CJEU ROGON judgment: why football agent regulation is moving in one direction
The Court of Justice of the European Union has handed down a judgment that matters well beyond German football.
In Case C-428/23, ROGON and Others, the Court considered whether the German Football Association’s rules on player agents may fall within an exception to the EU prohibition on cartels. The press release headline is deliberately careful. The DFB rules may fall within the exception. The Court has not finally decided that the rules are lawful. That question now goes back to the German Federal Court of Justice.
But for clubs, owners, senior executives and agents, the direction of travel is hard to miss.
Football is no longer being treated as a market where regulatory intervention is automatically suspect. Increasingly, the legal question is becoming whether intervention is justified, proportionate and genuinely connected to a legitimate public-interest objective.
That distinction matters.
The DFB rules at issue were not minor administrative requirements. They governed how players and clubs use agents in connection with professional player contracts and transfer agreements. They included registration obligations, requirements for agents to submit to FIFA, DFB and DFL rules, restrictions on agents sharing in future transfer proceeds, restrictions on commissions in transfers involving minors, disclosure obligations around remuneration and payments, and penalties for breach.
Those rules were challenged by companies involved in player recruitment, who argued that they breached the EU law prohibition on cartels. The German court then asked the CJEU whether regulations of this kind could fall within the exception recognised in cases concerning restrictions that pursue a legitimate public-interest objective.
The Court’s answer was significant. It held that the exception may, under certain conditions, apply to rules adopted by a sports federation, even where those rules affect third-party undertakings outside the federation, such as player agents.
That is the important football business point.
Modern football cannot be regulated by looking only at the formal membership structure of a federation or league. Clubs, owners, players, agents, intermediaries, sponsors, lenders and service providers all form part of the same commercial ecosystem. The Court recognised that, in professional and semi-professional football, different economic operators must interact and cooperate to preserve the viability of the sector and its attractiveness to supporters and spectators.
For Lagom Sports Compliance, this is why the judgment should be read alongside the broader movement in football regulation.
The same logic sits behind the increasing scrutiny of agent fees, transfer payments, beneficial ownership, source of funds, club governance and third-party commercial relationships. Football is not being regulated because it is less commercial. It is being regulated because it is highly commercial, highly networked and vulnerable to risks that do not sit neatly inside one club, one agent or one transaction.
The key word is… proportionality.
The Court was clear that rules of this kind still need to satisfy strict conditions. They must not amount to an agreement or decision whose object is to restrict competition. They must pursue a legitimate public-interest objective. They must be appropriate, necessary and proportionate. In this case, it is for the German Federal Court of Justice to decide whether the DFB rules meet those conditions.
That is not a green light for unrestricted sports regulation. It is a framework for disciplined regulation.
The practical lesson for clubs and agents is that transparency controls, registration requirements, payment disclosures and restrictions around sensitive transactions are increasingly likely to be assessed through a public-interest lens, provided they are properly designed and proportionate.
This is directly relevant to the EU AML Regulation 2024/1624. From 2029, professional football clubs and football agents will face a different compliance reality. The transfer market will no longer be viewed only through sporting, tax, accounting or competition law lenses. It will also be viewed through AML, source-of-funds, beneficial ownership, counterparty due diligence and transaction monitoring lenses.
That is why clubs should not treat agent regulation as “an agent issue”.
Every agent payment is also a club control issue. Every transfer is also a counterparty-risk issue. Every opaque structure behind a representative, investor, sponsor or intermediary is also a governance issue. In a world where regulators are increasingly prepared to recognise football’s wider public-interest risks, clubs need to be able to evidence the controls behind their decisions.
The ROGON judgment is therefore less about whether one set of DFB rules survives scrutiny, and more about the legal environment football is moving into.
The Court’s reference to the established Wouters and Meca-Medina line of case law matters because it reinforces that sport can justify certain restrictions where they are tied to legitimate objectives and remain proportionate. At the same time, the press release notes that the rules may still fall within Article 101 TFEU, including because they are not purely sporting rules outside economic activity.
That balance is exactly where football regulation is heading.
Regulators are not saying that football is outside the market. They are saying that the football market carries specific risks. Those risks need controls. Those controls must be justified. And clubs need to show their working.
For clubs and ownership groups, the question is no longer simply: “Are we allowed to pay this agent?”
The better questions are:
Who is the agent?
Who ultimately benefits from the payment?
What services were actually provided?
Is the fee commercially justifiable?
Has the payment route been checked?
Are there links to investors, sponsors, connected parties or prior transactions?
Can the club evidence its rationale if challenged?
These are not abstract legal questions. They are boardroom questions.
For agents, the direction of travel is equally clear. The more football regulation moves towards transparency and public-interest justification, the harder it becomes to operate through opacity, informal arrangements or poorly documented fee structures. Agents who can evidence ownership, authority, services, conflicts, fee rationale and payment flows will be better placed than those who treat compliance as an afterthought.
For more on the AML direction of travel, read our guides on EU AML Regulation 2024/1624 for football clubs, EU AML Regulation 2024/1624 for football agents, and football agent fees and AML obligations.
The Lagom Sports Compliance view is simple.
The ROGON judgment is another sign that football is moving towards a more regulated, more transparent and more evidence-led operating model. Competition law still matters. Commercial freedom still matters. But where football regulation is designed to protect integrity, transparency, sustainability and public-interest objectives, clubs and agents should expect the legal argument to be less about whether regulation is possible, and more about whether the control is properly targeted, proportionate and evidenced.
That is where the next phase of football compliance will be fought.
Lagom Sports Compliance support
Lagom Sports Compliance helps football clubs, ownership groups and football businesses prepare for the next phase of football regulation, including AML readiness, agent and intermediary due diligence, transfer-window control reviews, sponsor and investor due diligence, and outsourced compliance support.
For related analysis, see our articles on transfer window AML risk, how criminals launder money through football, and what proportionality means under EU 2024/1624.
Your questions answered on the CJEU ROGON judgment
-
The Court decided that rules adopted by a sports federation, such as the DFB’s rules on player agents, may fall within an exception to the EU prohibition on cartels where they pursue a legitimate public-interest objective and meet strict conditions. The Court did not finally decide that the DFB rules are lawful. That assessment must be carried out by the German Federal Court of Justice.
-
No. The judgment does not give federations unlimited freedom to regulate agents. The Court made clear that the rules still need to be assessed in concrete terms. They must not have the object of restricting competition, they must pursue a legitimate public-interest objective, and they must be appropriate, necessary and proportionate.
-
It matters because clubs sit at the centre of the agent and transfer ecosystem. Rules on agents do not only affect agents. They affect how clubs negotiate contracts, pay fees, manage conflicts, structure transfers and evidence decision-making. The judgment recognises that football’s ecosystem may require rules that affect third parties, where those rules are genuinely connected to legitimate public-interest objectives.
-
The judgment confirms that agent activity can be subject to regulatory controls where those controls meet the required legal test. For agents, this points towards a future where registration, disclosure, fee transparency, conflicts management and payment scrutiny become increasingly important. Agents who can evidence their role, remuneration, ownership and payment arrangements will be better positioned as regulation tightens.
-
No. The case is about EU competition law and the possible application of an exception to the cartel prohibition. However, it is relevant to AML because it forms part of a wider regulatory direction of travel. The same themes of transparency, proportionality, public interest and control design are central to the incoming AML framework for professional football clubs and agents.
-
The connection is practical rather than direct. EU AML Regulation 2024/1624 brings football into a more formal compliance environment. Clubs and agents will need to think more carefully about source of funds, beneficial ownership, counterparty risk, agent payments and transfer flows. The ROGON judgment supports the broader idea that football’s commercial ecosystem can justify targeted controls where those controls are proportionate and properly linked to legitimate objectives.
-
Clubs should start mapping their agent and transfer controls. That includes agent onboarding, fee approval, conflict checks, payment route review, beneficial ownership checks, documentation of services, board oversight and escalation procedures for unusual arrangements. The key is not only to make the right decision, but to evidence why the club considered the arrangement appropriate.
-
Agents should prepare for a more transparent operating environment. That means maintaining clear records on representation authority, services provided, fee calculations, conflicts of interest, payment recipients, corporate structures and ultimate beneficial ownership. The agents who can evidence clean, transparent and commercially rational arrangements will be in a stronger position with clubs, regulators and counterparties.
-
Proportionality means that a rule or control should go no further than necessary to achieve its legitimate objective. In football, that does not mean smaller clubs or agents can ignore compliance. It means the control environment should be tailored to the size, complexity, risk profile and transaction activity of the organisation. A Premier League club and a smaller professional club may not need identical systems, but both need credible controls.
-
The main takeaway is that football regulation is becoming more evidence-led. Clubs, owners and agents should expect more scrutiny of how decisions are made, how money moves, who benefits from payments and whether controls are proportionate to the risks involved. The ROGON judgment is not the final word on agent regulation, but it is another signal that football’s regulatory perimeter is expanding.