Maybe Not Seismic for Everyone, but the Seraing Ruling is a 'Watershed' Moment for Sports Mediation

Maybe Not Seismic for Everyone,

but the Seraing Ruling is a 'Watershed' Moment for Sports Mediation

12th August 2025

Many of the legal experts seem to be having a field day with the latest development regarding the Seraing case in football – and rightly so. It’s fascinating European jurisprudence that’s got some brilliant legal minds debating everything from ‘res judicata’ to mandatory arbitration. But as someone who approaches sports governance and dispute resolution from a somewhat different angle, I’m more interested in what this means for the people who are actually subject to disputes similar to this, and thus have to live with the consequences of not just the decisions, but also the processes leading to such decision – and ultimately the outcomes (if not opportunities) that might be emerging from these developments.

Before I go any further, I should probably ask for a bit of leeway from my legal contacts – some of whom I’m fortunate to count as trusted associates, and even some as friends. What follows will inevitably oversimplify some seemingly complex legal matters, and thus, I may well misinterpret various nuances that are second nature to those from a professional legal background. But my focus here is on making this topic open and of use to a wider audience, not just those with broader legal knowledge

What actually happened?

Let’s start with what may seem to be the basics. Royal Football Club Seraing, a Belgian football club, got into trouble with FIFA back in 2015 for third-party ownership arrangements with an ‘investment company’ called Doyen Sports. FIFA imposed sanctions – a two-year player registration ban and a hefty fine. The club appealed to CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport), lost, then appealed to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, and lost again.

But here’s where it gets interesting. The club then tried to challenge FIFA’s rules in Belgian courts, arguing they violated EU law. The Belgian courts effectively said, ‘Sorry, can’t help you – CAS has already decided and that’s final.’ So off they went to the European Court of Justice, asking whether this was fair.

Subsequently, on 1st August 2025, the ECJ essentially said: ‘Actually, no – it’s not fair. EU Member State courts must be able to review CAS awards when EU law is involved.’

Why this matters in practical terms

For years, CAS awards seemed to be treated largely as gospel. Once CAS spoke (and ruled), that was the end of the matter in the majority of cases. The only route for challenge was through Swiss courts and legal system, which don’t exactly specialise in EU law nuances.

So, what the ECJ has seemingly said now following the Seraing case is that, when sports disputes involve EU law principles – competition law, freedom of movement, fundamental rights, etc – EU Member State courts can take a fresh look at CAS decisions. They’re not bound by the principle that I believe lawyers refer to as ‘res judicata’.

The practical upshot? CAS awards involving EU elements no longer seem to be the final word they once were.

The complexity problem

Here’s what strikes me about this development: whilst the legal community debates its significance, many seem to be missing something rather obvious. This recent ruling has just made sports dispute resolution significantly more complicated and uncertain.

Think about it from a practical perspective (and just football as one sporting example). If you’re a club, player, or agent facing a potential dispute, you now have to consider, amongst other things:

Will this involve EU law issues?
If CAS rules against us, can we challenge it in national courts?
Which national court would have jurisdiction?
How long will that take?
What will it cost?
And critically - will the other party accept a CAS decision as final, or will they also head to national courts (especially if they have superior financial and legal resources to ‘fight their corner’)?

In trying to ensure better protection of EU rights, the Court has potentially created a system where disputes could effectively ‘ping-pong’ between CAS, national courts, and back again.

Experience from the inside

Having been involved in sports disputes on several occasions – including appearing as an expert witness in a FIFA-related case at CAS itself – I’ve watched firsthand how the current system operates. The assumption has always been that CAS seemingly provides finality. Parties may not like the supposed ‘final’ outcome, but at least they knew where they stood.

That certainty seems to have now largely evaporated, at least for disputes touching on EU law.

As I’ve written before, the sports world has shown remarkable resistance to considering alternatives to traditional arbitration and litigation. Football, in particular, seems wedded to the idea that every dispute must be fought to the bitter end through formal proceedings, and the winners and losers clearly decided.

But when you add uncertainty and complexity to an already expensive and time-consuming process, rational people start looking for alternatives.

The mediation opportunity

Which brings me to mediation. For years, I’ve watched sports disputes escalate through various tribunals when early intervention could have resolved them more effectively. The resistance has been frustrating – not least because many of the concerns about mediation are based on fundamental misunderstandings of what mediation actually offers.

The Seraing ruling doesn’t invalidate CAS or make arbitration irrelevant. But it does something potentially more significant: it creates space for alternative approaches to benefit those who find themselves as disputants in sports-related matters.

When parties can no longer be certain that a CAS award will be the end of the matter, the calculation changes. Suddenly, a process that offers certainty, finality, and mutual agreement, all at a fraction of the cost and time, starts looking rather attractive.

Why this could be a ‘watershed’ moment for sports disputes

The sports industry, in terms of governance, is often conservative and reactionary by nature. Change often comes slowly, and usually only when forced by external circumstances. The Seraing ruling might just be one of those external forces.

Consider the practical realities facing sports industry participants now:

For Clubs: Do you really want to risk a dispute that could go through CAS, then national courts, then potentially back again? Wouldn’t it be better to resolve matters before they reach that stage?

For Players/Athletes and Agents: The prospect of disputes dragging on through multiple courts and/or jurisdictions isn’t exactly appealing, especially when careers are short and decisions are so time-sensitive.

For Sports Bodies: The last thing governing bodies want is regulatory uncertainty and challenges to their authority spreading across multiple court systems and jurisdictions.

For Legal Advisers: Clients are going to start asking harder questions about cost-effectiveness and time-efficiency. The attitude of many seems to be that of: “we’ll fight it all the way to CAS”, which might not be as compelling as it once was.

Time for mediation to ‘emerge from the shadows’

This is where mediation may finally get its chance in sports disputes and come into its own. While the legal world grapples with new complexities, mediation offers something more straightforward: a process where parties control the outcome, maintain confidentiality, preserve relationships, and achieve resolution quickly and cost-effectively.

The beauty of mediation is that it doesn’t depend on complex jurisdictional questions or procedural technicalities. It works because the parties want it to work, not because a court says it must.

One of the biggest obstacles to mediation in sports has been the misconception that disputes need to be ‘won’ rather than resolved. The adversarial mindset runs deep in sports, which is hardly surprising in competitive environments. But when the traditional approach becomes more uncertain and potentially more protracted, the collective approach that mediation offers starts making more sense.

Addressing the common objections

I’ve long been frustrated by the sports industry’s reluctance to embrace mediation. The usual objections – “it’s not binding,” “there’s no enforcement mechanism,” “the other side won’t respect it” – have always struck me as largely missing the point (if not a deliberate misrepresentation).

The Seraing ruling inadvertently highlights why these objections were misguided, and now even more so. If binding arbitration awards from CAS can now be challenged and potentially overturned, what exactly was the advantage of that “binding” nature? Meanwhile, mediated settlements that parties actually agree to tend to stick because both sides have bought into the resolution.

The enforcement argument also looks rather hollow now. CAS awards backed by Swiss law can apparently be undermined by national court challenges. Mediated agreements that parties have crafted themselves and genuinely support often prove more durable than imposed decisions, regardless of their formal legal status.

The immediate practical impact

The immediate practical impact of Seraing will, I believe, largely depend on how sports industry participants (and their legal advisers) respond. If everyone assumes “business as usual” and continues funnelling disputes towards CAS, we might see a surge in post-award challenges that makes the whole process even more unwieldy, confusing, damaging, time-consuming, and costly.

Alternatively, this could be the moment when people start seriously considering whether there might be better ways to handle sports disputes.

From a mediation perspective, the timing couldn’t be better. The ruling creates exactly the kind of uncertainty that makes early intervention attractive. Why risk a dispute escalating through multiple forums when you could resolve it through a single, confidential process that the parties to the dispute control?

The key is catching disputes early, before positions harden and before the formal machinery of sports tribunals kicks in. This has always been one of the strengths of mediation, but the Seraing ruling makes it more compelling than ever.

What this really means

In all the legal analysis of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’, there’s a simpler truth: everyone loses when dispute resolution becomes more complex and uncertain. Parties lose because they face greater costs and delays. Sports bodies lose because their authority becomes less predictable and they are perceived to lose control. Even lawyers lose in the long run because clients start questioning the value of protracted legal processes (not least the subsequent costs).

The real ‘winners’ will be those who adapt quickest to the new reality. Those who recognise that in an environment of increased uncertainty, the most sensible approach might be to avoid formal proceedings altogether where possible.

Why this feels like vindication

As someone who’s operated on both sides of sports disputes – witnessing them from within the formal system and advocating for mediation as an alternative from outside it – the Seraing ruling feels like vindication of arguments I’ve been making for years.

The sports world’s faith in formal arbitration and litigation was always seemingly misplaced. These processes work for certain types of disputes, but they’re largely costly, time-consuming, and often damage relationships and reputations unnecessarily. The idea that they provided certainty and a lasting resolution was largely an illusion – as the Seraing case seems to rather dramatically demonstrate.

What Seraing really shows us is that ‘the emperor’s clothes were never as fine as everyone pretended’. CAS awards were never as unassailable as the system suggested. The difference now is that everyone can see it.

Will the sports industry learn anything new?

The question isn’t whether the Seraing ruling is legally significant – the legal experts will sort that out eventually. The question is whether sports industry participants will learn from it.

Will clubs, players, agents, and their advisers continue to ‘sleepwalk’ into expensive, protracted disputes that might now be even more uncertain in their outcomes? Or will they start asking whether there might be better approaches available?

Mediation won’t solve every sports dispute. But in a world where formal proceedings have just become more complex and less predictable, it offers something increasingly valuable: simplicity, speed, and genuine finality through mutual agreement.

The door that mediation has been knocking on for years in sports disputes might finally be opening. The question is whether anyone will be brave enough to walk through it.