2026 is shaping up to be a pivotal year as legal scrutiny and stakeholder pressure intensify around football governance, conflicts of interest and decision-making processes. The article highlights the next UEFA revenue distribution cycle as a key test and explains how the UEC’s PDR and DMRP proposals offer practical routes to strengthen solidarity and competitive balance.
In this LawInSport article, Gareth Farrelly (Glaisyers ETL & CEO, UEC) and Hrvoje Cabraja (Legal Counsel, UEC) set out why 2026 is likely to be a decisive year for football regulation. They outline the key legal and governance issues expected to crystallise — from rising stakeholder scrutiny and challenges to the international match calendar, to persistent concerns around conflicts of interest and decision-making processes within football’s regulatory framework. The piece also explains how the UEC’s policy proposals — Player Development Reward (PDR) and Domestic Media Rights Protection (DMRP)—fit into the broader reform debate ahead of the next UEFA club competition revenue distribution cycle (2027–2031).
More than a year after the CJEU's judgment in the Diarra case (C-650/22), legal uncertainty is
largely present within the transfer system. The global dialogue on article 17 of the RSTP with key
stakeholders that FIFA opened in October 2024 has yet to produce permanent outcomes.
On the other hand, the transfer market is on ‘business as usual’ mode, to say the least. Indeed,
FIFA’s mid-year transfer snapshot 2025 indicates that total transfer fees paid to clubs in 2025
reached a record-breaking $9.76 billion. While this suggests that the impact of Diarra has been
limited, market norm resilience based on clubs’ and players’ good faith should not be interpreted
as legal stability.
However, when juxtaposed against the total amount allocated by the FIFA Clearing House in
training rewards, totaling approximately to only $0.52 billion, since November 2022, a
significant imbalance becomes evident. This disparity raises questions about the effectiveness of
one of the core pillars of the transfer system.
From the Union of European Clubs' perspective, these figures underscore, once more, the need
for reform of the training rewards system. As part of the Vision 2020-2023, FIFA itself noticed the
existing system was not achieving the intended objective, yet most of the principles listed as the
basis of the new one have not materialized. The UEC contends that the current framework
inadequately compensates smaller and training-focused clubs for their central role in player
development. If one of the pillars of the transfer system is showing signs of structural weakness,
another area of the market is becoming very strong: the agents.
Proceedings before the CJEU concerning the FIFA Football Agent Regulations (C-209/23 & C-
428/23) are still pending. The eagerly awaited judgments, expected initially in late 2025, have not
yet been delivered, leaving confusion in the industry.
The growing economic significance of this regulatory framework is obvious from FIFA's 2025
Football Agents Report, stating, again, the record-breaking service fees paid to club agents ($1.37
billion). Significantly, this amount exceeds the aggregate transfer fees paid to all European clubs
($1.3 billion) outside UEFA's top ten coefficient-ranked member associations over the same
period.
While agents’ fees continue to grow, clubs operating outside Europe’s largest markets, many of
which are heavily reliant on training and developing players, receive a comparatively smaller
share of the pie. This development raises legitimate questions about whether the existing
regulatory framework sufficiently aligns economic incentives with the long-term sustainability of
the beautiful game. Therefore, the pending CJEU judgments are crucial in shaping the scope of
the agent regulation.
Although headline legal decisions in 2025 produced limited immediate structural change,
unresolved governance and regulatory tensions will crystallise in 2026. Taking the above into
account, we expect 2026 to influence greatly the football regulations. In this context, reform
proposals aimed at restoring balance within the transfer and economic systems merit serious
consideration by football’s governing bodies.
At the same time, stakeholder scrutiny is intensifying. Fan-led organisations such as Football
Supporters Europe (FSE) have already influenced ticket pricing at the FIFA World Cup, while the
European Leagues and FIFPRO are formally challenging FIFA’s international match calendar. This
trend is likely to drive heightened examination of governance decisions taken by FIFA and UEFA,
alongside increasing exposure to judicial, regulatory and political intervention.
More broadly, regulatory decision-making in European football continues to raise systemic legal
concerns around concentration of regulatory and commercial power, structural conflicts of
interest and the adequacy of decision making processes.
The UEC considers that meaningful reform can be achieved by implementation of policy
mechanisms designed to address structural inequalities in football’s economic model. Such
policies, the Player Development Rewards (PDR) and Domestic Media Rights Protection (DMRP),
have been presented to stakeholders at the recent UEC Football Forum.
In 2026, the UEFA club competition revenue distribution framework for the 2027–2031 cycle
will be the focus of attention and heightened scrutiny under European sports law principles
relating to transparency, stakeholder participation, proportionality, solidarity and competitive
balance. In particular, whether UEFA elects to incorporate the UEC Player Development Reward
(PDR) policy—developed through a broad consultative process and enjoying overwhelming
stakeholder support—will be a critical legal indicator of UEFA’s adherence to good governance
norms and solidarity obligations, or conversely, a reinforcement of revenue models favouring a
narrow cohort of regular Champions League participants.
Against this backdrop, 2026 is likely to test whether football’s governing bodies can demonstrate
legally robust, proportionate and inclusive decision-making, or whether litigation and regulatory
intervention will continue to function as the primary catalysts for reform.
