Written by Divya Mariam Saji,
Intern-Lex Lumen Research Journal,
June 2025
The football world has seen dramatic changes over the last few years, more so because of intensified commercialism and top-down administration that tends to marginalize fans’ interests. Developments such as the European Super League proposal and international responses to changes in club ownership have highlighted the increasing need for democratic governance in football governance. This blog analyses the feasibility and legal contours of implementing participatory dispute resolution (PDR) mechanisms within the football governance framework, with a special focus on incorporating fans as stakeholders in resolving disputes that impact the soul of the sport.
I. Understanding Fan-Centric Governance in Football
Fan-centric governance refers to institutional mechanisms that grant fans a tangible voice in the administration and operation of football clubs. Examples are Germany’s 50+1 rule, whereby members of clubs (usually fans) have to control a majority of the voting rights; and the United Kingdom supporters’ trusts model, which seek to exert influence in club decision making through ownership by fans or elected representation. These models legislatively define fans as stakeholders in club management, although not usually in dispute resolution frameworks.
II. The Existing Legal Framework of Dispute Resolution in Football
Conflict resolution in football is pervasive with the use of arbitration and adjudicatory organs like:
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, having jurisdiction over a wide variety of sports-related controversies.
FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which handles employment-related disputes between clubs and players.
National federations’ internal tribunals, which resolve issues like disciplinary violations and eligibility.
These mechanisms prioritise efficiency, confidentiality, and finality, but are often critiqued for excluding fans from decisions that deeply affect them, such as changes to club identity, ticketing policies, or sanctions impacting home attendance.
III. Participatory Dispute Resolution: A Conceptual and Legal Framework
Participatory dispute resolution (PDR) borrows from democratic theory and restorative justice, where stakeholder interests are addressed in settling disputes by inclusive and usually consensus-driven processes. In football, this may apply in the following forms:
Club-level ombudsman roles with compulsory fan consultation.
Elected fan member multi-stakeholder grievance panels.
Advisory forums with weak co-decision authority on issues impacting the supporter base.
Although not orthodox under lex sportiva, these models might be reconciled with current structures of dispute by the use of soft law instruments and codes of voluntary governance.
IV. Comparative Approaches and New Paradigms
Germany: The 50+1 rule ensures member control of club decisions, but is not yet applied to dispute resolution forums. Nevertheless, a few Bundesliga clubs have made fan councils mediatory forums for off-field matters.
United Kingdom: The 2021 Fan-Led Review of Football Governance called for greater fan input into key decisions and set out an Independent Regulator of English Football (IREF), which would have the power to institutionalise grievance redress mechanisms involving the fans.
Spain: FC Barcelona and Real Madrid, both member-owned clubs, have socio (member) voting on big decisions. Conflict resolution is still executive-led, though.
AFC Wimbledon: A UK football club with supporter ownership that is a good example of participatory governance. Disagreements on issues regarding ethics and operation are often resolved with input through direct democracy by boards elected by supporters.
India – Kerala Blasters and the Price of Excluding Fans from Governance
Despite possessing the most committed fan base in Asia, Kerala Blasters FC has been embroiled in management issues over the past few years. Fans have complained of a lack of transparency in club activity, such as abrupt coaching changes, opaque transfer policy, and the absence of a long-term vision. All these issues have been aggravated by muddled communication by the club authorities and apparent indifference to the views of fans. As a measure of reaction to ongoing criticism, Kerala Blasters issued a statement on the establishment of a Fan Advisory Board (FAB) in 2024. The FAB will be made up of representatives from some of the official fan clubs and will be an advisory body to provide formal feedback to the administration. Its primary objectives are to increase the openness of clubs, return feedback on matters related to supporters, and create an official source of communication between fans and policymakers. While the FAB does not have legal jurisdiction, its establishment represents a first step towards fan-involving governance in Indian football.
However, it depends on the institutional power, usage rate, and collaboration of club administrators to integrate fan opinions into policymaking. In the absence of codified roles in dispute resolution mechanisms, the board is still a soft tool of governance. But it could well become a more effective platform of participatory dispute engagement, particularly if woven into overall league-wide rules.
V. Legal Challenges and Normative Considerations
The integration of fans into mechanisms for the resolution of disputes is not free of its operating and legal challenges:
Recognition: Supporters lack official status in most legal systems that preside over football disputes.
Arbitration clause conflicts: Mandatory arbitration according to CAS rules might preclude alternative or participatory avenues.
Populism risk: Fan-majority organizations risk decision-making on an emotional rather than a principal or equitable basis.
However, the move towards soft law rule-making, such as UEFA’s Supporters Charter and FIFA’s recently adopted human rights policy, indicates an increasing appreciation for fan rights and responsibilities.
VI. Towards a Legally Feasible Participatory Model
In order to incorporate PDR mechanisms into football on a legal and workable basis, a hybrid strategy can be employed:
Codify fan representation in grievance redress policies via national legislation or league charters.
Develop non-binding mediation structures where fan voices are officially heard prior to disagreements breaking into arbitration.
Modify club statutes and supporter trust deeds to incorporate internal dispute escalation processes with fan representatives.
Such reforms, although not replacing formal adjudication, have the potential to humanise football governance and re-establish trust among stakeholders.
Conclusion
The path of contemporary football demands a renewed thinking on governance and conflict resolution. Legal frameworks that disregard football fans as stakeholders in conflict resolution are increasingly divergent from the democratic and commercial realities of football. While it is challenging to realize participatory conflict resolution models in football due to regulatory and practical issues, it also provides a revolutionary opportunity to redefine football governance justice. The law needs to adapt in order to fill this gap—not only in courtrooms or tribunals, but in stadiums and fan forums, where the essence of the game is found.
References
Tracey Crouch MP, Fan-Led Review of Football Governance: Final Report (Nov. 2021)
Kerala Blasters FC, Club Announces Formation of Fan Advisory Board (Jan. 2025), https://keralablastersfc.in/news/kerala–blasters–fan–advisory–board–2025.
Bundesliga Explaining the Bundesliga’s 50+1 rule, Bundesliga. Available at: https://www.bundesliga.com/en/faq/what-are-the-rules-and-regulations-of-soccer/50-1fifty-plus-one-german-football -rule-explained-ownership-22832 (Accessed: 18 June 2025).
AFC Wimbledon: The fan revolution that saved a club, Fair Game. Available at: https://www.fairgameuk.org/blog/afcwimbledon#:~:text=AFC%20Wimbledon%20was% 20born%20not,over%2075%25%20of%20the%20club. (Accessed: 18 June 2025).
