FIFA's Football Agent Regulations: what changes for players and agents
Publication · July 23, 2026
Since the entry into force of the FIFA Football Agent Regulations (FFAR), the practice of sports intermediation has been substantially reorganised. The framework introduces a mandatory FIFA licence, a qualifying examination, an obligation to conclude a written representation agreement meeting minimum content requirements, and tighter rules on multiple representation. These obligations apply to agents involved in transactions concerning players, coaches, clubs or member associations.
One of the most debated aspects of the FFAR is the cap placed on agents' service fees, expressed as percentages depending on the nature of the transaction and the capacity of the client represented. This mechanism, combined with the so-called 'client pays' principle, was intended to clarify who bears the agent's remuneration and in what proportion. However, this part of the regulations has been subject to intense judicial challenge since its adoption.
Several national courts, particularly in Germany, have been seized by agents and their professional associations arguing incompatibility with competition law and freedom of contract. An interim injunction led FIFA to suspend the application of certain FFAR provisions, including the service fee cap and some rules on payment of the service, pending a final decision. As a result, the fee cap cannot presently be described as uniformly applicable or definitively enforceable, as its scope differs across jurisdictions depending on the status of pending proceedings.
The litigation must be read chronologically. In Case C-209/23, FT and RRC Sports, the Court of Justice judgment of 16 July 2026 examines whether FIFA's rules are compatible with EU law. The national court must still assess justification and proportionality. The judgment does not mean every suspended provision automatically resumes everywhere. Before signing, the parties should check national measures still in force and FIFA's latest implementation communications, rather than treating a general statement about validity as a transaction-specific answer.
Multiple representation requires a clear map of interests. The FFAR distinguish the player, engaging club and releasing club, provide for limited joint representation of the player and engaging club subject to explicit written consent, and prohibit other combinations. Effective application must nevertheless be checked against judicial decisions and suspensions. For Belgian transactions, the RBFA's national regulations and applicable regional intermediary requirements also need examination. A FIFA licence and a local authorisation should not be treated as interchangeable documents.
For players and clubs, the practical challenge lies in the drafting of representation agreements. The FFAR imposes mandatory clauses, including duration, the scope of the mandate, remuneration terms and termination conditions. Careless drafting of these clauses can weaken the validity of the agreement and expose the parties to later disputes before the competent disciplinary or arbitral bodies.
The FIFA Clearing House is a separate mechanism for training rewards under the RSTP, not a general payment channel for agents' commissions. Where a transfer raises both questions, representation contracts, training records and compliance duties should be reviewed separately and then coordinated. This distinction prevents commissions being assigned to the wrong regime and avoids assuming that a payment falls within a settlement channel that does not cover it.
Overall, the framework applicable to football agents remains under reconstruction. Sports law practitioners must operate within a regulation whose pillars are partly judicially confirmed and partly suspended or contested, which requires a case-by-case analysis before negotiating or concluding any representation agreement.