FIFA's Agent Rules Remain in Legal Limbo: The Status of the FFAR Mid-2026

1 day ago
7 min read

Anyone dealing with a transfer involving agent fees this summer, whether as agent, club or player, is still operating in a legal grey area that has persisted since late 2023. The FIFA Football Agent Regulations (FFAR), which cap the fees agents may charge, remain largely suspended, and a definitive ruling from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is still nowhere in sight. Following our earlier analysis of the CJEU ruling in the Diarra case, this is a natural follow-up: where does the FFAR actually stand mid-2026, and what does this ongoing uncertainty mean for everyday practice? In this article, we preview not only the legal background but, crucially, the practical considerations and steps that agents, clubs, and players should take now as they navigate transfers amid ongoing regulatory uncertainty.

A brief recap: how the FFAR ran into trouble

FIFA introduced the FFAR in December 2022, aiming to increase transparency and contractual stability in the transfer market. The regulations included a mandatory licensing system, a ban on dual representation, and, most controversially, a cap on the fees agents may charge: typically 3 per cent of a player's annual salary in cases of single representation, with higher percentages applying in cases of dual representation or representation of the selling club. (FIFA Football Agent Regulations to fully enter into force as of 1 October, 2023) The FFAR also provided for mandatory disclosure of transactions and the introduction of a mandatory agent exam. (FIFA Football Agent Regulations to fully enter into force as of 1 October, 2023)

From its entry into force on 1 October 2023, the FFAR encountered resistance across multiple jurisdictions. In Germany, the Dortmund Regional Court granted an interim injunction in May 2023 prohibiting FIFA from enforcing the FFAR on transfers linked to the European Union, pending a definitive ruling from the ECJ. FIFA appealed this decision to the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court, but the appeal was dismissed, further weakening FIFA's position. (Information on the preliminary injunction granted by the Landgericht Dortmund in the procedure 8 O 1/23 (Kart), 2023)

In England, an FA Rule K arbitration tribunal ruled on 30 November 2023 that the fee cap and the pro rata payment rules breached UK competition law, following a five-month arbitration brought by four major sports agencies: CAA Base, Wasserman, Stellar and Areté Management. (Statement on arbitration proceedings by agencies to challenge NFAR implementation, 2023) FIFA responded by suspending the relevant provisions worldwide to prevent unequal rules from arising across different markets, a decision it announced via a circular on 30 December 2023, just before the January 2024 transfer window opened. (Reuters, 2023)

May 2025: an opinion, not a ruling

An important milestone came in May 2025, when Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou of the ECJ delivered his non-binding opinion. That opinion was, as is often the case with such conclusions, nuanced: Emiliou acknowledged that rules with a purely sporting purpose and only limited effects on competition may fall outside the scope of European competition law, the so-called sporting exception. At the same time, he rejected any form of blanket immunity for self-regulating bodies such as FIFA: significant anti-competitive effects must be justified under the strict tests of legitimacy, proportionality and necessity established in the Meca-Medina case law.

In other words, the opinion offered FIFA some hope, but far from a free pass. Competition lawyers pointed out at the time that while FIFA gained support for the principle of self-regulation in sport, the organisation would still need to provide a substantive and proportionate justification for the specific market interventions, such as a fixed cap on agent fees. An Advocate General's opinion is not binding on the ECJ itself, but in practice it is often, though not always, followed in the final ruling. (Advocate general (European Union), n.d.)

The current state of play: still no definitive ruling

According to a report from Global Competition Review, as of early June 2026, the Court of Arbitration for Sport has determined that FIFA’s upcoming rules to cap football agent fees do not violate competition law in the EU, Switzerland, Italy, or France. However, there is still no definitive ruling from the European Court of Justice, so agent fees in England and globally remain uncapped for the 2026 transfer windows, including the summer window after the World Cup. The ban on dual representation also remains suspended, meaning an agent can represent both the player and the club in a transfer, a practice the FFAR originally sought to restrict precisely because of the inherent conflict of interest it entails.

In practice, this creates an ongoing uncomfortable situation. Agents, clubs and players all know that the current uncapped state of affairs could change at any moment, but no one knows when, or in what form. Agents and clubs entering into long-term agreements now, given the current uncapped situation, risk that a future ECJ ruling or a subsequent adjustment by FIFA could retroactively render those agreements problematic, at least insofar as they extend beyond any eventual reintroduction of the fee cap.

To mitigate this risk, practitioners should consider incorporating specific contractual clauses to address potential regulatory changes. These may include review or renegotiation clauses that allow parties to revisit fee arrangements if new rules are introduced, automatic adjustment clauses that trigger revised terms in accordance with future regulations, or conditional payment provisions that structure fee payments subject to compliance with emerging legal requirements. Additionally, express provisions clarifying the parties' intent regarding the application of future fee caps or restrictions can help reduce uncertainty. Proactively negotiating such terms not only protects both sides but also provides a framework for responding swiftly to any changes imposed by governing bodies or

courts.

What this means in practice

For agents: contracts entered into now with a view to the 2026 summer transfer window must account for the possibility that a future FFAR adjustment could affect the validity of certain fee arrangements, particularly in long-term representation agreements covering the entire duration of a player's contract.
For clubs: in cross-border transfers with an EU link, it remains unclear which rules will ultimately apply on a permanent basis, calling for flexible contractual provisions capable of accommodating future regulatory changes, for example, through an explicit review clause. By way of illustration, parties may consider incorporating sample language such as: "The parties agree that in the event of any change in applicable agent fee regulations or the introduction of new regulatory requirements by FIFA, UEFA, or any competent authority during the term of this agreement, the parties shall review and, if necessary, amend the relevant provisions of this contract to ensure compliance with such regulations. Any adjustment shall reflect, as closely as possible, the original commercial intentions of the parties within the new legal framework." Including such wording provides a practical means for clubs and agents to address regulatory uncertainty proactively.
For players: the absence of a fee cap means there is greater negotiating room with agents than under a stricter FFAR regime, but it also means that clear agreements on remuneration are particularly important now that a statutory maximum is absent and parties rely entirely on their own bargaining strength.
For anyone operating internationally, rules can differ by jurisdiction, since an ECJ ruling only binds EU member states and does not automatically apply in non-EU jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, even though such a ruling could carry persuasive weight there, as already illustrated by the way the English Rule K tribunal reached its own independent conclusion. For transfers spanning both EU and non-EU jurisdictions, practitioners should first determine which law and regulatory framework will govern the relevant parts of the transaction, considering the locations of the player, clubs, and agents involved. It is advisable to conduct a dual-jurisdiction analysis, review agent regulations applicable in each country, and consult local legal counsel where uncertainty remains. Contracts should clearly state the governing law for any disputes and consider incorporating compliance clauses that reflect both EU and non-EU requirements. Maintaining flexibility and documenting the steps taken to comply with each relevant legal regime helps manage risk in complex, multi-jurisdictional transfers.
Agencies operating in multiple jurisdictions would do well to maintain a record of the current FFAR suspension status in each jurisdiction to avoid outdated assumptions about applicable regulations that could lead to compliance risks.

Conclusion

The FFAR saga illustrates a fundamental problem in international sports regulation: a global governing body seeking to impose rules inevitably runs up against the competition law frameworks of individual jurisdictions, resulting in a prolonged legal vacuum in which parties must operate without certainty. That vacuum has now been a practical reality for more than two and a half years, and does not appear likely to be resolved soon. (Heermann, 2024) Forefront Legal continues to monitor developments around the FFAR and the anticipated ECJ ruling, and advises agents and clubs structuring transfers now with this future uncertainty in mind.

Looking ahead, practitioners should remain alert for updates on both the ECJ’s final ruling and any subsequent action by FIFA, and should be ready to review existing agreements promptly as the regulatory landscape evolves. As a practical checklist: (1) build explicit review or adjustment clauses addressing regulatory change into all new fee agreements; (2) document the current regulatory context relevant to each transaction; (3) seek jurisdiction-specific advice for cross-border activity; and (4) maintain flexibility both in negotiating and recording fee arrangements. Proactive risk management and regular contract updates remain the best tools for navigating the uncertain terrain until greater clarity emerges.

References

(September 29, 2023). FIFA Football Agent Regulations to fully enter into force as of 1 October. FIFA. https://inside.fifa.com/media-releases/fifa-football-agent-regulations-to-fully-enter-into-force-as-of-1-october

(September 8, 2023). Information on the preliminary injunction granted by the Landgericht Dortmund in the procedure 8 O 1/23 (Kart). FIFA. https://vod.fifa.com/en/legal/football-regulatory/agents/news/en/news/information-on-the-preliminary-injunction-granted-by-the-landgericht

(November 30, 2023). Statement on arbitration proceedings by agencies to challenge NFAR implementation. The FA. https://www.thefa.com/news/2023/nov/30/update-on-arbitration-proceedings-by-agencies-to-challenge-nfar-implementation-20233011

Reuters. (December 30, 2023). FIFA suspends new agent rules ahead of European Court ruling. ESPN. https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/39210051/fifa-suspends-new-agent-rules-ahead-european-court-ruling

(n.d.). Advocate general (European Union). Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advocate_general_%28European_Union%29

Heermann, P. W. (2024). Will the football agents’ service fee cap survive the current legal attacks?. The International Sports Law Journal 24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-024-00279-4