European Football: Lex Sportiva and Its Regional Specificities

Background: Eastern European football faces unique legal challenges arising from the intersection of international sports law, club governance, and cross-border disputes. Despite the growing importance of regional leagues, the legal framework for resolving conflicts, especially in transfers, sporting succession, and contractual enforcement, remains underexplored. This study addresses the gap by systematically analysing how recent Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decisions and national federation regulations shape dispute resolution in Eastern European football and assessing the extent to which these structures protect clubs, players, and federations in practice. Method: The paper employs a doctrinal-comparative legal methodology, reviewing primary sources (CAS arbitral awards, national and EU legislation, and federation rules) and secondary literature (scholarly articles and reports). A purposive case‐study approach examines selected landmark CAS awards in the region (e.g. Karpaty FC v FIFA, Valmiera FC v LFF) to unpack judicial reasoning and legal principles. Comparative analysis contrasts legal doctrines across jurisdictions, and qualitative synthesis identifies recurring trends, gaps, and legal risks. Results and Conclusions: The analysis reveals several key findings. First, CAS jurisprudence increasingly applies the doctrine of sporting succession in ways that impose heavy financial liabilities on acquiring clubs, often without adequate procedural safeguards. Second, enforcement of CAS awards in domestic courts is uneven across Eastern Europe, with divergent interpretations of jurisdiction, public policy, and res judicata. Third, national association rules often lack clarity in dispute-resolution pathways, leaving ambiguities in appeal rights and remedial mechanisms. Fourth, despite EU instruments (e.g. Regulation 1215/2012, Rome I), their use in sports‐related contract disputes is marginal due to the perceived autonomy of sports law. These findings point to obstacles in predictability, transparency, and enforceability.