Cardiff City have lost their appeal against FIFA’s ruling that requires the EFL Championship club to pay the first instalment of Emiliano Sala's £15 million transfer fee to Nantes, of Ligue 1.

The Argentine striker died in a plane crash over the English channel in January 2019 while travelling from France to join his new club. A three-man panel at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) heard the appeal in Lausanne earlier this year. Cardiff must now pay the first instalment of £5.3 million to Nantes.

Cardiff respond to ruling

In response to the CAS ruling, Cardiff said they were “disappointed by the decision.” The club added: "The award fails to decide the crucial question of FC Nantes' (and its agents') liability for the crash, which will therefore have to be decided in another forum.

"Once the club's lawyers have digested the reasons for the decision we expect to appeal and will not be making any payments to FC Nantes in the meanwhile.

"If those appeals are unsuccessful and the club is liable to pay the transfer fee, the club will take legal action against those responsible for the crash for damages to recover its losses. This will include FC Nantes, and its agents.

"All our thoughts must continue to be with Emiliano's family, who are now supported financially by the trust the club put in place for them."

FC Barcelona consider legal action against LaLiga over FFP rules

FC Barcelona are considering taking legal action against LaLiga and its president Javier Tebas over the league’s Financial Fair Play regulations, Spanish media have reported.

Under the rules, each club is given a spending limit to cover gross salaries and amortised transfer fees for the entire squad over the course of a season.

The figure is obtained by subtracting the costs and debt from the club’s budgeted income.

Barcelona have been struggling to register their players in line with the regulations for the second summer in a row, after seeing club legend Lionel Messi depart last year.

During the latest window, the Catalan giants have spent around €150 million on new players. To help comply with LaLiga’s rules and register their new signings the club has sold future media rights income and stakes in their Barça Studios production house.

High wage bill

Barcelona are understood to be frustrated that the other four top leagues of Europe are not bound by regulations as strict as those imposed by LaLiga.

Several other Spanish clubs have also been experiencing player registration issues this summer, although Barça’s situation has been made particularly challenging by their high wage bill and big player contracts.

UEFA set to announce FFP sanctions for ten clubs

UEFA is preparing to announce sanctions in the next month for ten clubs who have breached Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules for the 2020/21 season.

The Times understands that FC Barcelona, Paris Saint-Germain, Marseille, Juventus, Inter Milan and Roma are among the clubs set to be punished.

Sanctions are expected to be handed out to PSG, Marseille, Inter Milan and Roma as part of agreed settlements with the clubs. These are expected to be fines for PSG and Marseille, and fines plus transfer restrictions for the Italian pair.

It is understood that Barcelona and Juventus have refused so far to enter into FFP negotiations with UEFA.

Arsenal on watchlist for 2021/22

Sources also told the newspaper that 20 clubs are on a UEFA watchlist of teams who may be in danger of breaching FFP for 2021/22, though final accounts for these clubs have still to be filed with the European governing body.

Arsenal are among the teams believed to be on this list. The Gunners have had among the highest losses in the Premier League over the past three years, with a total deficit of €242 million, including €144 million in 2020/21.

UEFA’s rules allow only €30 million losses over three years but Covid-related losses and “healthy” spending on areas such as women’s and academy football and depreciation can be written off against that.

UEFA under pressure over outcome of proceedings against PSG president Nasser Al-Khelaifi

Fears are growing that Paris Saint-Germain and its president Nasser Al-Khelaifi are avoiding appropriate punishment for breaches of UEFA rules due to a conflict of interest, The New York Times reports.

It is understood that concerns have increased following the outcome of the European governing body’s investigation into the dramatic scenes that followed PSG’s Champions League exit last season.

Back in March, UEFA announced it had begun disciplinary proceedings against Al-Khelaifi and the PSG sporting director Leonardo within 24 hours of their team being eliminated from the Champions League by Real Madrid.

After the match, referee Danny Makkelie wrote in a report seen by The New York Times that Al-Khelaifi and Leonardo “showed aggressive behaviour and tried to enter the dressing room of the referee.”

Even after Makkelie asked them to leave, Al-Khelaifi and Leonardo “blocked the door,” he wrote, adding that the president then “deliberately hit the flag of one of the assistants, breaking it.”

Ban for Leonardo but no mention of Al-Khelaifi

In June, more than three months after the incidents, UEFA listed the outcome of its proceedings within a six-page document covering recent disciplinary cases. It said it would ban Leonardo, who had since left PSG, for one game for violating “the basic rules of decent conduct.” However, there was no mention of Al-Khelaifi.

The Qatari businessman has become one of the most powerful men in European football over recent years. As well as holding a place on the UEFA Executive Committee, he is chairman of the European Club Association (ECA) and chairman of beIN Media Group, one of UEFA’s biggest broadcast partners.

UEFA declined to provide details of its investigation, or why Al-Khelaifi had avoided punishment. It said the delay could be explained, too, as it had prioritised investigations involving teams still competing in its competitions. PSG declined to comment.

My Career: "First ever case at CAS was the most challenging"

John Shea, Senior Associate in the Sports Business Group at Lewis Silkin.

What makes football law different from other careers?
"A unique aspect of “football law” is that it encompasses so many different legal disciplines. A lawyer working regularly in the football industry will have to deal with a such a broad range of legal work including commercial contracts, employment, disputes, tax and more. There are also football specific regulatory requirements which football lawyers need to be au fait with including FIFA and UEFA regulations and FA, PL and EFL regulations domestically. The work is also invariably high profile and highly pressurised thus demanding at times but at the same time incredibly exciting."

Who in this industry has inspired you the most?
"I wouldn’t say there is anyone in particular who has inspired me the most. The football industry is fortunate enough to have a large number of hugely talented, expertly qualified and highly successful people working within it and as lawyers I think it’s incredibly important to observe and take lessons from each and every person that we work with including lawyers, clients and other professionals within the football business."

What is the most complicated case you have been involved in and why?
"I would say my first ever case at CAS was the most challenging for two reasons. It involved a player who had terminated his contract with a club as a result of unpaid salaries and the club counterclaimed for compensation alleging that the player had no lawful grounds to terminate the contract. There was a lot of money at stake for the player and so I had a huge amount of responsibility to secure the right result for him. It was also my first CAS case whilst I was a junior lawyer with little experience looking to break into the industry and so I was eager from a professional perspective to make a good impression with my first big case. Fortunately, we were successful."

Which type of case can inspire you and make you feel highly motivated?
"For me helping clients with lots at stake personally and who have perhaps been treated unfairly is incredibly rewarding especially those who have limited means to afford legal representation. For example, I recently represented a football manager pro bono whose club had terminated his contract and refused to paying him the contractually agreed figure for compensation. This wasn’t a million pound PL manager’s contract but it was nevertheless a significant sum of money for someone who’s reliant on that money for day to day living. Apart from those types of cases, being a huge football fan, it is natural to always be excited to work on high profile football transfers notwithstanding the long hours and cancelled holidays!"

Looking into your crystal ball, which area of football law do you see growing in importance and relevance?
"It is always important for clubs, players and agents to keep up to speed with ever changing football regulations. FIFA’s new football agent regulations are due to come into force within the next 12 months and will likely radically change the way in which clubs and agents need to operate in the transfer market and so I would definitely say that’s one area for everyone to keep an eye on."

Paris Saint-Germain are set to be punished by UEFA due to their spiralling wage bill, which has breached the governing body’s Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules, L'Equipe reports.

The newspaper understands that UEFA have informed PSG, as well as Marseille, that they have breached the FFP quota and are now likely to receive a fine.

The development follows Kylian Mbappé’s controversial three-year contract renewal with PSG agreed back in May, and the club’s two-year deal with Lionel Messi.

Mbappé is now said to be earning €50 million per year, in addition to a €180 million bonus for staying at the Parc des Princes, while Messi had an annual salary of €30 million in his first year at PSG, which increased to €40 million for the current season.

Potential Champions League ban

If PSG or Marseille fail to adhere to the rules and do not improve their situation over the next three years, the penalties are expected to become harsher, including a potential exclusion from the Champions League and other UEFA competitions.

Both clubs can opt to contest the decision and file an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

PSG are said to consider the findings of the report unfair and have claimed that the collapse of Ligue 1’s broadcast deal with Mediapro has skewed their financial situation.

LaLiga’s request to terminate Mbappé’s contract with PSG dismissed by Administrative Court of Paris

The Administrative Court of Paris has rejected LaLiga’s request to annul Kylian Mbappé’s contract extension with Paris Saint-Germain.

The Spanish league put forward the request last month as they believed that the player’s new deal, agreed back in May and said to be worth €4.6 million a month, breached Financial Fair Play rules.

LaLiga claimed that the LFP should never have approved the contract renewal. It also requested the cancellation of the validation of PSG’s accounts by the DNCG, French football’s financial watchdog, and the revoking of its approval of the deal.

However, the Administrative Court of Paris rejected LaLiga’s case on Wednesday, finding that Mbappé’s contract does not show proof of “serious and immediate harm.”

Real Madrid sought free transfer

The star French striker opted to remain in Paris instead of joining Real Madrid, who had been looking to bring the World Cup winner in on a free transfer.

LaLiga quickly announced their intention to sue PSG over the contract renewal and also filed a formal complaint with UEFA. The league’s president Javier Tebas accused PSG of "cheating" FFP rules.

FIFA suspends All India Football Federation and strips right to host U-17 Women’s World Cup

FIFA has suspended the All India Football Federation (AIFF) with immediate effect due to “undue influence from third parties”, and has stripped the country of its right to host the U-17 Women’s World Cup, scheduled to take place in October.

The decision, taken unanimously by the Bureau of the FIFA Council, comes after the Supreme Court of India disbanded the AIFF in May and appointed a three-member committee to govern the game in the country, amend the AIFF’s constitution, and conduct elections that have now been pending for 18 months.

In response, FIFA and the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) sent a team led by AFC general secretary Windsor John to meet Indian football stakeholders and laid down a roadmap for the AIFF to amend its statutes by the end of July and subsequently conclude elections at the latest by 15th September.

In a statement, FIFA said: “The suspension will be lifted once an order to set up a committee of administrators to assume the powers of the AIFF Executive Committee has been repealed and the AIFF administration regains full control of the AIFF’s daily affairs.”

Hopeful of positive outcome

Commenting on the U-17 Women’s World Cup, FIFA said it is “assessing the next steps with regard to the tournament and will refer the matter to the Bureau of the Council if and when necessary.”

It added: “FIFA is in constant constructive contact with the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports in India and is hopeful that a positive outcome to the case may still be achieved.”

Premier League wants EFL to drop P&S rules and adopt its own cost controls

The Premier League wants the EFL to adopt the top-flight’s own system of cost controls in return for increasing its funding package for the lower divisions, according to The Daily Mail.

The newspaper understands that the Premier League has suggested the EFL drop its profit and sustainability (P&S) rules, which prohibit clubs from losing more than £39 million over a three-year period.

Derby County, Birmingham City, Reading and Sheffield Wednesday have all been docked points for breaches of the rules over recent years. In contrast, the Premier League permits losses of up to £105 million over the same period.

The EPL is planning to introduce a version of UEFA’s new financial sustainability rules, which will limit clubs’ spending on wages, transfers and agent fees to 90 per cent of revenue from the 2023/24 season, falling to 70 per cent from 2025/26, and want the EFL to follow suit.

Harmonising spending rules

According to The Mail, Premier League clubs are close to agreeing increased funding for the EFL, but want to ensure the spending rules will be harmonised before making a formal offer.

Having different rules between the divisions is said to create problems in enforcing the regulations on clubs that have been relegated and promoted.

The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld a ruling against promotion carried out by Arsenal of their fan token, saying that social media adverts last summer were “misleading” and “irresponsible”.

Fan tokens are promoted as engagement tools, but are often underpinned by cryptocurrencies, which are hugely volatile and largely unregulated. The value of Cryptocurrencies have plummeted over recent months.

Last year the ASA said that the club “trivialised investment in cryptoassets and took advantage of consumers’ inexperience or credulity” in the advertisement.

The Gunners challenged the ruling, but this week’s review upheld all aspects of it.

“We are disappointed"

Arsenal said in a statement: “We are disappointed by the ASA’s decision to uphold their ruling following our appeal.

“We have complied with the ASA’s guidance since the original ruling, and we will continue to comply in our future communications in this fast-moving area.

“We have been clear throughout that we take our responsibilities with regard to marketing to our supporters very seriously. In this situation we carefully considered the communications to supporters regarding our promotions and provided information regarding financial risks.”

CAF announce Super League launch

African football’s governing body, CAF, has announced a new 24-club super league that aims to revolutionize football on the continent, as reported by Sportsnet.

The project was launched by CAF president Patrice Motsepe at its General Assembly in Tanzania on Wednesday, shortly after the organisation reported a loss of nearly $50 million for last year.

Motsepe said the Super League, which kicks off next year, would offer total prize money of $100 million – more than five times more than Africa's current Champions League. The winning club will receive $11.5 million.

“It is a project that will make African club football shine … beyond Africa as well,” FIFA president, Gianni Infantino, said of the proposed competition, which he has strongly supported.

However the project has been riven with controversy and Motsepe was short on details, including which clubs would be involved or who its sponsors will be.

Concern for domestic football

Within Africa there are also widespread concerns about the impact on domestic football.

The well-known Kenyan journalist, Francis Gaitho, tweeted: “Remove dominant clubs from domestic leagues into the CAF super league. Death of local football.” Logistical issues – with a lack of commercial flights between African cities, forcing some journeys to be routed via Paris or the Gulf – have also not been addressed, say critics. The South African Players Union (SAFPU) issued a lengthy statement following the announcement, denouncing the plan as a “destructive idea”.

French players union attacks FFF over decision to keep Bordeaux in Ligue 2

France’s football players union the UNFP has heavily criticised the French Football Federation (FFF) over its decision to permit Bordeaux to play in Ligue 2.

In June, the DNCG, French football’s financial watchdog, relegated the club to the third tier due to their financial situation, including debts of around €40 million with creditors King Street and Fortress.

That decision was confirmed on appeal on 5th July. However, on 27th July FFF followed the recommendations of the National Olympic and Sports Committee and voted for the reinstatement of Bordeaux back into Ligue 2.

In a statement, the UNFP said “the lightness with which the FFF will disavow the DNCG – whose work is usually constantly praised and praised – raises questions.”

It added: “By allowing the Girondins to compete in Ligue 2, it has called into question the credibility of an independent commission, which never takes its decisions lightly.”

Salary cut of up to 20 per cent

In a statement published on the club website on Wednesday, Bordeaux said it “regrets to note that, for several days, a number of interventions, in particular from leaders of competing clubs or professional unions, aim to question the legitimacy of the club to evolve in Ligue 2.”

The club added: “These attacks, purely gratuitous, are more than surprising because they call into question court decisions, a decision of the CNOSF and that of the executive committee of the FFF.

“They also seem to regret that FC Girondins de Bordeaux has remained at the professional level and has succeeded in a major restructuring.”

Barnsley cancel crypto sponsorship after homophobic tweets and bizarre T&C controversy

League One club Barnsley are seeking to end a front of shirt sponsorship, after allegedly homophobic and abusive social media posts from accounts linked to their sponsors.

The Yorkshire club announced its deal with HEX.com last week, but after their supporters’ trust, other fans and members of the media raised concerns over online posts from individuals who claimed to have partaken in the deal it announced an investigation.

Serious concerns about Hex.com were also raised by the journalist Martin Calladine, who pointed out that questions transcended online abuse. Calladine referred to what he claimed was “the most remarkable T&C clause of all time”, which read:

“If you’ve read down this far, congratulations. You will notice the theme of all of the above text is that you should have absolutely no expectations of any sort, regarding anything, and if anything goes wrong, you shouldn’t look for redress anywhere, and you should receive none.”

An investigation

On Friday morning the club released a short statement which read: “Barnsley Football Club value our fans and our core beliefs above everything else. Following recent events and a subsequent investigation, the club has assessed its relationship with its front of shirt sponsor and has taken steps to end that relationship with immediate effect.

“The HEX.com logo will not appear on the team’s kits going forward. Further comment will be issued in due course.”

My Career: Tax law and the tricky “ATAD 3”

Thomas Fisler, EY Partner, Head Sports Tax and Private Client Tax Services Zurich

Why did you choose to work within the tax law realm pertaining to sports?
"I was an enthusiastic competitive athlete (alpine skiing) during my youth and my law studies at the University of Zurich. This passion culminated in my participation in the Winter University Games. The interest in sports law was already aroused at that time. My focus on tax law and, in particular, entrepreneurs and private clients in combination with activities as an official in the sports sector has allowed me to dive deeper into the corresponding consulting activity."

Can you please give a flavor of your daily tax projects dealing with private clients and sportspersons?
"The daily work includes domestic and international tax planning and structuring for athletes, private clients and their family offices, including their international structures (corporations, trusts and foundations). We provide relocation services for sportspersons, incl. coordination of international pre-structuring and structuring, and holistic tax advisory services for entrepreneurs – also in the light of their post-sports careers – at the levels of the shareholders as well as their corporations/start-ups in Switzerland and abroad. In addition, we also offer complex advice on the tax-efficient structuring of income streams (e.g., in connection with on/off court agreements), wealth planning and negotiations with tax authorities."

You are very busy helping clients to navigate in the new “ATAD 3”-environment, please explain why this is taking up so much of your time?
"The European Commission published its draft Anti-Tax Avoidance 3 or “ATAD 3” or ‘Unshell’ Directive aiming at curbing aggressive tax planning techniques and narrowing down the scope for abusive maneuvering. It seems that ATAD 3 will likely have an impact on the structures deployed by sportspersons to channel their commercial revenue."

Looking into your crystal ball, how would ATAD 3 impact on sports? Should sportspersons anticipate taking a hit on their image rights structures?
"Particular attention should be drawn to the fact that such structures should couple their business rationale with significant substance. However, it cannot be said in general terms that athletes must expect losses in connection with their image rights. For the purpose of analysis in individual cases, we recommends performing a substance review of your image rights company in order to anticipate the impact that may arise upon the implementation of the new rules enshrined in ATAD 3."

In a dramatic and sometimes logic-defying summer of off the pitch business, Barcelona’s ongoing dispute with its star midfielder, Frenkie de Jong, almost certainly stands out as its most bizarre.

The club have reportedly told de Jong that they want to annul his existing deal, and revert to the contract he was on before. Barca allege that the terms given to him by the previous board involved criminality and were illegal.

De Jong is reported to have reduced his salary in the previous two seasons to help Barca during the financial trauma caused by the pandemic. Around €18 million of reduced wages was then to have been spread over the subsequent four seasons.

The subplot is that Barca are still in severe financial difficulty and need to cut costs and raise cash in order to fulfil LaLiga’s financial control regulations and register players before the season’s start. In other words, it would appear that they don’t want to pay up to de Jong, and are possibly trying to use the dispute to leverage his departure.

The case nevertheless raises all sorts of legal questions. What would it take for the current Barca-board to legally win a case claiming that they don't owe Frenkie de Jong the deferred wages, because the contract was “illegal” or false when it was signed? If the de Jong contract was illegal, doesn’t that cast doubt on their ownership of other players signed in the same timeframe? Moreover, how can this be Frenkie de Jong’s problem? Isn't he a victim in a a battle between the former and the current boards of the club?

Lengthy process

Jessie Engelhart, partner of Sensato Sports Law, questions both the motivations behind Barcelona’s stance and also whether it will get the desired results. While Barca appear to be using the case to bring down their outgoings in order to satisfy LaLiga’s financial controls ahead of the new season, she sees “a very difficult and lengthy process” for the club that could take “several years”.

“These contracts passed several stages of legal control, both internally by the club’s legal services and compliance department and externally through audits and La Liga’s legal department,” she says.

“Due to the significant repercussions for the innocent parties involved (the players) of declaring such contracts void and the timing of these notifications, I believe it won’t play out in Barca’s favour.”

Questionable motivations

However Englehart raises bigger questions about Barca’s motivations, describing “the intentions behind these allegations questionable.” She points out that the new board performed a thorough audit of the club and due diligence when they first arrived at the club in 2021.

“The fact that De Jong was only informed of this alleged illegality now, when the negotiations between the player and the club have almost reached a climax due to the financial pressure on the club and their wish to extinguish the players contract, makes the intentions behind these allegations questionable,” she says.

“Intentions are one thing, but the facts and legality / illegality of the execution of these contracts are a separate thing, all of this together with the alleged evidence of which we do not have any knowledge at the moment, would have to be taken into account and it would be up to the judge to finally decide on this, which is a process that could take several years and therefore not be of much benefit to the club as it concerns a rather urgent matter.”

Cost cutting tactic?

Juan de Dios Crespo Pérez, sports department director of Valencian practice, Ruiz-Huerto & Crespo, says that it is difficult to make a legal judgement on the case, mostly because Barcelona haven’t actually articulated what “illegal activity” has taken place. He believes that it is simply a tactic to move the player on and cut costs.

“The core of Frenkie De Jong case lays on the need for FCB to receive money and to avoid huge employment contracts. Thus, the club is trying to make the contract signed by the player with the previous president as null and void,” he says.

“It seems a bit – or better, a lot – difficult to understand how a contract reviewed by the counsels of both parties, the LaLiga and the Spanish FA could be null and void. I don’t see how.”

Wider implications

Ian Laing, counsel at Edinburgh based Lombardi Associates, says that if  the de Jong contract was illegal it surely casts doubt on their ownership of other players signed in the same timeframe.

“All players who agreed new contracts at that time reportedly accepted similarly restructured contracts and so one would expect that if the club has legitimate concerns regarding the legality of De Jong’s new contract, they likely have similar concerns in respect of the legality of the others,” he says.

He suggests from publicly available information that “it appears the allegations are aimed at the former board, rather than toward the player.” 

“The previous administration deny all of the allegations and if they are correct, that there was no impropriety, the current board will, of course be bound by the terms of the contract agreed between the club and De Jong,” he says.

 “Regardless of whether the new board view it as a commercially bad deal, they are bound to honour it.  There is a fine line between bad management and mismanagement, a bad commercial decision and an illegal manoeuvre.”

Moment of need

Pérez suggests that de Jong is being punished by the club when he has in fact acted virtuously in the past – reducing his salary during the pandemic to help Barca’s perilous financial situation, in exchange for deferred payments in future seasons.

“The player was helping the club in a particular moment of need and he did it on being requested by the club and then, after what was understood by both parties that the Covid issue was not going to be anymore a problem, recover his losses of those two seasons. This is a clear and neat agreement and I do not see where the illegality stands,” he says.

“Furthermore, a lot of other contracts with several player were signed on the same or similar basis, so what about those?”

The lawyer is scathing about Barcelona’s behaviour, concluding: “The only thing that we can see here is that the club is trying to pressure the player to be transferred to another one while the “illegal” issue is only a trick.”

Ian Laing believes that it may ultimately end up before a dispute resolution body – but that there will be only one outcome.

“A deferral will be the result of a contractual agreement and, provided there is no proven illegitimacy, any dispute resolution body asked to assess such a dispute will, in all likelihood, seek to ensure parties comply with their contractual obligations.”

The European Union’s highest court, the European Court of Justice, will next month hear a challenge to UEFA’s “monopoly” over the control of international club competitions in what may lead to the biggest shake up in European football since the Bosman ruling.

The case has been brought by the European Super League company, the Spanish domiciled company that led last April’s abortive breakaway league.

Real Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus remain actively involved in the company, and although the other nine clubs that partook have denounced it, it is unclear if they have succeeded in divesting their shareholdings.

The case against UEFA centres on whether the European governing body “engaged in concerted practices and abused their dominant position in the market for the organisation of international club football competitions in Europe” in sanctioning the rebel clubs.

The European Super League Company will also seek from the court “the adoption of interim measures aimed at enabling the organisation and development of the European Super League.”

In the filings, the company claims that UEFA and FIFA have a monopoly on the organization of international competitions.

At least 15 EU countries have supported UEFA’s position in their observations to the court, many citing protection for the European Model of Sport.

The European Model for Sport is considered a bulwark against US-style closed sports leagues, like NFL and NBA. However, in the court papers the Super League company argue that UEFA’s regulatory obligations are in conflict with its responsibilities as a competition organiser and these roles are in conflict with EU competition law.

Could the European Court of Justice be about to lob a hand grenade into the running of the richest football competition in the world?

Backdrop to a stand off

It is worth understanding in some detail the precise backdrop to the case. In the initial stages Barcelona brought a case to the Madrid Commercial Court seeking a declaration that would halt “a disciplinary investigation regarding a potential violation of UEFA’s legal framework” into the three remaining Super league clubs.

The other nine clubs, who remained shareholders of the Super League but who had publicly denounced it, had signed a “Club Commitment Declaration” with UEFA with fines of €1.7 million up front, plus 5 per cent of the 2020/21 season’s UEFA earnings.

The Madrid court initially ruled UEFA could not punish the clubs and referred the case to the European Court of Justice. UEFA announced a stay on all sanctions as a result of this, although in April 2022 the Madrid court reversed its decision.

European Court hearing

In parallel to that case is the one lodged in the European Courts, which will be heard on 11-12 July.

Stephen Taylor Heath, Head of Sports Law at JMW Solicitors, says that the ruling is a two-stage process, determining firstly whether EU law is applicable, then assessing whether it has been broken. He says that it is “wider in scope” than simply focussing on the ability of the governing bodies to impose sanctions on the Super League clubs.

"The EU ruling will initially determine the applicability of EU law to the decision-making processes of UEFA and FIFA,” he says.

“Once it is established it does apply it will then determine whether any relevant laws have been broken and possible sanctions.”

Consistency with law

Taylor Smith says that at the heart of UEFA’s defence is determining its right to exclude clubs that take part in its competitions from participating in those of a rival. However its own rulebook and statutes also need to be consistent with applicable laws.

“The easiest argument for UEFA to succeed with is that they retain the right to determine the rules under which a club can participate in the event properties they control even if it means being unable to participate in a rival competition,” he says.

“UEFA cannot however have a constitution or a rule book that breaches applicable law. An obvious, extreme example would be rules as to participation that were deemed to be discriminatory.   

“Rather it goes to some fundamental issues regarding governance of football that could have repercussions in other sports as well particularly where that governance amounts to a monopoly.”

Potential conflicts

This is where there exists a potential conflict.  UEFA and FIFA are self-appointed authorities that are neither set up by law or statute by the EU or even a collective of countries. “Rather they exist by tacit approval of the national football associations and the proprietors of the domestic leagues,” explains Taylor Smith.  “Accordingly, FIFA and UEFA’s right to govern comes from within as is the case with the vast majority of sport governing bodies.”

This self governance, he adds “cannot operate above or in conflict with the law in a jurisdiction within which they operate.”    

As such EU competition law is being tested by the appellants on the basis that governing bodies are seeking to operate a monopoly and engage in anti-competitive practices. Regulatory law is also being tested on the basis that governing bodies are conflating their role as regulator with their role as a competition organiser and exceeding their powers in shutting down the ESL.

These are key issues, says Taylor Smith, that could have an impact that transcends the Super League case.

“The case could however have a wider impact as the principles on which it will be determined could have an impact on developments in other sports such as golf and cricket where regulators are also commercial rights holders and self-appointed,” he says.

“The Russian Football Federation recently took a case to CAS alleging FIFA exceeded their powers by banning Russia from the World Cup which they lost. The EU Court of Justice will have consideration for CAS reasoning as to the scope of FIFA’s authority. It is stating the obvious that Russia cannot bring a case in the EU court of Justice but will also have an interest in the courts reasoning.”

Shrouded in mystery

Taylor Smith believes the case could go either way - “My personal view is that the EU Court will find the governing bodies acted within their powers on similar reasoning to the CAS ruling however there is every possibility they will regard the threatened sanctions as anti-competitive” - although the whole affair has been handled in such an opaque way that some of the implications remain unclear.

For example, Taylor Smith says if the ruling goes in favour of the ESL “it may lead to the other clubs revisiting the circumstances and terms on which they agreed to pay substantial fines due to their participation."

Whether they would actually have a case to challenge those fines is another matter: neither the clubs nor UEFA have ever confirmed payment has been made.

Players from "rebel" European Super League clubs could still be barred from playing at this year's World Cup and the clubs are likely to face financial penalties.

Legal experts consulted by Off The Pitch say FIFA and UEFA are expected to press ahead with disciplinary action, though may wait to first hear the case verdict from the European Union's highest court.

Last month, judge Sofía Gil García, from Madrid's Commercial Court 17, lifted the prohibition on UEFA and FIFA to impose sanctions or disciplinary measures on the founding clubs of the ESL. While the competition was initially backed by 12 clubs, only FC Barcelona, Real Madrid and Juventus still publicly support it.

The clubs had previously been granted "interim measures", successfully arguing punishment would impede their plan to create a Super League outside the control of UEFA. However, judge Gil removed the legal protection.

"It has in no way been demonstrated that the threat of sanctions to the three clubs would lead to the impossibility of carrying out the project," she said in her ruling.

Other interim measures, ordering UEFA not to take any action or make any statement that could "directly or indirectly" hinder the plan for the Super League, were also removed.

Possible World Cup ban

Juan de Dios Crespo Pérez, partner and head of sports law at Valencia-based Ruiz-Huerta & Crespo, believes the governing bodies will move forward with punishing the clubs.

"The interim measure adopted 'inaudita parte' (without hearing from UEFA) was intended to prevent UEFA from retaliating against the three clubs holding the Super league: FC Barcelona, Real Madrid and Juventus," he tells Off The Pitch.

"UEFA was therefore determined to take action against the clubs since it would otherwise not have opposed the interim measure.

"It therefore seems reasonable to expect that it will indeed take some kind of action against the clubs that persist in their will to develop the Super League project."

What that action will be remains to be seen. Italian newspaper Gazzetta Della Sport has reported that, while it legally has the power to sanction the rebel clubs, UEFA has "neither time nor desire to do so now".

The newspaper reports UEFA will impose fines of €15 million plus the withholding of 5 per cent of UEFA prize money for the 2023/24 season. If the rebel clubs refuse, they would be unable to play in UEFA club competitions that season.

In May last year, the other nine original ESL clubs agreed to make a combined €15 million payment to benefit children's and grassroots football across Europe. They also received the sanction withholding of 5 per cent of UEFA prize money, starting in 2023/24.

However, Crespo believes more immediate action is likely against the rebel clubs, including banning their international players from the World Cup in Qatar, which starts in November.

"In short, we can conclude that the most likely punishment that would be imposed by both FIFA and UEFA is to exclude teams in any further competition at domestic, European or world level and their players may be deprived of the opportunity to represent their national teams, losing the opportunity to participate in the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. Financial losses would be an inevitable consequence of such imposed measures," he says.

"Given the size of the clubs involved in the Super League project, it is to be expected that UEFA will adopt sanctions gradually, starting with financial penalties, as deducting points would seriously distort the competition and a temporary ban on participation would be very detrimental to the competition itself."

Global players’ union FIFPRO has previously said it would "vigorously oppose" any legal efforts to stop players from representing their national teams.

How, and when, will UEFA act?

Simon Neill and Joachim Piotrowski are competition lawyers specialising in the application of competition law in professional sport for Osborne Clarke.

They point out that the ESL dispute came before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling last May. The Madrid Commercial Court asked whether UEFA and FIFA having exclusive rights for new competitions was in breach of EU competition rules. There was also a question on whether the governing bodies had the legal power to require prior authorisation for other competitions, like the ESL.

"This ruling, which is expected in the coming months, is likely to have a major impact on the outcome of this dispute, and may dissuade UEFA from imposing any sanctions on the ESL clubs in the meantime," Piotrowski says.

After the Madrid court removed the club's protection from penalties, UEFA said it "welcomes this decision and is considering its implications". FIFA declined to comment on questions from Off The Pitch. UEFA did not respond. 

While it may wish to wait for the CJEU's preliminary judgment, Neill and Piotrowski say UEFA will feel the need to punish the rebel clubs.

"Given UEFA's hard stance on the issue from the outset, as well as the very real threat that the ESL poses to UEFA's flagship competitions like the Champions League, it is likely that UEFA will now look to impose some disciplinary measures," Neill says.

"One possibility is that UEFA may now move ahead with the disciplinary measures it had already imposed on the teams, including economic sanctions, bans from European competitions and ordering ESL to dissolve the project."

Appeal options

The rebel clubs are expected to appeal the Madrid court's decision to lift interim measures to the city's Provincial Court (Audiencia Provincial).

But Neill and Piotrowski say judge Gil ruled that Spanish courts cannot intervene to impose interim measures.

Should the clubs be disciplined by UEFA and or FIFA, they would still have the option of appealing, including to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Crespo says the governing bodies could use the opportunity to seriously discipline the rebel clubs in the hope of stopping any future attempts to create a ESL.

"UEFA may adopt a series of sanctions against the Super League clubs that would lead them to desist from their efforts to launch the Super League, at least until they obtain a decision from the Court of Justice of the European Union," he says.

"Precisely, if the clubs have sought interim measures to prevent UEFA from retaliating against them, it is because they are aware that they need to stay within the current official competitions to maintain their position of strength vis-à-vis UEFA and FIFA."

With the 2022 FIFA World Cup only eight months away, a potential image rights crisis is currently developing at La Clairefontaine, the headquarters of the French Football Federation (FFF), which could lead to player unrest and internal squabbles at the federation as “Les Bleus” head into the final phase of preparation to defend their title in Qatar.

At the heart of the crisis is Kylian Mbappé, who at the age of 19 was already one of the key players during France´s World Cup-winning campaign four years ago in Russia.

The Paris Saint-Germain striker was supposed to attend a photo shoot on 22 March with the rest of the national team players for several of FFF´s main sponsors, Volkswagen, Orange, Coca-Cola, Konami, Uber Eats and Xbox - but the PSG player failed to show up.

Memories of 2010 turmoil

According to French media this is the last chapter in a drama threatening to throw the FFF into the same degree of turmoil it experienced when the national team players went on strike during the 2010 FIFA World Cup.

According to French daily Le Parisien, Mbappé is especially critical of the FFF’s partnership with Betclic, Coca-Cola and KFC given his sensitivity towards issues related to nutrition and betting. Mbappé does, however, still honour PSG´s sponsorship obligations for Unibet.

At the same time, he feels that the revenue generated by the national team players through their sponsorship obligations for the FFF ends up in the wrong pockets and isn’t reinvested properly into grassroots and amateur football.

According to Mbappé, such reinvestment is crucial for French football’s continued strength and the social welfare of troubled communities. For the same reason, he wants national team players to have a greater say in the distribution of funds generated by sponsorship obligations.

Mbappé’s lawyer, Delphine Verheyden, has been negotiating with the FFF for months without reaching any conclusion and has now spoken to French sports paper L’Equipe about the issues at the heart of the conflict.

"When a player is selected for the French national team for the first time, he signs a document that governs his rights and obligations in the national team. This document comes into effect when he signs it and expires five years after the end of his professional career.

"That is the first thing that annoys us. Therefore, for Kylian, it should be from his 18th birthday until his 40th birthday or so. It's not realistic to take on such a long commitment."

Mbappé’s lawyer stresses that it is vital for players to be able to maintain control of their image.

"It is important that players are in harmony with the advertisements in which they participate.

“They have to be a role model for their young audience and this role should be handled with care. At the end of the World Cup (in 2018), Kylian tried, despite the incredible number of proposals received, to always have a line in his choices," the lawyer says and adds:

"Rather than food that could lead to obesity, he made a choice by going to Good Gout, which is an organic food brand for children. This does not mean that he himself is totally irreproachable in what he consumes but rather that he wants to carry the right messages to the youngest members of society, who are influenced by their idols."

Mbappé has battle on his hands

She also touched on her client's feelings in relation to the sale of national team shirts and declared that he wants to have a say in everything he generates.

"In the official shirts, who has the rights? The FFF, the team supplier (Nike) and the player," she says.

“If we put the player's name on the jersey, he should receive some compensation. Next, each of them must decide if they want to keep the money or donate it to amateur football. This is where Kylian wants to have a say where the money is distributed."

Despite the efforts of the Mbappé camp, Danish sports lawyer Frederik Bruhn anticipates the French star-striker having a real battle on his hands to make any individual amendments to the current contract, despite its possible shortcomings.

“Federations don’t make agreements with individual players when they sign up to play for the national team. Instead they make an agreement for the whole team in which it is established what the terms are to be able to play in the national side,” Bruhn says. 

“It’s quite a simple agreement but occasionally there are disagreements around commercial terms, which bonuses they are entitled to, etc."

“Legally it’s the FFF who decides what the rules are to be able to play in the French national team. And if you don’t like the rules which are the same for everybody, then you can't play. Regardless of how big a player you are and regardless how important you are, you can’t break that agreement if you want to play for the national team,” says Bruhn.

FFF president: “Small worries are part of life”

Bruhn says Mbappé needs to focus on the collective rather than the individual rewards if he is to find a compromise with the French Football federation.

“At club level it’s possible to make individual agreements but I have never heard of it in connection with national teams. The only way that Mbappé is going to get something out of this is by focusing on the rights of the national team group instead of his own individual and personal grievances.

"I could certainly see that by awarding the players a greater share of the sponsorship revenue and a say in terms of how sponsorship income should be distributed would go a long way towards resolving this matter,” says Bruhn.

Despite this potential image rights crisis brewing at the FFF when the World Cup is fast approaching, FFF President Noël Le Graët is confident the matter has been blown out of proportion and will be resolved before long. “Small worries are part of life and I am sure this matter will be cleared before the next sponsor event (to be arranged in August).

A letter from the lawyers of the Federation will be sent to Mbappé and his lawyer, but I am against any sanction on the player. We will see point by point what the problem is. We want to improve things and make people happy, sponsors and players,” Le Graët told French media.

“Great players should set good examples”

However, despite Le Graët´s relaxed attitude towards the image rights issues, there are widespread concerns within French football communities that Mbappé’s refusal to meet sponsorship commitments could start a trend among key French players. As such, Reims President Jean-Pierre Caillot has sent a warning that Mbappé should not set a precedent.

“As an individual... he probably has ethical questions about some of the sponsors. But when you arrive at a club, you know the rules. When you arrive in the France team, you also know the rules. Today he is a world star and finds out that he is embarrassed to honour certain commitments, I do not condone it. It would be a pity if other players follow suit. Great players should always set a good example,” Caillot told L´Equipe.

Acccording to Kenneth Cortsen, an internationally-recognised Danish sports management researcher, the FFF has been caught napping with an image-rights agreement which is very possibly outdated due to the current complexity of the matter.

“There is a different complexity today regarding the question of image rights than when FFF created this agreement for players in the national team in 2010. Modern football is in a completely different place than 10 or 20 years ago.

"Social responsibility and the fact that players have a much more critical attitude towards what their brand represents and how authentic it is plays a much bigger role now than previously,” he says.

“The pressure the Mbappé camp has put on the FFF creates enormous attention around negotiations of image rights in relation to national teams. This case could easily lead to an increased complexity around these agreements in the future, which could include more clauses and individual agreements for some of the most prolific players.

"The FFF need to lay down a strategy for how to handle these matters, as player power has grown over the years and the FFF are under pressure to minimise the unrest this could cause so close to the next World Cup,” says Cortsen.

A group of Belarussian athletes and footballers seeking to cut off their country’s access to international sports at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) “due to the involvement of all current Belarusian authorities in the war unleashed by Russia against Ukraine”, say that funds directed by international sports organisations, including FIFA and UEFA, are “enabling” the Belarussian dictator Aleksander Lukashenko and his support for Russia.

The Belarusian Sports Solidarity Foundation (BSSF), a group of more than 2000 Belarussian athletes, has been working on bringing the country’s sports authorities to justice within the international sport community since 2020, and will take a case to CAS on 28 April aimed at removing the country’s footballers from UEFA.

The extraordinary situation sees footballers and other athletes calling to end their own participation in international competition. Their aim is to end Lukashenko’s control over sport in their country.

They accuse Lukashenko of the “facilitation to Russian aggression and the outbreak of war in Europe” and say that sanctions UEFA and FIFA have already made against Russia, should matched with a ban on Belarus, which they say is complicit in the war.

Earlier this month UEFA ordered international games involving Belarus be played on neutral territory, but stopped short of financial sanctions or a ban.

Solidarity funds

The BSSF also accuse UEFA and FIFA of facilitating Lukashenko by providing millions in solidarity payments to Belarussian football, which, they say, he effectively controls. According to UEFA’s last published results it paid €5.081 million to Belarus’s FA and clubs, while FIFA paid $4.07 million via its Forward programme, plus a further $1.5 million Covid relief.

“The BSSF calls upon UEFA to suspend the Belarus Football Federation in UEFA, to impose a complete ban on the participation of Belarusian and national teams in all competitions held under UEFA auspices, and demand the suspension of any financial support from UEFA,” says Mikhail Zaleuski, BSSF Representative and former General Director of Belarus’s leading club, BATE Borisov.

“We insist on personal sanctions and call for a lifetime ban on activities related to football and sports in general against the Belarus Football Federation president Vladimir Bazanov, sports minister Sergey Kovalchuk and a number of their deputies, against whom there is evidence of involvement in politically motivated persecution.”

Athlete action

The BSSF was formed when more than 250 athletes signed an open letter condemning fraud in the 2020 elections that brought Lukashenko a sixth term in office. Following the contested result, violence, including torture, was waged at Belarusians protesting against the official results.

More than 2,000 athletes have now signed up to the BSSF, which provides legal and financial aid to athletes and outreach to governing bodies such as the IOC. They say Lukashenko – who personally headed the National Olympic Committee for decades before passing the role on to his son, Viktor - has tried to “sportwash” his reputation by attracting large events to the country.

These include the 2021 Ice Hockey World Championships and the UEFA U19 Women’s European Championships in 2025.

The former was stripped from Belarus, and the UEFA president Aleksander Čeferin told Off The Pitch last December that his body was “monitoring” the situation and suggested it would withdraw hosting rights if the situation didn’t improve.

“There are no genuinely independent sports organisations in Belarus. Today, the BSSF is the only sports organization representing Belarusians that is independent of Lukashenko's dictatorial regime,” explains Aliaksandr Apeikin, BSSF Executive Director.

“Regarding the sports system in Belarus, the world sports arena is a tool for dictatorial regimes to present themselves at a high level in order to communicate with country leaders and officials at the highest level, thus providing a "soft" legitimisation and establishing new diplomatic channels to lobby their interests.”

Worsening situation

Belarusian football has already been sanctioned twice by UEFA for state interference in football, in 1999 and 2003.

However, the BSSF says that the situation has deteriorated rapidly in Belarus since the start of the year and describe “an incredible and unprecedented scale of repression” with the country now “under the effective occupation of Russian troops.”

“It is our goal and responsibility on all levels to clearly explain that Belarus and Belarusians are not Lukashenko,” adds Aliaksandra Herasimenia, a former world champion swimmer and BSSF Chairwoman.

Documents seen by Off The Pitch show a shocking culture in which major clubs are owned by Lukashenko proxies and/ or businessmen who are on US, EU and Canadian sanctions lists.  They also include top flight footballers subject to physical and psychological abuse, as well as illegal detention and torture.

One teenage top flight footballer who was detained for three weeks in two periods because of his civic stance, said:  "I raised my head and they hit me right in the face with their fist. I put my head down to check for blood, raised it again and they beat me even harder. When they saw that I had a white ribbon on my wrist, they pulled it off with a sharp movement and kicked me in the face for it. I felt blood flowing...".

Another top flight player was detained and tortured for his civic stance and diagnosed with a bruised right kidney, closed abdominal trauma, and bruised lower back on his release. Other footballers have been excluded from selection or forced to pursue their careers overseas.

CAS case

The legal action against UEFA, which will be heard at CAS at the end of April, claims that the BSSF and its trustees are “directly affected persons” by UEFA’s decision not to investigate alleged violations by “senior officials” of the Belarusian Football Federation (BFF).

They allege there is “non-compliance with the principles of integrity of sport, human rights adherence and non-discrimination” and claim that the BFF have discriminated against footballers “based on the fact of having and expressing their civic stance.”

“As a result, not only all our trustees were discriminated against with voluntary dismissals, but also with factual deprivation of the rights to work and to be engaged in sport.”

Further uninvestigated claims include matchfixing, which are made by the former head of the BFF referee’s department and supported by “detailed testimonies on the issue how fixed matches are developed and controlled by the federation.”

They also say that there are “breaches of the fundamental principles of the functioning of sports federation: political neutrality principle and the principle of good governance.” It is this, and Lukashenko’s complicity in the Ukraine war, that ultimately runs at the heart of their case.

“Before FIFA, the BSSF firmly insisted that the Russian national team should not be allowed to play in competitions under the auspices of FIFA. In addition, we informed FIFA that we consider it necessary to impose similar sanctions against Belarus, from whose territory Ukraine was attacked.”

Perspectives

Paolo Torchetti, of Valencian sports law practise, Ruiz-Huerta & Crespo, and who is working with the BSSF, says that UEFA is “moving the goalposts” on what should be a clear cut issue on “freedom of speech, democracy and equality.”

“We have made complaints to the UEFA disciplinary boards over the BFF’s use of football as a tool of political intimidation,” he says.

“UEFA, however, has chosen not to intervene. UEFA has communicated that it does not have jurisdiction to discipline members of the BFF in such cases because it is a domestic matter.

“The difficulty with that perspective is that the judicial bodies of the BFF are hardly independent and carry out Lukashenko’s agenda. Now, before the CAS UEFA is choosing to focus on the overly legalistic and formal arguments of lack of capacity to sue, moving the goalposts once again, instead of focusing on what is truly at issue, freedom of speech, democracy and equality.

“These are not only values that are paramount in all international sport  federation statutes, but legal principles that ought to compel UEFA  to protect those vulnerable members in the football family whom are being persecuted.”

The BSSF says that its work will go beyond Belarus and that it plans to work together with the Football Federation of Ukraine to seek sanctions against players who supported the dictatorship and the war, including a ban on issuing and cancelling visas to enter and work in the EU, the USA and the UK.

“Relevant documents have been already submitted to the sports ministries and foreign ministries of these countries,” an official confirmed.

Zaleuski adds: “We are not going to give up until this circle closes and responsible officials honestly acknowledge the blatant suppression of civil liberties and persecution through national football structures and put an exemplary end to it, thus demonstrating to millions of fans and professionals that football must be fair and independent of the dictatorships that are causing Europe and the world to tremble and fear.”

FIFA and UEFA were contacted for comment.

Just a few weeks ago Fremad Amager, one of the oldest clubs in Danish football history, were hours away from bankruptcy after an American investor group, spearheaded by Josh Wallace - a self-proclaimed tech billionaire with a dubious past in the cannabis business and a criminal record for tax fraud and deception - left the club in financial dire straits and unable to meet their financial obligations or pay player wages.

The Copenhagen-based club, which has otherwise fostered amazing talent such as former Ajax-heroes Frank Arnesen and Søren Lerby, is the latest casualty during an evolution in Danish football which has seen a series of foreign investors take over a number of clubs.

No fewer than nine out of 24 clubs in the top two divisions in Denmark are today owned by foreign investors - and not without reason. 

Danish clubs are attractive

It doesn't require a lot of funds to acquire a majority of shares in a Danish club, player wages are relatively low and it’s fairly easy to get a work permit in Denmark.

On top of this, the country has an excellent track record of producing talent, enjoys a high coefficient in the UEFA rankings and perhaps most importantly - the laws in Denmark around acquiring a majority of shares are very liberal.

Today, any Chinese, Arab, Russian, Egyptian investor - along with others - can purchase a Danish club without any restrictions, regardless of their background.

However, that could potentially change in the near future.

On the back of the recent debate about foreign ownership in Danish football, the Danish FA has established a committee set to investigate possible regulations and restrictions for foreign ownerships.

The results of the investigations are to be handed in to the Board of the Danish FA in June.

Three weeks ago director of the league administration, Thomas Christensen, said that the integrity of new owners would be tested prior to a takeover, while there would also be further demands regarding the transparency of the new owners’ financial situation.

However, the possible implementation of potential regulations pinpointed by the committee could hit a stumbling block whose origins go all the way back to February 2017 when the so-called Elite Agreement was approved by the Danish FA´s Board of Representatives.

Revolutionary “Elite Agreement”

In the Elite Agreement, the Danish FA, in what was called a virtual “revolution" for Danish football, surrendered a series of legal competencies to the league administration (Divisionsforeningen) - including the propositions and licensing manual for the top two divisions (Paragraph 4.1.1 to 4.1.4).

The Elite Agreement caused an uproar in Danish football between the FA and league administration.

Jim Stjerne Hansen, the former general secretary of the Danish FA and member of the UEFA Disciplinary Committee, claims in an interview with Off the Pitch that the Elite Agreement was in violation of FIFA and UEFA statutes.

These statutes also stipulate that “Member associations’ statutes must comply with the principles of good governance and shall in particular contain, at a minimum, provisions to the following matters”

(…) g) that the member association has the primary responsibility to regulate matters relating to refereeing, the fight against doping, the registration of players, club licensing, the imposition of disciplinary measures, including for ethical misconduct, and measures required to protect the integrity of competitions.”

No legal mandate

Today it remains unclear whether UEFA has ever approved the Elite Agreement, which - according to their own rules - should be approved by their Executive Board. So it is not clear who controls Danish football today.

Is it the Danish FA or the league administration (Divisionsforeningen)?

Legal experts and key individuals within the two bodies disagree, but the issue has enormous importance, not only for Danish - but also European football, perhaps particularly in relation to the discussion of potential regulations for foreign ownership - in this case in Danish football.

This also affects the committee appointed by the Danish FA to look at possible regulations.

The committee can make recommendations for future regulations, but they don’t have the legal mandate to implement any of these (presumably in the licensing manual) as the legal power to decide matters in the end lies with the league administration.

This basically means that in the future, it may be up to each of the clubs as members of the league administration to decide if they want to impose regulations on themselves.

Clubs allowed to regulate themselves?

Stjerne Hansen is concerned that the top organisation in Danish football has completely lost control over the elite section of men’s football.

"I think it’s extremely unfortunate that the league administration can regulate their own business via the license scheme which they also administer and can make changes to without the Danish FA being able to intervene.

"I thought it was a very bad decision back in 2017 when the real power of Danish elite tournament administration was handed over to the league administration (Divisionsforeningen). I tried to warn people of the repercussions back then and now we are starting to see the effects of it,” he says.

Another issue that could prove a challenge for Danish ambitions to set up potential regulations for foreign ownership in Danish football is EU rights of free movement of capital and the Companies Act.

The free movement of capital is one of the four fundamental freedoms of the EU single market.

Not only is it the most recent one, but because of its unique third-country dimension, it is also the broadest.

Restrictions on capital movements and payments, both between member states and with third countries have been prohibited since the start of 2004 as a result of the Maastricht Treaty.

Limitations for regulations

Both Michael Andersen, former director of Team Danmark (the state-funded organisation for promoting elite sports in Denmark) and CAS arbitrator Jens Evald foresee the above-mentioned rules having serious obstacles for the Danish FA and the league administrators in making possible sanctions or regulations on potential future foreign investors.

“I certainly applaud the initiative to explore the possibility for potential regulations. I anticipate that the committee will aim to make criteria around good governance and transparency but I struggle to see how they can be implemented.

"Such regulations are not made in Denmark. Ninety per cent of the licence manual for the two top Danish divisions are written by UEFA. New regulations would quickly violate the Companies Act and the right to acquire the shares you want.

"In the EU we have free movement of capital and if you start to make regulations for foreign ownerships, I see a huge risk of it clashing with EU rules right then and there,” says Andersen.

League administration dominated by foreigners

Thomas Christensen, director of the league administration (Divisionsforeningen) did admit that there are challenges when he took part in a podcast (“Bag bolden” or “Behind the ball”) on 28 February.

“Divisionsforeningen does not want to limit the purchase of shares. But this issue is not focused around buying and selling shares. We have the option to check ownerships (who are the real owners and their background), and the idea is that this could in the end influence their ability to sign contracts,” he says.

Off The Pitch did reach out to the league administration (Divisionsforeningen) but were told they weren´t available for further comments.

Time will tell if the law allows possible regulations to be imposed on foreign ownership but Stjerne Hansen fears a future where dubious foreign investors can set the agenda for the future development of Danish football.

“The horror scenario is that Danish clubs are acquired by foreign investors who then wants to take over the league administration. There are really frightening examples of this in Europe with the Paris Saint-Germain Chairman and CEO Nasser Al-Khelaifi being re-elected to UEFA's Executive Committee and he is also Chairman at the European Club Association (ECA).

"My fear is that we suddenly will see a league administration with Chinese, Russian and Egyptian club owners who control the future of Danish elite football,” Stjerne Hansen says.

The Russian Football Union's appeal against its removal from FIFA competitions may rest on arguing it is separate from the Russian state and its actions, say legal experts.

And FIFA's decision could have wider consequences for how football's world governing body approaches geopolitical issues in the future.

On Thursday, the Russian Football Union (RFU) announced it would appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) over decisions from FIFA and UEFA to suspend Russian clubs and national teams from playing in international competitions. The decision followed Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

The first strategy the RFU is likely to use to attack the decision is questioning the procedural elements, say legal sources. For example, questioning whether the correct body – the Bureau of the FIFA Council – made the decision, if it has the power to make such a decision and if the decision is justified and proportionate. 

Paul Greene, founder of Global Sports Advocates, has represented athletes from more than 50 countries at CAS.

"I think the argument (the RFU is) going to have to make is they're separate from the government, they didn't participate in this decision (to invade Ukraine)," he tells Off The Pitch. 

"They themselves can't be held responsible for every thing that happens in their country."

He also believes the RFU could argue FIFA's decision goes against one of its own statutes, which states: "FIFA remains neutral in matters of politics and religion."

"One hundred per cent (the RFU) will argue that," Greene says.

FIFA will point to Article 3

Dr Gregory Ioannidis, a sports lawyer with more than 20 years' experience, including before CAS, and leader of Sheffield Hallam University’s international sports law course, agrees an argument around separation from central government decision-making is likely.

"The RFU may argue that it followed the sporting rules imposed on it and it played no part in the decision making for military action," he says. 

"If this were to be tied up with the FIFA Statutes (the RFU) would probably float around the general argument of discrimination, as it may be in violation of FIFA Statutes. 

"The RFU, however, may struggle to persuade the CAS Panel that their interests (RFU) outweigh those of FIFA and the sport as a whole, so they may fail on the balance of convenience test."

Some legal experts believe FIFA will point to Article 3 of its statutes to justify its decision. Introduced in 2016, it states: "FIFA is committed to respecting all internationally recognized human rights and shall strive to promote the protection of these rights."

"There are rules about prohibiting forms of discrimination and to be independent and avoid forms of political interference," Greene says.

Seek an expedited hearing

Ioannidis says the FIFA statutes are "wide open for a broad interpretation."

"FIFA, therefore, may argue that the actual participation of Russian teams in international competitions may cause anger and distress and, therefore, it may bring the game into disrepute," he says.

Russia's men's team had been due to play Poland in a World Cup playoff later this month and the RFU will seek an expedited hearing with CAS.

"The RFU will demand the restoration of all men's and women's national teams of Russia in all types of football in the tournaments in which they took part (including in the qualifying round of the World Cup in Qatar), as well as compensation for damage," the RFU said in Thursday's statement.

"In order to ensure the possibility of the participation of Russian teams in the next scheduled matches, the RFU will insist on an expedited procedure for considering the case.

"If FIFA and UEFA refuse such a procedure, a requirement will be put forward for the introduction of interim measures in the form of suspension of FIFA and UEFA decisions."

The RFU said FIFA and UEFA did not have a "legal basis" to remove Russian teams and that the decision to remove them from the World Cup playoffs was "made under pressure from direct rivals". Poland, and several other countries, had said they would boycott matches against Russia.

Assuming FIFA and UEFA don't agree to expedite the hearing, Greene says the "provisional relief" the RFU is seeking would allow the national team to play the playoff.

"The idea being if the Russians would later win the appeal, but couldn't play in the game, they would suffer what's known as 'irreparable harm,'" he says.

"The third part of it is a balancing of interests between (the RFU's) interests and FIFA's interests and whose interest outweighs the other. It is very difficult to typically get provisional relief. It's not something that CAS grants very often."

Legal sources say FIFA's decision is unusual. Off The Pitch understands that, while Russian teams have been removed from FIFA competitions, the RFU has not been suspended as a full member of FIFA. This would allow it to continue to exercise member rights like attending the FIFA Congress, which takes place on March 31 in Qatar, and receiving development funding.  

FIFA typically suspends members in full, as it did recently with the Football Kenya Federation and Zimbabwe Football Association for government interference. 

FIFA may be seen to have sanctioned the RFU – by removing its teams from FIFA competitions – for geopolitical reasons. That could put the governing body under pressure to do the same for football federations in countries that have also invaded others or with poor human rights records. 

FIFA excluded South Africa and Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) in the 1970s, during apartheid, and UEFA banned Yugoslavia from Euro 1992 after sanctions imposed by the United Nations. Nazi Germany, however, was allowed to play at the 1938 World Cup.

Independence and autonomy of self-regulation

With the RFU, FIFA initially announced measures including not allowing matches to be played in Russia and forcing Russian players to compete under the name "Football Union of Russia". 

There was a backlash from other European football associations. Then, after the International Olympic Committee recommended banning Russian and Belarusian athletes from international sporting competitions, FIFA announced it was removing Russian teams from competitions.

So, how might this case change how FIFA strikes a balance between legal rules and politics? 

"It changes it to a great extent because it gives rise to an inevitable battle between law, politics and ethics," Ioannidis says. 

"It also demonstrates the limitations of the independence and autonomy of self-regulation." 

Off The Pitch asked FIFA on what grounds Russian teams were removed from competition and to confirm the RFU was not suspended as a full FIFA member. 

FIFA would not elaborate and referred to its previous statements, the latest of which says "all Russian teams, whether national representative teams or club teams, shall be suspended from participation in both FIFA and UEFA competitions until further notice."

The RFU also directed Off The Pitch to its previous statement.

At CAS, some sources suggest it will be difficult for the RFU to succeed. Others aren't so sure.

"It's very hard to be a prognosticator. Even in my own cases in my career, cases I thought I would win I've lost, and cases I thought I would lose I've won," Greene says. 

"Anyone who sits here and tells you they know what's going to happen in this case has no idea."