FIFA 2025 World Clubs: legal and precedent disputes

The FIFA Club World Cup 2025 — held in the United States from June 15 to July 13, 2025 with 32 clubs — it was not only the largest club tournament ever. legal battlefield unprecedented in world football.

Before the first ball was shot, the players’ unions had already sued FIFA before a Belgian court, lodged a formal complaint with the European Commission, and questioned the legality of the tournament under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the law of European competition. FIFA’s historical sponsors came into conflict with the organisation for trade rights. And the rules of multi-property They generated club exclusions before the competition began.

This article analyzes the main legal disputes surrounding the tournament and the precedents it set for the future of football.

What this article covers

The format: what changed and why it generated opposition
FIFPRO's application to the Brussels Commercial Court
The complaint to the European Commission: competition law
The 4 questions for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice
The overload of the calendar: data and arguments
The conflict with sponsors: Adidas, Coca-Cola and the new agreements
Multiproperty and Art. 10 of the Rules of the Tournament
The exceptional transfer window from 1 to 10 June
Precedence for the future: what it means for players and clubs

The format that triggered the storm

FIFA Club World Cup was in existence since 2000, but it was a minor tournament: 7 clubs, a week long, played in December. FIFA transformed it into something radically different: 32 clubs63 matches, 29 days, played in the United States during the European summer — the only period of the year that historically was a break for elite players.

The tournament was played between June 15 and July 13, 2025. Considering preparation, travel and acclimatization, it meant up to 6 additional weeks of work for the players involved, in what should have been their recovery period between seasons.

The 2024/25 Premier League season ended on May 25. The Champions League final was on May 31. The international window was from June 2-10. The World Cup Club started 4 days later. And the new 2025/26 Premier League season began in mid-August. For the most demanded players, simply There was no rest..

FIFPRO's Application to the Court of Brussels

The 13 June 2024 — exactly one year before the tournament, the players’ unions in England (PFA), France (UNFP) and Italy (AIC), with the support of FIFPRO Europe, presented a Application to the Brussels Commercial Court against FIFA.

The central argument: FIFA's unilateral decisions on the International Schedule of Parties, and in particular the creation and programming of Club World Cup 2025, violation of fundamental rights of players and their trade unions under European law.

The legal bases invoked:

Legal basis	Argument
Article 5 CFREU	Prohibition of forced or compulsory labour. Players are contractually obliged to participate without having had a voice in the creation of the tournament.
Article 15 CFREU	Freedom of work. The imposed calendar limits the professional freedom of players.
Article 28 CFREU	Right to collective bargaining. FIFA created the tournament without negotiating with the players’ unions.
Article 31 CFREU	Right to just working conditions, including the right to an annual period of paid leave.
Art. 101 TFEU	Prohibition of restrictive competition agreements. Unilateral imposition of the timetable by FIFA, acting simultaneously as a regulator and organizer of competitions.

The trade unions asked the Brussels Court to refer four questions for a preliminary ruling to the EU Court, essentially asking whether the unilateral imposition of the timetable by FIFA violates the Charter of Fundamental Rights and EU competition law.

The legal team shall: Jean-Louis Dupont — the same lawyer who won the cases Bosman (1995) and Diarra (2024) — leads the representation of FIFPRO. This is not a minor fact: Dupont has a proven record of transforming football through the European courts.

The complaint to the European Commission

The 23 October 2024, FIFPRO Europe and the association European Leagues (representing 39 national leagues, including the Premier League, La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga and Ligue 1), along with La Liga as co-defendant, presented a formal complaint to the European Commission against FIFA.

The argument: FIFA acts with a conflict of structural interest — is at the same time the regulator of world football and the organizer of competitions that generate billions in revenue. By unilaterally imposing a calendar that favors its own competitions, without meaningful consultation with the other players, FIFA abuses its dominant position and restricts competition.

The connection to European Super League and Diarra: This complaint is explicitly based on the case-law of the Court of Justice in the case European Super League (2023), which established that the decisions of sports organisations should be based on "clear, objective, transparent and non-discriminatory" frameworks.If FIFA imposes competitions without meeting those standards, it violates EU law.

The overload of the calendar: the data

The unions and leagues presented strong data:

The European national leagues did not increase their number of matches in the last 20 years
FIFA and UEFA, on the other hand, systematically expanded their competitions (Champions League Expanded, Nations League, Club World Cup 32 teams, World Cup 48 teams in 2026)
Elite players who reach the last instances of all competitions can play more than 70 games per season
Sports medicine experts recommend a minimum of 8 weeks rest between seasons. With Club World Cup 2025, many players had less than 3 weeks

FIFA responded by arguing that the decision was not one-sided, that FIFPRO was consulted, and that some leagues prefer a calendar full of friendly matches and commercial tours with extensive global trips — something that, according to FIFA, is more harmful than an official organized tournament.

Conflict with sponsors

According to reports, FIFA’s historical sponsors — Adidas and Coca-Cola, with contracts until 2030 that designate them as official sponsors of all FIFA events — came into tension with the organization. FIFA would have sought sponsorship agreements separated for the World Cup Club, approaching Bank of America and as Public Investment Fund Saudi Arabia, among others.

This raised questions about the interpretation of existing sponsorship contracts: is Club World Cup 2025 covered by FIFA's global sponsorship agreements, or is it a new commercial event that allows for independent agreements?

Multi-property: Article 10 of the Regulation

For the first time in a FIFA tournament, specific rules on Multi-ownership of clubs (Art. 10 of the FIFA Club World Cup 2025 Rules). The rule prohibits clubs under common control from competing simultaneously in the tournament, replicating at FIFA level the logic of Art. 5 of UEFA competitions.

This was relevant for groups like City Football Group (Manchester City and other clubs), Red Bull (Leipzig and Salzburg) and Eagle Football by John Textor, who had to ensure that their property structures complied with the rules before the tournament.

The Exceptional Transfer Window

To allow Club World Cup participating clubs to sign players before the tournament, FIFA authorized a exceptional transfer window from 1 to 10 June 2025 (Art. 6, p. 3, f of RETJ). This was the first time that a mini-window of this type was implemented linked to a FIFA club tournament.

The Premier League immediately adopted it. The other European leagues opened their regular windows on July 1st. This generated a temporary competitive advantage for the English clubs participating in the tournament, which were able to close signings before their European rivals.

What this case means for the future

Precedents and consequences

Football governance is under judicial scrutiny. After Bosman, European Super League, Diarra, and now the lawsuit for the World Cup Club, every unilateral FIFA decision is a potential European lawsuit. EU law applies to football — and the courts are willing to intervene.
Players are workers with rights. The invocation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (prohibition of forced labour, right to vacation, collective bargaining) raises the discussion of the sporting field to the field of labour human rights.
The regulatory/organising conflict will define the next decade. FIFA acts simultaneously as a legislator of football and as an organizer of competitions for profit. European courts have already said (in European Super League) that this duality requires transparent and objective frameworks. If FIFA does not adjust, it faces more litigation.
The calendar is a finite resource. There are a limited number of dates available. Each new competition moves to another or eliminates rest time. The battle for the calendar will intensify with the 48 team World Cup in 2026 (more matches, more dates) and the possible repetition of the expanded World Cup.
Latin American players are also affected. Although the demand is based on European law, the South American players who play in Europe face the same burden. In addition, clubs like Boca Juniors, Flamengo, Palmeiras and River Plate participated in the tournament, adding matches to players who already had demanding calendars in their national leagues + Copa Libertadores.

The case is still open before European courts and the European Commission. The result may take years, but the message has already been sent: the era of unilateral FIFA decisions without legal consequences is over.

This guide is based on communiqués from FIFPRO Europe (June and October 2024), European Leagues (October 2024), FIFA Club World Cup 2025 Regulations, RETJ July 2025 (Article 6 (3) (f), and LawInSport (Clifford Chance), Sports Litigation Alert, Gilson Gray, World Soccer Talk, Goal.com, OneFootball, and Global News. This guidance is informative and does not replace the advice of a specialized lawyer.

If you're building your career in professional football, create your free profile on Football CV.

FIFA 2025 World Clubs: legal and precedent disputes