FIFA Faces Multibillion-Euro Lawsuit Over Restrictive Transfer Rules

Dutch Foundation Sues FIFA for Billions

Thousands of players may be eligible for compensation in the lawsuit against FIFA. Learn more about the case and its implications.

“All professional football players have lost a significant amount of earnings due to the unlawful FIFA Regulations...”

Dutch Football Players' Foundation Sues FIFA

The Justice for Players foundation, a Dutch football players' organization, is spearheading a multibillion-euro class-action lawsuit against FIFA and five national associations. The claim alleges that FIFA's restrictive transfer regulations have resulted in significant financial losses for players.

Alleged Loss of Income

According to the foundation, approximately 100,000 male and female players in European member states and the United Kingdom have been affected by FIFA's rules since 2002. The players are seeking compensation for the alleged loss of income due to these restrictive transfer rules.

Background and Context

This lawsuit comes after a recent judgment by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that certain FIFA regulations, such as those surrounding football transfers, are in conflict with EU free movement of employees and competition law. In response, FIFA has implemented temporary transfer rules, effective January 1, 2025, which aim to address these issues.

The Justice for Players foundation claims that FIFA's restrictive transfer rules have resulted in significant financial losses for approximately 100,000 male and female players in European member states and the UK since 2002. According to consultancy firm Compass Lexecon, the estimated damages could run into billions of euros, with the foundation's board member Dolf Segaar describing it as a “multibillion euro claim.”

The Dutch Football Association (KNVB) is one of the associations named in the lawsuit, which seeks compensation for alleged loss of income due to FIFA's transfer regulations. The foundation alleges that these rules have affected players' ability to negotiate fair contracts and compensation.

This lawsuit follows a recent judgment by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) that certain FIFA regulations conflict with EU free movement of employees and competition law. In response, FIFA has implemented temporary transfer rules effective January 1, 2025, aiming to address these issues.

FIFA's Interim Framework for Player Transfers

In response to the European Court of Justice's ruling in the Lassana Diarra case, FIFA adopted an interim regulatory framework in December 2024. This framework addresses key aspects of player transfers, including compensation for contract breaches and inducement to breach contracts. The interim framework aims to provide clarity and stability in the transfer process, ensuring compliance with EU laws on freedom of movement.

Key Changes in the Interim Framework

The interim framework introduces significant changes to FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). Specifically, it affects:

• Calculation of Compensation: The framework revises the calculation of compensation payable in cases of contract breaches.
• Burden of Proof: It also shifts the burden of proof in relation to compensation payable and inducement to breach contracts.

Implications for Football Governance

The interim framework represents FIFA's effort to adapt global football regulations to contemporary legal standards. Pending cases before the Football Tribunal will be adjudicated under the amended provisions of Article 17 of the RSTP. This move is expected to have far-reaching implications for football governance, potentially empowering players and limiting FIFA's authority to impose restrictive regulations.

“This case is being brought in the Netherlands under the Dutch Act on the Settlement of Mass Damages in Collective Action (WAMCA), which allows this legal action to be launched by JfP on behalf of a large group of professional footballers,” it added.

FIFA and the Royal Dutch Football Association (KNVB) haven't responded to requests for comment yet. This lack of response isn't unusual, as companies and organizations increasingly choose not to engage with journalists, according to Paul Farhi, a former Washington Post media reporter. Farhi notes that the phrase “did not respond to a request for comment” has become more common, appearing in stories on various topics, including sports. This trend might be attributed to the waning power of traditional media and the rise of social media, allowing organizations to bypass journalists and communicate directly with their audience.

#FIFPRO Europe Statement: Reaction to class action announced by Dutch foundation Justice for Players

— FIFPRO (@FIFPRO) August 4, 2025

According to the Justice for Players foundation, a preliminary analysis by Compass Lexecon estimated that FIFA's regulations have resulted in professional footballers earning around 8% less over their careers than they would have otherwise. This translates to significant financial losses for approximately 100,000 male and female players in European member states and the UK since 2002.

The foundation's board member, Dolf Segaar, described the claim as a “multibillion euro claim,” highlighting the substantial impact of FIFA's regulations on players' earnings. The Dutch Soccer Players' group is seeking compensation for alleged loss of income due to restrictive transfer rules.

The lawsuit follows a recent judgment by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) that certain FIFA regulations, such as those surrounding football transfers, conflict with EU free movement of employees and competition law. In response, FIFA has implemented temporary transfer rules effective January 1, 2025, aiming to address these issues.

“All professional football players have lost a significant amount of earnings due to the unlawful FIFA Regulations,” foundation chair Lucia Melcherts said in a statement.

“‘Justice for Players' is bringing this claim to help achieve justice for footballers and fairness.”

The Diarra Ruling: A Domino Effect in Football Transfers

The case of Lassana Diarra, a former French international footballer, has sparked a significant shift in the landscape of football governance. Diarra's dispute with FIFA stemmed from a 2013 contract with Lokomotiv Moscow, which he terminated due to unpaid wages and a salary reduction. FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber ordered Diarra to pay €10.5 million in damages to Lokomotiv Moscow. However, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) later ruled that some of FIFA's transfer regulations are incompatible with EU law, specifically Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 101 and 102 on competition law.

Implications of the Ruling

The CJEU's judgment has far-reaching implications for football transfers, potentially empowering players and limiting FIFA's authority to impose restrictive regulations. The ruling suggests that FIFA's rules on contractual stability and compensation for early contract termination may be disproportionate and restrict player mobility. This could lead to a more player-focused approach to contracts and transfer regulations, with potential repercussions on transfer fees and contractual deals.

Aftermath and Future Developments

The Diarra case has triggered a domino effect, prompting a reevaluation of FIFA's transfer regulations and potentially paving the way for changes in the governance of football. The case now goes back to the European Commission for further investigation, and FIFA may need to revise its regulations to align with EU competition principles. This development could foster a more inclusive rule-making process, incorporating feedback from various stakeholders, including players' unions and national authorities.

In response to the European Court of Justice's ruling in the Lassana Diarra case, FIFA adopted an interim regulatory framework in December 2024. This framework addresses key aspects of player transfers, including compensation for contract breaches and inducement to breach contracts. The interim framework aims to provide clarity and stability in the transfer process, ensuring compliance with EU laws on freedom of movement.

The interim framework introduces significant changes to FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). Specifically, it affects the calculation of compensation payable in cases of contract breaches and the burden of proof in relation to compensation payable and inducement to breach contracts.

This move represents FIFA's effort to adapt global football regulations to contemporary legal standards. Pending cases before the Football Tribunal will be adjudicated under the amended provisions of Article 17 of the RSTP. The changes are expected to have far-reaching implications for football governance, potentially empowering players and limiting FIFA's authority to impose restrictive regulations.

The Dupont Factor: A Repeat Performance?

The law firm Dupont-Hissel, founded by renowned Belgian lawyer Jean-Louis Dupont, is advising Justice for Players in their multibillion-euro class-action lawsuit against FIFA. Dupont's experience in sports law is impressive, particularly his role in the landmark Bosman ruling in 1995. This pivotal case allowed players in the European Union to move to other clubs at the end of their contracts without a transfer fee being paid, revolutionizing the football landscape.

Dupont's involvement in the Justice for Players case is significant, given his track record of challenging FIFA and UEFA's regulations. His firm's expertise in European law and sports law will likely play a crucial role in shaping the outcome of this lawsuit. The case revolves around FIFA's restrictive transfer rules, which allegedly resulted in professional footballers earning around 8% less over their careers than they would have otherwise.

The potential implications of this lawsuit are far-reaching. If successful, it could lead to significant changes in the way football transfers are handled, potentially empowering players and limiting FIFA's authority to impose restrictive regulations. This development has been likened to the Bosman ruling, which had a profound impact on the sport.

Key Similarities with the Bosman Ruling:

• Challenge to FIFA's Regulations: Both cases involve challenges to FIFA's rules governing player transfers.
• European Law: Dupont's expertise in European law will likely be crucial in shaping the outcome of this lawsuit.
• Potential Impact on Football: The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the sport, potentially leading to changes in the way transfers are handled.

Jean-Louis Dupont, the founder of Dupont-Hissel law firm, has been a key figure in challenging FIFA's regulations. Dupont represented Lassana Diarra in his case against FIFA, which led to a significant ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in October 2024. The CJEU ruled that some of FIFA's rules on player transfers went against European Union laws and free movement principles. Dupont noted that a judgment backing the player would be a milestone in modernizing football governance, allowing players' unions and club associations to regulate their employment practices.

Dupont's experience in sports law is impressive, particularly his role in the landmark Bosman ruling in 1995. This pivotal case allowed players in the European Union to move to other clubs at the end of their contracts without a transfer fee being paid, revolutionizing the football landscape. Now, Dupont is advising Justice for Players in their multibillion-euro class-action lawsuit against FIFA, seeking compensation for alleged loss of income due to restrictive transfer rules.

The lawsuit alleges that FIFA's regulations have resulted in professional footballers earning around 8% less over their careers than they would have otherwise. With approximately 100,000 players in European member states and the UK affected since 2002, the potential implications of this lawsuit are far-reaching. If successful, it could lead to significant changes in the way football transfers are handled, potentially empowering players and limiting FIFA's authority to impose restrictive regulations.