Disputes: It’s All About to Kick-off… Navigating Common Conflicts and Their Resolutions
THE AUTHORS:
Mike McClure KC, Partner at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP
Jake Savile-Tucker, Senior Associate at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP
Anant Rangan, Associate at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP
Lucca Rolim, Associate at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP
The FIFA World Cup is often considered the most-watched sporting event in the world, attracting billions of global viewers. It is therefore unsurprising that each World Cup gives rise to high-stakes commercial and legal matters, both on and off the field. From on-field disciplinary disputes and athlete bans to high-value disagreements over infrastructure, sponsorship, and broadcasting rights, the World Cup is a fertile ground for conflict among stakeholders, raising significant corporate risk considerations for businesses and investors as well as athletes and federations. Arbitration, particularly through the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”), has become central to the resolution of such disputes, providing a specialist, confidential, and internationally enforceable forum that is often mandated by FIFA’s own statutes and regulations.
This article will explore common disputes arising before, during, and after FIFA World Cups, and outline some of the available dispute resolution mechanisms.
Field of Play Disputes
Field of play disputes (i.e., those arising directly from match-related incidents) are arguably among the most emotionally charged disputes arising from World Cups. These include challenges to refereeing decisions, which, despite the introduction of technologies like VAR, continue to spark debate and, in some cases, legal scrutiny. Match bans imposed for on-field misconduct, such as violent conduct or dissent, can also lead to appeals, especially when key players are affected during critical stages of the tournament. These disputes generally fall under the ultimate jurisdiction of CAS, which provides a mechanism to resolve sports-related appeals, including on an expedited basis through its Ad Hoc Division.
In 2014 for example, Luis Suarez, Uruguay’s star player, was banned for nine international matches and was also banned from all footballing activity for 4 months by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee (pursuant to Article 22 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code) after biting an opponent during a World Cup match. He was also fined around £65,000. After an initial appeal to FIFA, brought by the Uruguayan FA and Suarez, was rejected, Suarez, the Uruguayan FA, and Barcelona (his new club) appealed the ban to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the FIFA ruling was excessive. CAS generally confirmed the ruling but stated that the imposed prohibition of “no footballing activity” was excessive and that Suarez should be allowed to train. As a result of the upheld ban, Suarez missed the remainder of the World Cup and the entire 2015 Copa América.
Although Suarez did in fact miss the following Uruguay match in the 2014 World Cup, a round of 16 loss against Colombia that knocked Uruguay out of the World Cup, this case illustrates the potential for parties to seek emergency interim relief from CAS (via its Ad Hoc Division, which operates on-site during major tournaments) in circumstances where a suspension threatens participation (and teams’ prospects) in ongoing competitions. In addition, businesses with commercial arrangements tied to specific player appearances should ensure their contracts contain appropriate suspension and force majeure provisions to address similar risks.
Anti-doping
Doping allegations and violations present serious legal and reputational consequences, often involving complex investigations and disciplinary proceedings under FIFA’s anti-doping regulations. During the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, FIFA conducted 2,846 doping control tests in and out of competition and all participating players were tested at least once in the year leading up to the tournament. This programme resulted in five individual players being banned from the tournament, with the decisions being handed out by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee (for breaches of Articles 6 and 17 of the FIFA Anti-Doping Regulations).
The CAS also handles appeals related to doping cases within FIFA, and has a specialised Anti-Doping Division (“CAS ADD”) which may act as a first-instance authority for handling and deciding anti-doping cases. CAS ADD procedures are confidential and conducted in a similar manner to CAS arbitration, with written submissions, oral proceedings, and deliberation by the Panel, followed by a decision.
Anti-doping bans carry significant consequences beyond the immediate suspension; they can cause lasting reputational damage to players and national football associations, and affect commercial endorsements and future career prospects. As a result, challenges to doping bans are not uncommon despite the underlying principle of “strict liability”, with athletes frequently appealing to CAS ADD or, in some jurisdictions, to the relevant national courts, though the FIFA Statutes generally require parties to exhaust internal remedies before resorting to external proceedings. Russia, for example, had been banned in 2019 by the World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”) from using its name, flag, and anthem at any world championships for 4 years (a period which included the 2022 Qatar World Cup). This was reduced to a two-year period following an appeal to CAS.
From a corporate perspective, counterparties entering into endorsement, licensing, or image rights agreements should ensure robust termination rights and clawback provisions are included to protect against the financial consequences of a doping ban.
Commercial Disputes
Unsurprisingly, World Cups give rise to wide-ranging commercial disputes in the lead up to, during and after the tournament. The surge in commercial activity across the host nation naturally leads to more disputes. It is common for disputes to arise in the following areas:
- General contractual disputes: The staging of a World Cup generates a wide array of commercial contracts, covering hospitality, ticketing, logistics, equipment supply, broadcast production, and event management, among others. Such agreements carry an inherent risk of dispute, particularly given the high commercial stakes involved, the competing interests at play, and the unpredictable consequences that can flow from tying a commercial arrangement to an event of this nature, with non-performance, payment failures, and force majeure claims all frequently arising in practice. In practice, FIFA commercial contracts commonly include multi-tier dispute resolution clauses providing for negotiation, followed by mediation, and ultimately arbitration – often under ICC or CAS rules – and the enforceability of such clauses is well established in most jurisdictions. The choice of governing law and dispute resolution clauses will be key in resolving these disputes efficiently and providing the parties with the certainty they need at the outset of their commercial relationships.
- FIFA IP Protections: FIFA’s strict IP restrictions play a crucial role in safeguarding the commercial interests of official sponsors during World Cups. These protections ensure that sponsors receive exclusive commercial rights, allowing them to associate their brand with the event without interference from unauthorized entities. FIFA enforces these rights through legal measures against piracy and unauthorized use, including trademark enforcement, licensing controls, and anti-counterfeiting actions. A key enforcement focus is ambush marketing, where brands attempt to associate themselves with the event without official sponsorship, and without paying the significant associated fees. Brand marketing strategies often straddle a fine line between creative association and infringement of FIFA’s IP. Should brands miss the mark, legal repercussions are a real risk. This enforcement action ultimately leads to disputes between parties, but provides a more secure commercial environment for sponsors.
Sponsorship agreements: Due to the various stakeholders involved in hosting a sports tournament, sponsors should be alive to regulatory changes and other potential pitfalls (such as unwanted media, which can damage sponsors’ reputations). A notable example of a sponsorship conflict occurred when alcoholic drinks were banned in stadiums in Qatar during the 2022 World Cup whilst Budweiser was a major FIFA sponsor. In order to mitigate these risks, sponsors should ensure that the tournament they are sponsoring aligns with their values and that they have robust contractual protections in place, such as rights to termination on reputational grounds or specific misalignments, as well as potential indemnities covering loss for such risks.
Construction Disputes
The cost and timeline pressures associated with hosting a World Cup have led to significant complications, particularly around the construction of key infrastructure for the event. Due to the complexity of the work involved in building or renovating infrastructure, delays and budget overruns can cause a strain on local resources. This was apparent during both the South Africa and Brazil World Cups, where missed deadlines and delays seemed to be a common theme, alongside allegations of corruption and political turbulence. Unsurprisingly, delays were also reported in the lead up to the Russia and Qatar World Cups. Whilst stakeholders may prefer to deal with issues commercially or through prescribed contractual mechanisms in the event of delays or budget overruns, these issues often lead to disputes that are ultimately resolved through mediation, expert determination, arbitration, or through the courts. Where institutional arbitration is the chosen mechanism, Dispute Adjudication Boards (“DABs”) are commonly employed as a first-tier mechanism providing real-time determinations during the construction phase, with parties retaining the right to refer unresolved disputes to arbitration.
Employment Disputes
Employment-related disputes during FIFA World Cups have drawn global attention, especially in Qatar, where labour conditions for migrant workers were widely criticized and led to various disputes. A landmark case involved QDVC, a joint venture including Vinci Constructions, in which France’s highest court upheld an indictment over abusive labour practices. Migrant workers, particularly in host nations like Qatar, have faced significant challenges, leading to international scrutiny and legal actions against the companies involved.
Employment-related disputes also extend beyond manual labour, as athletes themselves are workers and their employment rights have increasingly come into focus. Issues such as contract disputes, freedom of expression, and fair compensation are increasingly prevalent. Under the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (“RSTP”), employment disputes between players or coaches and clubs are typically channelled through FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (“DRC”) or Players’ Status Committee (“PSC”) as a first-tier tribunal, before any appeal to CAS.
A landmark example is the U.S. Women’s National Team (“USWNT”), which fought a high-profile legal battle against the U.S. Soccer Federation (2019–2022) over gender pay disparities, eventually securing a historic equal pay agreement. Additionally, discrimination in the form of racism and unequal treatment continues to affect both players and staff and can lead to criminal proceedings.
Security Disputes
Security disputes at FIFA World Cups can escalate into serious legal challenges, particularly when failures in crowd control, surveillance, or emergency response lead to harm. In some cases, these incidents result in class actions, where groups of affected individuals collectively seek compensation for injuries or losses. Allegations of negligence in security procedures, such as inadequate staffing, poor planning, or faulty equipment, can trigger legal scrutiny. In practice, those bringing claims will need to show that the party responsible had a duty to keep people safe, that they fell short of that duty, and that this directly caused the harm suffered. Incidents such as gate malfunctions, overcrowding, or delayed medical assistance within stadia are all examples of situations that can lead to legal liability. Determining accountability, and in turn liability, often involves complex investigations. These disputes highlight the critical importance of well-executed security protocols and robust emergency response systems during the events.
Dispute Resolution Mechanisms and Key Legal Takeaways
Courts and governing law: Due to the international nature of commercial contracts for work surrounding the World Cup, often involving companies from multiple jurisdictions, governing law clauses will often be negotiated and it is important to agree on a jurisdiction with reliable courts and enforcement mechanisms in order to resolve disputes and facilitate enforcement of judgments and awards.
- Arbitration: Related to the above, there are benefits to agreeing to arbitration clauses in commercial contracts, especially for cross-border arrangements surrounding World Cups. Multi-tier clauses, providing for negotiation followed by mediation and then arbitration, are common in FIFA commercial contracts, and awards rendered under such frameworks are enforceable in over 170 jurisdictions under the New York Convention (1958). Arbitration will also often be the mechanism used to resolve on-the-field or sports-related disputes, with CAS holding ultimate authority in many cases. For 2026, CAS has adopted bespoke Arbitration Rules covering disputes under Article 50 of the FIFA Statute. As noted above, the Ad Hoc Division must render decisions on an expedited basis (within 48 hours of lodging), with those decisions immediately enforceable and not subject to appeal. Appeals against FIFA disciplinary decisions are free of charge, with CAS bearing its own costs.
- Class Actions: Where large numbers of workers are affected, disputes have the potential to escalate into class actions.
Local laws and regulations: It is important to seek advice from local counsel when entering into commercial agreements in host countries. This will help mitigate against unnecessary disputes and maintain commercial arrangements in place after the World Cup. Multinational firms should also consider legal risks when operating in host nations, given potentially differing regulatory standards, including foreign investment restrictions, anti-bribery and anti-corruption obligations, and sanctions regimes that may affect the structuring and enforcement of commercial arrangements.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Mike McClure KC is a Partner and King’s Counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, specialising in international arbitration. He works across a variety of sectors, but he has particular experience in the energy, construction, infrastructure and financial services sectors. Mike also does a number of cases connected to the shipbuilding sector. Mike advises clients on arbitrations under the auspices of all the major arbitral institutions and has appeared as lead advocate for clients in English Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, and High Court proceedings. He also sits as an arbitrator. He is consistently recognised as a leading individual for international arbitration by Chambers & Partners, Legal 500 and Lexology Index. According to Chambers Asia Pacific, Mike is “one of the best dispute resolution attorneys, ” and “he knows how to get the job done – a go-to person for high-stakes issues”. Mike has spent a number of years practising in Asia and is very familiar with the needs of Asian clients. In 2019 he was named one of the 40 under 40 lawyers by Asian Legal Business and in 2023 was named an Honorary Citizen of Seoul by the Mayor of Seoul. He is a joint lead of the firm’s Korea Group.
Jake Savile-Tucker is a Senior Associate and Solicitor Advocate in Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP international arbitration practice. Jake specialises in international arbitration and commercial litigation with a particular focus on sports, supply chain and, hospitality disputes. His practice comprises multi-jurisdictional work and has involved advising and representing clients in disputes under major arbitral rules (including the LCIA, ICC, HKIAC, SIAC, DIFC-LCIA, and VIAC Rules). He was admitted as a solicitor in England and Wales in 2017 and is currently based in the firm’s London office, having also spent six months with the international arbitration group in Paris and on secondment to the Regulatory Litigation and Strategic Counselling team in British American Tobacco. He was recognised by clients in the 2023 GAR100 as an “extremely smart, excellent attorney”. Jake has completed his Higher Rights qualification to become a solicitor advocate and his advocacy experience includes regular appearances before the Immigration Tribunal, County Court and High Court.
Anant Rangan is an associate in the Construction and Infrastructure Disputes practice within the International Arbitration Group of Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP. Anant assists clients on a range of disputes across various industries, sectors, and jurisdictions. He has a particular focus on disputes concerning traditional energy, renewables, and complex construction and infrastructure projects. Anant’s experience includes acting in arbitrations under various institutional rules, litigation, and adjudication. He is based in London, having also spent six months with the firm’s dispute resolution team in Dubai.
Lucca Rolim is an associate in the Financial Sponsors Group of Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP with a particular focus on Private Equity and Growth Capital. Lucca has a range of experience acting for financial sponsors, international private equity houses, institutional investors and portfolio companies on a broad range of transactions, including acquisitions, venture and growth capital investments, disposals and other corporate matters.
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
