Unsurprisingly, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) followed the conclusions of the Advocate General—as it does in most cases—and ruled that FIFA’s regulations, as set out in the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, were contrary to European competition law and the fundamental principle of free movement of persons.

Without revisiting a widely publicized case, one of the main criticisms was that a player terminating a contract without just cause under FIFA rules could be ordered to pay damages equivalent to the salaries and bonuses they would have received until the end of their contract (Article 17.1). Furthermore, the player’s new employer would be jointly liable for this compensation (Article 17.2). These rules restrict the free movement of persons by limiting the ability of a sanctioned player to find a new club, as potential employers may be reluctant to take on financial liabilities resulting from a dispute they were not initially involved in. This, in turn, creates a distortion of competition between clubs.

Is there not, in fact, a double penalty in practice? Not only might the player be ordered to pay significant sums, but they could also struggle to find a new source of income to cover their debt. This regulation may seem surprising since a club would ultimately receive payments it would have normally had to disburse. This is why the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has adjusted these rules in its case law:

• A player’s inability to find another club and thus mitigate their financial loss must be taken into account when calculating damages (DRC, FPSD-4989).

• The unilateral termination of a contract without just cause by a player often results in "savings rather than damages" for the club, leading CAS to question whether this aligns with the legal rationale behind Article 17 (CAS 2008/A/1519-1520).

• The burden of proof falls on the club, which must demonstrate actual damages rather than simply claim the remaining wages and benefits due (CAS 2021/A/7714).

• When a club terminates a contract without just cause, CAS already deducts the earnings from the player’s new contract from the compensation owed (CAS 2020/A/7435).

The CJEU’s ruling sends a strong message to FIFA. However, calling it a “revolution” seems excessive, as it is unlikely that players will be allowed to walk away from contracts over a simple disagreement with their employer. That said, this decision may pave the way for a revision of FIFA’s regulations, particularly in light of CAS case law, through discussions with key stakeholders in the football industry (FIFPro, national federations and unions, clubs, etc.).