Editor's note: Rasoul Rahmani is a PhD Candidate at the Faculty of Law, University of Turku, Finland. His doctoral research examines sports governance and human rights, with a focus on how EU law, particularly recent CJEU rulings, is reshaping the autonomy of sports governing bodies and the institutional implications of these developments.

The Ban and Its Expansion

On 4 June 2025, President Donald Trump imposed sweeping entry restrictions on nationals from 12 countries: Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. The proclamation made clear that “these restrictions distinguish between, but apply to both, the entry of immigrants and non-immigrants”; including those traveling on visitor visas for business and tourism, precisely the category under which World Cup fans would enter the United States.

The President invoked his Executive Order of 20 January 2025, which declared it “the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes.”[1] Alongside these complete bans, he imposed partial restrictions on seven additional countries: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela.

The restrictions expanded drastically on 16 December 2025. Five more nations joined the fully banned list; Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, South Sudan, and Syria along with individuals holding Palestinian Authority-issued travel documents. Laos and Sierra Leone were upgraded from partial to full bans. Most significantly, 15 countries were added to the partial restriction category: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominica, Gabon, The Gambia, Malawi, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Tonga, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

By December 2025, the travel restrictions encompassed 39 countries plus Palestinian Authority passport holders; a staggering expansion of barriers to entry for what is supposed to be a celebration of global unity. 

One Billion People Locked Out

The scale of exclusion is breathtaking. According to the latest population data, the fully banned countries represent 479.3 million people. The partially restricted nations account for another 537.6 million. Combined, over 1.017 billion people, more than one-eighth of the world’s population, face barriers to entering the World Cup’s primary host nation.

This mass exclusion stands in jarring contradiction to FIFA President Gianni Infantino’s repeated promises that 2026 would be “the greatest and most inclusive FIFA World Cup in history”; a World Cup  which is projected to have 6.5 million attendees in the host countries. The tournament expanded from 32 to 48 teams precisely to embrace more of the world. Yet as the field grew more diverse, the host country’s doors slammed shut.

Of the 42 nations already qualified for World Cup 2026, four face direct impact  from Trump’s restrictions. Iran and Haiti, home to 104.1 million people combined, are under full entry bans. Côte d'Ivoire and Senegal, representing 47.9 million people, face partial restrictions. Among the nations competing for the remaining six spots, Iraq (full ban) and DR Congo (partial restriction) could also qualify, potentially raising the total to six affected teams.

The geographic reality compounds the problem. Of the tournament’s 104 matches, the United States will host 78, while Mexico and Canada together host only 26. For fans from banned or restricted countries, only the handful of matches in Toronto, Vancouver, Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Monterrey remain accessible. The vast majority of the World Cup, including likely knockout rounds in American cities, will be beyond their reach.

The ban carves out exemptions for athletes, coaches, and support staff  competing in “major” events like the World Cup and the 2028 Olympics. But fans, athletes’ families, and journalists receive no such consideration. Iranian supporters, who brought 20,000 passionate voices to Qatar 2022, now face a dream deferred. Haiti’s vibrant fan base, a joyful presence at the 2023 Women’s World Cup, finds itself similarly sidelined. The policy creates a two-tier system: the teams can play, but their people cannot watch.

FIFA’s Hollow Response

In a carefully choreographed White House meeting attended by President Donald Trump and FIFA President Gianni Infantino, the U.S. Department of State unveiled the FIFA Priority Appointment Scheduling System, dubbed "FIFA PASS", for World Cup 2026 ticket holders attending matches in the United States. The service promises every fan who purchases a ticket the opportunity to obtain a prioritized visa interview.

Yet this solution is nothing more than window dressing. While expedited interviews may help fans from unrestricted countries navigate bureaucracy more smoothly, it remains fundamentally unclear, and deliberately unaddressed, how the system would function for passport holders from the 39 banned or restricted nations. A faster path to rejection is no path at all.

Contrast FIFA’s tepid response with the International Olympic Committee’s principled stand when faced with a comparable situation (not identical). When Indonesia denied visas to Israeli athletes and officials for the 53rd FIG Artistic Gymnastics World Championships in October 2025, the IOC responded with immediate, forceful condemnation. The organization expressed “great concern” and “regret,” emphasizing that “all eligible athletes, teams and sports officials must be able to participate in international sports competitions and events without any form of discrimination from the host country, in accordance with the Olympic Charter and the fundamental principles of non-discrimination, autonomy and political neutrality.”[2] The message was unambiguous: violate the principles of inclusive access for athletes and support staff, and you forfeit the privilege of hosting.

The comparison to Indonesia is instructive not because the violations are identical-they are not- but because both cases involve host nations imposing discriminatory entry barriers that undermine the inclusive, global nature of international sporting competitions. Indonesia’s complete ban on Israeli participants was more severe in scope; America’s ban affects fans and journalists rather than athletes. Yet both violate the same fundamental principle: that major sporting events should be accessible to all eligible participants and their supporters without discrimination based on nationality.

The IOC treated Indonesia’s violation as a serious breach of Olympic principles requiring immediate consequences. FIFA, by contrast, has treated the U.S. ban as a non-issue warranting no public comment, let alone corrective action. The different responses reveal not different principles, but different calculations about which hosts can be challenged and which cannot.

A Friendship More Valuable Than Principles

FIFA’s paralysis becomes comprehensible when viewed through the lens of Gianni Infantino’s relationship with Donald Trump. Since assuming the FIFA presidency in February 2016, Infantino has cultivated an unusually close bond with the American leader. He has been a frequent White House visitor throughout Trump’s presidencies, their meetings marked by mutual praise and conspicuous displays of camaraderie.

Independent human rights organizations have repeatedly accused Infantino of violating FIFA’s duty of political neutrality. The most egregious example came in December 2025, when FIFA awarded its inaugural Peace Prize to Trump, a sitting political leader presiding over the very policies that exclude a billion people from accessing the World Cup. According to media reports, the FIFA Council was not even consulted on this decision, suggesting it was Infantino’s personal initiative.

Human Rights Watch captured the absurdity with biting clarity: “FIFA’s so-called peace prize is being awarded against a backdrop of violent detentions of immigrants, national guard deployments in U.S. cities, and the obsequious cancellation of FIFA’s own.” anti-racism and anti-discrimination campaigns

That last point deserves emphasis. At the Club World Cup held in the United States in summer 2025, FIFA conspicuously dropped its anti-racism messaging, the very campaigns it had championed at Qatar 2022, where it backed “no discrimination” armbands and introduced enhanced disciplinary codes “to fight racism more efficiently and decisively.” The sudden abandonment of these principles on American soil suggests a troubling calculation: FIFA’s values are negotiable depending on the host’s political sensitivities.

Most damning of all, this close relationship has produced no tangible benefits for the fans Trump’s policies exclude. Both Iran and Haiti, the two fully banned qualified teams, will play all their group stage matches in U.S. cities, not in Canada or Mexico. If Infantino’s friendship with Trump held any real value for the sport, surely it would manifest in exemptions for fans whose teams earned their place on the pitch. Instead, the friendship appears entirely one-directional: FIFA accommodates Trump’s preferences while receiving nothing in return for football’s global community.

The uncomfortable truth is that Infantino seems unwilling to risk his personal relationship with Trump by publicly criticizing policies that fundamentally contradict FIFA’s stated mission. In this calculation, diplomatic access to the White House trumps the organization’s commitment to inclusion, non-discrimination, and the unifying power of football.

Violating FIFA’s Own Statutes

The travel ban does not merely contradict FIFA’s rhetoric; it directly violates the organization’s foundational legal documents. Article 3 of the FIFA Statutes declares: “FIFA is committed to respecting all internationally recognised human rights and shall strive to promote the protection of these rights.” The commitment is absolute, not conditional on political convenience.

Article 4 goes further, stating that “discrimination of any kind against a country, private person or group of people on account of race, skin colour, language, religion, politics, national or social origin, property, birth or any other status is strictly prohibited and punishable by suspension or expulsion.” As pointed out by the HRW, the language could hardly be clearer: discrimination based on national origin is not just discouraged, it is grounds for the most severe penalties FIFA can impose.

Article 2a and 2g establishes FIFA’s fundamental objectives, including promoting football “in the light of its unifying, educational, cultural and humanitarian values” and preventing “all methods or practices which might jeopardise the integrity of matches, competitions, players, officials and member associations”.[3] A World Cup where qualified teams’ players’ families, supporters, and journalists cannot attend matches, as they are not included in U.S. entry exemptions, fundamentally jeopardizes the competition’s integrity in several interconnected ways. Firstly, the absence of supporters and families strips matches of their cultural and emotional meaning, turning them into hollow simulations rather than genuine contests between nations. Secondly, banning some fans while allowing others creates unfair competitive imbalances unrelated to sporting merit. Thirdly, excluding journalists from affected countries undermines transparent coverage. Finally, excluding vast populations from attending erodes the tournament’s moral and symbolic legitimacy.

FIFA’s Human Rights Policy and the FIFA World Cup 2026 Human Rights Framework reinforce these commitments. The Framework explicitly commits all host cities to stage the tournament “guided by the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” and in line with FIFA’s Human Rights Policy. As mentioned by the Human Rights Watch letter to FIFA, the current United States immigration policies “directly contradict FIFA’s stated values of human rights, inclusion and global participation.”

FIFA itself has stated that “its position on inclusivity and the protection of human rights is unequivocal, and clearly laid out in the FIFA Statutes.” The organization has historically enforced these standards on host nations. During the World Cup 2022, Qatar was subjected to sustained scrutiny and pressure[4] and FIFA ensured the host became fully aware of its responsibility to adhere “to FIFA’s human rights and non-discrimination, equality and neutrality statutes, and committed to do so.” Yet for the United States, a far larger market and a more powerful political entity, FIFA has issued no such reminders, made no such demands, extracted no such commitments.[5] The double standard is glaring. 

The Hypocrisy of Selective Enforcement

FIFA presents itself as a neutral guardian of football’s “fundamental principles,” committed to human rights, unity, and the integrity of the game. Yet its recent decisions reveal a far less principled reality. From the intense moral scrutiny imposed on smaller or geopolitically weaker host nations to the striking restraint shown toward powerful Western states, FIFA’s enforcement of its own standards appears deeply selective. This pattern raises a troubling question: are FIFA’s rules applied universally, or are they calibrated according to political influence, economic power, and market value?

FIFA presents itself as a neutral guardian of football’s “fundamental principles,” committed to human rights, unity, and the integrity of the game. Yet its recent decisions reveal a far less principled reality: a pattern of enforcement that scholars have characterized as operating through “modern human rights frameworks [that are] (largely) Western-led and controlled.”[6] From the intense moral scrutiny imposed on smaller or geopolitically weaker host nations to the striking restraint shown toward powerful Western states, FIFA’s application of its own standards appears calibrated according to political influence rather than universal principles. The contrast between FIFA’s treatment of Qatar 2022 and the United States 2026 exemplifies this troubling inconsistency.

After awarding FIFA World Cup 2022 to Qatar, the Gulf state faced unprecedented international scrutiny. Human rights organizations, media outlets, and civil society groups subjected Qatar to relentless and enormous pressure, focusing on migrant labour conditions, with critics characterizing the kafala system as amounting to forced labour and accusing Qatar of being a slave state,[7] as well as LGBTQ+ rights and restrictions on alcohol consumption. While FIFA initially awarded Qatar the tournament in 2010 without imposing human rights conditions, years of sustained external pressure from the International Labour Organization, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and other actors eventually prompted reforms. Qatar became the first Gulf nation to abolish the kafala system, introduce minimum wages, and permit limited trade union activity.[8]

However, such level of moral examination rarely applied to Western hosts. Much of this criticism was justified, but where is the equivalent systematic pressure on the United States, a nation with its own well-documented issues regarding migrant treatment, labour rights, and systemic discrimination, and recent immigration policies that exclude a billion people from accessing the tournament?

The answer is uncomfortable but obvious: the U.S. market is too valuable to jeopardize. American broadcasting rights, sponsorship revenues, and political influence make confrontation unthinkable for FIFA’s leadership. 

This selectivity extends beyond host nation oversight. When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, FIFA condemnedthe use of force by Russia and any type of violence that same day. Four days later, on 28 February 2022, FIFA and UEFA jointly suspended Russian teams from all competitions. Notably, FIFA framed its justification narrowly, citing force majeure and competition integrity[9] rather than human rights violations or illegal war. The response demonstrated that FIFA possesses the will and the mechanisms to act decisively when a geopolitical crisis threatens football’s integrity and continuity.

No similar urgency has materialized regarding U.S. entry restrictions that exclude fans from qualified and non-qualified teams, despite the direct contradiction with FIFA’s statutory commitments. The inconsistency suggests that FIFA’s enforcement of its principles depends less on their violation than on the violator’s geopolitical influence.

When European football associations and UN experts called for action against Israel over its conduct in Gaza and treatment of Palestinian football, FIFA appealed to vague notions of “unity” and avoided substantive measures: “FIFA cannot solve geopolitical problems.”  In September 2025, the Trump administration, through its Secretary of State intervened directly to prevent Israel’s suspension, with a spokesperson declaring: We will absolutely work “to fully stop any effort to attempt to ban Israel’s national soccer team from the World Cup.”

The message is unmistakable: FIFA’s “fundamental principles” are enforced selectively, calibrated to the political power and market value of the nations involved. Russia can be excluded swiftly; the United States cannot be challenged at all. Smaller nations face stringent human rights requirements; powerful Western states receive diplomatic silence even when their policies directly contradict FIFA’s own statutes.

This pattern raises a fundamental question: is FIFA an independent governing body committed to universal principles, or does it operate within, and defer to, the framework of Western political and economic power? The answer increasingly appears to be the latter.

A Call to Action

This situation demands a response; from FIFA, from fans, and from the global football community. But these responses must take different forms, leveraging different sources of power and accountability. 

• FIFA’s Institutional Obligations

FIFA must break its silence. The Statutes are not suggestions; they are binding commitments with enforcement mechanisms. FIFA must publicly demand that the United States provide exemptions for World Cup fans especially from all qualified nations, regardless of broader immigration policies. This is defending the integrity of FIFA’s own tournament and honouring commitments made when awarding hosting rights.

The goal is not perfect equality of access; economic disparities will always mean that wealthier fans travel more easily than those with fewer resources. What FIFA must ensure is equality in principle: that fans holding legitimate tickets face no discriminatory barriers based solely on their nationality.

If the United States refuses to provide such exemptions, FIFA must be prepared to impose consequences. At least FIFA could relocate affected teams’ matches to Canadian or Mexican venues, ensuring their supporters can attend. It could reduce the number of matches hosted by U.S. cities that fail to guarantee fan access. At minimum, it must publicly document the violation of hosting commitments and ensure this factors into future hosting decisions.

FIFA must also address a fundamental question for its governance framework: Should nations be awarded hosting rights if their immigration policies preclude the inclusive, non-discriminatory access that FIFA’s own statutes require? The organization needs clear, enforceable criteria that apply equally to all candidates, regardless of their geopolitical power or market value. The current situation demonstrates the dangers of awarding tournaments without such safeguards.

National federations, particularly those from affected countries, should formally petition FIFA to address this access crisis through official channels. Player unions can lend their institutional weight to these demands. Media coverage must continue highlighting the contradiction between FIFA’s rhetoric and its complicity through silence. These institutional pressures, channelled through formal FIFA structures, represent the proper mechanisms for holding the organization accountable to its own rules.

• Beyond Institutions: A Fan-Led Protest

Yet even as we demand that FIFA fulfil its obligations, we cannot wait passively for institutional action that may never come. Fans themselves possess a powerful tool: visibility.

When Iran, Haiti, Côte d'Ivoire, or Senegal takes the field in American stadiums, supporters of their opponents, and also neutrals who cherish football’s unifying spirit, should leave sections of seats conspicuously empty in solidarity. These vacant seats, broadcast to millions worldwide, would create an undeniable visual reminder of who is missing and why.

This is not a call for general boycott of the tournament, which would harm the very teams whose fans are excluded. Rather, it is a targeted, symbolic action: empty sections during specific matches as visible protest. Supporters’ groups could coordinate which sections to leave vacant, creating clear visual patterns that television cameras cannot ignore. Social media campaigns could explain the protest to global audiences, connecting the empty seats directly to the billion people locked out. It would demonstrate that football’s community rejects discrimination even when football’s governors tolerate it.

• The Soul of the Game

The beautiful game has always transcended borders and brought together people whom politics seeks to divide. That is its soul, its magic, its moral authority.[10] By allowing Trump’s travel ban to stand unchallenged, FIFA acts in direct contradiction to the values it claims to uphold.

The question is whether those who truly love the game, players, fans, federations, will accept this silence, or whether they will demand that FIFA honour its own principles through every avenue available: formal institutional pressure and visible, grassroots action.

FIFA must use its leverage to ensure equal access in principle. Fans, in turn, must use both their presence and their strategic absence to demand accountability when FIFA fails to act.

The world is watching. The seats are waiting. What will we choose?

[1] Executive Order 14161 “Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats”, 20 January 2025. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-united-states-from-foreign-terrorists-and-othernational-security-and-public-safety-threats/

[2] More importantly, IOC backed its words with action. Its Executive Board ended all dialogue with Indonesia’s National Olympic Committee regarding hosting future events and recommended that International Federations avoid holding competitions or meetings in the country until adequate guarantees were provided.

[3] FIFA Statutes (Edition August 2024), Articles 2a and 2g.

[4] “The many critiques of Qatar were mobilizing a range of rights-claims based in international treaties or conventions… . Simultaneously, similar claims were being advanced against FIFA for failing to abide by its responsibility to respect human rights. Ultimately, this advocacy and public pressure triggered legislative and policy changes in Qatar and at FIFA.” Antoine Duval & Daniela Heerdt, How the FIFA World Cup 2022 Changed Qatar: Playing the Game of Transnational Law on a Global Pitch, 24 German Law Journal 1677 (2023).

[5] “This contrast underscores how FIFA’s claim to neutrality in human rights matters is not a principled stance but a strategically deployed position that aligns with its broader governance model. When financial interests are involved, FIFA does not hesitate to intervene, demonstrating that it possesses the capacity and institutional mechanisms to enforce binding regulations when deemed necessary. Yet, when it comes to human rights, FIFA’s commitments often remain aspirational, non-binding, or selectively enforced.” Pedro José Jaén, Angeliki Bistaraki & Mathias Schubert, The Universal Game? Deconstructing FIFA’s Human Rights Discourse, The International Sports Law Journal (2025).

[6] Shubham Jain, Resistance and Reform as Responses to Human Rights Criticism: Relativism at FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022, 24 Ger. Law J. 1691, 1701 (2023).

[7] “Qatar’s migrant workers were literally put on the world’s agenda overnight. The number of publications mentioning Qatar and“migrant workers” issued by the four organizations shows, first, that Qatar’s migrant workers were of very marginal interest to them before 2010 and, second, that their reporting or advocacy on the issue picked up quickly after the attribution of the FIFA World Cup 2022.” Antoine Duval, Spectacular International Labor Law: Ambush Counter-Marketing In the Spotlight of Qatar’s 2022 FIFA World Cup, 24 German Law Journal 1712 (2023). 

[8] Jain, supra note 6 at 1696.

[9] The bureau pointed out that the participation of the Russian teams in these competitions posed potential disruptions due to the refusals of other national associations to play against them, security concerns, and overall uncertainty related to the conflict. See CAS 25 November 2022, 2022/A/8708 (Football Union of Russia v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association et al). 

*The legal justifications advanced by both FIFA and UEFA for the suspension of Russian teams “did not link the suspensions to the illegality of Russia’s war or the human rights violations committed by Russia’s armed forces.” A. Duval, FIFA and UEFA’s Reaction to Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: How the Neutrality of Sport Survived the War, 3 Voetbal- & Sportjuridische Zaken (2023).

[10] David Goldblatt, The Ball Is Round: A Global History of Football 21–22 (2006).

Join us on 14 December at 12:00 CET for an online discussion on FIFA and UEFA’s responsibility in responding to the incident that overshadowed Spains’ victory of the Women's World Cup, when Spanish national team player Jennifer Hermoso experienced a violation of her bodily integrity and physical autonomy due to a forced kiss given to her by Luis Rubiales, then the Spanish FA's president. 

During the 2023/2024 academic year, the Asser International Sports Law Centre dedicates special attention to the intersection between transnational sports law and governance and gender. This online discussion is the second in a series of (online and offline) events, which explore the way in which international sports governing bodies define the gender divide in international sports, police gender-based abuses, and secure gender-specific rights to athletes. You can watch the recording of our first virtual discussion on the Semenya judgment of the ECtHR on our Youtube Channel.  

Just minutes after the Spanish women's national team had won the FIFA Women's World Cup, Rubiales congratulated the players on the podium and grabbed Hermoso's head and kissed her on the lips. This act not only shocked the players and the audience but also caused immediate international uproar and calls for resignation. Rubiales first defended his act, claiming that Hermoso had agreed to it. However, her statements right after it happened, as well as her official statement published just a few days after the event forcefully denied the consensual nature of the kiss. Hermoso felt “vulnerable and a victim of aggression, an impulsive act, sexist, out of place and without any type of consent". Three months later, Rubiales has been suspended by FIFA for three years, resigned as president of the Spanish FA, and is facing criminal prosecution for the crimes of sexual assault and coercion in Spanish national courts. 

As extreme as this case sounds, it is not. In fact, it is a reflection of structural issues that exist in the world of women's football and women's sport more generally. Furthermore, this incident raises the question of the rights of the players subjected to such behaviour and the responsibility of sports governing bodies, and FIFA and UEFA in particular, insanctioning those who are engaging in such actions. How should SGBs respond to such incidents? What type of rules and procedures should they have in place? What are the measures that should be introduced to prevent similar actions in the future? What is the role of states (the Spanish state in the present instance) in investigating and prosecuting these cases?  

We look forward to discussing these issues (and many others) with our three speakers, who have followed the case closely: 

• Kat Craig, human rights lawyer, founder and CEO of Athlead, Senior Adviser to the Centre for Sport and Human Rights; 

• Alexandra Gómez Bruinewoud, is a Senior Legal Counsel at FIFPRO and a judge at the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber; 

• Borja Garcia is Reader in Sport Policy and Governance at School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences in Loughborough University

The online discussion will be introduced and moderated by Dr Antoine Duval and Dr Daniela Heerdt, and will include short presentations by the speakers and a Q&A with the audience. 

This is a free event, you can register for it HERE

Editor’s note: Daniela Heerdt is a PhD candidate at Tilburg Law School in the Netherlands. Her PhD research deals with the establishment of responsibility and accountability for adverse human rights impacts of mega-sporting events, with a focus on FIFA World Cups and Olympic Games. She recently published an article in the International Sports Law Journal that discusses to what extent the revised bidding and hosting regulations by FIFA, the IOC and UEFA strengthen access to remedy for mega-sporting events-related human rights violations.

The 21^st FIFA World Cup is currently underway. Billions of people around the world follow the matches with much enthusiasm and support. For the time being, it almost seems forgotten that in the final weeks leading up to the events, critical reports on human rights issues related to the event piled up. This blog explains why addressing these issues has to start well in advance of the first ball being kicked and cannot end when the final match has been played. More...

Editor’s note: Tomáš Grell comes from Slovakia and is currently an LL.M. student in Public International Law at Leiden University. He contributes also to the work of the ASSER International Sports Law Centre as a part-time intern.

This is a follow-up contribution to my previous blog on FIFA's responsibility for human rights abuses in Qatar published last week. Whereas the previous part has examined the lawsuit filed with the Commercial Court of the Canton of Zurich ('Court') jointly by the Dutch trade union FNV, the Bangladeshi Free Trade Union Congress, the Bangladesh Building and Wood Workers Federation and the Bangladeshi citizen Nadim Shariful Alam ('Plaintiffs') against FIFA, this second part will focus on the Court's ruling dated 3 January 2017 ('Ruling').[1]  More...

Editor’s note: Tomáš Grell comes from Slovakia and is currently an LL.M. student in Public International Law at Leiden University. He contributes also to the work of the ASSER International Sports Law Centre as a part-time intern.

On 2 December 2010, the FIFA Executive Committee elected Qatar as host of the 2022 FIFA World Cup ('World Cup'), thereby triggering a wave of controversies which underlined, for the most part, the country's modest size, lack of football history, local climate, disproportionate costs or corruption that accompanied the selection procedure. Furthermore, opponents of the decision to award the World Cup to the tiny oil-rich Gulf country also emphasized the country's negative human rights record.

More than six years later, on 3 January 2017, the Commercial Court of the Canton of Zurich ('Court') dismissed the lawsuit filed against FIFA[1] jointly by the Dutch trade union FNV, the Bangladeshi Free Trade Union Congress, the Bangladesh Building and Wood Workers Federation and the Bangladeshi citizen Nadim Shariful Alam ('Plaintiffs').[2] The Plaintiffs requested the Court to find FIFA responsible for alleged human rights violations of migrant workers in connection with the World Cup in Qatar. Had the Plaintiffs' claims been upheld by the Court, such decision would have had far-reaching consequences on the fate of thousands of migrants, mostly from India, Nepal and Bangladesh, who are currently working on the construction of sporting facilities and other infrastructure associated with organization of the World Cup. More...

Editor’s note: This report compiles all relevant news, events and materials on International and European Sports Law based on the daily coverage provided on our twitter feed @Sportslaw_asser. You are invited to complete this survey via the comments section below, feel free to add links to important cases, documents and articles we might have overlooked. 

Marine Montejo is a graduate from the College of Europe in Bruges and is currently an Intern at the ASSER International Sports Law Centre.

The Headlines

The Belgian Court of Appeal released its judgment this month regarding Doyen’s legal battle against the FIFA TPO ban. The Appeal Court confirmed the first instance decision and ruled out any provisional measures to block the ban’s implementation (for an in depth review, see our blog post). More importantly, the Court reaffirmed that Swiss based sport federations are liable in front of EU Members’ States courts when EU competition law is involved. That means the next important step for this legal battle is whether or not the European Commission is going to open a formal proceeding (Doyen already lodged a complaint) to assess the compatibility, and more importantly, the proportionality of the TPO ban with EU law. Only a preliminary ruling by the CJEU could hasten the decision if one of the European national courts, hearing a case brought by Doyen (France or Belgium), decided to refer a preliminary question.More...

Editor's note:

Gesa Kuebek holds an LLM and graduated from the University of Bologna, Gent and Hamburg as part of the Erasmus Mundus Master Programme in Law and Economics and now work as an intern for the Asser Instituut.

On Monday, 9 November, the German Football Association (DFB) announced in a Press Release the resignation of its head, Wolfgang Niersbach, over the 2006 World Cup Affair. In his statement, Niersbach argued that he had “no knowledge whatsoever” about any “payments flows” and is now being confronted with proceedings in which he was “never involved”. However, he is now forced to draw the “political consequences” from the situation. His resignation occurred against the backdrop of last week’s raid of the DFB’s Frankfurt headquarters and the private homes Niersbach, his predecessor Theo Zwanziger and long-standing DFB general secretary Horst R. Schmidt. The public prosecutor’s office investigates a particularly severe act of tax evasion linked to awarding the 2006 World Cup. The 2006 German “summer fairy-tale” came under pressure in mid-October 2015, after the German magazine “Der Spiegel” shocked Fußballdeutschland by claiming that it had seen concrete evidence proving that a €6.7 million loan, designated by the FIFA for a “cultural programme”, ended up on the account of Adidas CEO Robert-Louis Dreyfuß. The magazine further argued that the money was in fact a secret loan that was paid back to Dreyfuß. Allegedly, the loan was kept off the books intentionally in order to be used as bribes to win the 2006 World Cup bid. The public prosecutor now suspects the DFB of failing to register the payment in tax returns. German FA officials admit that the DFB made a “mistake” but deny all allegations of vote buying. However, the current investigations show that the issues at stakes remain far from clear, leaving many questions regarding the awarding of the 2006 World Cup unanswered.

The present blog post aims to shed a light on the matter by synthetizing what we do know about the 2006 World Cup Affair and by highlighting the legal grounds on which the German authorities investigate the tax evasion. More...

Editor’s note: Chuck Blazer declined our official interview request but thanks to some trusted sources (the FIFA indictment and Chuck’s testimony) we have reconstructed his likely answers. This is a fictional interview. Any resemblance with real facts is purely coincidental.

Mr Blazer, thank you for agreeing to this interview, especially considering the circumstances. How are you doing?

I am facing ten charges concerning, among others, conspiracy to corrupt and money laundering. But apart from that, I am doing great (laughs)!

It is good to know that you have not lost your spirit. And since you’ve been involved in football, or as you call it soccer, for years could you please first tell us what was your career at FIFA and its affiliates like?

Let me see… Starting from the 1990s I was employed by and associated with FIFA and one of its constituent confederations, namely the Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football (CONCACAF). At various times, I also served as a member of several FIFA standing committees, including the marketing and television committee. As CONCACAF’s general secretary, a position I proudly held for 21 years, I was responsible, among many other things, for negotiations concerning media and sponsorship rights. From 1997 to 2013 I also served at FIFA’s executive committee where I participated in the selection process of the host countries for the World Cup tournaments. Those years at the helm of world soccer were truly amazing years of travel and hard work mainly for the good of the beautiful game. I might add that I even managed to document some of my voyages on my blog. I initially called it “Travels with Chuck Blazer” but Vladimir (Putin) convinced me to change the name to “Travels with Chuck Blazer and his Friends”. You should check it out.

 More...

Luis Suarez did it again. The serial biter that he is couldn’t refrain its impulse to taste a bit of Chiellini’s shoulder (not really the freshest meat around though). Notwithstanding his amazing theatrical skills and escaping the sight of the referee, Suarez could not in the information age get away with this unnoticed. Seconds after the incident, the almighty “social networks” were already bruising with evidence, outrage and commentaries over Suarez’s misdeed. Since then, many lawyers have weighed in (here, here and here) on the potential legal consequences faced by Suarez. Yesterday FIFA’s disciplinary committee decided to sanction him with a 4 months ban from any football activity and a 9 International games ban. In turn, Suarez announced that he would challenge the decision[1], and plans on going to the Court of Arbitration for Sport if necessary[2]. Let’s be the advocates of the cannibal!More...

In 2009, Sepp Blatter expressed his concerns that half of the players participating in the 2014 FIFA World Cup would be Brazilians naturalized by other countries. The Official list of Players released a few weeks ago tends to prove him wrong[1]. However, some players have changed their eligibility in the past and will even be playing against their own country of origin[2]. This post aims at explaining the key legal aspects in changes of national affiliation and to discuss the regulations pertaining to the constitution of national sides in general[3]. More...

Editor's note: This report compiles all relevant news, events and materials on International and European Sports Law based on the daily coverage provided on our twitter feed @Sportslaw_asser. You are invited to complete this survey via the comments section below, feel free to add links to important cases, documents and articles we might have overlooked. 

The Headlines 

Anti-doping whereabouts requirements declared compatible with the athletes' right to privacy and family life

On 18 January 2018, the European Court of Human Rights rendered a judgment with important consequences for the world of sport in general and the anti-doping regime in particular. The Strasbourg-based court was called upon to decide whether the anti-doping whereabouts system – which requires that a limited number of top elite athletes provide their National Anti-Doping Organisation or International Federation with regular information about their location, including identifying for each day one specific 60-minute time slot where the athlete will be available for testing at a pre-determined location – is compatible with the athletes' right to private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and their freedom of movement pursuant to Article 2 Protocol No. 4 of the Convention. The case was brought by the French cyclist Jeannie Longo and five French athlete unions that had filed their application on behalf of 99 professional handball, football, rugby, and basketball players.

While acknowledging that the whereabouts requirements clash with the athletes' right to private and family life, the judges took the view that such a restriction is necessary in order to protect the health of athletes and ensure a level playing field in sports competitions. They held that ''the reduction or removal of the relevant obligations would lead to an increase in the dangers of doping for the health of sports professionals and of all those who practise sports, and would be at odds with the European and international consensus on the need for unannounced testing as part of doping control''. Accordingly, the judges found no violation of Article 8 of the Convention and, in a similar vein, ruled that Article 2 Protocol No. 4 of the Convention was not applicable to the case.

Football stakeholders preparing to crack down on agents' excessive fees

It has been a record-breaking January transfer window with Premier League clubs having spent an eye-watering £430 million on signing new acquisitions. These spiralling transfer fees enable football agents, nowadays also called intermediaries, to charge impressive sums for their services. However, this might soon no longer be the case as the main stakeholders in European football are preparing to take action. UEFA, FIFPro, the European Club Association and the European Professional Football Leagues acknowledge in their joint resolution that the 2015 FIFA Regulations on Working with Intermediaries failed to address serious concerns in relation to the activities of intermediaries/agents. They recognise in broad terms that a more effective regulatory framework is needed and call among other things for a reasonable and proportionate cap on fees for intermediaries/agents, enhanced transparency and accountability, or stronger provisions to protect minors.

The CAS award in Joseph Odartei Lamptey v. FIFA 

On 15 January 2018, FIFA published on its website an arbitral award delivered on 4 August 2017 by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in the dispute between the Ghanian football referee Joseph Odartei Lamptey and FIFA. The CAS sided with FIFA and dismissed the appeal filed by Mr Lamptey against an earlier decision of the FIFA Appeal Committee which (i) found him to have violated Article 69(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code as he unlawfully influenced the 2018 World Cup qualifying match between South Africa and Senegal that took place on 12 November 2016; (ii) as a consequence, banned him for life from taking part in any football-related activity; and (iii) ordered the match in question to be replayed. In reaching its conclusion, the CAS relied heavily on multiple reports of irregular betting activities that significantly deviated from usual market developments.  More...

Editor's note: Deeksha Malik is a final-year student at National Law Institute University, India. Her main interest areas are corporate law, arbitration, and sports law. She can be reached at dkshmalik726@gmail.com.

In 2015, while interrogating cricketer Sreesanth and others accused in the IPL match-fixing case, Justice Neena Bansal, sitting as Additional Sessions Judge, made the following observations as regards betting on cricket matches.

“Cricket as a game of skill requires hand-eye-coordination for throwing, catching and hitting. It requires microscopic levels of precision and mental alertness for batsmen to find gaps or for bowlers to produce variety of styles of deliveries’ (medium pace, fast, inswing, outswing, offspin, legspin, googly). The sport requires strategic masterminds that can select the most efficient fielding positions for piling pressure on the batsmen. Based on above description, cricket cannot be described anything, but as a game of skill.”

The debate on the issue of betting in sports has since resurfaced and gained the attention of sportspersons, media, sports bodies, policymakers, and the general public. In April 2017, the Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Dipak Misra and AM Khanwilkar agreed to hear a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking an order directing the government to come up with an appropriate framework for regulating betting in sports. The arguments put forth in the PIL present various dimensions. One of these pertains to economic considerations, a submission that regulated betting would be able to generate annual revenue of Rs. 12,000 crores by bringing the earnings therefrom within the tax net. As for policy considerations, it was submitted that a proper regulation in this area would enable the government to distinguish harmless betting from activities that impair the integrity of the game such as match-fixing. Further, betting on cricket matches largely depends on the skill of the concerned players, thereby distinguishing it from pure chance-based activities.

The issue of sports betting witnesses a divided opinion till this day. This is understandable, for both sides to the issue have equally pressing arguments. Aside from its regulation being a daunting task for authorities, sports betting is susceptible to corruption and other unscrupulous activities. At the same time, it is argued that it would be better for both the game and the economy if the same is legalised. More...

Editor’s Note: Oytun Azkanar holds an LLB degree from Anadolu University in Turkey and an LLM degree from the University of Melbourne. He is currently studying Sports Management at the Anadolu University.

Introduction

On 19 October 2017, the Turkish Professional Football Disciplinary Committee (Disciplinary Committee) rendered an extraordinary decision regarding the fixing of the game between Manisaspor and Şanlıurfaspor played on 14 May 2017. The case concerned an alleged match-fixing agreement between Elyasa Süme (former Gaziantepspor player), İsmail Haktan Odabaşı and Gökhan Sazdağı (Manisaspor players). The Disciplinary Committee acknowledged that the evidence relevant for proving the match-fixing allegations was obtained illegally and therefore inadmissible, and the remaining evidence was not sufficient to establish that the game was fixed. Before discussing the allegations, it is important to note that the decision is not only significant for Turkish football but is also crucial to the distinction between disciplinary and criminal proceedings in sports. More...

Editor’s note: Mario Vigna is a Senior Associate at Coccia De Angelis Vecchio & Associati in Rome, Italy. His main practice areas are sports law, commercial law, and IP law. He also has extensive experience in the Anti-doping field, serving as Deputy-Chief Prosecutor of the Italian NADO and as counsel in domestic and international sports proceedings. He is a frequent speaker at various conferences and workshops. He was not involved in either of the cases discussed below.

I.               Introduction 

Gambling in football is a popular and potentially lucrative activity. It also raises numerous issues. When faced with the issue of gambling, the European Court of Justice (now Court of Justice of the EU) determined that gambling was economic activity per se, notwithstanding gambling’s vulnerability to ethical issues, and thus could not be prohibited outright.[1] With the legality of gambling established, it was left to the proper legislative bodies (national legislatures, national and international federations, etc.) to regulate gambling in order to guard against fraud and corruption. Gambling was not going to disappear; the dangers inherent to gambling would require attention.  More...

Editor’s note: Emilio García (emilio.garcia@uefa.ch)  is a doctor in law and head of disciplinary and integrity at UEFA. Before joining UEFA, he was the Spanish Football Federation’s legal director (2004–12) and an arbitrator at the CAS (2012–13).In this blog, Emilio García provides a brief review of a recent case before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS): Klubi Sportiv Skënderbeu v UEFA (CAS 2016/A/4650)[1], in which he acted as main counsel for UEFA. 

Sport and match-fixing – A quick overview

Match-fixing is now legally defined as “an intentional arrangement, act or omission aimed at an improper alteration of the result or the course of a sports competition in order to remove all or part of the unpredictable nature of the aforementioned sports competition with a view to obtaining an undue advantage for oneself or for others”.[2] It has been said that there has always been match-fixing in sport.[3] From the ancient Olympic Games to the most important global sports competitions of today, manipulation of results has always been an all-too-frequent occurrence.

We have seen a number of very prominent instances of this kind of issue over the years. One of the most remarkable examples, which was even the subject of a film,[4] was the match-fixing episode during the 1919 World Series, where several players from the Chicago White Sox were found guilty of accepting bribes and deliberately losing matches against the Cincinnati Reds.[5]

The situation has changed considerably since then. In particular, the globalisation of the sports betting industry has had a massive impact, with recent studies estimating that between €200bn and €500bn is betted on sport every year.[6] Match-fixing does not just affect football either;[7] it is also affecting other sports, most notably tennis.[8] More...

Editor’s note: Our first innovation for the year 2016 will be a monthly report compiling relevant news, events and materials on International and European Sports Law based on the daily coverage provided on our twitter feed @Sportslaw_asser. You are invited to complete this survey via the comments section below, feel free to add links to important cases, documents and articles we might have overlooked. 

The Headlines

The world of professional sport has been making headlines for the wrong reasons in January. Football’s governing body FIFA is in such a complete governance and corruption mess that one wonders whether a new President (chosen on 26 February[1]) will solve anything. More recently, however, it is the turn of the athletics governing body, IAAF, to undergo “the walk of shame”. On 14 January the WADA Independent Commission released its second report into doping in international athletics. More...

Media reports and interested stakeholders often suggest that certain types of sports bets would significantly increase the risks of match fixing occurring. These concerns also surface in policy discussions at both the national and European level. Frequently calls are made to prohibit the supply of “risky” sports bets as a means to preserve the integrity of sports competitions.

Questions about the appropriateness of imposing such limitations on the regulated sports betting, however, still linger. The lack of access to systematic empirical evidence on betting-related match fixing has so far limited the capacity of academic research to make a proper risk assessment of certain types of sports bets. 

The ASSER International Sports Law Centre has conducted the first-ever study that assesses the integrity risks of certain sports bets on the basis of quantitative empirical evidence. 

We uniquely obtained access to key statistics from Sportradar’s Fraud Detection System (FDS). A five-year dataset of football matches worldwide, which the FDS identified as likely to have been targeted by match fixers, enabled us to observe patterns and correlations with certain types of sports bets. In addition, representative samples of football bets placed with sports betting operator Betfair were collected and analysed. 

The results presented in this report, which challenge several claims about the alleged risks generated by certain types of sports bets, hope to inform policy makers about the cost-effectiveness of imposing limits on the regulated sports betting offer.More...

With this blog post, we continue the blog series on Turkish match-fixing cases and our attempt to map the still unchartered waters of the CAS’s match-fixing jurisprudence.

The first blog post addressed two issues related to the substance of match-fixing disputes, namely the legal characterization of the match-fixing related measure of ineligibility under Article 2.08 of the UEL Regulations as administrative or disciplinary measure and the scope of application of Article 2.08. In addition, The Turkish cases have raised procedural and evidentiary issues that need to be dealt with in the framework of match-fixing disputes.

The CAS panels have drawn a clear line between substantial and procedural matters. In this light, the Eskişehirspor panel declared the nature of Article 2.08 UEL Regulations to be administrative and rejected the application of UEFA Disciplinary Regulations to the substance. Nonetheless, it upheld that disciplinary rules and standards still apply to the procedure. This conclusion, however, can be considered puzzling in that disciplinary rules apply to the procedural matters arising by a pure administrative measure. To this extent, and despite the bifurcation of different applicable rules into substantial and procedural matters, the credibility of the qualification of Article 2.08 as administrative seems to be undermined. And here a question arises: How can the application of rules of different nature to substantial and procedural matters in an identical match-fixing dispute be explained?More...

The editor’s note:

Two weeks ago we received the unpublished CAS award rendered in the Eskişehirspor case and decided to comment on it. In this post Thalia Diathesopoulou (Intern at the ASSER International Sports Law Centre) analyses the legal steps followed and interpretations adopted by CAS panels in this case and in a series of other Turkish match-fixing cases. The first part of the post will deal with the question of the legal nature of the ineligibility decision opposed by UEFA to clubs involved in one way or another into match-fixing and with the personal and material scope of UEFA’s rule on which this ineligibility is based. The second part is dedicated to the procedural rules applied in match-fixing cases.

Introduction

The unpredictability of the outcome is a sine qua non feature of sports. It is this inherent uncertainty that draws the line between sports and entertainment and triggers the interest of spectators, broadcasters and sponsors. Thus, match-fixing by jeopardising the integrity and unpredictability of sporting outcomes has been described, along with doping, as one of the major threats to modern sport.[1] More...

The European Commission has published the “Study on Sports Organisers’ Rights in the EU”, which was carried out by the ASSER International Sports Law Centre (T.M.C. Asser Institute) and the Institute for Information Law (University of Amsterdam). 

The study critically examines the legal protection of rights to sports events (sports organisers’ rights) and various issues regarding their commercial exploitation in the field of media and sports betting, both from a national and EU law perspective.  

In a number of posts, we will highlight some of the key findings of the study. 

“It was Hyde, after all, and Hyde alone, that was guilty.” 

In recent years, numerous national and European sports organisers have called for the adoption of a specific right to consent to the organisation of bets (“right to consent to bets”), by virtue of which no betting operator could offer bets on a sports event without first entering into a contractual agreement with the organiser. More...