A Comprehensive Guide to FIFA Regulation Article 5bis and Bridge Transfers in Football

Vlad Herescu
Dec 5, 2025
4 min read

The football world was shaken when the transfers of Carlos Tévez and Javier Mascherano to West Ham United exposed cracks in the system.What began as a routine move soon unraveled into scandal when it was revealed that a third-party company owned the players’ rights. West Ham faced record fines and heavy scrutiny, and the case placed bridge transfers under the global spotlight.

Even today, examples like Rodrigo Bentancur’s transfer from Boca Juniors to Juventus via Pescara prove that these practices persist. Bridge transfers can distort market values, damage reputations, and lead to severe sanctions for clubs and agents alike.

To address this, FIFA introduced Article 5bis in its Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP).This article breaks down what bridge transfers are, why they are banned, and how the rule affects clubs, players, and agents worldwide.

What Are Bridge Transfers?

Bridge transfers occur when a player is temporarily transferred to an intermediary club before reaching their real destination — often to circumvent financial or regulatory rules.

Imagine a player moving from Club A to Club B for €1 million, then quickly sold to Club C for €10 million.Club B acts only as a financial middleman, not a genuine sporting destination.

According to FIFA RSTP Article 5bis, a bridge transfer is presumed when a player is transferred twice within 16 weeks, nationally or internationally.Example: a player moves from Argentina to Brazil, then from Brazil to Spain within 12 weeks — a classic bridge transfer scenario.

The 16-Week Rule

Two consecutive transfers inside 16 weeks trigger a presumption of a bridge transfer.To rebut this, clubs must present clear evidence of genuine sporting reasons, such as:

Proof that the intermediary club planned to field the player.
Financial documents consistent with standard practices.
Internal communications showing legitimate sporting intent.

Without such proof, FIFA assumes manipulation or regulatory evasion.

Why Does FIFA Prohibit Bridge Transfers?

FIFA introduced Article 5bis RSTP to preserve fairness, transparency, and the integrity of football’s transfer system.

1. Taxation and Financial Manipulation

Bridge transfers can exploit tax loopholes or hide financial flows between clubs.Routing players through intermediary clubs enables avoidance of taxes or transfer fees — undermining fair play and fiscal transparency.

2. Hidden Third-Party Ownership (TPO)

Bridge transfers often disguise third-party ownership, where outside investors control players’ economic rights.TPO creates conflicts of interest and threatens the independence of clubs.FIFA combats this through financial audits, forensic accounting, and coordination with national federations.

The Corinthians–Kia Joorabchian case is a landmark example of hidden ownership compromising club integrity.

3. Avoidance of Training Compensation

Smaller clubs that invest in youth development depend on training compensation fees.Bridge transfers can route players through unrelated clubs, denying grassroots institutions their rightful payments.

FIFA’s Regulatory Framework and Sanctions

Article 5bis of the FIFA RSTP explicitly bans bridge transfers and establishes a compliance mechanism.

Sanctions May Include:

Heavy fines for clubs.
Transfer bans for one or more windows.
Suspensions for agents or officials.

Investigations begin when irregularities appear in FIFA’s Transfer Matching System (TMS).Both clubs and agents are allowed to present evidence, but disciplinary committees retain final authority.

Appeals may be brought before the FIFA Appeal Committee or the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).Successful appeals often rely on proving procedural flaws, lack of intent, or legitimate sporting purpose.

Key Jurisprudence on Bridge Transfers

FIFA Disciplinary Committee (22 April 2021 – Angers SCO, France)Angers SCO was fined €300,000 and handed a two-window transfer ban for using an intermediary club to bypass transfer rules.
FIFA Appeal Committee (16 September 2021)The appeal upheld the sanction, reinforcing FIFA’s zero-tolerance stance on bridge transfers.
CAS Cases
- Hellas Verona FC v. LFF & JFC Skonto
- Institución Atlética Sud América v. FIFA
- Racing Club Asociación Civil v. FIFAThese decisions further clarify enforcement around ownership, compensation, and transparency in transfers.

Ensuring Legitimate Sporting Purpose

FIFA’s central goal is to ensure that every transfer reflects genuine sporting intent, not financial engineering.Bridge transfers distort that principle and threaten competitive balance.

To Protect Football’s Integrity, FIFA Aims to:

Guarantee financial fairness and protect training clubs.
Prevent hidden ownership and third-party interference.
Enforce transparent taxation and compliance procedures.

Practical Impact on Clubs, Players, and Agents

For Clubs

Relying on intermediary clubs without a legitimate sporting purpose risks sanctions and reputational harm.To stay compliant, clubs should:

Document sporting justifications for each transfer.
Hold internal compliance meetings involving legal and finance teams.
Verify all ownership and registration details.
Perform tax audits and maintain detailed records.
Update internal compliance policies regularly.

Building a compliance audit trail is a club’s best defense against allegations.

For Agents

Agents must maintain transparency throughout every transaction:

Verify player ownership and rights.
Ensure training compensation is properly handled.
Confirm tax compliance and document all correspondence.

Keeping accurate records and seeking regular legal advice helps prevent liability and reinforces industry integrity.

Final Thoughts

Bridge transfers undermine the fairness and transparency on which football’s transfer system depends.FIFA Article 5bis stands as a safeguard to ensure that every move serves sporting, not financial, motives.

For clubs, players, and agents, understanding and adhering to these rules isn’t just about avoiding fines — it’s about protecting the integrity of the game itself.As FIFA and CAS continue refining enforcement, compliance becomes not just a duty, but a cornerstone of ethical football governance.

References

West Ham fined £5.5 m over Tévez and Mascherano transfers. The Guardian (2008)
Hammers slapped with record fine. ABC News (2007)
FIFA Disciplinary Committee sanctions Paris FC and Angers SCO for bridge transfer. FIFA (2021)
Regulatory Presumption of Bridge Transfer in Football: Rebuttable or Irrebuttable? Football-Legal (2024)
FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, 2024 Edition. FIFA.com
FIFA welcomes Brussels Court of Appeal ruling on third-party ownership. FIFA (2016)
FIFA Compliance Handbook 2025. FIFA.com
Commentary on the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (2023 Edition). Senn Ferrero (2024)