Key takeaways
EU courts can review certain Court of Arbitration for Sport awards
This does not extend to the vast majority of contractual or disciplinary disputes.
Covers awards relating to competition law or restriction of fundamental freedoms
Outside those EU public policy contexts, standard arbitral finality remains the norm.
Limited impact for UK practitioners
Only becomes relevant where a dispute has a clear EU nexus and public-policy dimension.
What Seraing was about
In 2015, Belgian club RFC Seraing entered financing agreements with Doyen Sports that transferred percentages of players’ economic rights, engaging FIFA’s bans on third‑party ownership/influence. FIFA imposed a fine and registration embargo; CAS upheld those sanctions (Mar 2017), and the Swiss Federal Tribunal dismissed a further challenge (Feb 2018). Proceedings in Belgium then raised EU competition and fundamental‑freedoms issues, prompting a preliminary reference to the CJEU and, ultimately, the ruling requiring effective EU‑court review only where EU public policy is truly at stake.
The decision
On 1 August 2025, the CJEU held that EU Member State courts must be able to conduct in‑depth review of CAS awards where EU public policy is engaged, with powers to grant interim relief and to withhold res judicata effect if no effective review has occurred. The Court emphasised this because sports arbitration is often compulsory rather than freely negotiated.
Crucially, the judgment is narrow. It targets EU‑law‑implicated contexts - rules or practices that raise market‑wide restraints or restrict free movement (workers/services/capital). It does not require EU‑court rehearing of every CAS award, nor does it disturb the general finality of awards in non‑public‑policy matters (i.e. a substantial number of the contractual and disciplinary cases handled by the CAS).
The Court also clarified that the Swiss seat of CAS is immaterial in public‑policy settings: if an award is relied upon within the EU, a Member State court must be able to verify EU‑law consistency. That leaves the familiar recognition/enforcement framework untouched for disputes without an EU‑public‑policy angle.
The English position (post‑brexit)
No automatic change to English law: Seraing does not amend the Arbitration Act 1996 or enlarge English‑court grounds to set aside or refuse recognition of CAS awards. In England and Wales, challenges remain tightly circumscribed (jurisdictional defects, serious irregularity, or - where available - appeals on a point of law). The Seraing principle operates within the EU to guarantee effective judicial review in public‑policy cases; it does not bind UK courts post‑Brexit.
Why Seraing still matters for UK parties: It becomes practically relevant where a CAS award will be relied upon or enforced within the EU and the dispute raises matters of EU public policy (most commonly competition/free movement). In those circumstances, a Member State court may insist on merits‑level review and interim relief before granting res judicata effect - even if the award has a Swiss seat and would ordinarily be treated as final under English norms.
Finality still governs most CAS cases: The overwhelming majority of disputes involving UK stakeholders - routine contractual matters (e.g., image‑rights, agency commissions) and disciplinary issues (suspensions, selection/eligibility without market‑wide effects) - do not raise EU‑public‑policy concerns. Those awards continue to benefit from the pro‑finality stance of the Arbitration Act 1996 and the New York Convention framework as applied by the English courts.
Forum dynamics and strategy: Where a plausible EU nexus exists together with competition/free‑movement arguments, parties should consider parallel dispute management: progressing the CAS case while preserving the option of urgent relief (or public‑policy review) in a relevant EU court.
Alignment (or not) with English supervisory review: Commentary observes that Seraing reflects a higher standard of review for EU‑public‑policy questions than England’s minimal‑intervention model. That divergence explains how Seraing can “bite” in the EU while leaving English recognition/enforcement practice largely undisturbed - unless a later EU‑court decision has knock‑on effects for cross‑border enforcement strategy.
Practical implications for UK stakeholders
Clause drafting and forum selection: Maintain CAS finality for routine issues, but include targeted carve‑outs for public‑policy scenarios (competition/free movement) and specify interim‑relief mechanics where EU‑court review is foreseeable.
Dual‑track strategy (where there’s an EU nexus): For time‑critical situations with public‑policy angles (e.g., transfer‑window impacts from a market restraint), consider injunction proceedings in the relevant EU court in parallel with arbitration.
Evidence and transparency (when EU policy is engaged): Build the record on market effects and proportionality; be aware that a reasoned award should addresses EU‑law arguments so it can withstand EU‑court review.
Cross‑border risk management: Brief boards where EU‑court involvement is realistically in play; align contract, finance and insurance documentation for potential interim orders/timing impacts; coordinate stakeholder messaging with the legal strategy.
If you’d like to discuss anything in this article or your sports law issues more widely, please get in touch - we’d love to help.
