Beyond the final whistle: The legal battles reshaping big-money sport

This is exemplified by the recent decision in the Premier League’s long running battle with Manchester City. The club’s appeal remains pending, and the sanction is yet to be determined. Rival clubs are preparing their responses and reportedly considering claims to compensate their losses arising from prize monies, television revenues and other commercial revenue streams.

This is a high-profile example of a broader trend.

As more capital flows into sport, media rights become more valuable, ownership structures more complex and regulatory decisions are more financially consequential. Disputes once largely contained within sporting structures are increasingly reaching courts, arbitral tribunals and competition authorities.

The volume is already significant. Solomonic recorded more than 135 sport-related High Court disputes in England and Wales since 2020, peaking at 40 in 2024, and almost 350 claims involving football clubs since 2014. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), too, registered a record of 1,005 cases in 2025, 78% of them football-related.

Behind those numbers is a simple dynamic: As the value and complexity of sport increases, so do the opportunities for lucrative commercial interests to diverge—making high stakes litigation more likely. 

Regulatory decisions are generating commercial disputes

Sports governing bodies retain extensive powers over access to competitions, player movement and the commercial rules governing their sports. Governing bodies may occupy a dominant position within a market and face an elevated risk of competition and labor law claims, including with regard to ‘breakaway’ and new entrant competitions, restrictions surrounding registration systems and caps on agent fees.  

The commercial consequences of these decisions are increasingly significant as elite sports continue to attract a global audience. Incumbent parties may have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and there may be financial incentives to resist new entrants. With the levels of money involved, parties increasingly have a clear motive to challenge the applicability of the rules, and are being more creative in doing so.

Two recent examples highlight how governing body decisions can affect participants’ commercial interests:

1) Burnley Football Club was awarded £35m for commercial losses following relegation from the Premier League, allegedly linked to Everton’s breaches of profit and sustainability rules during the same season. An appeal is due to be heard in January, with potential consequences for future claims arising out of the Manchester City case; and

2) NST Worldwide is seeking damages in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) against World Snooker, challenging the lawfulness of restrictions in players’ contracts given World Snooker’s alleged dominant market position. 

These disputes are often resolved through specialist sports arbitration. However, this may not always prove final. Following the CJEU’s Seraing decision, EU national courts must be able to review CAS awards effectively for compliance with EU public policy where EU law is engaged. This will frequently be the case on matters which involve consideration of competition law and free movement principles. A relatively swift arbitral decision may therefore be followed by years of subsequent litigation before national or European courts.

Investment is creating new sources of conflict

The growing influx of capital into sport is also changing the disputes landscape. Not every deal goes to plan, and changes in the applicable regulations can have significant consequences on exits, balance sheets and asset values.

For example, cross-border multi-club ownership models have led to clubs being excluded from continental competitions. So far, the tribunals in these cases have found in favor of the governing bodies, notably in the Crystal Palace v UEFA, and FK DAC 1904 v UEFA, albeit neither case has faced review from the national courts (as opposed to CAS).

The operation and, more pertinently, the collapse of multi-club groups can lead to further cross-border litigation. The Eagle Football Group, which at one point owned clubs in England (Crystal Palace), France (Olympique Lyonnais), Brazil (Botafogo) and Belgium (RWD Molenbeek) was placed into liquidation in March 2026. Since then, there have been:

1) Civil claims between different entities within the group, with Botafogo suing Olympique Lyonnais for €125m in respect of unpaid loans;

2) Civil claims filed in France by entities linked to Eagle and its principal, John Textor, against Olympique Lyonnais for over €20m in unpaid management fees; and

3) Civil claims filed against Textor in New York for over €14m in respect of guarantees Textor had given over future instalments of player transfer fees.

A related case also shows how the increased financial structuring around clubs and their revenue streams can lead to further disputes. Future transfer and commercial revenues may be sold to finance companies in return for upfront payments.

1) A subsidiary of US private credit lender MC Credit Partners filed a $63m claim earlier this year against Olympique Lyonnais concerning unpaid instalments linked with a $35m transfer.

2) Litigation continues in Spain regarding the LaLiga Impulso deal, under which CVC acquired an 8.2% stake in LaLiga’s future broadcast and sponsorship revenues for 50 years in return for an immediate cash injection. Opposing clubs, including Real Madrid and Athletic Club de Bilbao, are seeking court declarations challenging the validity of the deal. The case has been dismissed by the Madrid Court, with Real Madrid pursuing an appeal to the Spanish Supreme Court.

Disputes also extend beyond the sports clubs and the regulators. Media and broadcast rights were in the spotlight in the Jinxin v Aser Media case, where a Chinese investment group had acquired 65% of a sports media rights agency that held valuable broadcast rights in connection with Italian Serie A football matches and the FIFA World Cup. When the rights were not renewed, the business lost value and ultimately collapsed. The purchasers brought misrepresentation claims before the English courts, seeking over $660m in damages. Following a ten-week trial, the Commercial Court dismissed the claims.

Commercial agreements are being tested by a changing market

Sport’s public profile means it is particularly susceptible to changing attitudes. In both the 2024/25 and 2025/26 seasons, over half of the Premier League clubs had gambling companies as their primary shirt-front sponsors, with an estimated £101m in combined revenue. Yet in 2026/27, the Premier League implemented a gambling ban on shirt-front sponsors.

Similarly, owner-linked investments, associated party transactions and their impact on clubs’ profit and sustainability rules have increasingly become the focus as club ownership becomes more concentrated in the hands of Sovereign Wealth Funds.

Financial distress is leading to more insolvency-related claims

The competitive nature of sport ensures that the riches remain concentrated at the top of the pyramid. Further down the leagues there are many cautionary tales of insolvency, caused by unwise speculation and changes in circumstances affecting an owner’s ability to continue to support loss-making clubs.

Even in less lucrative sports, the stakes can be high. Following the failed rescue of Wasps Rugby, its former owner, Derek Richardson, brought claims exceeding £100m against his former legal advisors and wealth managers in connection with advice they provided on transferring ownership of the club to a Maltese investment vehicle.

More than 70 insolvency-related actions involving football clubs have been recorded since 2019, with activity rising since 2022. Court-appointed administrators and liquidators may scrutinize past transactions and bring claims against auditors, lawyers and other professional advisers. A good example is in the Rangers FC cases, where BDO brought claims against lawyers to the prior owner, Craig Whyte, and sought to set aside security granted to a company linked to him.

More money, more disputes

More capital, more valuable rights, more complex ownership structures and more consequential regulation create more opportunities for disputes and greater financial incentives to pursue them. The disputes themselves are less self-contained. A regulatory ruling can lead to a damages claim; an ownership issue can become an investment dispute; and sports arbitration can lead to proceedings before national or European courts.

As the sums at stake increase, so do the potential costs and duration of pursuing those claims. For businesses and investors, that makes the financing of disputes part of the broader question of how litigation risk, and the value of potential recoveries, is managed.

When litigation arises, clubs will need to consider carefully whether it is the best use of their finite capital to spend it on litigation counsel. This is all the more so if this impacts both operating expenditure and investment in the on-field product, and needs to be considered alongside the financial restrictions that may be imposed by the overseeing governing bodies.

Clubs have already shown their willingness to monetize their future transfer and media rights income; there is every reason for clubs to consider unlocking value against future litigation income in the same way. 

If the commercialization of sport continues at its current pace, funding strategy is likely to become an increasingly important consideration in major sports disputes.