Why Written Rules and Transparent Procedures Are Now Essential in International Sport: The New Reality Under EU Law
The governance of international sport is undergoing a significant transformation. For decades, global sports federations operated with broad autonomy, often relying on a mixture of written regulations and unwritten “custom and practice” to manage disciplinary matters, eligibility decisions, and regulatory enforcement. That era is now decisively over.
A series of recent judgments from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), culminating in the landmark FIGC/CONI decision in July 2026, has established a clear and binding principle: international sports federations can breach EU law if they impose sanctions without written rules, transparent procedures, or objective criteria. This development has profound implications for how sport is regulated, how athletes are protected, and how disciplinary systems must operate.
A New Legal Standard for Sporting Sanctions
Under EU law, any sanction that restricts an athlete’s ability to work or provide services within the European Union is considered a restriction on free movement. Articles 45 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) protect workers and service providers from unjustified barriers to professional activity. Sporting sanctions—such as suspensions, exclusions, or eligibility restrictions—fall squarely within this framework.
The CJEU has now made it clear that such restrictions must meet strict legal requirements. They must be:
Transparent
Objective
Non‑discriminatory
Proportionate
Verifiable
These criteria cannot be satisfied if a federation relies on unwritten practices, informal procedures, or discretionary decision‑making. In other words, if the rules are not written down, they cannot be lawfully enforced.
This represents a major shift in the legal expectations placed on sports governing bodies. The days when a federation could rely on “how things are usually done” are gone. Athletes and teams must be able to understand the rules that govern them, anticipate the procedures that will be followed, and access the criteria that will be applied.
The Right to Effective Judicial Protection
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Article 47) guarantees the right to effective judicial protection. This means that individuals subject to disciplinary action must be able to challenge the decision through a fair, transparent, and accessible process.
If a federation has no written procedures, no published criteria, and no documented workflow, an athlete cannot meaningfully defend themselves. They cannot know:
what rules were applied,
what standards were used,
what evidence was relied upon, or
what process led to the decision.
This violates the right to be heard and undermines the legitimacy of the sanction. The CJEU has emphasised that procedural fairness is not optional—it is a legal requirement that applies to all sporting bodies whose decisions affect EU‑based athletes.
Proportionality: A Central Requirement
The proportionality test is now central to the legality of sporting sanctions. Under EU law, any restriction on free movement must satisfy three conditions:
Suitability – The measure must be capable of achieving a legitimate objective.
Necessity – There must be no less restrictive alternative available.
Proportionality stricto sensu – The severity of the sanction must be balanced against the interests pursued.
A sanction imposed without written rules fails all three limbs. It is not suitable because it is based on discretionary or unpredictable processes. It is not necessary because clear procedures could have been adopted. And it is not proportionate because the seriousness of the penalty cannot be justified against an alleged infringement that is not defined in writing.
This proportionality analysis is now mandatory for any disciplinary decision affecting EU athletes, regardless of where the federation is headquartered.
Competition Law: A New Layer of Accountability
The FIGC/CONI judgment also confirms that EU competition law applies to international sports federations. Under Article 102 TFEU, a federation with regulatory monopoly power may be considered dominant. If it imposes sanctions arbitrarily or without written rules, it may be found to have abused that dominance.
Similarly, Article 101 TFEU prohibits rule‑making that restricts competition. If a federation enforces unwritten or discretionary procedures that distort competitive conditions between athletes or teams, it may be in breach of EU competition law.
This adds a powerful new dimension to the legal analysis. Federations must now ensure that their disciplinary and regulatory processes do not merely comply with sporting norms—they must also comply with EU competition standards.
The Effects Doctrine: Why Non‑EU Federations Are Bound
A common misconception is that EU law applies only to organisations based within the EU. The CJEU has repeatedly rejected this view. Under the “effects doctrine,” EU law applies whenever conduct has effects within the EU market.
This principle was established in Bosman, reaffirmed in Meca‑Medina, expanded in ISU, and now strengthened in FIGC/CONI. If a sanction affects an EU‑based athlete, restricts participation in EU competitions, or impacts commercial activity within the EU, EU law applies—regardless of where the federation is headquartered.
This means that international federations cannot avoid EU obligations simply because they are based in Switzerland, Monaco, or elsewhere. If their decisions affect EU athletes, they must comply with EU law.
A New Era of Governance in Sport
The implications of these developments are far‑reaching. International sports federations must now:
Publish clear, accessible disciplinary and regulatory procedures
Ensure athletes have access to relevant evidence
Apply objective and verifiable criteria
Document all hearings and decision‑making processes
Provide effective avenues for appeal
Avoid discretionary or unwritten practices
Ensure sanctions meet the proportionality test
Failure to do so may result in sanctions being overturned—not only by internal appeal bodies, but also by courts and tribunals applying EU law.
Conclusion
The governance of international sport is entering a new era—one defined by transparency, accountability, and legal certainty. The CJEU has made it clear that athletes and teams competing within the EU are entitled to fair, objective, and legally robust disciplinary processes. Federations must now adapt to this new reality by strengthening their regulatory frameworks, documenting their procedures, and ensuring that every sanction is grounded in clear, verifiable rules.
This evolution is not merely a legal requirement. It is a vital step toward protecting the integrity of sport, ensuring fairness, and maintaining trust in the institutions that govern global competition.
Contact us today for any further advice on the above topic.