PORTUGAL Trends and Developments Contributed by: Miguel Santos Almeida, Maria Novo Baptista, João Saúde and Julieta Ricciardi, Sérvulo & Associados
In December 2024, FIFA adapted its transfer regula - tions on an interim basis, with immediate effects in the January 2025 transfer window. The key temporary changes were as follows. • Compensation payable by a player to their former club in the event of termination without just cause is to be calculated taking into account the damage suffered, having regard to the individual circum - stances of each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country concerned (the previous rule was that compensation was to be calculated with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and any other objective criteria). • The new club of the player in the event of termi - nation without just cause will only assume such liability if it is proven that it induced the unlawful termination (the original rule provided that the new club was automatically liable). • The application of sporting sanctions to the new club depends on the former club proving that the new club induced the breach of contract (before the new club was presumed to have induced the breach of contract). • The former club’s national association cannot reject the issuance of the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) (the original rule provided that the national association of the former club was able to withhold the ITC if there was a dispute over the termination of the playing contract). Motivated by this decision, in August 2025 the Dutch foundation “Justice for Players” initiated a class action lawsuit against FIFA and several national football asso - ciations (Netherlands, France, Germany, Belgium and Denmark) on behalf of former and current professional male and female football players who have played for clubs in EU member states and the United Kingdom since 2002. The claim is based on the alleged incom - patibility of international transfer rules with EU law, which is claimed to have led, on average, to losses of approximately 8% of career earnings for professional male and female football players since 2002. The action will be adjudicated by the District Court of Midden-Nederland, and the potential class includes up to 100,000 athletes across the EU and the United
Kingdom, with total compensation claims amounting to several billion euros. Under Dutch law, all players who have suffered losses and reside in the Netherlands are automatically includ - ed in this legal action, unless they submit an opt-out declaration indicating that they do not wish to par - ticipate. Players who do not reside in the Netherlands but have played for or been transferred to or between European clubs between 2002 and the present date may join the class action under an opt-in system. The filing of this class action represents a landmark development in the legal evolution of professional football, placing FIFA under direct scrutiny and exert - ing pressure to implement structural reform of the international transfer system, which will naturally have consequences in the Portuguese sports market as well. The Seraing Case In August 2025, another relevant development in the sports market came from the ECJ: a decision was issued on the Seraing case, which may revolutionise sports arbitration. The Seraing case originated in a contract entered into by a Belgian football club, Royal Football Club Sera - ing, with Doyen Sports, for the transfer of the econom - ic rights of several football players. FIFA’s disciplinary committee found that this arrangement breached the FIFA rules on third-party ownership (TPO) prohibition, and imposed certain disciplinary measures on the club, which were confirmed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. Following the CAS’s decision, Doyen Sports filed a complaint presented before the Belgian courts claim - ing that FIFA’s TPO prohibition implemented by UEFA and La Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association was not valid. The Belgian courts declined jurisdiction on the basis that Belgian law attributes the force of res judicata to certain types of commercial arbitration awards, including CAS awards. The claimant appealed the decision to the Belgium Cour de Cassation , which referred the matter for a
285 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook