The juridification of European football has been inextricably linked to financial developments in the sport. EU law has affected player mobility, the sale, purchase and transmission of broadcasting rights, the organization of football and ticketing arrangements. This article argues that the debate over the direction of EU sports regulation has taken place in the context of competition between two rival advocacy coalitions. Whilst the regulators define sport (particularly football) as an economic activity, the protectionists have sought to protect sport from EU law by stressing the social and cultural foundations of the sector. These actors have strategically exploited institutional venues in the EU in order to steer sports policy in a direction consistent with their belief system. This venue shopping has contributed to the establishment of a new approach for dealing with sports related cases in the EU. The new approach involves reconciling the economic and socio-cultural aspects of sport within the EU's legal framework. However, will this new approach satisfy the objectives of both advocacy coalitions and if not, what further venues may policy advocates seek to exploit? By applying the methodology contained in the actor-institutions framework, it becomes clear that the development of sports regulation is only likely to diverge incrementally from the principles contained in the new approach.