Sport in the UK is no longer just about what happens on the pitch. According to Government sources, the sector contributes £39 billion to the national economy, making it one of the country's most significant industries, and it continues to grow at pace.
Against that backdrop, Lewis Silkin hosted a panel discussion during London International Disputes Week 2026, bringing together leading practitioners to examine what this growth means for sports-related disputes. The session was moderated by Benjamin Smith of Lewis Silkin, with contributions from Duran Ross (Partner, Lewis Silkin), Diana Tarnavskaia (Associate, Lewis Silkin), and Adam Taylor (Barrister, Crown Office Chambers). We've summarised the key themes from the discussion.
The commercialisation of sport
The growth of the sports industry shows no signs of slowing down. In the UK alone, the market for sports teams and clubs has been estimated to be worth nearly $24 billion in 2025, a figure expected to rise to almost $34 billion by 2030. According to the PwC Global Sports Survey, senior sports executives forecast global growth of 7.4% per annum global sports market growth over the next three to five years, with team franchise valuation growth expected to rise even faster at 7.9%. Perhaps the most striking projection, however, concerns women's sport. Traditionally underfunded and lacking visibility, the sector is now gaining real momentum, with 91% of executives expecting double-digit growth over the same period.
Fan engagement is shifting too, particularly among younger audiences. The EY Sports Engagement Index currently places football first and Formula 1 second among the most followed sports overall. Among Gen-Z viewers, the picture looks markedly different: basketball has climbed to seventh, whilst cricket languishes at nineteenth. What is clear is that the sports that dominate tomorrow may look very different from those that dominate today.
Sponsorship: where the deals and the disputes are
Sponsorship is and will continue to be a major source of disputes in sport, particularly in football. Premier League front-of-shirt sponsorships alone are worth over $525 million for the 2025/26 season. With that kind of money on the table, it is unsurprising that disagreements arise.
There are three key flashpoints to flag:
- Exclusivity clauses are a frequent source of tension, with parties often failing to define the precise scope of rights granted to its sponsors in terms of category, territory, and reach;
- Performance-related disputes are also common, particularly where contractual benchmarks are not met; and
- Morality clauses, too, are increasingly being tested in an era where sponsors face reputational risk from the conduct of athletes, clubs, or organisations.
A particularly notable development is the Premier League's decision to withdraw front-of-shirt gambling sponsorships from next season. Gambling brands currently account for a large proportion of Premier League front-of-shirt sponsorship revenue. As those deals fall away, clubs will need to attract sponsors from other sectors – often household brands with higher expectations around club and player conduct. This shift may generate a new wave of disputes as the dynamics of sponsorship relationships evolve.
The growth of the Court of Arbitration for Sport
A notable area of growth is the remarkable rise of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), often referred to as the "Supreme Court of Sport" owing to the pivotal role it plays in resolving high-stakes disputes across the sporting world.
The CAS was established in 1986 to provide a neutral and independent forum for arbitration and mediation and heard just two cases in its first year. By 2024, it had registered 917 procedures, comprising 200 ordinary division cases, 642 appeals, 41 anti-doping decisions, 21 ad hoc cases, and 13 mediations. Whilst previously only international athletes had the right to appeal to the CAS in anti-doping proceedings, national athletes will also be granted this right in the near future, which means the number of cases before the CAS is likely to increase further.
Unsurprisingly, football dominates its caseload. In 2025, 77% of CAS cases concerned football, raising concerns that football-related disputes could overwhelm the system. However, the breadth of the CAS's work extends well beyond the beautiful game, encompassing contractual disputes, transfer cases, employment-related claims, governance issues, eligibility disputes, and disciplinary matters including doping and match-fixing.
Looking ahead, the panel predicted that disputes concerning the use of new technologies in sport will become a key battleground at the CAS. A striking recent example is the Canada Soccer drone incident at the 2024 Paris Olympics, in which a member of the Canadian team's staff admitted to filming a New Zealand training session ahead of its group stage game. The matter was unprecedented and had to be dealt with by the CAS as matters unfolded, underscoring just how rapidly these issues can escalate in a live sporting environment.
The Independent Football Regulator (IFR): a new disputes ecosystem
The most forward-looking development in English football governance is the IFR. The IFR, established by the Football Governance Act 2025, represents a fundamental shift from self-regulation to statutory oversight of the top five tiers of men's football in England and Wales.
The IFR was enacted to promote three core objectives:
- Protect and promote the financial soundness of regulated football clubs;
- Protect and promote financial resilience of English football; and
- Safeguard the heritage of English football.
The IFR's central mechanism rests on two core pillars:
- A club licensing regime covering financial soundness, corporate governance, fan engagement, and ongoing compliance. The final regulations for the licensing regime are expected to be published by 1 July 2026, and every club must be licensed from the 2027/28 season; and
- The Owners, Directors, and Senior Executives (ODSE) test, which applies to anyone with more than 25% of shares or voting rights or significant influence or control, as well as individuals in senior management roles. Owners must demonstrate honesty, integrity, and financial soundness, whilst senior managers must also show competence for their specific role. The penalties linked to these roles can also be severe, encompassing not only significant financial exposure but also potential criminal liability. For further insights, check out our articles on the implications of the ODSE regime for owners and senior managers.
The IFR has real teeth and genuine intent – however, its defining tests are still ahead. There remain uncertainties about how the regime will operate in practice. The IFR has indicated that it intends to regulate by consent, adopting a "soft-model approach" of cautions and internal reviews before resorting to enforcement action (which is similar to the FCA approach). However, due to the amounts involved, the IFR is expected to create an entirely new disputes landscape for English football, with potential disputes linked to the ODSE regime, legal appeals against the regulator's rulings, the ongoing disagreement between the Premier League and EFL over revenue sharing, and the knock-on effects of regulatory decisions on commercial contracts between clubs and their business partners.
For more IFR related content, please see this link: Independent Football Regulator
Conclusion
It's clear that the growth of the UK sports economy is not slowing down, and neither is the complexity of the legal issues it generates. From the potential of multi-million-pound sponsorship battles to the dawn of statutory football regulation, sports law is entering a new era.
For the sports industry, the message is clear: as the stakes get higher, getting the legal framework and internal procedures right has never been more important.
