In recent years, EU competition law has increasingly entered the field of professional sport. Following landmark rulings concerning the Super League and FIFA’s transfer system, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has once again addressed the relationship between sporting autonomy and EU competition law. This time, the focus is on so-called no-poach agreements—arrangements between clubs aimed at preventing the recruitment of players from other clubs.

In its judgment in Case C-133/24, CD Tondela and Others, the CJEU held that such agreements may, in exceptional circumstances, comply with EU law if they pursue legitimate sporting objectives and satisfy the requirement of proportionality.

What are “no-poach agreements”?

“No-poach agreements” are arrangements between employers, in this case football clubs, under which they commit not to hire players employed by another club or not to engage in transfer approaches targeting such players.

Under traditional competition law principles, such agreements are generally viewed very negatively. They restrict labour market freedom, reduce employee mobility, and may artificially suppress wages. The European Commission and national competition authorities have, in recent years, increasingly scrutinised similar practices beyond sport, including in the technology and pharmaceutical sectors.

However, professional sport operates in a specific regulatory and economic environment. Clubs are both economic competitors and participants in the same sporting competitions. For this reason, the CJEU has previously recognised that certain restrictions may be permissible where they are necessary to preserve the integrity of sporting competition.

The Portuguese agreement during the COVID-19 pandemic

The case concerned an agreement concluded between Portuguese football clubs during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2020, following the suspension of competitions by the Portuguese authorities and the Liga Portugal (LPFP), clubs agreed not to hire players who had unilaterally terminated their contracts with other clubs due to the pandemic.

The objective of the agreement was to ensure the stability of competitions and to protect clubs from financial disruption during a period of extreme economic uncertainty. The clubs argued that, without such measures, mass contract terminations could have occurred, potentially destabilising the entire league system.

The question referred to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling was whether such an agreement automatically constitutes a breach of Article 101 TFEU, which prohibits agreements restricting competition.

What did the CJEU decide?

The Court did not automatically classify all no-poach agreements in sport as unlawful. At the same time, it did not grant clubs a blanket exemption to restrict player transfers at will.

The CJEU emphasised that:

• agreements restricting the hiring of players may, in principle, constitute a restriction of competition; 
• however, the specific nature of sport and the organisation of competitions must be taken into account; 
• such restrictions may comply with EU law if they pursue a legitimate objective, are necessary to achieve that objective, and remain proportionate. 

In doing so, the Court followed its established case law in Meca-Medina and Wouters, confirming that not every restriction of competition in sport automatically violates EU law. A contextual analysis of the objective and proportionality of the measure is essential.

Why is this judgment important?

This ruling further confirms that the CJEU is not willing to exclude sport from EU competition law, while at the same time recognising its specific characteristics.

Until recently, the prevailing view was that no-poach agreements would almost always be considered “restrictions by object”, meaning they would be unlawful without the need to assess their actual market effects.

However, in the Opinion of Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou, it was suggested that in professional sport there may be exceptional circumstances justifying such restrictions—particularly where they aim to preserve the integrity of competitions in extraordinary situations such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The judgment therefore reflects a more flexible and context-sensitive approach to sports regulation.

Impact on the current transfer system

This ruling forms part of a broader trend of increasing EU competition law scrutiny of football governance structures.

In recent years, the CJEU has delivered several landmark judgments concerning football regulation, including:

• the Bosman ruling, concerning freedom of movement of players, 
• the European Super League case, concerning the monopoly position of FIFA and UEFA, 
• and the Diarra case, concerning FIFA’s transfer system. 

The Diarra case is particularly significant. The Court held that certain FIFA rules on contractual stability and joint liability of new clubs could infringe EU law, as they excessively restrict player mobility and discourage clubs from hiring players.

In practice, this means that FIFA and UEFA must increasingly justify their regulatory frameworks in detail. Any restriction affecting the transfer market may be assessed in light of proportionality, and clubs and leagues face a growing risk of antitrust disputes.

Does this mean the end of transfer restrictions?

No. The CJEU did not question the concept of contractual stability or the existence of a transfer system as such. On the contrary, it confirmed that preserving the integrity of competitions and competitive balance may constitute a legitimate objective.

The issue arises when restrictions go beyond what is strictly necessary to achieve those aims.

This is an important message for sports governing bodies. The CJEU clearly signals that sporting autonomy still exists, but it is not absolute. Sports regulations must be transparent, objective, non-discriminatory, and proportionate.

Conclusion

The CJEU’s ruling on no-poach agreements demonstrates that European sports law is entering a new phase. Sports organisations, leagues, and clubs may still adopt rules aimed at protecting competitive balance and the integrity of competitions. However, such measures will increasingly be subject to strict scrutiny under EU competition law.

For clubs, agents, and players, this means an even greater need to understand transfer rules, contractual frameworks, and the regulatory structure of the sports market. Recent CJEU case law—from the Super League judgment to Diarra and now the no-poach ruling—may significantly reshape the functioning of the football ecosystem in the coming years.

At our law firm, we specialise in sports law and continuously monitor developments in EU regulations and case law from the CJEU, FIFA, and CAS. We assist clubs, players, agents, and sports organisations in navigating complex regulatory frameworks and in assessing how new legal developments may affect their operations and legal position.

Sources:

1. Court of Justice of the European Union (TSUE). (2026). Case C-133/24, CD Tondela and Others (no-poach agreements in football). Luxembourg: Court of Justice of the European Union.
2. IEU Monitoring. (2026). No-poach agreements in football may be compatible with EU competition law. Retrieved from https://ieu-monitoring.com/editorial/no-poach-agreements-in-football-may-be-compatible-with-eu-competition-law/1181681/
3. CMS Law. (2025). EU AG Emiliou considers no-poach agreements between competitors prima facie as ‘by object’ restriction. Retrieved from https://cms.law/en/che/legal-updates/eu-ag-emiliou-considers-no-poach-agreements-between-competitors-prima-facie-as-by-object-restriction
4. Library of Congress. (2024). European Union Court of Justice invalidates parts of FIFA’s soccer transfer system (Diarra case). Retrieved from https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2024-10-29/european-union-court-of-justice-invalidates-parts-of-fifas-soccer-transfer-system/
5. Reuters. (2024, October 4). EU top court says some FIFA player transfer rules breach EU law. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/sports/soccer/eu-top-court-says-fifa-player-transfer-rules-breach-eu-law-2024-10-04/
6. The Guardian. (2024, October 4). FIFA’s transfer rules go against European Union law, declares EU’s highest court. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/oct/04/fifas-transfer-rules-go-against-european-union-law-rules-eus-highest-court-lassana-diarra