The Effectiveness of Decisions Rendered by FIFA’s Judicial Bodies and the Current Challenges of Their International Enforcement

Author: Patricio Tomás Mc Inerny 🇦🇷

This article is also available in English and French:

Published by the firm WD Associés | Translated with the assistance of AI

Table of Contents

I. Introduction.- II. FIFA’s Judicial System and the Nature of Its Decisions.- III. From the Recognition of Rights to Their Effective Enforcement.- IV. The Sports Enforcement System Established by FIFA Regulations.- V. Registration Bans as the Principal Enforcement Mechanism.- VI. The Limits of the System: Insolvency, Dissolution and Loss of Affiliation of the Debtor Club.- VII. Sporting Succession as a Mechanism for Preserving the Effectiveness of Decisions.- VIII. The Coexistence of the Sporting Legal Order and National Legal Systems.- IX. International Enforcement and the Role of the Court of Arbitration for Sport.- X. Training Compensation, the Solidarity Mechanism and the FIFA Clearing House.- XI. Current Challenges Facing the System.- XII. Proposals to Strengthen the International Effectiveness of FIFA Decisions.- XIII. Conclusions.-

I. Introduction

The development of an international sports dispute resolution system represents one of the most significant legal achievements in professional sport over recent decades. In football, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) has established a regulatory and institutional framework designed to govern relationships between the various stakeholders involved in the sport and to resolve disputes arising between them. At the heart of this framework stands the FIFA Football Tribunal, currently comprising the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the Players’ Status Chamber and the Agents Chamber, which has jurisdiction over a wide range of disputes with an international dimension.

The existence of specialised bodies, electronic procedures, relatively short procedural time limits and appeal mechanisms before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has facilitated the development of a particularly sophisticated transnational dispute resolution system. However, the true success of an adjudicatory system should not be assessed solely by its ability to render legally sound decisions. Rather, the fundamental question arises at a subsequent stage: what happens when the party bound by a decision fails to comply with it?

Whether a decision awards a player several months of outstanding remuneration, orders a club to pay compensation for breach of contract or upholds a training club’s claim for a specified sum of money, it cannot be considered fully effective if the beneficiary is ultimately unable to obtain what has been awarded. This issue is particularly significant in sport because of the specific characteristics of the entities involved. Clubs may become subject to insolvency proceedings, lose their affiliation, alter their corporate structure, be relegated to divisions outside professional football, be formally dissolved or even reappear under a different legal entity while substantially retaining the same sporting identity. In response to such situations, sports law has developed specific enforcement mechanisms that differ from the traditional methods of compulsory enforcement available within national judicial systems.

FIFA does not attach bank accounts or auction a club’s assets to satisfy a claim recognised in a decision. Instead, its authority operates primarily within the sporting legal order: it may prohibit the registration of new players, impose disciplinary sanctions and require its member associations to implement specific sporting consequences. Accordingly, this constitutes a form of indirect enforcement. In this respect, FIFA does not substitute itself for the debtor in order to discharge the obligation directly, but rather creates sufficiently strong sporting incentives to induce compliance.

This article seeks to examine the effectiveness of the international football dispute resolution system, considering both its strengths and its limitations. The central hypothesis is that FIFA’s judicial system currently demonstrates a high degree of effectiveness in relation to parties that remain active within the federative structure, while encountering greater difficulties when the debtor’s economic or corporate circumstances extend beyond that structure. Insolvency, the disappearance of clubs, the phenomenon of sporting succession and the potential involvement of national courts therefore represent the principal challenges to the international effectiveness of its decisions.

II. FIFA’s Judicial System and the Nature of Its Decisions

FIFA’s judicial structure must be examined within a sporting legal order characterised by its international scope and a pyramidal federative organisation, with FIFA at its apex, followed by the continental confederations, national associations and, subsequently, affiliated leagues and clubs. Players, coaches, agents and other stakeholders involved in football are likewise incorporated into this system through various contractual and regulatory relationships.

The FIFA Statutes recognise the Football Tribunal’s authority to render decisions concerning football-related disputes and certain regulatory applications. Its operation is further governed by the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) and the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal. The matters brought before these bodies vary considerably and may include international employment-related disputes between clubs and players, disputes between clubs, disputes involving coaches, disputes arising from certain relationships with agents and proceedings concerning training-related entitlements. The outcome of these proceedings is therefore a decision establishing a specific obligation for its addressees. The distinctive feature, however, is that these decisions are not judgments rendered by national courts, and their effectiveness derives primarily from the parties’ affiliation with the international federative system and the binding nature of the rules governing that affiliation.

This explains a fundamental distinction between FIFA’s judicial system and national courts. Whereas ordinary courts possess public enforcement powers enabling them to enforce their judgments through measures such as the attachment of assets, restrictions on the disposal of property, seizure or the compulsory sale of certain assets, FIFA lacks such state authority, and its coercive powers are sporting in nature. Nevertheless, this apparent weakness may, in certain circumstances, constitute one of the system’s greatest strengths. For a professional club, the inability to register new players may have more serious financial consequences than certain traditional asset-related enforcement measures imposed by national courts. For this reason, the effectiveness of FIFA’s system must be examined from a perspective specific to the sporting legal order, rather than by simply applying the categories of enforcement used in national judicial proceedings.

III. From the Recognition of Rights to Their Effective Enforcement

The right to obtain a favourable decision and the right to secure its enforcement constitute two distinct dimensions of legal protection. The former determines the existence and scope of the right asserted, while the latter transforms that recognition into a tangible outcome. This distinction can be clearly illustrated by a common scenario in which a player brings a claim against a club before the Dispute Resolution Chamber and obtains a decision ordering their former employer to pay outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract. At that point, the legal dispute may be considered resolved. However, if the club fails to pay, a different problem arises.

For many years, the enforcement of FIFA decisions involving financial obligations was closely linked to subsequent disciplinary proceedings, requiring the creditor to return to the system to initiate measures aimed at securing compliance. Regulatory reforms introduced in recent years have sought to simplify this process by incorporating the consequences of non-compliance directly into decisions imposing financial obligations. The current RSTP provides a mechanism whereby certain decisions ordering a club or player to pay a sum of money also specify the consequences that may apply if the debtor fails to discharge the obligation within the prescribed period. This represents a significant conceptual shift.

Sporting sanctions are no longer exclusively the outcome of a separate disciplinary procedure but have become an integral component of the mechanism designed to ensure the effectiveness of financial decisions. In this way, a FIFA decision has two complementary dimensions: on the one hand, it recognises a financial claim; on the other, it may trigger sporting consequences in the event of non-compliance.

Nevertheless, it remains essential to distinguish sporting coercion from actual enforcement against the debtor’s assets. A registration ban may effectively induce a solvent club to settle an outstanding debt, but it does not, in itself, transfer funds from the debtor’s assets to the creditor. This distinction becomes particularly significant when the debtor genuinely lacks the financial capacity to pay.

YOU MAY ALSO READ: The four Chambers of The TAS / CAS

IV. The Sports Enforcement System Established by FIFA Regulations

One of FIFA’s objectives has been to strengthen compliance with financial obligations established by decisions rendered by its competent bodies. The mechanism provided for in the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) is currently one of the central components of this system. Where a club has been ordered to fulfil a financial obligation, failure to pay may result in a prohibition on registering new players, both nationally and internationally, until the outstanding amount has been paid, subject to the time limits established by the applicable regulations.

The underlying rationale is straightforward. A club actively participating in competitions must continually renew its squad. Player registration is not merely an ancillary matter but a fundamental prerequisite for carrying out its sporting activities. Consequently, a registration ban creates a strong economic and sporting incentive to comply.

From this perspective, FIFA’s system does not seek to replace national enforcement mechanisms. Instead, it establishes a different mechanism based on the particular relationship between the debtor and the sporting organisation. Three elements can therefore be identified. First, the existence of a final and binding decision establishing an obligation. Second, the debtor’s failure to comply within the prescribed period. Third, the imposition of a sporting consequence capable of encouraging the fulfilment of that obligation. The mechanism also has a particularly significant international dimension. A sanction imposed on a club affiliated with a particular national association may affect its ability to register players at both national and international levels.

This capacity constitutes a comparative advantage of the sporting dispute resolution system. A creditor seeking judicial enforcement of a foreign judgment may need to identify assets, determine the competent jurisdictions and potentially pursue recognition and enforcement proceedings in different countries. By contrast, the federative structure enables certain sporting consequences to be implemented with relative uniformity. However, this system depends on a fundamental condition: the debtor must have an interest in continuing to participate in organised football. This is simultaneously its greatest strength and its principal weakness.

V. Registration Bans as the Principal Enforcement Mechanism

The prohibition on registering players — commonly referred to as a registration ban or transfer ban — has become one of the system’s most effective instruments. In these circumstances, its purpose is not exclusively to punish past conduct but to induce future behaviour: compliance with an established obligation. The measure directly affects the club’s competitive capacity.

During the period in which the ban remains in force, the club is unable to register new players, a circumstance that may undermine its sporting planning and reduce the competitive strength of its squad. This threat is particularly powerful in relation to financially active professional clubs. Even where the debt established by the decision is substantial, the indirect economic consequences of being unable to strengthen the team may considerably exceed the amount owed. In this way, the regulatory framework has achieved something that ordinary judicial proceedings frequently struggle to accomplish: attaching immediate and cross-border consequences to non-compliance.

Nevertheless, an absolute equivalence between a registration ban and enforcement should be avoided. The former constitutes a coercive measure. The latter entails the actual satisfaction of the recognised right. The creditor’s ultimate objective is not to prevent the club from signing players; it is to recover the amount owed. A registration ban operates effectively as long as it imposes a greater cost on the debtor than compliance itself. However, its coercive effect progressively diminishes when the club does not intend to register new players, is on the verge of disappearing or lacks sufficient assets to discharge its obligations. At that point, the issue ceases to be primarily disciplinary and becomes a genuine problem of legal effectiveness.

VI. The Limits of the System: Insolvency, Dissolution and Loss of Affiliation of the Debtor Club

The most problematic situation arises when a club ordered by FIFA to fulfil financial obligations experiences a structural economic crisis. Consider a professional club ordered to pay substantial amounts to several players and creditor clubs. Unable to meet its obligations, it enters insolvency proceedings, and the company operating its professional football activities is subsequently liquidated.

In these circumstances, the threat of a registration ban may become practically irrelevant to the legal entity that has ceased to exist. FIFA’s judicial system then encounters a material limitation: there is no longer an active participant within the sporting system against which coercive measures can be applied. Furthermore, a conflict may arise between two different conceptions of liability for financial obligations. From the perspective of national company or insolvency law, obligations belong, in principle, to the legal entity that incurred them. The liquidation of that entity takes place in accordance with national rules designed to administer creditors’ rights collectively.

From a sporting perspective, however, adhering exclusively to that formal legal structure could facilitate the circumvention of obligations. A club could accumulate debts, abandon a particular legal structure and subsequently resume its activities through another company, retaining its sporting identity while freeing itself from previous liabilities. Automatically accepting such an outcome would jeopardise the entire judicial system. Sports law has responded by developing its own legal doctrine: sporting succession.

VII. Sporting Succession as a Mechanism for Preserving the Effectiveness of Decisions

The doctrine of sporting succession is arguably one of the most significant developments in contemporary sports jurisprudence concerning the enforcement of decisions. It is based on a fundamental premise: a club’s sporting identity does not necessarily coincide with the identity of the legal entity responsible for its management. Under national law, a new company may have been established. From the perspective of the football community, however, the same club may continue to exist. The assessment does not depend exclusively on the corporate name. FIFA and Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) jurisprudence have considered various indicators of continuity of sporting identity, including the club’s name, colours, crest, history, stadium, fan base, geographical location, competitive division, members of its organisation and other elements capable of establishing whether substantial continuity exists between the two entities.

This doctrine has undergone particularly significant development in CAS jurisprudence. In CAS 2021/A/8061, Association Sporting Club Bastiais & SC Bastia v. FIFA & RCD Espanyol de Barcelona, the Tribunal extensively examined the relationship between the legal identity of the entities involved and the continuity of the club as a sporting entity. The case once again demonstrated that, within the football regulatory framework, the concept of a club may extend beyond the legal entity used at a particular time to conduct its activities. This issue remains highly relevant today. Subsequent arbitral awards have again had to examine the liability of entities identified as sporting successors to clubs that had left outstanding obligations. Cases involving Xanthi and Mersin, among others, demonstrate that this is not a historical legal doctrine that has become fully settled and closed to further development, but rather one of the most dynamic areas of contemporary international sports law.

The importance of this doctrine for enforcement is evident. If obligations necessarily disappeared whenever a club’s legal structure was replaced, a simple corporate reorganisation would be sufficient to deprive a FIFA decision of its effect. Sporting succession seeks to prevent such an outcome. Nevertheless, it raises difficult questions. What degree of continuity must exist? Is the use of the same name sufficient? Must the shareholders be identical? What happens when a local community establishes a new club following the disappearance of its predecessor, without any involvement by those who managed the former debtor? Can a debt be attributed to a legal entity that was never a party to the proceedings in which that debt was originally established? These questions demonstrate that sporting succession lies at the intersection of the need to ensure the effectiveness of decisions and the protection of fundamental principles such as separate legal personality, due process and legal certainty. The doctrine’s objective of preventing fraud appears difficult to dispute.

Determining its limits, however, is more complex. The analysis should avoid two extremes. The first would involve adopting a strictly formalistic approach under which every new legal entity is necessarily released from the obligations of its predecessor. Such an approach would facilitate the systematic avoidance of sporting debts. The second would be to presume that any club established in the same city, using similar colours or claiming the same historical tradition, must automatically assume liability for all previous obligations. This could unjustifiably prejudice third parties acting in good faith. The appropriate response requires a comprehensive assessment of the circumstances and a sufficiently rigorous evidentiary standard.

VIII. The Coexistence of the Sporting Legal Order and National Legal Systems

Another major challenge in international enforcement arises when a FIFA decision interacts with national laws. Professional football does not operate within a legally isolated system. Clubs are civil associations, commercial companies or other entities established under national legislation. They enter into contracts governed by particular legal systems, own assets located within national jurisdictions and may become subject to insolvency or liquidation proceedings. Accordingly, a sporting decision cannot be examined without taking this legal reality into account.

The principle of sporting autonomy recognises that sports organisations enjoy considerable discretion to establish their own rules, resolve internal disputes and impose sporting consequences. However, autonomy does not amount to sovereignty. FIFA does not replace sovereign states, nor can it exercise the enforcement powers vested in national courts. The coexistence of these two systems becomes particularly complex in cases of insolvency. National insolvency laws generally operate according to the principle of universality and seek to consolidate financial claims against a debtor within a single proceeding. They also establish different categories of creditors, preferential rights and rules governing the distribution of assets.

The sporting legal order pursues partially different objectives. In addition to protecting individual creditors, it seeks to safeguard the integrity of competitions and prevent clubs from obtaining a sporting advantage through the systematic non-fulfilment of football-related obligations. A conceptual tension therefore arises. From an insolvency law perspective, preventing an insolvent club from registering players because it has failed to pay a particular creditor in full could conflict with the rules governing the collective treatment of creditors’ claims.

From a sporting perspective, allowing a club to continue competing and freely signing players while failing to comply with final and binding decisions could undermine the credibility of the entire system. The solution cannot be achieved by granting absolute supremacy to either legal order. It is necessary to distinguish between financial enforcement measures — which remain subject to the limitations arising from state authority — and purely sporting consequences that a federation may impose as a condition of participation in its competitions.

The issue becomes even more complex when a national court issues a decision that is, at least apparently, incompatible with a sporting ban imposed by FIFA. Recent jurisprudence demonstrates that such conflicts are not merely theoretical. The case involving KSC Lokeren-Temse, for example, has raised issues concerning a registration ban and proceedings before the Belgian courts. This demonstrates that the genuine international effectiveness of FIFA decisions depends not only on the federative structure but also on appropriate mechanisms for coordination between jurisdictions.

YOU MAY ALSO READ: The evidences before the TAS / CAS

IX. International Enforcement and the Role of the Court of Arbitration for Sport

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) occupies a central position within the system. Final decisions rendered by certain FIFA bodies may be appealed before CAS in accordance with the applicable Statutes and regulations. Its involvement serves a dual purpose. On the one hand, it ensures external judicial review of decisions adopted within FIFA. On the other, it makes a decisive contribution to ensuring the uniform interpretation of international sporting regulations. In matters of enforcement, its jurisprudence has acquired particular significance concerning non-compliance with decisions, the proportionality of sanctions and sporting succession.

The latter area is particularly illustrative. FIFA is an international organisation comprising more than two hundred member associations, each operating within different corporate and insolvency legal frameworks. Attempting to establish a club’s identity exclusively through the legal categories of each State would produce profoundly inconsistent outcomes. CAS jurisprudence enables the development of an autonomous concept of sporting identity. This does not mean disregarding national legal structures, but rather recognising that the concept of a “club” within organised football may be governed by criteria specific to the lex sportiva.

Such uniformity is of considerable importance to the effectiveness of the system. Without it, an entity could be regarded as the successor to another in one country but as entirely unrelated to it in another, even where the sporting circumstances were equivalent. CAS therefore performs an essential function of legal harmonisation. At the same time, its awards are subject to the legal framework governing international arbitration and, in particular, to the Swiss legal regime applicable by virtue of the Tribunal’s seat in Lausanne. The involvement of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court as an exceptional forum for reviewing arbitral awards thus completes a multi-level judicial structure. FIFA, CAS and the Swiss Federal Supreme Court constitute distinct but interconnected levels of a system whose effectiveness ultimately depends on national legal systems recognising the autonomy of sports organisations and arbitration.

X. Training Compensation, the Solidarity Mechanism and the FIFA Clearing House

The issue of effectiveness is not limited to employment-related claims. The rights of training clubs constitute another area in which compliance is particularly important. Historically, a small club could obtain a favourable decision recognising its entitlement to training compensation or a solidarity contribution and subsequently encounter significant difficulties in securing payment. This situation is particularly serious because these mechanisms perform a redistributive function within the football economy.

The substantial financial flows generated by international transfers should benefit, to a certain extent, the clubs involved in a player’s training. If recognition of the entitlement does not ultimately result in payment, the economic and social purpose of the system is frustrated. From this perspective, the establishment of the FIFA Clearing House represents a particularly significant transformation. The system seeks to automate the identification of training-related entitlements through the electronic player passport and subsequently channel certain payments through a centralised entity. FIFA describes the procedure as comprising three main stages: identification of the entitlement, creation and review of the electronic player passport, and processing of the payment through the Clearing House.

This innovation partially changes the traditional paradigm. The objective is no longer exclusively to resolve a dispute and subsequently require compliance with the resulting decision, but rather to design a system that reduces the need to initiate contentious proceedings in the first place. From the standpoint of effectiveness, this change is fundamental. The best enforcement system may be one that reduces the very need for enforcement.

The automation, centralisation and traceability of certain payments could help reduce instances of non-compliance relating to training-related entitlements. Nevertheless, the Clearing House does not entirely eliminate disputes. Disagreements persist concerning players’ registration histories, the identification of training clubs, the existence and quantification of entitlements, and various procedural matters.

Furthermore, the effectiveness of the system depends on the accurate submission of information by associations and clubs, the proper functioning of the electronic player passport review mechanisms, and compliance with the relevant regulatory and financial procedures. Consequently, the Clearing House should be understood as a further stage in FIFA’s progressive transition from a predominantly reactive model towards a preventive and automated compliance system.

XI. Current Challenges Facing the System

The preceding analysis reveals several challenges.

1. The distinction between coercion and enforcement
The first challenge is conceptual. FIFA regulations provide extremely effective mechanisms for exerting pressure on debtors, but this does not mean that FIFA possesses its own mechanisms for enforcing claims against a debtor’s assets. A registration ban may secure payment in a considerable number of cases. However, where it fails to do so, the debt remains unpaid. This distinction is particularly important for creditors, who may mistakenly assume that obtaining a favourable decision necessarily guarantees recovery of the amount awarded. This is not always the case.

2. The debtor’s genuine insolvency
Sporting measures are primarily effective against debtors who are able to pay but unwilling to do so. Their usefulness diminishes when the debtor is willing to pay but unable to do so. Where genuine insolvency exists, progressively increasing sporting sanctions may produce no favourable economic outcome for the creditor. It could even aggravate the club’s financial position and reduce the prospects of recovery. This demonstrates the need to distinguish strategic non-compliance from non-compliance resulting from genuine insolvency.

3. The dissolution of the legal entity
The formal dissolution of the debtor club may render the decision practically unenforceable within the sporting system where no continuity exists. The problem becomes more serious when the creditor must subsequently seek recognition of its claim in foreign insolvency proceedings. Obtaining a favourable FIFA decision then constitutes merely the first stage of a potentially much more complex process.

4. The identification of the sporting successor
When a new entity emerges, the question arises as to whether continuity exists. The doctrine of sporting succession provides a necessary response, but its application requires caution. An excessively broad approach could impose obligations on genuinely new entities. An excessively restrictive interpretation would facilitate fraudulent conduct. The challenge lies in developing sufficiently predictable criteria.

5. Coordination with national associations
FIFA’s system depends to a considerable extent on its member associations to implement sporting consequences at national level. This structure enables extensive territorial reach but also creates operational dependence. International effectiveness requires national associations to act promptly and in a coordinated manner, and registration systems to enable the effective implementation of the restrictions imposed.

6. Interaction with national court decisions
One of the most delicate situations arises when a national court order is incompatible with a sporting consequence. The national federation may then find itself subject to potentially conflicting obligations. On the one hand, it must comply with FIFA regulations. On the other, it must comply with decisions rendered by the courts of the State in which it operates. There is no universal solution to this conflict, and each case will depend on national law, the nature of the judicial measure and the particular circumstances.

7. Time
Finally, the duration of proceedings is also a component of effectiveness. A financially sound decision rendered several years after the original breach may encounter a debtor whose circumstances have changed completely. The debtor may have lost assets, been relegated to a lower division, changed ownership or ceased to exist. Procedural expedition is therefore not merely a matter of procedural efficiency. It is a condition for the effective protection of rights.

XII. Proposals to Strengthen the International Effectiveness of FIFA Decisions

The system developed by FIFA has clear strengths. Nevertheless, its evolution could move towards an even broader conception of compliance.

1. Development of a comprehensive international system of sporting enforcement
It would be advisable to consolidate the various mechanisms relating to the enforcement of decisions into a single regulatory framework. At present, practitioners must consult different regulations and distinguish between automatic consequences, disciplinary proceedings and situations involving sporting succession. A comprehensive framework could considerably improve predictability. Such a regulatory instrument could clearly establish:

a) procedures following non-compliance;
b) the obligations of member associations;
c) registration-related consequences;
d) the rules applicable in cases of insolvency;
e) the treatment of sporting successors;
f) coordination with national proceedings.

2. International register of sporting debts
The existence of a centralised system recording outstanding obligations established by final and binding decisions could improve transparency. Licensing bodies, associations, clubs and certain interested parties could become aware of unpaid sporting obligations before authorising particular transactions. Naturally, such a system would need to incorporate appropriate confidentiality and data protection safeguards. However, it would facilitate a transition from a purely sanction-based approach towards a preventive one.

3. Greater coordination between enforcement and club licensing
Club licensing represents a particularly powerful instrument. Where a club seeks to participate in certain professional competitions, compliance with final and binding sporting decisions should be incorporated into the relevant financial assessment criteria in a coordinated manner. The rationale is consistent. An organisation that obtains sporting advantages through expenditure it subsequently fails to pay undermines the economic integrity of the competition. Compliance with decisions is therefore not merely an individual matter between creditor and debtor. It is also a matter of governance.

4. More precise regulation of sporting succession
Jurisprudence has enabled the development of relevant criteria, but further codification would be advisable. A regulatory list of indicators — expressly non-exhaustive — would increase predictability. These could include: name; crest; colours; registered office; stadium; supporters; history and sporting achievements; continuity of management; continuity of shareholders; continuity of players and staff; competitive division; transfer of assets; the manner in which the new entity presents itself publicly; and recognition of continuity by the national association. No mathematical formula should be established. Sporting identity necessarily requires a comprehensive assessment. However, more detailed regulation would help reduce uncertainty.

5. Enhanced protection of third parties acting in good faith
Efforts to prevent the evasion of obligations should not result in the automatic imposition of liability on any organisation seeking to revive football activities in a community where a club has disappeared. It is necessary to distinguish between: economic or sporting continuity intended to avoid obligations, and the genuine establishment of a new organisation without substantial links to the former debtor. Particular attention should be paid to the involvement of the former club’s directors, owners or beneficial owners.

6. Coordination with national insolvency proceedings
FIFA could further develop cooperation mechanisms with national associations to identify insolvency proceedings at an early stage. The objective should not be to displace national insolvency laws, but rather to ensure that sporting creditors receive timely information about the national proceedings in which they must lodge or seek recognition of their claims. A favourable sporting decision should not create the false impression that a creditor can entirely disregard the debtor’s insolvency proceedings.

7. Expansion of preventive mechanisms
The experience of the FIFA Clearing House points towards a particularly promising approach. The automation of obligations, centralisation of payments and use of digital systems may prove more effective than any subsequent sanction. In the future, consideration could be given to applying similar approaches to other financial flows arising from international football. Without overlooking the regulatory and financial difficulties that this would entail, the objective should be to progressively reduce the number of situations in which litigation becomes necessary merely to secure compliance with a clearly identifiable obligation.

YOU MAY ALSO READ: ROC VS IOC : Case analysis

XIII. Conclusions

The judicial system developed by FIFA represents one of the most interesting examples of private transnational justice. Its effectiveness does not rest on the traditional instruments of state authority, but rather on a particular characteristic of organised sport: anyone wishing to participate in it must remain integrated within a common federative structure. Through this affiliation, FIFA has succeeded in developing coercive mechanisms capable of operating across national borders. The prohibition on registering players is arguably the most significant example. For an active professional club, the prospect of being unable to register new players represents a powerful incentive to comply with a decision.

However, the evolution of the system reveals a distinction that should not be overlooked. FIFA possesses highly effective mechanisms for inducing compliance, but it does not have a universal system for enforcing claims against a debtor’s assets. When the debtor remains active and solvent within organised football, the difference may be practically imperceptible: faced with the sanction, the debtor pays. When the debtor becomes insolvent, ceases to exist or changes its legal structure, that distinction becomes decisive. It is precisely in these circumstances that the principal contemporary challenges arise.

The doctrine of sporting succession constitutes a particularly innovative response to strategies designed to artificially separate a club’s legal identity from its sporting identity. Its existence is necessary to prevent mere corporate transformations from rendering FIFA decisions declarations devoid of practical consequences. However, its application must simultaneously respect legal certainty and the rights of third parties acting in good faith.

Recent awards rendered by the Court of Arbitration for Sport demonstrate that the issue remains unresolved and that determining sporting continuity will continue to be one of the areas experiencing the greatest jurisprudential development in the coming years. Added to this is the inevitable interaction between sporting jurisdiction and national legal systems. Sporting autonomy permits the establishment of specific consequences within competitions, but it does not displace national company, employment, insolvency and procedural laws. The future of international enforcement is therefore unlikely to lie in attempting to replace one legal system with another. Rather, it lies in coordinating the two systems.

Sports law must refine its coercive mechanisms, improve the identification of sporting successors, strengthen the relationship between compliance and club licensing, increase cooperation with member associations and develop preventive and technological tools that reduce non-compliance. The FIFA Clearing House exemplifies this latter trend. Its conceptual significance extends beyond training-related entitlements: it represents a transition from a system that seeks to respond to non-compliance towards one that attempts to structure financial flows in such a way that non-compliance becomes increasingly unlikely.

Ultimately, the development achieved by FIFA’s judicial system supports the conclusion that the existence of an international sporting legal order is no longer the principal question. The real challenge has shifted. It is not merely a matter of determining which party is right, but of ensuring that the successful party can effectively benefit from the decision recognising its rights. The credibility of any judicial system ultimately depends on this. And in a sport whose economic, contractual and competitive activities continually cross national borders, the development of effective compliance mechanisms constitutes one of the central challenges of contemporary sports law.

Initial Bibliography and Case Law for Footnotes

FIFA Regulations
– FIFA Statutes, current edition.
– FIFA, Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, current edition.
– FIFA, Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal, current edition. FIFA,
– FIFA Disciplinary Code, current edition. FIFA,
– FIFA Clearing House Regulations, current edition.
– FIFA, FIFA Legal Handbook 2025. FIFA, Commentary on the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, 2023.

CAS Jurisprudence
– CAS 2021/A/8061, Association Sporting Club Bastiais & SC Bastia v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) & RCD Espanyol de Barcelona, award of 25 April 2023.
– CAS jurisprudence concerning the sporting succession of Xanthi FC / AO Xanthi, relating to non-compliance with a decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber.
– CAS jurisprudence concerning Mersin Idman Yurdu / Yeni Mersin Idmanyurdu, regarding the liability of a sporting successor for obligations incurred by the preceding entity.
– Recent CAS jurisprudence concerning KSC Lokeren-Temse, regarding registration bans, compliance with FIFA decisions and interaction with proceedings before national courts.

Swiss Federal Supreme Court
– Jurisprudence concerning the review of awards rendered by the Court of Arbitration for Sport under the Swiss Federal Act on Private International Law.

FOOTNOTES

1. FIFA, Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal, January 2026 edition, Art. 1, paras. 1 and 2. The Football Tribunal comprises the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the Players’ Status Chamber and the Agents Chamber.

2. FIFA, Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter “RSTP”), July 2025 edition, Arts. 22 and 23. Pursuant to Art. 23, the Dispute Resolution Chamber and the Players’ Status Chamber have jurisdiction over the various categories of disputes and regulatory applications assigned under Art. 22.

3. FIFA, Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal, January 2026 edition, Art. 15, particularly paras. 3 to 5. Decisions enter into force upon notification and, where the grounds are not requested within the prescribed period in the circumstances provided for therein, become final and binding.

4. FIFA, FIFA Statutes, Arts. 56 and 57, concerning the recognition of the Court of Arbitration for Sport and its jurisdiction to hear appeals against final decisions rendered by FIFA’s judicial bodies. See also FIFA, “Court of Arbitration for Sport”, Legal section.

5. FIFA, RSTP, July 2025 edition, Art. 24.1. The provision requires that, where the Football Tribunal orders a club or player to pay a sum of money to another party, the decision itself must specify the consequences arising from failure to make timely payment.

6. FIFA, RSTP, July 2025 edition, Art. 24.2(a). For a debtor club, the consequence is a prohibition on registering new players, both nationally and internationally, until the outstanding amounts have been paid, for a maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.

7. FIFA, RSTP, July 2025 edition, Art. 24.2(b). In the case of a debtor player, the prescribed consequence is a restriction on playing in official matches until payment is made, subject to the time limit established by the provision.

8. FIFA, RSTP, July 2025 edition, Arts. 24.4 and 24.5. The debtor must make full payment, including the corresponding interest, within forty-five days of notification of the decision. The period is suspended, among other circumstances, where the full grounds of the decision are duly requested or an appeal is lodged before CAS.

9. FIFA, RSTP, July 2025 edition, Art. 24.7. Once the prescribed period has expired without full payment being made, and provided that the decision is final and binding, the creditor must request FIFA to enforce the consequences specified in the decision.

10. FIFA, RSTP, July 2025 edition, Art. 24.7(c). Once notified by FIFA, the consequences apply immediately, even where their enforcement commences during an open registration period.

11. FIFA, RSTP, July 2025 edition, Art. 24.8. Once the sporting consequences have been imposed, the debtor must demonstrate to FIFA that the entire outstanding debt, including applicable interest, has been paid in order to obtain their lifting.

12. On the conceptual distinction between recognition and enforcement of a claim, see CAS, CAS 2021/A/8061, Association Sporting Club Bastiais & SC Bastia v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) & RCD Espanyol de Barcelona, award of 25 April 2023, paras. 181–184. The Tribunal expressly distinguishes proceedings intended to establish the existence of a debt from those aimed at securing its enforcement and, in turn, refers to CAS 2012/A/2754.

13. CAS, CAS 2021/A/8061, cited above, para. 182; see also CAS 2012/A/2754, paras. 75 and 79. Arbitral jurisprudence has emphasised that the legal existence of a claim and its enforcement are distinct matters and may be subject to different proceedings.

14. FIFA, RSTP, July 2025 edition, Art. 24.3(b). It is particularly significant that the regulations themselves provide for the possibility of omitting sporting consequences where FIFA has been informed that the debtor club is subject to insolvency proceedings under the relevant national law and is not legally entitled to comply with the order.

15. CAS, CAS 2021/A/8061, cited above, paras. 178–184. In that case, the Panel examined the implications of the judicial liquidation proceedings concerning the company managing SC Bastia’s professional team and expressly distinguished the recognition of the obligation from the subsequent proceedings aimed at securing compliance.

16. FIFA, RSTP, July 2025 edition, Art. 25.1. The provision expressly states that “the sporting successor of a debtor shall be considered the debtor” and shall be subject to any decision or confirmation letter issued by the Football Tribunal.

17. FIFA, RSTP, July 2025 edition, Art. 25.1. The provision sets out a non-exhaustive list of criteria for determining the existence of sporting succession: headquarters, name, legal form, team colours, players, shareholders or stakeholders or owners, and competitive division.

18. CAS, CAS 2021/A/8061, cited above, particularly paras. 203–211. CAS develops an autonomous conception of the “club” as a sporting entity whose identity may transcend the legal entities successively responsible for its management.

19. Ibid., para. 205. Among the elements relevant to identifying the club, the Panel considered its name, colours, supporters, history, sporting achievements, crest, trophies, stadium, squad and historical figures.

20. Ibid., paras. 207–211. CAS distinguishes between sporting succession and sporting continuity. The former generally involves the emergence of a new entity continuing the activities of a previous club; the latter arises where the club continues to exist as a sporting entity despite changes to, or the disappearance of, the legal entities responsible for its management.

21. Ibid., paras. 212–238. In the SC Bastia case, the Tribunal considered it particularly relevant that the association had never ceased to exist or lost its affiliation with the French Football Federation, that it had retained the club’s characteristic features and that a new corporate structure had subsequently been established to manage the professional team.

22. Ibid., paras. 239–246. CAS supplemented its assessment of the objective elements of continuity with a particularly significant consideration concerning the conduct of the entities involved and the appearance created towards third parties acting in good faith.

23. Ibid., para. 244. The Panel linked the issue to the protection of the legitimate expectations of third parties acting in good faith, considering that those who benefit from the appearance of an institution’s continuity cannot simultaneously seek to evade the liabilities associated with that identity.

24. On the jurisprudential background to the concept of sporting succession, see CAS, CAS 2007/A/1355; CAS 2011/A/2614; CAS 2011/A/2646; CAS 2012/A/2778; CAS 2013/A/3425, para. 139. These precedents are expressly recalled by the Panel in CAS 2021/A/8061 when reviewing the jurisprudential development of the concepts of club identity and sporting succession.

25. CAS, CAS 2021/A/8061, cited above, paras. 144–158. The Tribunal based its jurisdiction on FIFA’s statutory provisions and Art. R47 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration, also emphasising that, pursuant to Art. R58 of the CAS Code, the Panel decides primarily in accordance with the applicable regulations and, subsidiarily, the relevant law.

26. FIFA, “Court of Arbitration for Sport”, Legal section; FIFA Statutes, Arts. 56 and 57. FIFA recognises CAS, seated in Lausanne, as an independent arbitral tribunal for resolving the disputes provided for therein and establishes, as a general rule, a period of twenty-one days for appealing final decisions subject to appeal.

27. CAS, CAS 2021/A/8061, cited above, paras. 248–250. The Panel emphasised that the rules of international sports federations are not immune from legal scrutiny, although it rejected the proposition that they could be disregarded solely on the basis of national public policy unrelated to the lex causae, given the international dimension of the system and the need for uniform treatment of participants.

28. FIFA, FIFA Clearing House Regulations, January 2026 edition, Art. 1.2. The system’s specific objectives include processing certain transfer-related payments, safeguarding the integrity of the system, increasing financial transparency and preventing fraudulent conduct.

29. FIFA, FIFA Clearing House Regulations, January 2026 edition, Arts. 8–10. The procedure concerning the electronic player passport includes the identification of the player’s registration data, its review and the adoption of a final decision concerning the relevant EPP.

30. Ibid., Art. 10.3. Where an issue of legal or factual complexity arises during the electronic player passport review process, the FIFA General Secretariat must refer the matter to the Dispute Resolution Chamber in accordance with the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal.

31. Ibid., Art. 12. Allocation statements are transmitted by the FIFA General Secretariat to the Clearing House and include the information necessary to collect and distribute the corresponding amounts among training clubs.

32. Ibid., Arts. 13.1 and 13.2. Once the regulatory conditions have been satisfied and the EPP and allocation statement have become final and binding, the Clearing House issues a payment request to the new club, which has thirty days to comply.

33. Ibid., Arts. 13.4 and 13.5. If the new club fails to pay the amount within the initial period, the prescribed administrative fee applies and an additional period of seven days is granted. If non-compliance persists, disciplinary proceedings are initiated pursuant to Art. 17 of the same regulations.

34. Ibid., Art. 14. Once the corresponding amount has been received, the Clearing House generates the distribution statement and transfers the payment to the bank account designated by the training club.

35. Ibid., Art. 15. The Clearing House also conducts a compliance assessment of the parties involved in transactions, particularly concerning international economic sanctions, anti-money laundering, corruption and counter-terrorist financing.

36. Ibid., Arts. 16 and 17. Failure to pass the compliance assessment may prevent the processing of pending transactions and give rise to disciplinary proceedings.

37. The significance of the Clearing House from the perspective of effectiveness is reflected in the fact that, for transactions falling within its scope, its design replaces an exclusively bilateral collection model with a centralised procedure for determining, requesting, receiving and distributing payments. Cf. FIFA, FIFA Clearing House Regulations, January 2026 edition, Arts. 10–14.

38. In this regard, the progressive digitalisation of the identification and settlement of training compensation allows the Clearing House to be understood not only as a financial instrument but also as a preventive compliance mechanism. Cf. FIFA, FIFA Clearing House Regulations, January 2026 edition, Arts. 1 and 8–14.

39. FIFA, RSTP, July 2025 edition, Arts. 20 and 21 and Annexes 4 and 5, concerning training compensation and the solidarity mechanism, respectively.

40. FIFA, RSTP, July 2025 edition, Art. 22.1(d), (e) and (f), defining FIFA’s international jurisdiction over certain disputes concerning training compensation, the solidarity mechanism and matters relating to the EPP review process.

41. The express incorporation of sporting succession into the current Art. 25 of the RSTP is particularly significant from an evolutionary perspective: a doctrine initially developed by FIFA’s decision-making bodies and CAS jurisprudence has ultimately been expressly incorporated into the federation’s regulatory framework. Cf. FIFA, RSTP, July 2025 edition, Art. 25.1; CAS, CAS 2021/A/8061, cited above, paras. 203–211.

42. This development also supports the conclusion that the effectiveness of sporting decisions can no longer be analysed exclusively through the Disciplinary Code. The RSTP currently regulate, within the same regulatory framework, both the consequences of failure to make timely payment — Art. 24 — and the application of decisions to sporting successors — Art. 25.

43. On CAS’s review function, see the Code of Sports-related Arbitration, Arts. R47, R57 and R58. Pursuant to Art. R57, the Panel has full power to review the facts and the law and may replace the challenged decision, annul it or refer the case back to the previous instance.

44. CAS, CAS 2021/A/8061, cited above, para. 149, expressly referring to Art. R57 of the CAS Code.

45. The fact that FIFA’s system relies on registration-related sanctions rather than national mechanisms for enforcing claims against a debtor’s assets allows it to be characterised, for the purposes of this article, as a system of indirect sporting coercion: the organisation does not forcibly realise the debtor’s assets but instead makes certain rights arising from participation in the federative system conditional upon compliance with the established obligation. Cf. FIFA, RSTP, Art. 24.

46. It is precisely for this reason that insolvency constitutes one of the structural limitations of the model. The regulations themselves recognise the particular nature of this situation by allowing the consequences prescribed under Art. 24 to be omitted where the club is subject to national insolvency proceedings that legally prevent it from complying with the order. FIFA, RSTP, July 2025 edition, Art. 24.3(b).

47. CAS, CAS 2021/A/8061, cited above, paras. 181–184, in which the Tribunal specifically examines the relationship between insolvency, recognition of claims and enforcement of decisions within the FIFA system.

48. The tension between sporting autonomy and national legal systems must also be analysed in light of Art. R58 of the CAS Code and FIFA’s statutory provisions, which provide for the primary application of FIFA regulations and, subsidiarily, Swiss law in arbitration proceedings arising from decisions of that federation.

49. Ultimately, the effectiveness of the system depends fundamentally on whether the debtor continues to require the rights and benefits associated with participation in organised football. When that connection disappears — through liquidation, dissolution or disaffiliation — the coercive capacity of purely sporting measures diminishes substantially, which explains the growing importance of legal doctrines such as sporting succession.

50. FIFA, RSTP, July 2025 edition, Arts. 24 and 25. These two provisions currently constitute the regulatory core of the enforcement of financial obligations established by Football Tribunal decisions: the former prescribes the consequences of non-payment, while the latter ensures that sporting succession does not automatically deprive the decision of its effects.