header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
17 July 2008 / Richard Williams , Alex Haffner
Issue: 7330 / Categories: Features , Public , EU
printer mail-detail

FIFA quotas ruled offside?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Is FIFA's proposal to introduce a quota on foreign nationals in club football legal? Richard Williams and Alex Haffner report

Now that the UEFA European Football Championship is over, the spotlight has turned away from the pitch and back towards the controversial proposal of the world football governing body, FIFA, to introduce a quota on foreign nationals playing in domestic competitions. Dubbed the “6+5” rule as it prevents a club fielding more than five players who are not eligible for the national team of that country in their starting eleven, the plan has gained widespread press attention and international interest. Led by FIFA President Sepp Blatter, it has found support from a number of influential figures, but it has also been condemned as unnecessary and incompatible with European legislation, not least by the European Commission (the Commission). With Blatter seemingly on a personal crusade to have it introduced, and now officially backed by FIFA, this issue looks like it will run and run.

The European football governing body, UEFA, has already

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll