Article written by Carlo Rombolà

As we enter 2025, if anyone still believes that sport — in the broadest possible sense — is limited to athletic performance or match results, it is time for a wake-up call. Such a mindset risks overlooking key elements, foremost among them: sports justice.

From the Sinner case in tennis to the Brescia case in Italy’s Serie B football league — to mention only the most recent examples — sports enthusiasts can no longer rest easy until the results achieved on the field are formally ratified.

Let’s be clear: today’s sport is vastly different from what it was even just a few decades ago. Respecting the rules that govern the conduct of those who work with and for athletes is now fundamental to ensuring fair competition.

What is making headlines at the moment, however, is the fact that the system of sports justice — at least at the international level (although any shockwaves would certainly affect national courts as well) — is under scrutiny by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Through its Advocates General, the Court has begun to question the legitimacy of the current framework.

The first “blow” to sports arbitration came from Advocate General Tamara Ćapeta, who in January — in case C-600/23 (Royal Football Seraing) before the CJEU — concluded a detailed legal analysis by suggesting that the arbitral awards of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne — often considered the “Supreme Court” of international sports law — “must be subject to full judicial review by national courts, in order to ensure that FIFA regulations comply with EU law.”

The core idea behind this opinion is that EU-based stakeholders (athletes, clubs, federations) subject to FIFA’s dispute resolution system must have direct access to full judicial review by national courts regarding all aspects of Union law, regardless of a final and binding arbitral award from the CAS.

Although the case concerned football, the implications extend to all sports. Just last week, Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou expressed his views on three cases brought before the CJEU — C-209/23 (RRC Sports), C-428/23 (ROGON and others), and C-133/24 (Tondela and others) — stating that “the self-governing powers of sports governing bodies are subject to limitations when they have significant repercussions on matters governed by EU law.”

Although these opinions did not focus directly on sports justice (they addressed issues of competition, the internal market, and data protection), Advocate General Emiliou centered his analysis on a key component of that justice: the autonomy of national and international sports bodies, and the extent to which their regulations must comply with EU legislation.

For years, the so-called “sporting exception” has justified the regulatory autonomy of sports, both in technical and disciplinary matters. While there is little doubt over the legal validity of this autonomy in the former, it is when sports organizations seek to self-regulate beyond the field of play that, according to the Advocate General, doubts arise as to the compatibility of such autonomy with EU law.

On the other hand, it is worth reflecting on the meaning and scope of that autonomy — justified, in the first place, by the general lack of interest of States in regulating sport, and secondly, by the high level of specialization required of legal and judicial operators in sports justice, which is governed by principles (such as the expediency of rulings) that are foreign to ordinary law, let alone to European legal procedures.

It is important to note that the opinions of the Advocate General are not binding on the Court of Justice, and the judgments in the cases mentioned herein have not yet been issued. Nevertheless, the emergence of this debate — on an issue that has never truly been questioned until now — certainly warrants special attention in the coming months, from the publication of the initial rulings to any potential countermeasures, whether preemptive or reactive, by international sports federations.