How the Seraing Ruling is a Key ..
.. for Opening the Door to Sports Disputes that Mediation has Been Knocking On
21st August 2025
Following my previous article about what the Seraing ruling seemingly means beyond the legal debate, I subsequently considered the opportunity this creates. While legal experts continue their debates about the ruling’s broader significance, I’m convinced this might be the moment mediation finally gets the genuine opportunity it deserves to ‘step out of the shadows’, in the field of sports disputes.
The uncertainty and complexity that the ECJ decision seems to have introduced to the world of sports arbitration isn’t just a legal curiosity – it’s a practical problem that needs practical solutions. And sometimes, one of, if not the most practical solution, has been staring the industry in the face all along.
The resistance that never made sense
The sports world’s reluctance to embrace mediation has always been more about perception rather than reality. The standard objections – “mediation doesn’t work in sports,” “disputes are too technical,” “parties won’t respect non-binding outcomes” – were questionable even when the likes of CAS awards seemed unassailable.
Now that the ECJ has essentially said “not so fast” to the finality of sports arbitration awards from CAS, these objections look even weaker. The system that sports bodies held up as the gold standard has just been shown to be neither as binding nor as final as many believed.
What the Seraing ruling actually validates
While lawyers debate whether this ruling changes everything or nothing, it validates arguments that I, and many others, have been making for years.
The ruling exposes three uncomfortable truths: the systems were already more fragmented than many admitted; complexity breeds more complexity; and the people affected by these disputes have been poorly served by a system that prioritises legal technicalities over practical resolution for those in dispute.
Why sports organisations resist change
Sports organisations seem to have been notoriously conservative when it comes to dispute resolution, which puzzles me given that sport itself is all about innovation and competitive advantages. Football Clubs (for example) will spend millions on marginal gains, but default to “fight it through the formal system” regardless of cost, relationship damage, and reputational damage.
The legal profession as a whole also doesn’t seem to have helped matters. Too many lawyers feed disputes into the formal machinery without seriously considering alternatives. When you’re trained as a lawyer, it is somewhat understandable that traditional legal systems become the default tool for many – but they’re not always the right one.
Where mediation works (and where it doesn't)
Let me be clear: mediation isn’t a panacea. There are sports disputes where formal proceedings are unavoidable and necessary.
For example, when a sports authority imposes disciplinary sanctions based on clear rule violations and prescribed penalties, mediation typically isn’t feasible. If you’ve broken anti-doping rules or match-fixing regulations, you most often can’t negotiate your way out of the consequences. As such, these are regulatory disputes where the authority needs to maintain standards and deterrence.
The Seraing case itself is a good example. FIFA’s third-party ownership rules exist for policy reasons, and generally, governing bodies can’t allow these to be undermined through case-by-case mediation. Although even here, it’s worth noting that many sports regulations contain elements of nuance and often mention “discretion” – and where there’s discretion, there often seems room for discussion.
But many of the sports disputes that end up in formal proceedings didn’t need to get there in the first place. Contract disagreements, commercial arrangements, employment issues, image rights disputes – these are exactly the types of matters where mediation excels.
The irony of institutional ‘mediation’
It’s fascinating how many sports authorities now mention mediation in their dispute resolution procedures. CAS offers mediation. FIFA offers something it calls ‘mediation’. Various sports governing bodies have mediation clauses in their regulations.
This would be encouraging if much of what these organisations call ‘mediation’ actually resembled genuine mediation.
I’ve written before about FIFA’s mediation service, which operates more like an almost PR exercise and ‘arbitration on the cheap’ rather than genuine mediation. The process lacks the fundamental characteristics that make mediation effective – genuine neutrality, party control over outcomes, and confidentiality that truly protects all sides.
These organisations recognise that mediation sounds modern and progressive, but they can’t quite bring themselves to relinquish control of the process. The result is ‘pseudo-mediation’ that often fails to deliver the benefits that proper mediation provides.
What genuine mediation offers
Real mediation offers something formal legal proceedings struggle to deliver: solutions that actually work for everyone involved.
Traditional arbitration focuses on who’s legally right. Mediation asks: what would a workable solution look like? Maybe the player gets their transfer but helps the club save face. Maybe the club gets compensation in a structure that works for everyone. These creative solutions are rarely available through more ‘formal’ legal proceedings.
Mediation can resolve complex multi-party sports disputes in weeks or days (if not hours) that would have taken years to litigate. The key is catching them early, before positions harden and the conflict spirals out of control and beyond common sense.
How Seraing changes the equation
The ECJ’s decision doesn’t invalidate CAS or make arbitration irrelevant. But it seems to make uncertainty a central feature of sports dispute resolution going forward.
When parties could rely on CAS awards being final, the calculation was straightforward. Win or lose, at least you’d know where you stood. Now, particularly for disputes involving EU law issues, that certainty seems to have largely evaporated.
Smart operators will adapt to this new reality. Instead of assuming that formal proceedings will provide closure, they’ll start asking whether there might be better ways to achieve a satisfactory (if not more appealing) resolution.
CAS has issued a measured statement (regarding the Seraing ruling at the ECJ/CJEU), acknowledging the ruling, while also emphasising rightly that they’ll continue providing dispute resolution services worldwide. It’s a professional response to a complex development, and understandably, they want to reassure the sports community about continuity.
But regardless of how institutions respond, the practical reality for sports participants remains the same: dispute resolution just got more complicated. And when things get complicated (if not more expensive), that’s exactly when alternatives become more attractive.
Hence, this is where mediation’s advantages become compelling:
Speed: While lawyers debate jurisdictional questions, mediation can resolve disputes in weeks or days (if not hours), rather than months or years.
Certainty: When parties to a dispute can craft their own solutions (and resolutions), they tend to stick to them. Compare that to imposed decisions by the likes of CAS arbitration, and subsequently, now face post-award challenges and appeals.
Cost-effectiveness: Even with the possibility of multiple proceedings, mediation remains a fraction of the cost of formal litigation and can (to an extent) be fixed.
Relationship preservation: Sports is a small world where today’s opponent might be tomorrow’s partner. Mediation recognises this reality and assists in saving relationships, if not actually repairing damaged ones.
Creative solutions: Formal proceedings offer limited remedies. Mediation allows parties to think beyond legal categories and awards defined (and/or restricted) by a 3rd party.
The broader opportunity
The Seraing ruling creates space for conversations about better approaches to sports dispute resolution. For too long, the sports world has assumed disputes must be “won” rather than resolved. Yet, when formal finality becomes questionable, mediation’s collaborative approach starts looking more attractive.
This opportunity exists across different sports: player-club relationships, commercial arrangements, governance disputes where regulatory discretion allows discussion, and international matters where different legal systems might apply different standards.
Breaking down the mental barriers
The biggest barrier to mediation in sports, I believe, has always been largely the mindset rather than practicality. The belief that “real” disputes require formal proceedings is deeply embedded in the sports psyche (not least the sports-law culture).
But cultures and mentalities can change, particularly when external pressures create incentives for change. The Seraing ruling provides exactly that kind of external pressure.
When clubs, players, and agents start facing the prospect of disputes ‘bouncing’ between multiple forums, the appeal of a single, controlled process becomes obvious. When legal advisers have to explain to clients that winning at CAS might not be the end of the story and what additional costs may now be involved, questions may start being asked about alternatives (or even the initial approach).
The change won’t happen overnight. As I said in a previous article, sports organisations and regulators are conservative and largely reactive by nature, and the legal profession can be even more so. But the conditions for change are now in place.
A mediation advocate's perspective
I’ve been advocating for greater use of mediation in sports disputes for years, often feeling like I’m ‘pushing against a locked door’. The response has typically ranged from polite indifference to active resistance (if not blind ignorance).
The arguments against mediation rarely made complete sense to me, but I understood the psychology behind them. Sportspeople and the sports community as a whole like certainty. They want to know who won and who lost. They want a result and finality.
But the Seraing ruling has removed much of that certainty and authority from the formal system. Suddenly, mediation’s collaborative approach doesn’t look like a weakness – it looks like a realistic response to an even more complex environment.
Legal developments rarely translate directly into practical changes. But this ruling does create conditions where mediation should become more obviously attractive to people who previously dismissed it.
Beyond football
While much of my focus has been on football, the opportunity extends across all sports. Tennis, rugby, cricket, athletics, equestrian, motorsport, e-sports, etc – each has its own culture, regulations, and nuances, but they all share the same challenge: resolving disputes in ways that actually work for people involved AND also the sport. The Seraing ruling affects most, if not all of them.
The time for action
For years, I’ve written about the potential for mediation in sports disputes from more of a theoretical or even educational perspective, if only to raise awareness and address the myths and misconceptions. I’ve tried to explain what mediation is, how it works, and why it might be valuable in sports.
But there comes a point where education needs to translate into action. The Seraing ruling should provide that almost ‘watershed’ moment.
If you’re involved in sports – whether as a club official, sports person, athlete, player representative, agent, or legal adviser – and you’re facing a dispute or might face one in the future, now might be the time to consider alternatives to the traditional approach.
The ‘door’ that mediation has been ‘knocking on’ for years in sports disputes is finally starting to open. The question is whether people will be brave enough to walk through it.
I’ve spent considerable time trying to raise awareness of mediation’s potential in sports. Now I’m ready to help translate that potential into practical results.
The Seraing ruling has created uncertainty in formal sports dispute resolution. But uncertainty can also create opportunity. The question is what you choose to do with it.
If you’re ready to explore how mediation might work for your particular situation, or if you simply want to understand better what genuine mediation can offer, I’d welcome the conversation.