Simone Landi

THE DUAL MANDATE OF SPORTS AGENTS: A COMPARISON OF NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS

Introduction

The dual mandate of sports agents: a comparison of national and international regulations. Compares national (Italian) and international (FIFA) regulations on sports agents' dual mandate. Highlights legal tensions, divergent approaches, and advocates for harmonised European intervention.

Abstract

The dual mandate of sports agents constitutes a paradigmatic instance of the normative tension between autonomy and systemic unity within the broader legal order governing professional sport. This contribution undertakes a comparative analysis of the regulatory treatment of dual representation under both national and international instruments, with specific reference to the Italian legislative framework (Legislative Decree No. 37/2021 and FIGC Regulations 2025) and the FIFA Football Agent Regulations 2025 (FFAR 2025). The inquiry is premised upon the conception of sports law not as an autonomous or self-contained legal order, but as a specialised sector integrated within the general legal system, characterised by a multi-level structure encompassing state, federal, and international sources. Within this systemic configuration, the Italian model adopts a functional and proportionate approach: dual representation is permissible subject to stringent safeguards of informed consent, disclosure, and conflict-of-interest management. By contrast, the FIFA framework, animated by considerations of transparency and integrity, enshrines a general prohibition on dual mandates, save for narrowly construed exceptions that render its practical application residual. This comparative examination reveals not merely a divergence in regulatory technique but a deeper antinomy between distinct normative rationales. The Italian framework, grounded in private autonomy and proportionality, privileges contractual freedom within a regime of procedural transparency. On the other hand, the FIFA model, conversely, embodies a preventive and prohibitive logic, privileging integrity over autonomy. The coexistence of these divergent paradigms engenders regulatory asymmetry and legal uncertainty, particularly in cross-border transactions that typify the football industry, thereby undermining both market efficiency and systemic coherence. In light of these findings, the paper advocates for a harmonised European regulatory intervention aimed at reconciling the principles of integrity, transparency, and contractual autonomy. Such harmonisation may be pursued either through an internal recalibration of the FFAR or through the enactment of a “European Sports Act” grounded in Article 114 TFEU, which would provide a uniform and binding normative framework. Ultimately, the establishment of a proportionate and coherent European discipline on dual representation constitutes not merely an instrument for enhancing the governance of sport, but also a necessary condition for safeguarding the unity and internal consistency of the European legal order as a whole.

Review

This contribution offers a timely and insightful analysis into the complex regulatory landscape surrounding the dual mandate of sports agents, positioning it as a fundamental tension between autonomy and systemic unity in professional sport. The paper effectively frames sports law as an integrated, multi-level sector rather than an autonomous domain, setting a robust theoretical foundation for its comparative inquiry. By juxtaposing the Italian legislative framework (Legislative Decree No. 37/2021 and FIGC Regulations 2025) with the FIFA Football Agent Regulations 2025 (FFAR 2025), the authors compellingly highlight two profoundly different normative approaches: Italy's functional model permitting dual representation with stringent safeguards, versus FIFA's general prohibition driven by considerations of transparency and integrity. This clear articulation of divergent regulatory philosophies forms the bedrock of the paper's initial contribution. The core strength of the analysis lies in its revelation of not merely a divergence in regulatory technique, but a "deeper antinomy between distinct normative rationales." The Italian framework, rooted in private autonomy and proportionality, champions contractual freedom within a regime of procedural transparency. In stark contrast, the FIFA model embodies a preventive and prohibitive logic, prioritizing integrity often at the expense of autonomy. This detailed comparison powerfully demonstrates how such conflicting paradigms inevitably lead to regulatory asymmetry and significant legal uncertainty, particularly in the inherently cross-border transactions that define the football industry. The paper adeptly argues that this disharmony undermines both market efficiency and the broader systemic coherence of the legal order, thus making a strong case for the practical and theoretical implications of this regulatory schism. Building on these critical findings, the paper concludes by advocating for a harmonised European regulatory intervention, offering concrete pathways through either an internal recalibration of the FFAR or the enactment of a "European Sports Act" under Article 114 TFEU. This forward-looking perspective not only proposes viable solutions to the identified regulatory gaps but also elevates the discourse beyond sports governance, framing the establishment of a proportionate and coherent European discipline as essential for safeguarding the unity and internal consistency of the European legal order as a whole. This prescriptive stance, coupled with its rigorous comparative methodology, marks this contribution as an important intervention for scholars, policymakers, and practitioners grappling with the evolving governance of professional sport.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.