Belgian Court Rejects Antwerp Homegrown Challenge
A Brussels court rejected the Antwerp homegrown challenge on November 4, 2026, ruling that football’s homegrown player rules did not breach European Union law. The decision ends a long-running dispute over how clubs build their squads.
The French-speaking Court of First Instance dismissed the request to annul an arbitration award from July 2020. That award had found the Belgian football association’s rules compatible with EU free movement and competition law.
Royal Antwerp and player Lior Refaelov had challenged European football governing body UEFA’s rules and those of the Belgian football association. The rules require a minimum number of homegrown players to be included in teams.
Antwerp homegrown challenge: why the court ruled
Antwerp argued that the rules hamper a professional club from recruiting and fielding players who do not meet the requirement of local or national roots. The club said the rules violate both EU competition and free movement of workers rules.
The EU Court of Justice had said in 2023 that the rules could be contrary to EU law, but that it was up to a national court to decide whether that is the case. The Brussels court has now decided that question in favour of the rules.
The court said the rules serve the legitimate aim of encouraging youth development and reducing clubs’ reliance on financial muscle. It acknowledged they restrict competition to some extent, but it said they did not go beyond what was necessary.
The court also said the evidence did not show a disproportionate effect on foreign players seeking to play in Belgium. It also found no collusion between UEFA and national federations.
It noted that a player’s nationality was irrelevant, as a foreign player trained in Belgium could qualify as a homegrown player. That point cuts against the claim that the rules shut out foreign talent, since the test is training, not passport.
What the homegrown rules require
Since the 2008-09 season, UEFA regulations have required a minimum of eight homegrown players in a club’s 25-man squad. In 2011, the Belgian football association introduced similar regulations requiring clubs to have eight players trained by Belgian clubs, with at least six named in the matchday squad.
The idea behind the rules is simple: clubs should invest in academies and local training rather than buying a full squad from abroad. Critics say the rules still favour rich clubs, which can run the best academies, and they limit a player’s freedom to move. Supporters say the rules protect a pathway for young players into first teams.
The Brussels ruling will carry weight beyond Belgium because the same UEFA rules apply across Europe. National courts in other countries will look at this reasoning when similar challenges arise, even though each case turns on its own facts.
For Antwerp, the decision closes a case that began with the 2020 arbitration award. The club can still compete under the same rules as every other Belgian club, and Refaelov’s challenge to the system he played under has failed.
The ruling does not change the rules for the current season. Clubs will continue to name squads under the eight-player requirement, and the debate over youth development versus free movement will move back to UEFA’s rule-makers rather than the courts.
Feature Pakistan covered European football in Inter Milan Beat Feyenoord 3-0 and Barcelona Beat Aston Villa 3-0 in Champions League.
Reuters reported the court decision on November 4, 2026, via Geo Super.
Frequently asked questions
What did the Belgian court decide?
It rejected Royal Antwerp and Lior Refaelov’s challenge to homegrown player rules, finding they did not breach EU free movement or competition law.
What are the homegrown rules?
UEFA requires at least eight homegrown players in a 25-man squad, and the Belgian association requires eight players trained by Belgian clubs, with at least six in the matchday squad.
Why did Antwerp challenge the rules?
The club argued the rules hamper recruiting and fielding players without local or national roots, violating EU competition and free movement rules.
What did the court say about youth development?
The court said the rules serve the legitimate aim of encouraging youth development and reducing clubs’ reliance on financial muscle, and they do not go beyond what is necessary.
Does nationality decide homegrown status?
No. The court noted that a foreign player trained in Belgium could qualify as a homegrown player, since the test is training, not nationality.
