Business of sports: key trends in investment, regulation & disputes

We had the opportunity to attend an uber-fascinating session at Paris Arbitration Week on 8 April 2025: “The Business of Sports: Navigating Investment, Regulation, and Disputes.” This was, without a doubt, one of the most relevant and informative workshops for our legal practice, touching on themes that resonate directly with the complexities we navigate every day. In the following article, we will delve deeper into the various key points raised by the panel—including investment trends, regulatory frameworks, ownership structures, dispute resolution mechanisms, and the evolving interplay between law and finance in the world of professional sports—while adding our own insights, practical experience, and critical perspective into the mix.

1. Scope and panel composition

The Paris Arbitration Week 2025 session, ‟The Business of Sports: Navigating Investment, Regulation, and Disputes” brought together an impressive panel of thought leaders from across the legal, financial, and sports sectors. Hosted by Secretariat and held on 8 April 2025, the discussion featured Shalabh Gupta and Amran Nawaz (Secretariat), Steven Bainbridge (Greenberg Traurig), Shamin Choudhury (Linklaters), Jeffrey Benz (JAMS), and William Sternheimer (Court of Arbitration for Sport (‟CAS”)), each offering unique perspectives on the evolving business and legal landscape in professional sports. The event provided a platform to analyse how investment, regulation, and dispute resolution mechanisms intersect and shape the future of the industry. The multidisciplinary nature of the panel enabled a rich, comparative dialogue that touched on everything from global financial flows and ownership structures to regulatory frameworks and best practices in commercial and sports arbitration. For further details, see the official event page (parisarbitrationweek.com), the Secretariat recap (secretariat-intl.com), Secretariat’s LinkedIn post (linkedin.com), the JAMS event listing (jamsadr.com), and Greenberg Traurig’s announcement (gtlaw.com).

2. Investment strategies in sports

2.1. Input from the panel

The panel explored the rapidly evolving landscape of international sports investments, highlighting the surge of capital from sovereign wealth funds, private equity, and Middle Eastern family offices into global sports assets. With major funds now targeting both U.S. and European markets, cross-continental strategies have become increasingly common, further diversifying the pool of sports investors. The risks inherent in sports investment were thrown into sharp relief by the COVID-19 pandemic, which dramatically impacted profitability and forced many stakeholders to reconsider their exposure. However, optimism has returned: broadcast rights have rebounded, and high-profile deals with streaming platforms such as Netflix have driven up both revenues and club valuations, contributing to a notable decrease in perceived investment risk.

Another significant trend discussed was the shift in investor profile and attitude. New entrants—many from private equity or family office backgrounds—bring with them a robust appetite for disputes, often informed by their experience in other industries. This is reflected in the increasing frequency and sophistication of shareholder disputes, especially around governance issues and valuation. For instance, questions over the powers of directors to veto key decisions, such as licencing new clubs, have become a flashpoint for private equity investors who are acutely aware of how such governance dynamics can directly affect the value of their stakes.

The panel also pointed to real-world case studies, such as TKO’s acquisition of WWE, as illustrative of the complex interplay between investment risk, governance, and shareholder relations in the sports sector. Conflicts between majority and minority shareholders are on the rise, and arbitration is increasingly favoured as a means of resolving these disputes confidentially and efficiently—thereby protecting both commercial value and reputational interests.

2.2. Private and sovereign capital

The sports industry has witnessed a remarkable surge in investment from both private equity firms and sovereign wealth funds (‟SWFs”), each bringing distinct strategic motivations and legal complexities. Private equity firms, drawn by the global reach, passionate fanbases, and expanding media rights of major leagues, are targeting sports franchises as lucrative, non-cyclical assets. These investors often seek operational efficiencies, robust corporate governance, and new revenue streams—especially through media, digital engagement, and global merchandising. Their presence has fundamentally altered boardroom dynamics, as PE firms tend to import rigorous deal mechanics (e.g., drag/tag rights, veto powers) and are far more prepared to litigate or arbitrate when their interests are threatened, leading to a higher frequency of shareholder and governance disputes

Meanwhile, SWFs—particularly from the Middle East—are using sports investments as a vehicle for both financial return and soft power. Funds such as Qatar Sports Investments, Abu Dhabi United Group, and Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund have acquired controlling or minority stakes in iconic clubs, leagues, and media properties across Europe and the US. SWFs are motivated by portfolio diversification, economic development, and national branding, and their involvement often triggers complex regulatory and competition law considerations, including increased scrutiny from league authorities and governmental bodies.

2.3. Multi-club ownership

Another transformative trend is the rise of multi-club ownership models. Investors—including both private equity groups and SWFs—are assembling portfolios of clubs across different countries and leagues. The goal: to create synergies in talent scouting, player development, commercial partnerships, and brand expansion. Examples abound: City Football Group’s holdings across Manchester, Melbourne, New York, and Mumbai; Red Bull’s football properties in Germany, Austria, Brazil, and the US; and increasing moves by Middle Eastern and North American capital to acquire or partner with multiple clubs in top and second-tier European leagues.

While this approach offers diversification and operational scale, it raises challenging legal and regulatory issues. Chief among these are competition law risks—such as the threat of collusion or conflict of interest if two owned clubs qualify for the same continental tournament (UEFA, for instance, has introduced specific rules to address this).

A striking illustration of the tension between competition law and sports law can be seen in the recent Financial Fair Play (‟FFP”) investigations involving Manchester City. In February 2020, UEFA imposed a two-year ban from European competitions and a €30 million fine on Manchester City for alleged ‟serious breaches” of FFP regulations, raising questions about both the fairness of the FFP regime and its compatibility with EU competition law. Manchester City appealed to CAS, which overturned the ban in July 2020, finding that some allegations were either not established or time-barred. The case drew significant commentary on whether FFP rules disproportionately restrict market competition and investment, with some legal experts arguing that strict enforcement of FFP may conflict with EU law principles of fair competition and free movement of capital.

The Red Bull Leipzig/Salzburg case provides a landmark example of how UEFA addresses competition law and conflict of interest concerns arising from multi-club ownership. In 2017, both RB Leipzig (Germany) and FC Red Bull Salzburg (Austria), owned and operated under the Red Bull corporate structure, qualified for the UEFA Champions League. This triggered UEFA’s Article 5 rules, which prohibit two clubs controlled by the same entity from competing in the same European competition to protect sporting integrity and avoid collusion risks. After a thorough investigation, UEFA allowed both clubs to participate, but only after Red Bull made significant governance changes to demonstrate sufficient independence between the two teams. The case is frequently cited in discussions on the legal limits of multi-club ownership and the balancing act between regulatory objectives and commercial realities.

Minority shareholders often find themselves at odds with controlling investors over the direction of the multi-club strategy, valuation of individual club assets, and the allocation of resources or broadcast rights, giving rise to sophisticated disputes often resolved through arbitration for confidentiality and enforceability.

3. Comparative financial regulation, ownership regulations and governance

The panel offered a rich comparative overview of financial and governance regulations shaping the sports industry on both sides of the Atlantic. In the United States, financial regulation is deeply embedded in the structure of professional leagues: rules are pre-defined and strictly enforced, notably through mechanisms such as salary caps and collective bargaining agreements. These frameworks are designed to maintain competitive parity, ensure club viability, and protect the interests of “the little guy”—smaller teams and community stakeholders. As a result, salary disputes are rare and largely neutralised by union power, with regulated caps on agents’ fees (typically capped at 2 per cent), and rigorous league-imposed disclosure and due diligence requirements. In fact, the monolithic nature of U.S. sports leagues means regulations are consistently applied and enforced, though sometimes at the cost of diversity in governance approaches. An example discussed by the panel was the high-profile baseball doping case of Ryan Braun, which, like other Major League Baseball (MLB) disputes, was handled through an internal arbitration system unique to U.S. sports, rather than by CAS. This underscores the distinctiveness of American dispute resolution models, where arbitrators are selected through league-player union processes and are often subject to scrutiny regarding their impartiality and independence.

In Europe, by contrast, financial regulation remains more dynamic and less centralised. While UEFA’s FFP regime has set baseline standards—impacting club solvency, transfer spending, and broader governance—implementation varies by country and league. Many European leagues are still refining their own rules, taking cues from UEFA’s standards and occasionally responding to competitive pressures by improving their own governance. Disputes are more frequent and diverse, with many referred to CAS, especially on matters of salary, disciplinary action, and director conduct. CAS arbitrators often handle these disputes with remarkable speed, though questions about neutrality and independence can sometimes arise in high-stakes cases.

Notably, recent years have seen widespread legal challenges to FIFA’s 2–3 percent cap on agents’ fees, with agent associations and national federations across Europe contesting these regulations before both national and European courts. Plaintiffs argue that the cap violates EU competition law by restricting market freedom and setting artificial price controls, and further contend that the rules fail the legal tests of proportionality and necessity. Courts in Germany and the Netherlands have granted interim injunctions suspending the enforcement of the cap, while proceedings in the UK and other jurisdictions are ongoing. The result is a patchwork of national outcomes: in some countries, the cap is currently unenforceable, while in others, it remains under review pending final judicial decisions. This ongoing and highly-publicised litigation underscores the fragmented and evolving nature of financial regulation and governance in the European sports industry.

Both US and European jurisdictions grapple with the challenge of regulating new investor classes, including private equity firms with clear exit strategies, minority “celebrity” shareholders, and the growing influence of community stakeholders (i.e. the fans in the community). The panel noted the increasing use of “owners and directors’ tests” (including enquiries into insolvency histories) to vet who can hold controlling interests or directorships in clubs. Such vetting, while essential for good governance, has itself triggered disputes—often resolved through confidential arbitration. The rise of multi-club ownership, where investors hold stakes in several clubs across different jurisdictions, further complicates matters: both UEFA and CAS enforce rules preventing two clubs under common control from competing in the same competition, aiming to avoid conflicts of interest and match-fixing.

A recurring theme was the learning potential between sports and commercial arbitration. Commercial arbitration tools—such as the Redfern schedule—are increasingly being adopted to streamline procedures, while CAS is recognised for its unique ability to deliver expedited rulings (sometimes within 24 hours). Mediation is far more established in U.S. sports, often used to manage case backlogs and resolve commercial disputes before trial; in Europe, conciliation exists but true mediation remains rare and underutilised.

Ultimately, the evolving landscape of financial and governance regulation in global sports is shaped by a delicate balance: ensuring viability, fostering competitive parity, protecting both major and minor stakeholders, and responding to the pressures of new forms of investment. The regulatory and dispute resolution environment must keep pace, learning from commercial arbitration while adapting to the sector’s unique demands.

4. Digital disruption: streaming, data & new tech frontiers

The business of sports is rapidly evolving as digital innovation transforms both investment and regulation. Streaming rights are now at the heart of club valuations, with tech giants and platforms like Netflix, Amazon, and Apple reshaping how fans access live sports and driving up media revenues. Meanwhile, the explosion of data—both on and off the field—has sparked new legal challenges around data privacy, athlete biometric information, and fan engagement analytics, requiring sports organizations to comply with increasingly complex data protection laws (such as the GDPR).

The rise of blockchain technology and digital assets has also made its mark: clubs and leagues are experimenting with NFTs, digital collectibles, and fan tokens as fresh revenue streams and engagement tools. However, these innovations bring regulatory uncertainty—touching on intellectual property, consumer protection, and financial conduct rules. As digital and tech issues move to the core of sports business models, forward-thinking legal and compliance strategies are now indispensable for investors, rightsholders, and regulators alike.

5. Business of sports: learning from other industries

Key parallels emerged at the workshop between sports law and other highly regulated sectors. For example, construction arbitration is renowned for its rigorous approach to expert evidence and document management—tools that are increasingly relevant in resolving stadium development or league financial disputes in sports. Similarly, many infrastructure investment claims rely on complex financing models, such as public-private partnerships (PPP) for stadium projects, which echo the financing and governance challenges faced by sports clubs and leagues today.

The regulatory landscape in sports is also borrowing lessons from other industries. Financial and competition regulators like the FCA, OFWAT, and OFGEM provide a model for proportionality and objective regulatory impact—principles that can be applied when drafting and enforcing rules in the sports sector. The use of ownership and directors’ tests, for instance, is analogous to the “fit and proper” assessments found in banking and utilities, aiming to ensure the integrity of club governance.

Notably, the arrival of new investors—such as private equity firms and sovereign wealth funds—has brought a fresh perspective to the industry. These investors are often able to spot and capitalise on opportunities that older or legacy stakeholders in sports clubs may have missed, perhaps due to entrenched bias or traditional thinking. A clear example is the surge of interest and investment in women’s sports, where new capital is accelerating growth, professionalisation, and commercial success in ways that were previously overlooked or undervalued.

Additionally, compliance and ESG (environmental, social, and governance) considerations—such as anti-doping, anti-match-fixing, and financial governance—are increasingly being aligned with global compliance regimes.

In sum, the fast-changing business of sports—shaped by new capital, regulatory complexity, and digital disruption—demands sharper legal insight and adaptability than ever before. Reflecting on the standout panel at Paris Arbitration Week in April 2025, we left inspired and equipped with practical strategies and fresh perspectives that continue to inform our approach to sports investment, regulation, and dispute resolution.