What Is the Real Impact of the CJEU’s Seraing Judgment on the Future of Sports Arbitration?

The Grand Chamber judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Case C-600/23, Royal Football Club Seraing v FIFA^[1], delivered on 1 August 2025, represents a pivotal juncture in the regulation of international sports arbitration within the European legal order. For the first time, the Court explicitly clarified the conditions under which arbitral awards rendered outside the European Union—specifically by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)—can be recognised and enforced in Member States when those awards adjudicate on matters governed by EU law.

This decision was long awaited by practitioners and scholars in the field of EU sports law, not merely because it scrutinised the structure of the CAS system, but because it addressed the broader constitutional issue of how far the principles of ordre public de l’Union (the EU public policy) can constrain the operation of private arbitration in regulatory regimes that function transnationally but affect rights within the internal market. The Court’s reasoning carefully distinguishes between voluntary arbitration and institutionalised arbitration imposed by sport governing bodies such as FIFA. At the centre of the ruling lies the reaffirmation of effective judicial protection, the procedural primacy of Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)^[2] (jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings), and a doctrinal consolidation of what constitutes EU public policy.

At the centre of the ruling lies the reaffirmation of effective judicial protection (paras 89–104), the procedural primacy of Article 267 TFEU (paras 73–80), and a doctrinal consolidation of what constitutes EU public policy (paras 105–112).

This article discusses:

• Factual and Procedural Background
• Questions for determination before the CJEU
  • Effective Judicial Protection as a Constitutional Principle
  • The Concept of EU Public Policy (Ordre Public de l’Union)
• The Court’s Holding and Its Consequences
• Broader Implications for Sports Governance and Arbitration
• Institutional Responses and Future Pathways
• Conclusion