Pathological Jurisdiction Clauses In Football Contracts (Part 2 – The Narrow Exception & Best Practice)

Part 1 of this article (available here) examined the doctrinal framework governing the enforceability of jurisdiction clauses in football employment contracts under Article 22(1)(b) of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). The 2024 amendment, which introduced the express requirement that jurisdiction clauses be "exclusive", codified a principle already established in CAS jurisprudence - most clearly in Al Salmiya Sporting Club v Božidar Cacic (Al Salmiya)^[1], where a clause referring to both the National Sports Arbitration Tribunal and Kuwaiti courts was held incapable of ousting FIFA's jurisdiction.

Part 2, below, turns to the counterpoint identified in Mezőkövesd Zsóry FC v Matija Katanec & FIFA (Katanec):^[2] a narrow exception in which a multi-forum clause survived scrutiny. It then applies these principles to a typical contract structure and explains why Katanec offers no safe harbour for ambiguously drafted dispute-resolution provisions.

Contents

• Katanec: The Exception That Proves the Rule
• Why Katanec Cannot Be Used to Defend Ambiguous Multi-Forum Clauses
• Case Study: Best Practice Drafting & What to Avoid