In the case C-600/23 involving the Royal Football Club Seraing, advocate general Ćapeta has concluded that the decisions of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) should be subject to comprehensive review by national courts. This is essential to ensure that FIFA's regulations align with community law.

Ćapeta differentiates between sports arbitration and commercial arbitration. While commercial arbitration is based on the voluntary consent of the parties involved, FIFA's arbitration clauses are mandatory, leaving no alternative for the parties who must first submit their disputes to FIFA's disciplinary committee and then to CAS.

In the context of sports arbitration, the advocate general argues that arbitration awards should not only be subject to limited review concerning public order issues but should instead be open to full judicial scrutiny.

These general conclusions follow a preliminary ruling request from the Belgian Court of Cassation in a case involving a financial assistance company for football clubs in Europe against FIFA. The advocate general's conclusions are not binding on the Court of Justice of the European Union, which may issue a contrary decision.

A preliminary ruling allows member state courts, in the context of a dispute they are handling, to ask the Court about the interpretation of EU law or the validity of an EU act. The Court does not resolve the national dispute; it is up to the national court to resolve the matter in accordance with the Court's decision, which similarly binds other national courts facing similar issues.