Class action lawsuit v FIFA: free movement of workers under EU competition law – September 2025
Class action lawsuit v FIFA: free movement of workers under EU competition law
Charlie Bayliss, Solicitor
Beale & Co. (London)
On Monday, 4 August, the Dutch foundation Justice for Players (JFP) announced plans to launch a class action lawsuit against FIFA, marking what has been described as a potentially seismic legal challenge between professional footballers and football’s governing body. The lawsuit targets FIFA’s transfer regulations, which have been criticised for their anti-competitive effects due to the restrictions they place on free movement of players.
The announcement has been followed by reports of Lassana Diarra’s (Diarra) separate £56m claim against FIFA and the Belgian Football Association. The legal momentum follows a significant ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) (Case C650/22) in October 2024, which found that key FIFA rules around contract termination and international transfers violated EU competition law. The ruling originated from a case Diarra brought in 2014, arguing that FIFA’s transfer system unlawfully restricted his ability to work and caused him to lose substantial income. In particular, the case centres on restrictions on worker movements, and whether these amount to a restriction by object under Article 101 TFEU.
Background: Diarra v FIFA
The ongoing dispute between Diarra and FIFA stretches back to 2014, when Diarra fell into a contractual dispute with Lokomotiv Moscow over his salary. Lokomotiv terminated Diarra’s contract, alleging breach, and the FIFA dispute resolution chamber ordered Diarra to pay £8.4m in compensation.
While the compensation amounts were outstanding, Belgian club Charleroi made a contract offer to Diarra. However, FIFA refused to guarantee that Charleroi would not be held liable for the fine, nor did the Belgian FA issue the necessary international transfer certificate to complete the transfer. The certificate was not provided due to the outstanding fines owed to Lokomotiv. This effectively blocked Diarra from exercising his right to free movement to Charleroi, prompting his challenge to FIFA’s rules in the EU courts. While in this case Diarra was moving from Russia to Belgium, these rules are not restricted to these countries and, if applied in different cases, could restrain free movement between EU clubs.
CJEU ruling: a breach of competition law:
Diarra challenged FIFA’s transfer rules on the grounds that they breached EU competition rules by restricting free movement and preventing players from developing their career by moving to a new club. The two challenged FIFA rules are:
- Joint Liability: a prospective club is jointly liable for any compensation owed to a player’s previous club if a contract is breached.
- ITCs: a national association may block the issuance of an ITC if a contractual dispute exists between a player and their former club.
The CJEU found that both rules were incompatible with EU law. The rules restricted free movement of workers – a core principle of EU law – and had the potential for suppressing competition amongst clubs by making it legally and financially risky to sign players in dispute with former clubs. Findings have shown that restricting freedom of movement leads to overall lower wages and lower quality product.
The CJEU emphasised that FIFA’s rules imposed risks upon potential new clubs, including:
- Legal uncertainty,
- Significant and unforeseeable financial risks, and
- Sporting disadvantages, such as delays in fielding new players.
In its decision, the CJEU found that the rules had as their object the restriction, and potential prevention, of cross-border competition. This meant there was no requirement to prove any actual or likely anti-competitive effect of the rules, as they had such high potential for negative effects.
Restrictions can be justified if they are necessary to receive a pro-consumer objective, and if they are indispensable to achieving that objective. The CJEU ruled that the restrictions failed on both counts. The CJEU found that any claim that these rules were necessary to ensure the security of sporting competition was insufficient as the rules went beyond what was required to meet the objective. In its ruling, the CJEU found that the FIFA rules undermined a fundamental tenant of European competition law – the free movement of workers.
This judgement expands on the free movement principle established in the Marc Bosman judgement (C-415/93). The Bosman ruling banned restrictions on free movement of EU players within national leagues and allowed players in the EU to move to another club on expiry of their contract without a transfer fee. Prior to this, clubs held player’s registration until released notwithstanding contract expiry. The Diarra ruling re-cements the importance of free movement of employees in the EU, including in competitive sport.
Fallout and Ongoing Litigation
Following the CJEU decision, FIFA amended its transfer regulations in December 2024. However, the changes were quickly criticised as insufficient by FIFPRO, the international players’ union.
Now, the stakes have escalated. JFP has formally notified FIFA and the football associations of France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Denmark of its intention to pursue a multi-billion pound collective action. The class action seeks compensation for lost earnings suffered by players affected by the unlawful transfer rules, potentially involving up to 100,000 current and former professionals dating back to 2002.
JFP argues that FIFA’s transfer system imposes restrictions on footballers that would be deemed unacceptable in any other profession. While most workers can freely change jobs, footballers have been bound by rules that prevent mobility and depress wages.
FIFA may face significant challenges mounting a defence. The CJEU’s findings directly support the core of JFP’s claims—namely, that FIFA’s transfer framework unlawfully restricted competition and worker mobility, and that any such restrictions were unjustified under EU law.
Conclusion
This ongoing legal confrontation underscores a fundamental principle of EU competition and employment law: employees should be free to move between jobs without undue restriction. The CJEU’s decision reinforces the view that restraints on this freedom are likely to be struck down as anti-competitive by object unless they are clearly necessary and proportionate. Restrictions on free movement of employees are likely to be considered a restriction of competition by object, and therefore more likely to be in breach of Article 101 TFEU.
As JFP’s class action proceeds, it has the potential not only to transform FIFA’s regulatory framework but also to reset the balance of power between football’s governing bodies and the players they regulate.
Contact us
Our team at Beale & Co. advises on English competition law, regulatory governance and disputes at the intersection of sport and freedom of movement. Other members of the Antitrust Alliance advise on these issues in their home jurisdictions. Please contact us if you would like to discuss how these issues may affect your organisation.
We will continue to monitor developments in the ongoing FIFA cases and provide updates as the proceedings progress.
The ATA’s brochure on Sports and State aid is available here: Publications | Antitrust Alliance