With the FIFA World Cup once again demonstrating the extraordinary global reach and commercial significance of professional sport, it is easy to overlook how fundamentally the industry has changed over the past decade.
Sport has always been ingrained in the fabric of society, particularly in the UK. However, the significance of sport as a business is, relatively speaking, a more recent phenomenon. Broadcasting and sponsorship revenues are substantial; transfer fees, wage bills and prize money have all reached unprecedented levels; and ownership structures often involve sophisticated international transactions. Sport has undergone rapid commercialisation and now operates as a global business in high-value markets.
It is perhaps unsurprising then that the number of sports-related disputes has increased dramatically in recent years, and that the nature of those disputes has become more complex and sophisticated.
Football is the oft-cited poster child of commercialisation in sport and has effectively become an industry of its own. Matters that might once have been purely regulatory or disciplinary now engage broader commercial legal principles and strategies as the money at stake, actual or potential, increases. This can be seen both domestically and internationally.
For example, high-value sports leagues such as the English Premier League (EPL), where, most recently, Burnley FC has succeeded in its follow-on claim for damages against Everton FC following Everton’s well-publicised breaches of the EPL’s profit and sustainability rules. And at the very top of the football pyramid, it looks like we are witnessing the start of what could become one of the most significant pieces of litigation in the sporting world between UEFA and FIFA, where: ‘UEFA and other interested parties are preparing to bring criminal claims in Switzerland against [Gianni] Infantino and possibly other FIFA officials and advisers for criminal mismanagement under article 158 of the Swiss Criminal Code and such further or alternative charges as the developed factual record may support, arising out of the secretive structuring, valuation, financing, and marketing of a transaction that inflicted direct and concrete injury on FIFA’s reputation, governance authority, and commercial relationships to the detriment of FIFA as well as its 211 members, including UEFA’s 55 member associations.’ (In Re Ex Parte Application of UEFA, Case No. 26-mc-00431)
Moreover, this arguably changing approach to disputes also appears to be extending to other sports which have presently realised less value, one such example being basketball in the UK. In Super League Basketball v British Basketball Federation & GBB League (CP-2025-000005), the purported termination of a licence for one basketball league and the subsequent granting of a licence to another led to a multi-million-pound High Court dispute over alleged competition law infringements.
The existence of such disputes demonstrates the growth potential of relatively less-established sports or sports leagues which have arguably not yet realised significant value. That growth potential relies, at least in part, on an ability to capitalise on revenue generated by media and sponsorship arrangements, among other things.
If there continues to be scope (or perceived scope) for significant revenue growth within sport generally, which seems almost certain, one can expect the number of sports-related commercial disputes to grow further and become increasingly complex.
Developing themes
Fraud allegations are increasingly common
Some of the most prominent disputes arising from or relating to sport now involve issues more commonly associated with civil fraud and commercial litigation: concealment, undisclosed payments, opaque ownership structures, financial manipulation, corruption and allegations that sporting or commercial outcomes have been improperly affected.
This trend is already visible in cases such as Jinxin Inc v Aser Media & Ors [2026] EWHC 765 (Comm), where claims were brought for deceit and unlawful means conspiracy in connection with the acquisition of a sports media business whose assets included Serie A and FIFA media rights. Following a 10-week trial, the claims, which arose out of allegations of bribery and unlawful anti-competitive arrangements, were dismissed.
Furthermore, such is the value of professional sport that services provided to or within the sector can generate significant disputes for third parties. See, for example, the Arena litigation (CL-2024-000377), which continues against Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Bank (Lloyds Banking Group continues to deny the allegations). Arena Television provided broadcast services to, among others, the EPL, but collapsed when an asset-based lending fraud was uncovered. Claims are now brought against the banks said to have breached duties owed to Arena.
Most recently, it now seems likely that UEFA and others anticipate bringing claims against FIFA founded directly on allegations of fraud and corruption. UEFA alleges that FIFA’s attempts to move valuable commercial assets relating to the FIFA World Cup and an anticipated Global Nations League into a proposed subsidiary, FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE), were to be concluded at a ‘fraudulently off-market price promoted by Infantino for his own benefit’.
This was based on FIFA apparently settling on an enterprise value of $20bn for FFE, which UEFA said would be worth materially above $30bn. UEFA’s aforementioned application for discovery sets out what is said to be a history of corruption within FIFA and UEFA appears intent on bringing claims of a criminal nature.
The cases referenced above demonstrate that the commercialisation of sport has created circumstances in which allegations of dishonesty, deliberate misconduct or manipulation can have consequences far beyond the sporting arena.
What happens on the pitch does not always stay on the pitch
Several recent disputes illustrate how allegations of misconduct in sport may carry both sporting, commercial and perhaps even criminal consequences. Where rules are deliberately broken, and particularly where there are elements of concealment, it is easy to see how allegations of misconduct can develop into allegations of dishonesty.
For example, the much-talked-about proceedings against Manchester City FC may prove to be one of the most significant financial disputes in English football. While ultimately concerning rule breaches and misconduct, if the long-awaited decision in those proceedings finds Manchester City to have committed and concealed the alleged breaches, allegations of dishonesty may work their way into follow-on claims brought by other clubs.
The Southampton/Middlesbrough spying incident provides another example. It has been cited as an instance of misconduct directed towards obtaining an unfair sporting advantage before one of the most financially significant fixtures in English football. Promotion to the EPL carries substantial commercial benefits. If misconduct affects the integrity of that process, the consequences are unlikely to be merely sporting in nature. While litigation was threatened, it remains to be seen what claims may be asserted by parties said to have been negatively affected by that misconduct.
Formula One provides a further illustration. The Massa claim arises from the ‘Crashgate’ controversy, in which Renault driver Nelson Piquet Jr deliberately crashed during the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix as part of a strategy designed to benefit a teammate. Felipe Massa alleges that the resulting chain of events contributed to him losing the World Championship and seeks damages for the earnings, sponsorship opportunities and commercial benefits he says he would otherwise have enjoyed. The Supreme Court has recently granted the defendants in the case ‘leapfrog’ permission to appeal a first-instance High Court decision, allowing Massa’s claim of unlawful means conspiracy to proceed to a full trial, having survived a strike-out application.
Viewed individually, these disputes arise in very different contexts. However, when taken together, they concern conduct said to undermine the integrity of competition for economic benefit. Manchester City raises questions about financial regulation and competitive balance. Southampton concerns conduct directed towards obtaining a sporting advantage. Massa concerns the alleged manipulation of a sporting outcome with significant commercial consequences.
These disputes might be summarised as concerning alleged deliberate acts of knowing misconduct designed to obtain an unfair commercial advantage at the expense of an innocent party and, in the case of UEFA’s dispute with FIFA, may even amount to criminal conduct. Allegations of fraud, dishonesty and deliberate manipulation are likely to become increasingly important in these types of disputes.
Increasing role of the High Court
Traditionally, sports-related disputes have been resolved through specialist arbitral tribunals and internal disciplinary procedures. While that remains the case for many such disputes, litigation data showing the increased prevalence of sports-related disputes in the High Court in recent years is striking. More than 135 sport-related disputes have been recorded since 2020, with the annual number rising from six claims in 2020 to a peak of 40 in 2024. Football is the clear front-runner, while both the Commercial Court and King’s Bench Division account for 23 recorded sports-related claims. Almost 350 High Court claims involving football clubs have also been issued since 2014, with annual volumes averaging 19 claims per year between 2021 and 2025 (data from Solomonic in Football Litigation Trends: High Court Sports Disputes).
There is also evidence of financial pressure across the game, with more than 70 insolvency-related actions involving football clubs identified since 2019. This demonstrates the sobering reality that, notwithstanding the lucrative commercial opportunities within football, there are fine margins between financial success and failure.
The above figures demonstrate the increasing presence of sport in mainstream civil litigation, which appears to be underpinned by the general trend that as the value of the sports industry as a whole continues to grow, allegations of fraud and financial misconduct are likely to become increasingly commonplace and significant.
Likely causes of future disputes
Complex ownership structures, cross-border investment and multi-club ownership models create fertile ground for disputes concerning control, governance and economic interests. Sponsorship agreements, broadcasting rights, transfer arrangements and related-party transactions often involve substantial sums and sophisticated cross-border commercial relationships.
It does not follow that all such disputes will involve fraud. Many will not. But it does suggest that the conditions in which fraud claims arise are increasingly present in elite sport.
Conclusion
Sport is becoming a new frontier for fraud litigation, not simply because misconduct occurs, but because the consequences of that misconduct have changed. As sporting success becomes increasingly intertwined with substantial financial interests, misconduct may affect far more than the result of a match, race or competition. It may affect promotion, investment value, sponsorship revenue, broadcasting income and wider commercial opportunities.
In those circumstances, sporting sanctions may remain necessary, but they may not always be sufficient. They may punish the breach, but they may not compensate the loss.
Taken together, the commercialisation of sport, the increasing value of media rights, the complexity of ownership structures, the emergence of sports-business acquisition disputes such as Jinxin and competition-law disputes such as Super League Basketball all point in the same direction: sport is increasingly generating the same kinds of high-value commercial disputes found elsewhere in the economy.
If sporting regulators cannot provide a complete remedy where misconduct has significant commercial consequences, it is difficult to see how the courts will not play an increasingly prominent role. The future of major sports fraud disputes may therefore be determined not only by governing bodies and arbitral tribunals, but increasingly by the High Court.
This article was originally published by the Law Society Gazette.
