The FIFA World Football Association wants the player advisors to the money. The legal dispute over the control catalog, which, among other things, provides for remuneration limits for the consultants, has now arrived in front of the European Court of Justice after several defeats for FIFA. The Attorney General now gave the World Association a glimmer of hope that the controversial advisory regulations could have existed in the end.
The general attorney at the European Court of Justice laid his so -called final declaration on Thursday (May 15, 2025) on the “FIFA Football Agent Regulations“(Ffar). In it, he repeated the basic anti -antitrust concerns about one -sided interventions by FIFA in the activities of player advisors.
However, he also deviated some of the previous case law: In exceptional cases, sports associations such as FIFA could be allowed interference in freedom of competition if they pursued overarching, legitimate goals. For this purpose, the integrity of the sporting competition was counted in the past in the past (“Meca-Medina judgment”).
The General Attorney’s argument was a first glimmer of hope for FIFA and the subordinate associations, which had previously been picked up in court for various procedures. The FIFA lawyers also claimed a special position of sport for the player consultant regulations at the hearing at the ECJ.
Commission boundaries, Licensing spent
The World Association had issued the regulations in 2023 and imposed player brokers worldwide: they should not only disclose all remuneration payments and transfer funds compared to FIFA and submit to a license obligation. The world association also wanted to prescribe an upper limit for commissions to the advisors: a maximum of six percent of the annual content of a player or with a transfer up to ten percent of the transfer fee.
In contrast, the player advisor Roger Wittmann, known in Germany, had successfully sued. The Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court declared the complete FIFA regulations inadmissible in March 2024 because it is an inadmissible restriction of competition under EU law.
The FIFA is a corporate association and economically active, which is why the rules of EU cartel law should also apply, the Düsseldorf judges emphasized. They let the FfAR guidelines override and threatened fines against the World Association and also against the German Football Association (DFB), which was to implement the rules as a national association.
According to antitrust law experts, FIFA as a sports association has no authority at all to regulate the activity of player advisors: “Player brokers are part of the cosmos of football, but it is a market that FIFA basically has nothing to do with as a football association”says Björn Christian Becker from the Berlin Humboldt University: “The house and landowner association, for example, cannot set a specifications on the amount of rents, or regulations to the relationship between landlords and tenants. This is not the task of an association, but of the legislator.”
Transfer payments should run via FIFA
Article 13 of the advisory regulations appear particularly suspicious: According to the will of the FIFA clearing-Loading at the World Association.
The FIFA would have an instrument on the hand to control the global flows of money on the transfer market. This could still exacerbate the competitive effect of the other FAFAR requirements, says antitrust law expert Becker: “The FIFA is allowed to make even targeted sanctions.”
The new role of FIFA President Gianni Infantino As the top treasurer in world football, the suspicion that FIFA is primarily concerned with gaining even more market power. And not about restricting the circles of the player advisors, whose influence is viewed critically in parts of the football audience. The agents of the star players are also held responsible for the price driver on the transfer market, which also further strengthens the dominance of the big clubs.
In his judgment, the cartel senate in Düsseldorf, in turn, pointed out that the restriction of remuneration provided by FIFA may not have the desired effect to remove constant unrest on the transfer market. The opposite is more likely, according to the judges: Honorary limits could set the incentive for the consultants to push their players even faster and more frequently to change clubs.
Exit of the ECJ Open – judge not bound by template
The highest European court, the ECJ, had recently looked rather strictly in the event of a dispute in professional sports and imposed more anti -antitrust bonds.
As a reference, the judgment on the Superleague of December 2023 is considered: there, the EU judges decided that every intervention in the market is inadmissible, which already aims to affect the competition from its nature. According to many antitrust lawyers, this fact fulfilled this fact, such as the price agreements, such as the remuneration limits set by FIFA for players.
Judgment not before the end of the year
It is completely open whether the European Court of Justice moves from this fundamental perspective and puts itself on the side of the associations. The judges are not tied to the submission of the Advocate General. In the past, for example also when judging the Superleague, they in the end decided completely differently.
A judgment is not expected before the end of the year. It is also conceivable that the parties agree beforehand. For this, however, one of the participants would have to move away from his claims – at least with the Almighty FIFA boss, this seems difficult to imagine.