Protecting Minors or Protecting Investments? The Protection of Minors in Youth Football under FIFA’s Regulatory Framework and the 2027 RSTP

As of the first of January 2027, FIFA will introduce a new edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). One of the areas in which FIFA has tightened its regulatory framework concerns the contractual relationship between clubs and minor

players. 

Over the past decade, the benefits for clubs of investing in youth academies have become increasingly apparent. With Lamine Yamal being its latest example, FC Barcelona’s La Masia is perhaps one of the most prominent examples of a successful youth academy, having developed generations of players who progressed from its youth ranks to the highest level of professional football. A similar trend is visible amongst other football clubs around the world. Clubs are increasingly recruiting and investing in young talented players with the aim of preparing them to perform at the highest level. 

Simultaneously, the pursuit of sporting excellence from an early age raises questions about the extent to which minors should be exposed to the demands of professional football and the potential risks associated with it. The earlier clubs invest in players, the stronger their incentive becomes to protect that investment. While interests may align at first, an increasing emphasis on sporting performance and the economic value of young players may come at the expense of their broader well-being, causing the interests of the club and the minor player to diverge. Over the past years, these concerns have contributed to a growing debate about whether young players should be afforded greater protection by their clubs and the role centralised rules by FIFA (may) play in this debate. 

Against this background, this article examines the existing regulatory framework governing the protection of minors in professional football, with particular attention to the new rules introduced by the revised version of the RSTP and their practical implications for clubs and young players. It subsequently assesses whether this evolving regulatory framework adequately responds to the growing need to safeguard minors against the increasing demands of the modern football industry, or whether gaps remain in the protection afforded to young players.

The current framework related to minors and key amendments in the new RSTP 

To set the scene for the discussion on the protection of minors’ rights, it is first necessary to outline the existing regulatory framework, the scope of protection it affords, and the changes introduced by the upcoming rules. 

For many years, Article 19 of the RSTP has established a general prohibition on international transfers and registration of players under the age of 18, subject to a limited number of exceptions. The prohibition reflects FIFA’s protective approach towards minors, who are considered particularly vulnerable within the increasingly international and commercialised football industry due to their age and dependence on clubs and other adults involved in their careers. International transfers may expose young players to risks such as exploitation, disruption of their education and family life, and inadequate living or training conditions. Article 19 therefore seeks to limit these risks by restricting international mobility, while allowing transfers in specific circumstances where sufficient safeguards are in place. 

FIFA’s regulatory framework also contains a number of safeguards that extend beyond the regulation of international transfers and registration of players under the age of 18 and recognises that the protection of minors also concerns their welfare once they enter a club or academy environment. The relevant protections, however, are dispersed across the RSTP, FIFA’s safeguarding framework, academy regulations and, depending on the jurisdiction, national association and club-licensing rules. FIFA therefore does not establish one comprehensive and uniform set of minimum welfare standards requiring every club to provide a specified level of accommodation, medical care or psychological support to every minor.

One of the most relevant provisions is Article 19(8) RSTP, which establishes a duty of care towards minors and requires clubs to take reasonable measures to protect and safeguard them from possible abuse, while ensuring that they have the opportunity to obtain an appropriate academic education. The provision states:

“A club that has registered a minor player following a national transfer, international transfer or first registration shall:

• owe a duty of care to the minor;

• take any reasonable measures to protect and safeguard the minor from any

  possible abuse; and

• ensure that the minor is provided with an opportunity to obtain an academic education (according to the highest national standards) that allows them to pursue a career other than football.”

Article 19bis further supports the protection of minors within academies by requiring clubs operating academies to report minors attending those academies to the relevant national association, including minors who are not formally registered with the club. This provides an additional mechanism of oversight and demonstrates that FIFA’s concern extends beyond formally registered players to the wider academy environment.

In addition to these current provisions of the RSTP concerning the protection of minors, the 2027 RSTP strengthens the contractual position of clubs that invest in their development. Under the current RSTP, professional contracts with minor players are generally limited to a maximum duration of three years. The new RSTP introduces an exception in Article 18(2), allowing clubs that have been involved in a player’s training before the age of 18, subject to specific conditions, to conclude contracts of up to five years. This new provision is accompanied by safeguards, including limits on the number of such contracts a club may conclude and increased remuneration requirements in certain circumstances. The amendment reflects a growing reality in modern football: developing young talent requires significant investment, while clubs face the risk that another club may ultimately benefit from that investment by acquiring the player once he reaches adulthood.

At first sight, allowing clubs to conclude longer contracts with minor players appears to benefit the player as well as the club. Increased contractual certainty, may strengthen the incentive for clubs to invest in the development of young talent. In addition, where a club seeks a longer commitment from a young player, it may need to offer sufficiently attractive conditions to obtain the player's agreement. Besides employment stability, this may translate into continued access to the sporting, educational and other support provided by the club. In this sense, protecting the club´s investment may indirectly contribute to protecting and developing the minor.

It is also important to note that the possibility of concluding a contract of up to five years does not mean that a minor is automatically bound to a club for that period. The player must still agree to and enter into the contract. While this new possibility therefore does not necessarily restrict a minor’s mobility, it may nevertheless alter the balance of interests between the player and the club, which is important to recognise. The fact that a minor formally has a choice does not necessarily mean that the parties have equal bargaining power. A young player may have limited knowledge of the long-term consequences of entering into a five-year commitment and may be negotiating with a considerably more experienced and economically powerful club. While this issue arguably falls more within the practical management of young players than within FIFA’s regulatory framework, it nevertheless demonstrates the challenges involved in safeguarding minors’ interests when entering into potentially long-term contractual relationships within the football industry.

The extent to which the new RSTP rules strike an appropriate balance between protecting clubs’ investment in young players and safeguarding the contractual interests of those players therefore depends on the limitations and safeguards attached to the new Article 18(2) RSTP.

The limitations and safeguards related to Article 18(2) in the upcoming RSTP

To address the concerns outlined above, as well as those arising from the possibility of

longer contractual commitments, FIFA has introduced the following safeguards and limitations in Article 18(2) RSTP to balance the interests of training clubs with those of minor

players:

1. First, the exception only applies where the player has already been registered with the club for at least 20 months or two consecutive competition periods, whichever is shorter. This condition ensures that the possibility of concluding a longer contract is reserved for clubs that have demonstrably invested in the player’s development. 

   
   

2. The new framework also limits the number of such contracts to five per season, unless otherwise provided by a validly negotiated collective bargaining agreement.

   Most notably, however, the extended contractual period is accompanied by mandatory increases in fixed remuneration. Where the contract extends into a fourth year, the player must receive a minimum 10% increase in fixed remuneration, with a further 20% increase if the player has made at least ten appearances for the club’s first team during the third year. A further 20% increase applies in the fifth year where the player has made at least ten first-team appearances during the fourth year. 

These safeguards are significant. The five-year option therefore does not merely provide clubs with greater contractual certainty; it also creates tangible financial benefits for players who progress within the club. In this sense, the amendment may be understood as an attempt to align the interests of clubs and young players: clubs are given greater protection for their investment, while players are rewarded financially where their development results in continued contractual commitment and first-team involvement. However, whether an appropriate balance is genuinely achieved in practice by relying primarily on financial safeguards to compensate minors for entering into longer-term contractual commitments remains open to debate.

Financial safeguards: A sufficient counterweight to the bargaining power of football

clubs?

The financial safeguards introduced by FIFA strengthen the argument that the possibility to conclude contracts up to five-years may, in fact, benefit the financial position of minor players. However, financial protection alone does not necessarily equate to adequate protection of a minor’s interests in a broader sense. As demonstrated by the RSTP provisions concerning minors more generally, FIFA’s regulatory framework is not merely aimed at ensuring that young players receive appropriate financial compensation, but also at protecting them from the broader risks associated with entering the professional football industry at a young age. This broader protective approach is reflected, among other things, in the prohibition set out in Article 19 RSTP and the related safeguards in Articles 19(8) and

19bis RSTP. There is therefore an important distinction between contractually protecting a

player’s financial position and protecting the player as a minor.

On the other hand, it would be too simplistic to assume that greater contractual protection for clubs necessarily comes at the expense of minors. A club that is able to retain a promising young player for a longer period arguably has a greater incentive to invest in the player’s overall development and well-being, particularly if its ultimate objective is to retain the player beyond the period covered by the contract. While financial progression and improved contractual conditions may make a player feel valued, financial incentives alone may not be sufficient to foster a lasting relationship. A player who does not feel happy, supported, and cared for in a broader sense may ultimately still choose to leave a club.

For minors at the outset of their footballing career, factors such as education, living conditions, medical and psychological support, playing opportunities, and long-term career development may be equally, if not more, important than financial remuneration. While a five- year contract arguably provides stability and may create an incentive for clubs to invest in these areas, Article 19(8) RSTP bestows upon clubs an obligation to protect these broader interests. However, the wording in this article is relatively general in nature, using wording like “owe a duty of care” and “take any reasonable measures”. To more specifically address the broader interests of minors, lawyers and agents representing them could play a pivotal role in negotiations with clubs by seeking to include more specific contractual obligations for clubs. From a legal point of view, including specific obligations in the contract with regards to overall well-being of a minor would be beneficial for two reasons:

1. Firstly, specific contractual obligations would provide greater clarity than the broadly formulated duties currently contained in the RSTP. Rather than relying on general obligations of care and reasonable measures, the contract could expressly identify the particular needs and interests of the minor, thereby requiring the club to take concrete steps to protect them. This could strengthen the minor’s position and contribute to their overall well-being. In this respect, specific contractual obligations could give meaningful effect to the club’s general duty of care by requiring compliance with clearly defined legal standards.

2. Secondly, specific contractual obligations could facilitate the enforcement of the club’s duty of care. As noted above, the obligations imposed by Article 19(8) RSTP are broadly formulated and open-ended. This may make it difficult for a minor to demonstrate that a club has failed to meet the required standard, particularly because Article 19(8) does not impose an obligation to achieve a specific result, but rather requires the club to take reasonable measures and make sufficient efforts to protect the minor. By incorporating clear and specific obligations concerning the broader interests and well-being of the minor into the employment contract, it may therefore be easier to establish a breach and, where appropriate, seek damages or other contractual remedies. This may provide a more direct avenue for enforcement than relying solely on FIFA’s regulatory framework, and could be especially useful for employment relations which are purely domestic in nature. By clearly defining the obligations of a club, a minor would be able to demonstrate a breach effectively and address this through the applicable national dispute-resolution mechanisms or courts. Employment-related disputes between a club and a player with an international dimension may fall within the jurisdiction of FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber, and while FIFA may sanction breaches of its regulations as well, demonstrating a breach of the broadly formulated duty of care may be more difficult in practice than establishing non-compliance with a specific contractual obligation.

Defining such obligations contractually, could contribute not only to the minor’s overall well- being and development, but also to the likelihood of a positive and lasting relationship with the club and, ultimately, to the player’s performance on the pitch. To optimally care for the player with the goal of improving his performance and duration at the club, it would thus be beneficial for clubs to discuss with minor player’s professional representatives and/or parents/legal guardians what the individual needs and circumstances of the minor are.

A regulatory gap: Protecting career longevity

If the foregoing is taken into account, the financial and broader interests of a minor player may be sufficiently addressed through the conditions surrounding the player’s employment. As a consequence, the player may appear to be well protected and satisfied, which would hardly be surprising. For a young player, the opportunity to begin a professional career may represent the fulfilment of a long-held ambition. The prospect of competing at a higher level, gaining greater playing time and exposure, and earning an income from a sport they are passionate about can be highly attractive. Yet it is precisely because such an opportunity may be so appealing to a young player that it is worth questioning whether the regulatory framework should also protect players against decisions that, while attractive in the short term, may ultimately undermine the longevity and development of their careers.

While financial safeguards and the protection of a player’s broader well-being are well- established considerations in discussions concerning the protection of minors in football, comparatively little attention appears to be given to the longevity of a player’s career as an interest in its own right. This points to a potential gap in both the existing discussion and the regulatory framework. Unlike financial conditions or more tangible aspects of a player’s welfare, the long-term development and sustainability of a career are difficult to define and assess ex ante, making them less readily translatable into concrete legal safeguards. This may leave room for situations in which the interests of the player and the club appear to be aligned in the short term, while the decision may nevertheless carry implications for the player’s longer-term career prospects.

Professional football has become increasingly demanding, with a growing number of matches and increasingly congested schedules. European club competitions are now organised across several levels, including the UEFA Champions League, UEFA Europa League, and UEFA Conference League, meaning that many European professional clubs may require players to combine domestic weekend fixtures with midweek European matches. For promising young players, these demands may be further compounded by international fixtures when they are selected to represent their national teams. Not to mention the psychological pressures associated with professional football, which may be particularly challenging for minor players who have had less opportunity to develop the experience and coping mechanisms necessary to manage them. As mentioned before, young players are still undergoing physical development, meaning that the cumulative physical and mental burden of training, domestic and international competition, travel, and limited recovery periods may pose heightened risks to their health and, ultimately, to the longevity of their careers. A serious or recurring injury as a consequence of this at an early stage of a player’s development, may have consequences extending far beyond a temporary absence from the pitch and, in the most serious cases, may prematurely derail an otherwise promising career.

At first sight, the interests of the player and the club may appear to be closely aligned. A club may have strong sporting and financial incentives to field a promising young player as frequently as possible. A successful player may contribute to sporting results, attract supporters, and increase the club’s visibility and commercial value, thereby becoming an important asset from both a sporting and commercial perspective. While increased playing time can undoubtedly benefit a young player’s development, there may also be a point at which the club’s interest in maximising the player’s contribution begins to conflict with the player’s longer-term physical and psychological well-being. The concern, therefore, is not necessarily that clubs deliberately seek to exploit young players, but rather that the structural incentives facing clubs may encourage the intensive use of a player whose career and physical development are still at an early stage.

This raises a broader legal and regulatory question. While the existing framework may provide important protection against certain forms of (intentional) exploitation and seek to ensure that the player’s broader interests are taken into account, it is less clear whether it adequately addresses the long-term sustainability of a young player’s career in an increasingly demanding professional environment. More fundamentally, however, it is questionable how such an interest could be effectively protected through regulation in the first place. Unlike financial conditions or more concrete aspects of a player’s welfare, the longevity and long-term development of a career are difficult to define, measure, and assess ex ante, making them inherently difficult to translate into precise regulatory standards. This raises the question of whether additional safeguards concerning workload, physical development, recovery, and psychological well-being should be imposed at the regulatory level by FIFA, or whether these matters should primarily be left to individual clubs and their existing duty of care towards players.

One of the most straightforward approaches would be for FIFA to increasingly establish

minimum protections concerning the workload of young players, such as limits on match exposure, minimum recovery periods, and restrictions on cumulative playing time. The aim would not be to guarantee career longevity, but to reduce avoidable risks to the long-term development and sustainability of a player’s career. However, the scope of such FIFA-level regulation would necessarily be limited by FIFA’s jurisdiction. In particular, given the general prohibition on the international transfer of minors under Article 19 RSTP and its limited exceptions, such safeguards would primarily apply in those exceptional circumstances in which an international transfer is permitted. FIFA could broaden the scope of application, but arguably comparable protections would be needed at the national level for players who remain within domestic football systems.

An alternative approach, which could apply to both domestic and international transfers, could be to encourage legal representatives to consider the player’s long-term career interests when advising on a transfer or employment contract. This could include assessing whether the proposed club provides appropriate conditions for sustainable development, including adequate rest, medical care, rehabilitation, training facilities, and protection against excessive workload. Such an approach would shift part of the responsibility for protecting these less tangible interests to a party directly involved in the contractual process and could apply irrespective of whether the player moves domestically or internationally. A significant limitation, however, is that such an approach would still depend to some extent on the minor’s ability to recognise and prioritise these long-term interests over the immediate benefits of a move. Given their age and limited experience, it may be unrealistic to expect minor players to fully appreciate the potential long-term consequences of such decisions, particularly where these may come at the expense of short-term sporting or financial opportunities. This may therefore provide a further argument for complementing individual representation with more centralised safeguards at both the national and international levels. At the same time, the highly individual nature of a player’s development, physical condition, workload, and career circumstances makes it difficult to translate these interests into general safeguards that would apply equally to all players. A one-size-fits-all approach may therefore be neither feasible nor desirable. This could instead support a hybrid approach, in which general regulatory safeguards establish minimum standards, while legal representatives could assist in assessing and protecting the individual player’s longer-term interests within those parameters.

Conclusion 

The new Article 18(2) RSTP represents an important first step towards aligning the interests of clubs and young players by allowing clubs to “protect their investments” while simultaneously safeguarding the financial interests of minors. Its success, however, particularly in terms of player retention, may ultimately depend on whether these financial safeguards are accompanied by meaningful protection of minors’ broader interests and well-being. Although the RSTP establishes general duties towards minors, lawyers and agents may play an important role in ensuring that appropriate protections for a minor’s overall well- being are also reflected in the specific contractual terms agreed with young players, particularly given the significance of these contracts for their development and future careers.

At the same time, a potential gap can be identified with regard to the legal protection of minors against excessive use by their clubs in the early stages of their careers, particularly where their performances contribute significantly to the club’s sporting and commercial objectives. Career longevity, however, is not a tangible interest that can easily be translated into precise regulatory standards. FIFA could nevertheless consider recognising career longevity as an objective worthy of protection, for example by linking the duty of care towards minors to their long-term development and career sustainability. Given the highly individual nature of these interests, however, such regulation may ultimately be limited to establishing a general standard rather than prescribing specific outcomes. Lawyers and agents representing minors could provide a further layer of protection by considering these interests when advising on contractual and sporting decisions. Yet, as they act on behalf of the minor, their ability to prioritise long-term career interests may also be limited where the minor places greater value on the immediate sporting or financial benefits of a particular opportunity.

A hybrid approach may therefore be the most appropriate. General regulatory safeguards could establish minimum standards for the protection of minors, while lawyers and agents could assist in applying these standards to the individual circumstances of each player. The practical effectiveness of such an approach could then be assessed over time, allowing future regulatory developments to incorporate lessons from its application in practice. Ultimately, the key issue concerning the increasing participation of minors in the football industry is therefore not whether clubs should be allowed to protect their investments, but what such protection should require in return.