FIFA wins VAR ownership lawsuit: Madrid court dismisses €300 million claim
The commercial section of Madrid's Court of First Instance No. 6 has dismissed the lawsuit filed by Francisco Antonio López Romera against FIFA and the Spanish Football Federation over the use of the VAR. The ruling, dated September 30, concludes that the system described in the claimant's registered work does not match the video assistant referee technology used in football.
ByNatilla5 min read
FIFA has won the legal battle over the ownership of the VAR. On September 30, the commercial section of Madrid's Court of First Instance No. 6 fully dismissed the lawsuit brought by Francisco Antonio López Romera against football's world governing body and the Royal Spanish Football Federation (RFEF), a case that included a €300 million claim for alleged infringement of intellectual property rights.
- The commercial court ruled in favor of FIFA and the RFEF on September 30.
- The lawsuit sought €300 million in compensation over the use of the video assistant referee system.
- The ruling states that the VAR in the claimant's registered work and FIFA's VAR are neither identical nor technically coincident systems.
- The claimant, Francisco Antonio López Romera, must pay the legal costs.
- An appeal before the Provincial Court is still possible within twenty days.
A registered work from 1999 and a multi-million euro claim
Francisco Antonio López Romera had built his case around the work 'El Fútbol del Siglo XXI – Tecnología de futuro para equipos arbitrales', registered in Spain's Intellectual Property Registry in 1999, with further registrations in 2016 and 2025. His argument held that this work described a technological system for referee assistance that became the seed for the video assistant referee later implemented in major competitions.
On that basis, he filed a lawsuit against FIFA and the RFEF, claiming that the rollout of the VAR infringed his rights as an author, and demanded €300 million in damages. The legal dispute dates back to the spring of 2024, when the Provincial Court of Madrid rejected the precautionary measures requested by the claimant without addressing the merits of the case.
Madrid Court of First Instance No. 6 rules on the VAR case
The ruling issued on September 30 finally settles the substance of the matter at first instance. The commercial section dismisses the lawsuit after concluding that the system described in the claimant's work does not coincide with the one FIFA has developed and deployed in professional football. The court relies on substantial differences between the two approaches to rule out any copying or misappropriation of the original idea.
The key difference: play does not stop in the claimant's system
One of the differences highlighted by the court concerns practical operation. In the system registered by the claimant, stopping play is not part of the protocol. The VAR used today, however, does involve interrupting the match so the main referee can go to the monitor to review a disputed incident. That element alone is enough to prove the two systems are not identical.
Structure, plans and design: why these are not equivalent models
The ruling goes beyond the functional comparison and enters technical territory. The court concludes that neither the overall structure, nor the plans, nor the design, nor the technical data and their layout, nor the scientific sources used, nor the technical means made available for video refereeing in the 1999 and 2016 registrations are coincident with those used, created and registered by co-defendant FIFA.
It can be concluded that neither the structure, nor the plans, nor the design, nor the technical data and their layout, the scientific sources used and the technical means made available for video refereeing in the claimant's 1999 and 2016 registrations are coincident with those used, created and registered by co-defendant FIFA.
Financial consequences: legal costs imposed on the claimant
The dismissal is total and carries an order for Francisco Antonio López Romera to pay the legal costs, ending any possibility of obtaining compensation through this route at first instance. The ruling strengthens FIFA's control over video assistant refereeing and its technical evolution in elite football.
The VAR ownership dispute is not over: appeal still possible
Although the ruling is a near-fatal blow to the claim, the claimant has twenty days to file submissions before the Provincial Court. If he decides to continue the legal battle, the higher court will have to rule on the Madrid court's interpretation of the intellectual property registrations and the technical differences between the two systems.
Frequently asked questions
What did the court decide in the VAR ownership lawsuit?
Madrid's Court of First Instance No. 6 fully dismissed the lawsuit against FIFA and the RFEF. It ruled that the claimant's video assistant referee system is not coincident with the one FIFA uses in competitions.
Why does the court say the claimant's VAR is not FIFA's VAR?
Because there are technical and design differences between the two systems. In the claimant's proposal, play does not stop, whereas the current VAR includes interrupting the match for the referee to review an incident on the monitor, along with differences in structure, plans and technical means.
Can the VAR case ruling be appealed?
Yes. The claimant still has a twenty-day window from notification to file submissions before the Provincial Court, which would be the next instance to rule on the merits of the case.