On Thursday, the professional footballers’ unions of England (PFA) and France (UNFP) took legal action against FIFA in Brussels, contesting the timetable for the new Club World Cup in 2025, which they claim imposes an unacceptable burden on players.
The expanded tournament, set to take place in the United States in June and July next year, has drawn criticism for its potential impact on players’ workload.
The unions argue that FIFA’s unilateral decisions regarding the competition schedule violate the rights of players and their unions under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and potentially breach EU competition law. This assertion was made by FIFPRO, the global union for professional footballers, in a statement.
Supported by FIFPRO, UNFP and PFA have asked the Brussels Commercial Court to refer the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), raising four preliminary questions. The unions have consistently expressed concerns about the overloaded and unsustainable football calendar, which they argue FIFA has exacerbated by expanding the Club World Cup from seven to 32 teams.
PFA general manager Maheta Molango highlighted the strain on top players, who are subjected to an “endless schedule of games and competitions” for both club and country. The unions claim that this relentless expansion violates European workers’ rights to collectively bargain over their terms and conditions of employment and to maintain healthy working conditions, as stipulated in European law.
The unions also referenced the European Court of Justice’s ruling in the Super League case last December, suggesting that FIFA’s actions unilaterally and discretionarily restrict competition law.
In response, FIFA has yet to issue an official comment. However, sources close to the organization emphasize that the international match calendar was approved by FIFA’s ruling Council, which includes representation from all continental confederations, including UEFA. They maintain that the calendar was the result of extensive consultation and reject any claims that it was imposed without proper input from the football community.
As this legal battle unfolds, the outcome could have significant implications for the governance and scheduling of international football competitions, potentially reshaping the balance between player welfare and the commercial interests of the sport’s governing bodies.