FIFA Code of Ethics practice questions

Five sample questions from the 2023 edition, with the answers and explanations shown. The quiz bank holds all 135 questions on this document.

These five questions show how the quiz bank tests the FIFA Code of Ethics. The quiz bank holds all 135 questions on this document, with scoring, timed papers and the exam simulator. Every article in this regulation is listed on the article index.

1. In March 2026, Hallvard Brekkestø, the Norwegian sporting director of Fjordvik IL, a Norwegian club, negotiates the signing of Rui Tavira, a Portuguese player licensed by the Portuguese association. Livia Orsenigo, an Italian football agent licensed by FIFA, acts for the player. Kwabena Oppong-Tetteh, a Ghanaian match agent licensed by FIFA, is arranging the club’s pre-season friendly abroad. A board member asks which of them the FIFA Code of Ethics binds, and in what capacity. Which of the following statements are correct?

  1. Rui is bound as an official, as the definition of official in the FIFA Code of Ethics covers every person obliged to comply with the FIFA Statutes.
  2. Hallvard is bound as an official, as the definition of official in the FIFA Code of Ethics covers any person responsible for technical or administrative matters in a club. (Article 2(1) and definition 2, study pack p. 121) Correct
  3. Livia is not bound by the FIFA Code of Ethics, as its definition of official excludes football agents and the Code reaches only officials and players.
  4. Livia and Kwabena are bound, as article 2(1) of the FIFA Code of Ethics names football agents and FIFA-licensed match agents alongside officials and players. (Article 2(1) and definition 2, study pack p. 121) Correct

Article 2(1) of the FIFA Code of Ethics applies the Code to all officials and players as well as match agents licensed by FIFA and football agents. The definition of official (Definitions, point 2) covers any person responsible for technical, medical or administrative matters in a club, which includes a sporting director, but it expressly excludes players, match agents licensed by FIFA and football agents. Rui is therefore bound as a player, not as an official. Livia is bound despite that exclusion, because article 2(1) names football agents separately, so the view that the Code reaches only officials and players is wrong. Livia and Kwabena are bound in their own right, not as officials.

2. In June 2019, Rodrigo Ybarrola, a Paraguayan member of a FIFA standing committee, used FIFA development funds entrusted to his association to pay for a private holiday. The investigatory chamber opened proceedings in 2025. In 2026, the adjudicatory chamber finds that the conduct contravened the edition of the Code of Ethics in force in 2019 as well as the 2023 Code. Which of the following statements are correct?

  1. The 2023 Code can be applied to Rodrigo’s conduct, as article 3 of the FIFA Code of Ethics applies the Code to conduct whenever it occurred, including before its enactment. (Article 3, study pack p. 121) Correct
  2. The chamber may impose any sanction the 2023 Code provides for misuse of funds, as article 3 of the FIFA Code of Ethics applies the Code in force on the day of the decision.
  3. The sanction cannot exceed the maximum available under the Code applicable in 2019, as article 3 of the FIFA Code of Ethics caps it at the then-applicable maximum. (Article 3, study pack p. 121) Correct
  4. Rodrigo cannot be sanctioned under the 2023 Code, as article 89 of the FIFA Code of Ethics brings it into force only for conduct after 1 February 2023.

Article 3 of the FIFA Code of Ethics applies the Code to conduct whenever it occurred, including before its enactment, so the 2023 Code reaches the 2019 conduct; the date of 1 February 2023 in article 89(2) is when the Code came into force, not a limit on the conduct it covers. Article 3 adds two conditions: the conduct must have contravened the Code applicable when it occurred, which the chamber found, and the sanction may not exceed the maximum available under that earlier Code. The chamber therefore cannot use the full range of the 2023 Code simply because it decides in 2026.

3. On 12 April 2026, Ansgar Kellerhoff, the German head coach of SV Lindenhain, a German club, pushes the fourth official during a league match and is sent off; the German association’s disciplinary rules specifically sanction that conduct. A week later, away from any match, he accepts EUR 5,000 in cash from a football agent to pick the agent’s client in the next fixture. A complaint about both incidents is filed under the FIFA Code of Ethics. Which of the following statements is correct?

  1. The Code applies to both incidents, as article 1(1) of the FIFA Code of Ethics covers any conduct of a coach that damages the integrity and reputation of football.
  2. The Code applies to neither incident, as article 1(1) of the FIFA Code of Ethics leaves all conduct connected to a match, including team selection, to other regulations.
  3. The Code applies to the cash taken off the pitch but not to the push, as article 1(1) of the FIFA Code of Ethics excludes field-of-play conduct specifically covered by other regulations. (Article 1(1), study pack p. 121) Correct
  4. The Code applies to the push but not to the payment, as article 1(1) of the FIFA Code of Ethics leaves payments between coaches and agents to national regulations.

Article 1(1) of the FIFA Code of Ethics applies the Code to any conduct that damages the integrity and reputation of football, other than conduct specifically provided for by other regulations and connected to the field of play. The push on the fourth official is field-of-play conduct that the association’s disciplinary rules specifically sanction, so it falls outside the Code, and damage to football’s reputation does not bring it back in. Accepting cash from an agent to influence team selection is off-pitch unethical conduct that the Code covers (articles 21(2) and 28). Team selection is not field-of-play conduct covered elsewhere, and no provision leaves agent payments to national rules.

4. Ilse Brakenhoff, a Dutch football agent, represents a winger whom Norrvik FF, a Swedish club, wants to sign. She repeatedly urges Tobias Lindåker, the club’s Swedish sporting director, to tell her the maximum salary his board approved in confidence for the player, and in March 2026 he does so. The investigatory chamber opens proceedings against both of them. Which of the following statements are correct?

  1. Ilse can be sanctioned, as article 6(2) of the FIFA Code of Ethics makes breaches sanctionable whether a party acted as principal, accomplice or instigator. (Articles 6(2) and 17(1), study pack pp. 124-127) Correct
  2. Tobias can also be sanctioned, as being persuaded does not relieve him of liability for breaching his duty of confidentiality under article 17 of the FIFA Code of Ethics. (Articles 6(2) and 17(1), study pack pp. 124-127) Correct
  3. Only Tobias can be sanctioned, as the duty in article 17 of the FIFA Code of Ethics binds only the person to whom the confidential information was entrusted.
  4. Ilse can be sanctioned only if she paid Tobias for the figure, as article 6(2) of the FIFA Code of Ethics treats unpaid persuasion as ordinary negotiation.

Article 6(2) of the FIFA Code of Ethics subjects breaches to the Code’s sanctions whether the parties acted as principal, accomplice or instigator. Tobias, as principal, breached article 17(1) by disclosing information his board gave him in confidence, and having been persuaded is no defence. Ilse, bound by the Code as a football agent under article 2(1), instigated that breach and is liable for it even though the duty of confidentiality was his, so the view that only Tobias can be sanctioned is wrong. Article 6(2) sets no condition that the instigator paid for the information or profited from it.

5. In May 2026, the adjudicatory chamber finds that Farouk Benslimane, an Algerian football agent, accepted prohibited gifts. It fines him CHF 20,000 and bans him from taking part in any football-related activity for 18 months. Before the decision, his lawyer had asked the chamber to suspend both the fine and the ban, with a probationary period of six months. Which of the following statements is correct?

  1. The chamber may suspend both the fine and the ban, as article 8(1) of the FIFA Code of Ethics lets any sanction listed in article 7(1) be suspended on request.
  2. The chamber may suspend the fine but not the ban, as article 8(1) of the FIFA Code of Ethics excludes bans on football-related activity from suspension.
  3. The chamber may suspend the ban with the six-month probation requested, as article 8(1) of the FIFA Code of Ethics leaves the length of probation to the chamber.
  4. The chamber may suspend the ban but not the fine, and any probationary period must last from one to five years under article 8(1) of the FIFA Code of Ethics. (Article 8(1), study pack p. 124) Correct

Article 8(1) of the FIFA Code of Ethics allows the adjudicatory chamber, on request from the party, to suspend only the sanction in article 7(1)(j), the ban on taking part in any football-related activity, with a probationary period of one to five years. The fine cannot be suspended, so the request can succeed only for the ban, and the rule is not the reverse. A six-month probation is below the one-year minimum, so the chamber could not grant the period requested even though it may suspend the ban.

Answers are taken from the official FIFA study materials. Where a question names an article, you can check it against FIFA's own text: the study materials page links every document.