Class Action Against FIFA and EU Football Associations on Behalf of Football Players Launched Today by 'Justice for Players', a Dutch Foundation
JfP intends to represent all professional footballers who are playing or who have played in clubs in the European member states and the United Kingdom and who have been adversely affected by FIFA's unlawful rules from 2002 to the present. Preliminary estimates indicate that the number of affected footballers may comprise approximately 100,000 players.
This case is being brought in the Netherlands under the Dutch Act on the Settlement of Mass Damages in Collective Action (WAMCA), which allows this legal action to be launched by JfP on behalf of a large group of professional footballers.
The case has been launched following the CJEU judgment in October 2024 in the case brought by football player Lassana Diarra and FIFPRO Europe/FIFPRO World against FIFA, which found that the FIFA Regulations seriously infringed EU competition law and the right to free movement of workers, making it extremely challenging for a player to terminate their employment contract without just cause. In short, the CJEU ruled that the FIFA Regulations violated two core principles of European law: free movement of workers and fair competition.
By stating unequivocally that FIFA's rules were unlawful and that those rules caused all players to suffer a financial loss, the CJEU in its judgement gave the green light to a Europe-wide class action. This is a classic follow-on claim, in line with the EU Representative Action Directive, that seeks to ensure that the rule of law is upheld, that FIFA is held to account and that all players receive the compensation that is owed to them.
In particular, the CJEU noted that the FIFA Regulations had the effect of restricting the free movement of workers and competition by:
establishing unlawful criteria for determining the severance 'compensation' a player must pay to their former club;
allowing the national federation of the former club to withhold the issuance of an International Transfer Certificate (ITC), without which a player cannot play for a new club;
making the player's new club automatically jointly and severally liable for the compensation to be paid to the former club and
allowing FIFA to impose disciplinary sanctions on the player and their new club.
The unlawful FIFA Regulations granted FIFA complete control over how and when players leave their current football clubs and under what conditions, effectively enforcing an extremely restrictive 'no-poaching agreement'.
A preliminary analysis by economists at Compass Lexecon has estimated that affected professional footballers have earned approximately 8% less over the course of their career than they would have if the FIFA Regulations had not been unlawfully restrictive.
Lucia Melcherts, Chair of the Board Member of Justice for Players, said: ' All professional football players have lost a significant amount of earnings due to the unlawful FIFA Regulations. 'Justice for Players' is bringing this claim to help achieve justice for footballers and fairness. The past and even current system unduly favours FIFA who has far too much unilateral power. In any other profession, people are allowed to change jobs voluntarily. The same should be true in football, particularly as the average career span of a professional footballer according to a FIFPro study is only 8 years long.'
Franco Baldini, Board Member of Justice for Players, said: ' As a former professional footballer, agent and someone who has worked in football in various managerial capacities, I have had first hand experience, in particular with the Mexes case in 2004, of how much control and power FIFA has over the players. So I am very proud to be part of the Foundation 'Justice for Players' and to be part of something that could help change the existing system and make football more inclusive and more sustainable. '
Dolf Segaar, Board Member for Justice for Players said: ' This claim against FIFA brought by 'Justice for Players' is an important and necessary next step that will allow footballers to assert their rights as EU workers and receive compensation from an organisation that for far too long has willingly ignored the rule of EU law. The CJEU ruled in a crystal-clear manner that the FIFA Rules on termination of contracts and transfer were blatant violations of EU competition law and free movement of workers. And the CJEU also made clear that such unlawful rules had caused players to suffer financial losses. Under EU law, victims of such violations are entitled to compensation for the losses they have suffered and that is an important part of what this class action is about.'
Koen Rutten, Partner at Finch Dispute Resolution, said: ' For over 20 years, FIFA has enforced unlawful rules at the expense of professional footballers. Finch is supporting 'Justice for Players' so that FIFA can be held accountable and ordered to compensate footballers whose earnings have been impacted by these unfair and illegal rules. Not only are we seeking damages for footballers who have been disadvantaged by the rules that mainly benefit FIFA and the football associations, but through this legal action we are seeking changes to the FIFA Rules so that professional players can finally have greater control over their careers.'
For further information please visit: www.justiceforplayers.com
Notes to Editors
About Justice for Players
Justice for Players was founded to advocate for the interests of professional footballers across Europe. The board comprises of three members: Lucia Melcherts, Dolf Segaar and Franco Baldini. Lucia Melcherts has been the chair of Stichting Massaschade & Consument (Foundation for Mass Damages & Consumers) since 2021. She also holds the position of Coordinating Specialist Advisor at the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security. Dolf Segaar founded his own law firm Segaar Law in July 2021, specialising in governance and litigation, with a strong focus on sports law. Franco Baldini is a former professional footballer and agent and spent over 20 years in different senior management roles at top international clubs and organizations, including AS Roma, Real Madrid, Tottenham Hotspur and the England National Team. He currently runs his own consulting firm IC20 Ltd.
About Finch
Finch Dispute Resolution is an independent Dutch litigation boutique law firm, founded in 2022. With a team of around 18 specialised litigators and 5 partners based in Utrecht, the firm handles corporate, commercial, financial, and class-action disputes—domestically and internationally.
https://finch.nl
About Dupont-Hissel
Jean-Louis DUPONT and Martin HISSEL are specialists in European law, particularly as applied to the sports sector. Together they have defended hundreds of cases, acting on behalf of all stakeholders in the professional sports sector, before the CJEU, the European Commission, the European Court of Human Rights, national competition authorities, national courts, international (including CAS) and national arbitration tribunals, and the internal judicial bodies of national and international sports associations. In particular, they have led and co-managed cases that resulted in landmark judgements of the CJEU regarding sports governance in the EU and beyond: Bosman (1995), Meca-Medina (2006), Royal Antwerp FC (2023), European Super League (2023), Lassana Diarra (2024) and RFC Seraing (2025).
www.Dupont-Hissel.com
About Deminor
Founded in 1990, Deminor is a leading international litigation funder with offices in Brussels, London, Hamburg, New York, Hong Kong, Madrid, Milan, Stockholm and Luxembourg.
Combining skill sets from 19 different nationalities and 22 languages, Deminor possesses a highly respected and diverse team of legal and financial specialists across a range of specialisms including arbitration, enforcement, intellectual property, competition, investments & tax, corporate & post-M&A.
https://www.deminor.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
42 minutes ago
- Axios
Trump plans to "take over" Gaza aid effort, U.S. officials say
Special envoy Steve Witkoff and President Trump discussed plans for the U.S. to significantly increase its role in providing humanitarian aid to Gaza in a meeting Monday evening at the White House, according to two U.S. officials and an Israeli official with knowledge of the issue. Why it matters: Negotiations for a ceasefire are stuck, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is moving towards significantly expanding the war. U.S. officials are concerned about more bloodshed but have yet to firmly object. The new food aid plan Trump promised last week is also not yet finalized. Driving the news: Witkoff flew in from Miami to meet Trump for dinner on Monday, the sources say, fresh off a visit last week to Israel and Gaza. A U.S. official said it was decided that the Trump administration will "take over" management of the humanitarian effort in Gaza because Israel isn't handling it adequately. The official didn't say what the U.S. role would actually entail, but said Gulf countries like Qatar will contribute funds, while Jordan and Egypt will also likely be involved. The White House didn't respond to requests for comment. Friction point: Trump is "not thrilled" about the idea of the U.S. taking charge, "but it kind of has to happen," the official said. "There doesn't seem to be another way." "The starvation problem in Gaza is getting worse. Donald Trump does not like that. He does not want babies to starve. He wants mothers to be able to nurse their children. He's becoming fixated on that," the official continued. A second U.S. official said the administration will be careful not to get dragged too deep into the Gaza crisis. "The president doesn't want to see the U.S. being the only country throwing money at this problem. It's a global problem. And he's been tasking Witkoff and others to make sure everyone is stepping up, our European friends and our Arab friends," the official said. The other side: Israel supports the increased U.S. role, according to both U.S. officials and an Israeli official. The Israeli official confirmed the U.S. planned to take the lead on the humanitarian issue in order to increase the level of aid coming into Gaza. "They are going to spend a lot of money in order to help us significantly improving the humanitarian situation so that it will be less of an issue," the Israeli official said. Behind the scenes: Some in the administration are growing worried over Netanyahu's proposed expansion of the war. Netanyahu raised that possibility during Witkoff's visit last week and has discussed it with the White House this week too, an Israeli official told Axios. Israeli officials have claimed they're totally aligned with Washington. Zoom in: The proposed expansion is controversial not just because it entails occupying the entire Gaza Strip, including areas like Gaza City, but also because it would mean moving into zones where Israel believes hostages are being held. The Israel Defense Forces have been reluctant to attack those areas for fear of accidentally killing hostages. IDF Chief of Staff Gen. Eyal Zamir and other senior security officials have warned Netanyahu against such an operation. According to Israeli officials, Zamir told Netanyahu such a move would endanger the hostages and could lead to Israeli military rule in Gaza with full responsibility over two million Palestinians. What to watch: Nevertheless, the Israeli security cabinet is expected to hold a meeting on Thursday and approve the plan for the full occupation of Gaza. An Israeli official claimed Netanyahu is working to "free the hostages through military defeat of Hamas" because he believes "Hamas is not interested in a deal." At the same time, humanitarian aid will be brought into areas outside the combat zones "and as much as possible to areas outside Hamas' control," the official said.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
The EU AI Act aims to create a level playing field for AI innovation. Here's what it is.
The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act, known as the EU AI Act, has been described by the European Commission as 'the world's first comprehensive AI law.' After years in the making, it is progressively becoming a part of reality for the 450 million people living in the 27 countries that comprise the EU. The EU AI Act, however, is more than a European affair. It applies to companies both local and foreign, and it can affect both providers and deployers of AI systems; the European Commission cites examples of how it would apply to a developer of a CV screening tool, and to a bank that buys that tool. Now, all of these parties have a legal framework that sets the stage for their use of AI. Why does the EU AI Act exist? As usual with EU legislation, the EU AI Act exists to make sure there is a uniform legal framework applying to a certain topic across EU countries — the topic this time being AI. Now that the regulation is in place, it should 'ensure the free movement, cross-border, of AI-based goods and services' without diverging local restrictions. With timely regulation, the EU seeks to create a level playing field across the region and foster trust, which could also create opportunities for emerging companies. However, the common framework that it has adopted is not exactly permissive: Despite the relatively early stage of widespread AI adoption in most sectors, the EU AI Act sets a high bar for what AI should and shouldn't do for society more broadly. What is the purpose of the EU AI Act? According to European lawmakers, the framework's main goal is to 'promote the uptake of human centric and trustworthy AI while ensuring a high level of protection of health, safety, fundamental rights as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, including democracy, the rule of law and environmental protection, to protect against the harmful effects of AI systems in the Union, and to support innovation.' Yes, that's quite a mouthful, but it's worth parsing carefully. First, because a lot will depend on how you define 'human centric' and 'trustworthy' AI. And second, because it gives a good sense of the precarious balance to maintain between diverging goals: innovation vs. harm prevention, as well as uptake of AI vs. environmental protection. As usual with EU legislation, again, the devil will be in the details. How does the EU AI Act balance its different goals? To balance harm prevention against the potential benefits of AI, the EU AI Act adopted a risk-based approach: banning a handful of 'unacceptable risk' use cases; flagging a set of 'high-risk' uses calling for tight regulation; and applying lighter obligations to 'limited risk' scenarios. Has the EU AI Act come into effect? Yes and no. The EU AI Act rollout started on August 1, 2024, but it will only come into force through a series of staggered compliance deadlines. In most cases, it will also apply sooner to new entrants than to companies that already offer AI products and services in the EU. The first deadline came into effect on February 2, 2025, and focused on enforcing bans on a small number of prohibited uses of AI, such as untargeted scraping of internet or CCTV for facial images to build up or expand databases. Many others will follow, but unless the schedule changes, most provisions will apply by mid-2026. What changed on August 2, 2025? Since August 2, 2025, the EU AI Act applies to 'general-purpose AI models with systemic risk.' GPAI models are AI models trained with a large amount of data, and that can be used for a wide range of tasks. That's where the risk element comes in. According to the EU AI Act, GPAI models can come with systemic risks; 'for example, through the lowering of barriers for chemical or biological weapons development, or unintended issues of control over autonomous [GPAI] models.' Ahead of the deadline, the EU published guidelines for providers of GPAI models, which include both European companies and non-European players such as Anthropic, Google, Meta, and OpenAI. But since these companies already have models on the market, they will also have until August 2, 2027, to comply, unlike new entrants. Does the EU AI Act have teeth? The EU AI Act comes with penalties that lawmakers wanted to be simultaneously 'effective, proportionate and dissuasive' — even for large global players. Details will be laid down by EU countries, but the regulation sets out the overall spirit — that penalties will vary depending on the deemed risk level — as well as thresholds for each level. Infringement on prohibited AI applications leads to the highest penalty of 'up to €35 million or 7% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year (whichever is higher).' The European Commission can also inflict fines of up to €15 million or 3% of annual turnover on providers of GPAI models. How fast do existing players intend to comply? The voluntary GPAI code of practice, including commitments such as not training models on pirated content, is a good indicator of how companies may engage with the framework law until forced to do so. In July 2025, Meta announced it wouldn't sign the voluntary GPAI code of practice meant to help such providers comply with the EU AI Act. However, Google soon after confirmed it would sign, despite reservations. Signatories so far include Aleph Alpha, Amazon, Anthropic, Cohere, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Mistral AI, and OpenAI, among others. But as we have seen with Google's example, signing does not equal a full-on endorsement. Why have (some) tech companies been fighting these rules? While stating in a blog post that Google would sign the voluntary GPAI code of practice, its president of global affairs, Kent Walker, still had reservations. 'We remain concerned that the AI Act and Code risk slowing Europe's development and deployment of AI,' he wrote. Meta was more radical, with its chief global affairs officer Joel Kaplan stating in a post on LinkedIn that 'Europe is heading down the wrong path on AI.' Calling the EU's implementation of the AI Act 'overreach,' he stated that the code of practice 'introduces a number of legal uncertainties for model developers, as well as measures which go far beyond the scope of the AI Act.' European companies have expressed concerns as well. Arthur Mensch, the CEO of French AI champion Mistral AI, was part of a group of European CEOs who signed an open letter in July 2025 urging Brussels to 'stop the clock' for two years before key obligations of the EU AI Act came into force. Will the schedule change? In early July 2025, the European Union responded negatively to lobbying efforts calling for a pause, saying it would still stick to its timeline for implementing the EU AI Act. It went ahead with the August 2, 2025, deadline as planned, and we will update this story if anything changes. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Former Spurs FC players swapping White Hart Lane for Taunton
TWO Tottenham Hotspur legends are set to be present at an event in Taunton - and you're invited. Somerset Spurs is one of over 560 official Tottenham Hotspur supporters clubs worldwide. The group regularly travel up to the club's Premier League, cup, and European fixtures home and away. The group have arranged something slightly different, with former players, Martin Chivers and Phil Beal, booked for a day all about the history of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. READ MORE: Eat The Bird, Taunton, closed with staff unpaid - for now READ MORE: Three Somerset County Cricket Club players leaving this winter The former players will be in Taunton on Sunday, September 14, alongside John Chambers and Paul Trevillion, for a guest speaking event. While a location has not been confirmed, tickets are available and are priced at £40. As well as being part of the speaking event, guests will be treated to a two-course meal and a souvenir photo. Tottenham Hotspur FC legends are coming to Taunton in Somerset. (Image: SomersetSpurs) Tickets can be acquired by visiting
