The professional footballers’ unions of England (PFA) and France (UNFP) filed a lawsuit against FIFA in Brussels on Thursday, contesting the timeline set by FIFA, particularly concerning the introduction of the new Club World Cup in 2025. This expanded tournament, scheduled to be held in the United States during June and July next year, has drawn criticism from players’ unions who argue it imposes an excessive burden on players.
FIFPRO, the global professional footballers union, supported UNFP and PFA in their legal challenge, stating that FIFA’s decisions potentially violate players’ rights under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and may infringe upon EU competition law. The unions have requested the Brussels Commercial Court to refer the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union, presenting “four questions for a preliminary ruling”.
Also Read: Saudi Football Team Lands In Pakistan For FIFA World Cup Qualifiers
In their joint statement, the unions emphasized longstanding concerns over an overcrowded football calendar that they deem unsustainable. Earlier in May, FIFPRO and the World Association of Football Leagues had already warned FIFA of legal action.
The unions accuse FIFA of persistently expanding its competition schedule despite opposition from player unions, specifically citing the expansion of the Club World Cup from seven to 32 teams. PFA’s general manager Maheta Molango highlighted the strain on top players who face an increasingly packed schedule across club and national team commitments.
UNFP and PFA argue that FIFA’s actions potentially infringe upon European workers’ rights to collectively bargain and to healthy working conditions, as outlined in European law. They reference a previous ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) related to the Super League case, criticizing FIFA for unilateral decision-making.
While FIFA has not yet responded publicly, sources close to the organization defended the international match calendar, noting it was approved by the FIFA Council, which includes representation from all continental confederations. They maintain that the calendar resulted from extensive consultation and refute claims that it was imposed without consensus within the football community.
