knowledge 29 April 2026 |

Dublin expected as the venue for CAS Sports Arbitrations after UEFA Reform

UEFA have Authorisation Rules which govern the authorisation of international club competitions.  The Authorisation Rules were amended in June 2024 to include Dublin as a seat of CAS arbitrations - but only for Authorisation Rules disputes. However, when the changes to the UEFA Statutes come into effect from 1 July 2026, the UEFA Statutes will allow Dublin to be a seat of CAS arbitrations of other matters (over and above Authorisation Rules disputes).  This development signals a potentially significant expansion to the variety of CAS sporting issues that could be arbitrated in Dublin.  Until now, CAS hearings, other than Authorisation Rule disputes, had to be held exclusively in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Background

The decision to name Dublin as a seat of arbitration in the UEFA Statutes has been influenced by a number of decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) including the December 2023 judgment in International Skating Union v Commission.¹ The CJEU held that the appeal mechanism in International Skating Union’s authorisation and eligibility rules, mandating appeals exclusively to the CAS, infringed Articles 101 and 102 of the TFEU, under EU competition law. As CAS was an arbitration body established outside the EU, it was subject to review only before the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland, a non-EU court with no jurisdiction to rule on EU law.  The CJEU found that this undermined the effectiveness of EU law.  

The CJEU reaffirmed this principle in Royal Football Club Seraing v FIFA and UEFA.² The CJEU first observed that mandatory arbitration mechanisms are, in effect, imposed by sporting associations on individuals. While an athlete must enter an agreement to be bound by the arbitration clause, the conclusion of that agreement and the insertion of a clause providing for arbitration is "in reality, imposed beforehand by rules that are adopted by the association concerned." The Court said this can serve legitimate purposes, such as uniform handling of disputes within the purview of their jurisdiction and consistent interpretation of the rules. However, it cannot justify limiting the possibility for individuals to rely on the rights and freedoms conferred on them by EU law which form part of EU public policy. The Court held that respect for those rights and freedoms must be subject to effective judicial review, which cannot be provided by the court of a non-EU country, such as the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland.

What does this mean?

From 1 July 2026, Article 63(2) of the UEFA Statutes will name Dublin as a seat of arbitration for CAS proceedings. The wording of this amendment has been aligned with Article 16 of the UEFA Authorisation Rules (governing international club competitions) and accommodates the possibility of other UEFA rules and regulations being amended to name Dublin as a possible seat of arbitration for proceeding before CAS.

UEFA has also made a change to Article 63(3) of the UEFA Statutes which concerns finality of CAS awards. The revised wording removes the explicit reference to the Swiss Federal Tribunal and now expressly recognises the right to appeal a CAS award under the “applicable rules”.

The rationale for the change is clear. Since the seat of arbitration of CAS proceedings could be either Lausanne, Switzerland, or Dublin, Ireland the relevant CAS awards could be respectively appealed before different courts and in accordance with different applicable rules.  If Lausanne is the seat of arbitration, any challenge to a CAS award made on foot of that arbitration must be brought before the Swiss Federal Tribunal under Swiss Private International Law. By contrast, if Ireland is chosen as the arbitral seat, the Irish High Court will have jurisdiction to determine challenges to the award under the Arbitration Act 2010 (in accordance with UNCITRAL Model Law). The Irish High Court would also have the power under the 2010 Act to order interim measures to safeguard rights during proceedings.  

As Ireland is an EU member, annulment proceedings before its High Court would involve an assessment of EU public policy. Additionally, under Article 267(3) TFEU, the High Court must refer questions on EU law interpretation to the CJEU. By introducing an EU-based review option, UEFA seeks to address concerns raised by the CJEU in the ISU and Seraing cases.

Conclusion

The 2024 amendment to UEFA’s Authorisation Rules has had limited effect: it appears that no CAS proceedings have yet been brought in Dublin. This latest amendment to the UEFA Statutes, however, could extend the jurisdiction of Dublin to a broad range of disputes under UEFA rules.

The development follows Ireland’s recent designation as the EMEA hub for ICDR arbitration (See previous McCann FitzGerald LLP briefing note) and marks a further step in Dublin’s emergence as a centre for international arbitration. It remains to be seen whether other sporting organisations will follow UEFA’s lead, but the move has the potential to position Dublin not only as a hub for commercial arbitration, but also as a key centre for international sports arbitration.

 

Also contributed to by Daniel O'Leary and Frances Horgan.