Agent fees hit $1.37bn while the cap on them sat suspended

In short: FIFA wrote a cap on agent commissions, agents sued in several jurisdictions, and the cap was suspended before it could bite. In the years it sat suspended, club spending on agents rose to USD 1.37 billion in 2025 — more than 90% up on the previous year and far above any previous record. Then, on 16 July 2026, the EU Court of Justice ruled the cap was capable of justification under EU law after all. The money moved first; the law caught up afterwards.

Agent commissions are the least visible large number in football finance. They do not appear on a transfer graphic, they are rarely disclosed per deal, and until recently nobody published a credible total. They are also large enough to matter to the spending rules.

What FIFA tried to do

The FIFA Football Agent Regulations reintroduced licensing — agents must pass an exam — and, more contentiously, capped what an agent may charge. The cap is a percentage, and which percentage applies depends on who the agent acts for and how much the player earns.

Agent acts for	Player earns over USD 200,000	Player earns USD 200,000 or less
The player, or the buying club	3% of remuneration	5%
The player and the buying club	6% of remuneration	10%
The selling club	10% of the transfer fee	10%

Two other rules matter as much as the percentages. Multiple representation — acting for more than one party in the same deal — is restricted, because an agent representing both sides has an obvious conflict about where the money lands. And the client pays rule requires the party receiving the service to pay for it, closing the practice of a club paying the fee of an agent nominally acting for the player.

Why it did not take effect

Agents challenged the regulations across multiple jurisdictions on competition-law grounds: a worldwide body setting the maximum price for a service is, on its face, a cartel-like restriction. Courts in Germany and England found for the agents at various stages, and FIFA suspended the contested provisions globally rather than run inconsistent regimes in different countries.

So for a period the regulations existed on paper, with the parts that constrained income not in force.

What happened to the money meanwhile

FIFA’s own reporting is the best record of the result.

Club spending on agent service fees in international transfers in men’s professional football reached USD 1.37 billion in 2025, measured between 1 January and 1 December. That is an increase of more than 90% on the previous year, and it comfortably exceeds the earlier record of USD 889.4 million set in 2023.

English clubs were the largest spenders by a distance, at over USD 375 million between them.

A 90% rise in a single year is not a drift. Some of it is transfer-market inflation, but the scale of it, in exactly the window when the constraint was not operating, is the strongest available argument that the cap would have done something.

The July 2026 judgment

On 16 July 2026 the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on the compatibility of the regulations with EU law, in proceedings brought by an agency against FIFA.

The court held that the contested elements — the licensing requirement, the service fee cap, the restriction on multiple representation, the client pays rule and the pro rata payment rule — are capable of justification. On the cap specifically, it found that the limits are not restrictions of competition by object, and that because they are set as proportions of salary or transfer fee, agents retain the ability to compete on price and on every other parameter.

FIFA’s head of legal, Emilio García Silvero, said the court had “acknowledged FIFA’s assessment of football agent activities and FIFA’s legitimate concerns”.

Two cautions are needed, and most coverage skipped both.

A ruling in principle is not automatic reinstatement. The judgment establishes that the rules can be justified; it does not by itself lift suspensions that operate globally. FIFA has said it will invite agent representatives to a meeting with the aim of reaching a consensual solution, and it has a deadline: the new transfer system takes effect on 1 January 2027.

“Capable of justification” is a test, not a verdict. It means the rules are not automatically unlawful and must be assessed for proportionality. That assessment can still be run, in national courts, on the specific numbers.

Why this belongs in a finance publication

Agent fees are not a side issue for the spending rules. They are inside them.

UEFA’s squad cost ratio counts agents’ fees as a squad cost. So does the Premier League’s SCR. So does LaLiga’s squad cost limit. Every euro paid to an agent consumes room a club could otherwise use on wages or amortisation.

Which produces a quiet interaction worth noticing. A cap on agent fees is, in effect, a transfer of value from agents to clubs — and specifically to the clubs spending most on agents, which are the largest ones. FIFA presents the cap as protecting the integrity of the transfer system. It would also, if enforced, free up squad cost headroom at exactly the clubs that spend most.

That does not make the cap wrong. It does mean the usual framing — regulator against agents, on behalf of the game — is missing a party who stands to gain.

What to watch

Whether the suspensions are lifted, and when. The 1 January 2027 transfer-system date is the natural moment.

Whether the numbers change. FIFA publishes an annual agents report. If the cap comes into force and the 2027 figure does not move, the cap was never the binding constraint. If it falls sharply, the 2025 record was the cost of the suspension.

Whether national courts accept the proportionality. The Court of Justice said the cap can be justified. Someone still has to justify it.