🇪🇺Football Agents: Licensing, Fee Caps and the Litigation Against FIFA

The concept

What is regulated here is not the athlete but the intermediary. The FIFA Football Agent Regulations (FFAR) are an instrument of a private association that imposes entry to the profession through a licence and an examination, a ceiling on the price of the service, a prohibition on acting for both sides of a deal, and mandatory disclosure of transactions and sums.

That is why FFAR turned into an antitrust story rather than a sporting one: the cartel division of the court in Dortmund, the preliminary reference from Mainz, interim relief in Madrid, a Rule K arbitration in London. As at 7 September 2026 there is no single regime: on 16.07.2026 the Court of Justice took the regulations apart article by article, England has lived without a fee cap since the end of 2023, and FIFA itself keeps the contested provisions suspended under circular 1873. The size of the stake is visible from the FIFA Football Agents Report 2025 of 18.12.2025 — these are its 2025 figures.

The agency commission market almost doubled in a year, which is the measure of what the fight over the cap is worth.

What FFAR is and what is left of it on 7 September 2026

The licensing provisions of FFAR took effect on 09.01.2023 and the operative ones on 01.10.2023. The version in force was approved on 10.12.2024 and applies from 01.01.2025. Laid over that text is FIFA circular 1873 of 30.12.2023: application of the contested provisions is suspended — first for transactions with an EU connection, then worldwide — pending the ruling of the Court of Justice.

The list of what is suspended is longer than is commonly assumed, and FIFA has published it itself: the fee cap (art. 15(1)–(4)), the "client pays" rule and the payment mechanics (art. 14(2), (6)–(8), (10)–(12)), the route through the Clearing House (art. 14(13)), the ban on dual representation (art. 12(8)–(10)), reporting to FIFA (art. 16(2)(h), (j), (k) and 16(4)), disclosure and publication (art. 19), and the rule submitting agents to the jurisdiction of FIFA and CAS.

What is alive is entry: the licence, the examination, the licence fee, CPD, registration with the national association, the two-year term of a representation agreement with an individual, and the rules on minors. Uploading agreements and payments to the FIFA Agent Platform and publication of transaction data are suspended together with the pricing core; reporting lives on at the level of national associations under their own rules.

The judgments of 09.07.2026 and 16.07.2026 do not lift the suspension automatically: the circular is an act of FIFA, and only FIFA can withdraw it. There is no new circular as at 07.09.2026; on 16.07.2026 FIFA said publicly only that it intended to convene representatives of agents and reach agreement before the new transfer system starts on 01.01.2027. The working assumption today: entry applies, the pricing rules and reporting to FIFA remain suspended and contested, and the next reference point is a new circular or a new edition of FFAR by 01.01.2027.

The key parameters of the regime as at 07.09.2026 sit in one table.

What follows is how each of these parameters works and why the pricing part is contested.

The licence and the examination: art. 5, the platform, the 2026 calendar

Entry is governed by art. 5 FFAR: the application is filed through the FIFA Agent Platform, the candidate passes an eligibility check and sits the examination. The format is 20 multiple-choice questions in 60 minutes, with a pass mark of 75% (that is, 15 correct answers). The 2026 calendar: the application window ran from 20.01 to 06.03.2026, the examination days were set for 28–30.04.2026, with reserve sessions on 05–07.05.2026 opened only once the April dates were fully booked, and results were released on 04.06.2026. FIFA charges a separate examination fee but shows its amount only on the FIFA Agent Platform before the application is submitted, so that line is budgeted from the Platform.

The annual FIFA licence fee has been USD 600 for the first year and USD 300 on renewal since 01.10.2024. The licence is maintained through continuing professional development: 20 CPD credits over the period from 1 October to 30 September, with an assessment threshold of 80%. A FIFA licence is not the end of the road: working in a particular country requires separate registration with the national association on its own terms (in England, reg. 2.2 of the FA Football Agent Regulations 2026/27).

The money: the cap in art. 15 and "client pays" in art. 14

Article 15 FFAR, in its December 2024 version, builds a sliding scale off the player's annual remuneration. The cap turns on whose interests the agent represents.

The threshold is a single one: USD 200,000 of annual remuneration. The cap for the releasing club does not turn on it and is taken from the transfer compensation. The base is computed narrowly: conditional payments (performance bonuses, appearance-based add-ons) do not enter the cap calculation, and compensation for breach of contract and sell-on amounts are excluded from transfer compensation.

Article 14 settles who pays: only the agent's own client. The single exception is that, where the player's annual remuneration is below USD 200,000, the engaging club may pay on the player's behalf, but only by agreement with the player. The payment mechanics are rigid: payment falls due after the registration period closes, then in instalments every three months over the term of the contract; for a contract of less than six months, in a single payment at the end of the term. Commission accrues only on remuneration actually received by the player, pro rata: if the player leaves after one year of three, the agent receives a third, not the whole sum up front.

Dual representation: art. 12

The general rule in art. 12 is that an agent acts in the interests of one party to the transaction. The only permissible departure is acting simultaneously for the player and for the engaging club, with the prior express written consent of both clients. Consent after the event does not cure the breach, and oral consent does not exist as a category. The term of a representation agreement with an individual is capped at two years.

Dual representation in England: regs. 6.3 and 7.11

The English overlay is currently softer than the FIFA rule. Under reg. 6.3(a) of the FA Football Agent Regulations 2026/27 an agent may act for several parties to the same transaction — including beyond the pair of player and engaging club — with the prior written consent of all parties and full disclosure to them of the remuneration picture. The limit in reg. 7.11, under which the engaging club pays no more than 50% of the total commission, is shaded grey in the FA text as suspended in line with circular 1873, so the split of the commission between club and player is set by the contract. The tax side of that split is dealt with separately in the note on image rights and tax; that page also covers HMRC enquiries into agents.

Reporting and transparency: arts. 16 and 19

Article 16(2)(j) FFAR requires the upload to the FIFA Agent Platform, within 14 days, of details of the conclusion, amendment and termination of a representation agreement, of the provision of other services, and of every payment. Article 19 turns that into publicity: FIFA is to publish the names of agents, their clients, the transactions, the commission amounts and the sanctions imposed. Both provisions are on the list suspended by circular 1873, and it is this block that generated the GDPR argument. On 16.07.2026 the Court of Justice closed it as regards publication: the GDPR precludes the disclosure of any sanctions and of detailed data on all transactions involving agents (art. 19(d)–(e)) (press release 110/26); whether the transfer of the data to FIFA under art. 16 is itself permissible is for the court in Mainz to assess under the legitimate-interest test (art. 6(1)(f) GDPR).

The Clearing House is not the agent's payment channel

Two circuits that are routinely confused should be kept apart. The FIFA Clearing House is not the payment channel for an agent. The Clearing House regulations approved on 17.12.2025 and in force from 01.01.2026 confine its perimeter to training rewards and the solidarity mechanism. Article 14(13) FFAR contemplates the involvement of the Clearing House and reg. 7.13 of the FA rules cross-refers to it, but both provisions are suspended by circular 1873, and as at 07.09.2026 the Clearing House regulations do not govern agents' fees. The cash route in a contract is best planned around direct settlement rather than around the Clearing House.

The legal attack in four forums

The regulations were taken apart piece by piece, in several jurisdictions at once.

The divergence of outcomes is no accident: CAS assessed FFAR against sporting rules, the national courts against competition law. The same split between forums shows up in other disputes around FIFA and FA regulations — for instance in a player's clearance to work in England through the GBE route, examined in the note on athlete visas.

Luxembourg 2026: C-⁠428/23 and C-⁠209/23

The Court of Justice spoke twice within a week. The judgment of 09.07.2026 in Case C-428/23 ROGON and Others (press release 99/26, on a reference from the German Federal Court of Justice): association rules on agents are capable of falling within the general-interest exception under the Wouters test, provided they are appropriate, necessary and proportionate to the objective pursued. That is a framework, not an absolution.

C-⁠209/23 RRC Sports: what the Court struck out

The judgment of 16.07.2026 in Case C-209/23 RRC Sports (press release 110/26) applied the framework to FFAR. Two provisions were classed as restrictions of competition by object, subject to verification by the court in Mainz: the rule under which an agent who no longer represents the player loses the not-yet-due part of the fee from an earlier transfer when the player is transferred again before that contract expires, and the ban on approaching a client bound by an exclusive agreement outside the two-month window before that agreement expires, in so far as it spares agents who already hold such an agreement (paras 137–138, 158 and 170 of the judgment). The rest of the core — licensing, the dual-representation limit, the percentage cap and the disclosure obligation — the Court considered capable in principle of justification, but it left the proportionality assessment to the court in Mainz.

Separately and without qualification, the Court held that the GDPR precludes the publication of sanctions and of detailed data on all agents' transactions under art. 19(d)–(e). In the text of FFAR the two "by object" rules are art. 14(12)(a) and art. 16(1)(b)–(c). As at 07.09.2026 the resumed proceedings in Mainz, Dortmund and Madrid have not been decided on the merits.

The correct reading is this: the pricing architecture of FFAR has been neither struck down nor upheld — it has been sent for a proportionality test in a national court, while two conduct rules have been classed as restrictions by object, which the public-interest test cannot save: they can survive only under art. 101(3) TFEU (paras 177 and 181 of the judgment).

England as a separate legal order

The English track developed autonomously and earlier. The Rule K arbitration (panel: Collins, Vajda KC, Dyson), on a claim by CAA Base, Wasserman, Stellar and Arete, held by an award of 30.11.2023 as amended on 12.12.2023 that the fee cap and the pro rata rule infringed the Chapter I and Chapter II prohibitions in the Competition Act 1998, so that the FA cannot introduce them.

The FA rules 2026/27: entry control without a cap

The result is embedded in the FA Football Agent Regulations: they have applied since 01.01.2024, and the current edition for the 2026/27 season came into force on 01.06.2026 (section 17 of the FA Handbook). There is no fee cap (reg. 7.1), but a FIFA licence and FA registration are both required (reg. 2.2); client pays (reg. 7.2), the 50% club limit in dual representation (reg. 7.11), forfeiture of unearned commission (reg. 7.12) and the route through the Clearing House (reg. 7.13) are shaded grey as suspended; a representation agreement is registered with the FA within 14 days (reg. 8.3(g)), a declaration of remuneration received from a player is due within 14 days (reg. 7.14(c)), and the annual return to the player within 30 days of the end of the reporting period (reg. 8.5(c)). England, in other words, has kept entry control and transparency but abandoned price regulation.

The comparative frame: what actually applies

Typical mistakes and what to put in a representation agreement

Five mistakes recur. The first is treating the FFAR cap as being in force in England: it has not applied there since the end of 2023, and a reference to art. 15 in an English contract creates a term the regulator does not require. The second is dual representation without the prior written consent of both parties under art. 12: consent after the event does not cure the breach. The third is missing the 14 days for registering the agreement and declaring a payment with the FA (regs. 8.3(g), 7.14(c)); the parallel 14-day deadline in art. 16(2)(j) FFAR is suspended by circular 1873 and returns once it is withdrawn. The fourth is including conditional payments in the calculation base: bonuses do not count towards the cap base, and an inflated base is a dispute about overpayment waiting to happen. The fifth is conflating the FIFA Clearing House with the payment channel to the agent.

Six positions belong in the agreement itself.

1. The term — no more than two years with an individual, under art. 12.
2. The calculation base, with express exclusion of conditional payments, compensation for breach of contract and sell-on amounts.
3. The instalment schedule and the pro rata rule by reference to what is actually received.
4. The parties' consents in dual representation, documented before the transaction.
5. The allocation of responsibility for deadlines: 14 and 30 days for the FA, plus 14 days for FIFA under art. 16(2)(j) should the suspension be lifted.
6. The choice of law and forum — bearing in mind that a Rule K arbitration, a German cartel court and CAS produce different results on the same text.

Adjacent models for controlling an intermediary's access to an athlete's money — the NFLPA financial adviser screen, with its USD 2,700 fee, CFP/CFA requirements and prohibition on holding a player's funds — are described in the athlete cluster map.

As at 07.09.2026, what is live for an agent is entry: the FIFA licence (USD 600 in the first year, USD 300 on renewal), the examination of 20 questions in 60 minutes with a 75% pass mark, 20 CPD credits by 30 September, registration with the national association and its reporting (in England, 14 days to register the agreement and to declare a payment). The pricing core of FFAR — the 5/3/10/6/10% cap with the USD 200,000 threshold, client pays and the ban on dual representation — together with uploads to the FIFA Agent Platform and publication under art. 19 is suspended by circular 1873 of 30.12.2023, does not apply in England after the Rule K award of 30.11.2023, and after the Court of Justice judgment of 16.07.2026 awaits a proportionality test in Mainz; publication of sanctions and transaction sums the Court has already held incompatible with the GDPR. The next milestone is a new circular or a new FFAR edition before the transfer system launch on 01.01.2027.