FFAR Under Scrutiny: AG Emiliou on the Limits of Sporting Self-Regulation

AG Emiliou Opinions, 15 May 2025, Cases C‑428/23 ROGON GmbH & Co. KG v DFB, C‑209/23 RRC Sports and C‑133/24 CD Tondela

Date of the decision: 2025-05-15

On 15 May 2025, Advocate General Emiliou delivered three key Opinions in the ROGON (C‑428/23), RRC Sports (C‑209/23), and Tondela (C‑133/24) cases, urging the Court of Justice to confirm that sports regulations - such as FIFA’s agent rules - are subject to EU competition and internal market law when they produce significant economic effects. While recognising the autonomy of sports bodies, the AG emphasised that only rules passing the Meca-Medina test of legitimacy, necessity and proportionality can be justified under EU Law.

Introduction

The three Opinions handed down by AG Emiliou offer a pivotal reaffirmation of the principle that regulatory measures adopted by sports bodies must comply with EU competition and internal market rules where they materially impact economic activity. The cases - ROGON, RRC Sports and Tondela - concern respectively the application of FIFA’s Football Agent Regulations (FFAR) by the German Football Association, the FFAR themselves as adopted by FIFA, and a pandemic-era agreement between Portuguese clubs not to hire players from each other.

The Advocate General’s findings reflect the EU Court’s consistent approach since Meca-Medina (

Why not join us?

Football Legal is an independent media publishing football law contents on a daily basis dedicated to all football law practitioners (lawyers, clubs, federations, intermediaries, football stakeholders, etc.).

Get started