubs traditionally oriented towards the development and sale of players, and a rebalancing of bargaining power in contracts nearing expiry.

Football thus confirms its role as an advanced laboratory for redefining the standards of legitimacy for those who exercise private regulatory power.

The precedent goes beyond sport. The tension between Lex Sportiva and Lex Publica is an expression of a broader phenomenon: the progressive submission to European judicial control of private entities that exercise regulatory power with systemic economic effects.

Digital platforms, standardisation bodies, large professional associations and international federations share a common dynamic: broad but not unlimited regulatory autonomy.

The FIFA case shows that when fundamental rights and economic freedoms are at stake, collective litigation can become a tool for rebalancing regulatory power and the protection of regulated entities. But it also shows something more: that private autonomy, in order to remain sustainable, must be perceived as fair and proportionate.

From this perspective, the class action against FIFA marks the moment when the regulatory autonomy of European professional sport was definitively brought back within the confines of EU law and, at the same time, within those of its reputational sustainability.