Asser International Sports Law Blog

Our International Sports Law Diary
The Asser International Sports Law Centre is part of the T.M.C. Asser Instituut

The Nine FFP Settlement Agreements: UEFA did not go the full nine yards

The UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations have been implemented by UEFA since the season 2011/12 with the aim of encouraging responsible spending by clubs for the long-term benefit of football. However, the enforcement of the break-even requirement as defined in Articles 62 and 63 of the Regulations (arguably the most important rules of FFP) has only started this year. Furthermore, UEFA introduced recently amendments to the Procedural rules governing the Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) allowing settlement agreements to be made between the clubs and the CFCB.  

On Friday 16 May, UEFA finally published the nine separate settlement agreements between the respective clubs and the CFCB regarding the non-compliance with the Financial Fair Play (FFP) break-even requirements. More...

Dahmane v KRC Genk: Bosman 2.0 or Storm in a Teacup?

Mohamed Dahmane is a professional football player of French-Algerian origin, who has played for a variety of European clubs, including French club US Mauberge, Belgian club RAEC Mons and Turkish club Bucaspor. However, he will mostly be remembered as the player whose legal dispute with his former club (Belgian club KRC Genk) revived the debate on football players’ labour rights.  More...

Get Up, Stand Up at the Olympics. A review of the IOC's policy towards political statements by Athletes. By Frédérique Faut

The Olympic Games are a universal moment of celebration of sporting excellence. But, attention is also quickly drawn to their dark side, such as environmental issues, human rights breaches and poor living conditions of people living near the Olympic sites. In comparison, however, little commentary space is devoted to the views of athletes, the people making the Olympics. This article tries to remediate this, by focussing on Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter which prevents athletes from freely expressing their (political) thoughts.  More...

Final Report on the FIFA Governance Reform Project: The Past and Future of FIFA’s Good Governance Gap

Qatar’s successful bid to host the 2022 World Cup left many people thunderstruck: How can a country with a population of 2 million people and with absolutely no football tradition host the biggest football event in the world? Furthermore, how on earth can players and fans alike survive when the temperature is expected to exceed 50 °C during the month (June) the tournament is supposed to take place?

Other people were less surprised when FIFA’s President, Sepp Blatter, pulled the piece of paper with the word “Qatar” out of the envelope on 2 December 2010. This was just the latest move by a sporting body that was reinforcing a reputation of being over-conservative, corrupt, prone to conflict-of-interest and convinced of being above any Law, be it national or international.More...

Cocaine, Doping and the Court of Arbitration for sport - “I don’t like the drugs, but the drugs like me”. By Antoine Duval

Beginning of April 2014, the Colombian Olympic Swimmer Omar Pinzón was cleared by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) of an adverse finding of Cocaine detected in a urine sample in 2013. He got lucky. Indeed, in his case the incredible mismanagement and dilettante habits of Bogotá’s anti-doping laboratory saved him from a dire fate: the two-year ban many other athletes have had the bad luck to experience. More...

The French “betting right”: a legislative Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. By Ben Van Rompuy

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...



Five Years UEFA Club Licensing Benchmarking Report – A Report on the Reports. By Frédérique Faut, Giandonato Marino and Oskar van Maren

Last week, UEFA, presented its annual Club Licensing Benchmark Report, which analyses socio-economic trends in European club football. The report is relevant in regard to the FFP rules, as it has been hailed by UEFA as a vindication of the early (positive) impact of FFP. This blog post is a report on the report. We go back in time, analysing the last 5 UEFA Benchmarking Reports, to provide a dynamic account of the reports findings. Indeed, the 2012 Benchmarking Report, can be better grasped in this context and longer-lasting trends be identified.More...

The EU State aid and Sport Saga – Setting the scene

The last years has seen the European Commission being put under increasing pressure to enforce EU State aid law in sport. For example, numerous Parliamentary questions have been asked by Members of the European Parliament[1] regarding alleged State aid to sporting clubs.  In reply to this pressure, on 21 March 2012, the European Commission, together with UEFA, issued a statement. More...

FFP for Dummies. All you need to know about UEFA’s Financial Fair Play Regulations.

Football-wise, 2014 will not only be remembered for the World Cup in Brazil. This year will also determine the credibility of UEFA’s highly controversial Financial Fair Play (FFP) Regulations. The FFP debate will soon be reaching a climax, since up to 76 European football clubs are facing sanctions by the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB). More...

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" border="0" abp="620">


Source: UEFA’s eighth club licensing benchmarking report on European football, slide 107.


 Meanwhile the aggregate losses dropped by 81% from €1.7bn in 2011 to just over €300m in 2015.More...




International and European Sports Law – Monthly Report – January 2017. By Saverio Spera.

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

The Diarra ruling of the Tribunal of Charleroi

On 19 January 2017, the Hainaut Commercial Tribunal – Charleroi rendered its decision on the lawsuit filed by the football player Lassana Diarra against FIFA and the Belgian FA (URBSFA) for damages caused by not being able to exercise the status of a professional football player during the entire 2014/2015 season. The lawsuit is linked to the decision, rendered by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) on April 2015, to support Lokomotiv’s decision to terminate the player’s contract and to order Diarra to pay Lokomotiv the amount of EUR 10,500,000 for having breached his contract. According to the plaintiff, Diarra’s opportunity to be recruited by Sporting Charleroi was denied due to the club being potentially considered jointly liable for Diarra’s compensation pursuant to Article 17 (2) RSTP. The Belgian court held strongly that “when the contract is terminated by the club, the player must have the possibility to sign a new contract with a new employer, without restrictions to his free movement”. This case highlighted, once again, the need to read the RSTP in the light of EU law. Moreover, the decision is laying further ground for broader challenges to the RSTP on the basis of EU law (for a deeper insight into the Diarra ruling, see the recent blog written by our senior researcher Antoine Duval) More...


Introducing the new legal challenges of E-Sports. By N. Emre Bilginoglu

Editor’s Note: Emre Bilginoglu[1] is an attorney in Istanbul and the co-founder of the Turkish E-Sports Players Association, a non-profit based in Istanbul that aims to provide assistance to professional gamers and to work on the relevant laws affecting them. 


The world is witnessing the rise of a new sport that is growing at an incredible speed: E-Sports. We are only starting to understand its legal implications and challenges.

In recent years, E-Sports has managed to attract thousands of fans to arenas to see a group of people play a video game. These people are literally professional gamers (cyber athletes)[2] who make money by competing in tournaments. Not all video games have tournaments in which professional players compete against each other.

The most played games in E-Sports competitions are League of Legends (LoL), Defense of the Ancients 2 (DotA 2) and Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (CS:GO). LoL and DotA are both Multiplayer online battle arena (MOBA) games, a genre of strategy video games in which the player controls a single character in one of two teams. The goal of the game is to destroy the opponent’s main structure. CS:GO is a first-person shooter (FPS) game, a genre of video games where the player engages combat through a first-person perspective. The main objective in CS:GO is to eliminate the opposing team or to terrorize or counter-terrorize, planting bombs or rescuing hostages. Other games that have (popular) E-Sports competitions include Starcraft II (real time strategy), Hearthstone (collectible card video game), Call of Duty (FPS) and FIFA (football).

The gaming requires cooperation between team players, a high level of concentration, rapid reactions and some seriously fast clicking. E-Sports is a groovy term to describe organized competitive computer gaming. The E-Sports industry is exponentially growing, amounting to values expressed in billions of dollars. According to Newzoo, a website dedicated to the collection of E-Sports data, there are some 250 million occasional viewers of E-Sports with Asia-Pacific accounting for half of the total amount. The growth of the industry is indubitably supported by online streaming media platforms. This article aims to explain what E-Sports is and to give the readers an insight on the key legal questions raised by it. More...


Time for Transparency at the Court of Arbitration for Sport. By Saverio Spera

Editor’s Note: Saverio Spera is an Italian lawyer and LL.M. graduate in International Business Law from King’s College London. He is currently an intern at the ASSER International Sports Law Centre.


The time is ripe to take a closer look at the CAS and its transparency, as this is one of the ways to ensure its public accountability and its legitimacy. From 1986 to 2013, the number of arbitrations submitted to the CAS has grown from 2 to more than 400 a year. More specifically, the number of appeals submitted almost doubled in less than ten years (from 175 in 2006, to 349 in 2013[1]). Therefore, the Court can be considered the judicial apex of an emerging transnational sports law (or lex sportiva).[2] In turn, the increased authority and power of this institution calls for increased transparency, in order to ensure its legitimacy.[3]

More...


UEFA’s betting fraud detection system: How does the CAS regard this monitoring tool? By Emilio García.

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...


International and European Sports Law – Monthly Report – November and December 2016. By Saverio Spera.

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

The Russian State Doping Scandal and the crisis of the World Anti-Doping System

Russian doping and the state of the Anti-Doping System has been the dominant international sports law story in November and December. This is mainly due to the release of the second report of the McLaren’s investigation on 9 December 2016. The outcome of McLaren’s work showed a “well-oiled systemic cheating scheme” that reached to the highest level of Russian sports and government, involving the striking figure of 30 sports and more than 1000 athletes in doping practices over four years and two Olympic Games. The report detailed tampering with samples to swap out athletes’ dirty urine with clean urine.More...


FIFA’s provision on the protection of minors - Part 3: The compatibility of Article 19 with EU law. By Kester Mekenkamp.

Editor’s note: Kester Mekenkamp is an LL.M. student in European Law at Leiden University and an intern at the ASSER International Sports Law Centre. This blog is, to a great extent, an excerpt of his forthcoming thesis, which he shall submit in order to complete his master’s degree.

This final blog aims to provide some broader perspective, by sketching first the grander scheme in which Article 19 RSTP – FIFA's provision on the protection of minors – operates. Thereafter, the focus will shift towards testing Article 19 RSTP, thereby keeping in mind the previous blogs (Part 1: The Early Years and Part 2: The 2009 reform and its aftermath), against EU free movement law.  


Putting Article 19 RSTP into perspective: The bigger picture

After having investigated the nuts and bolts of FIFA’s provision on the protection of minors in the first two parts of this blog, it might be useful to address its bigger picture.

Article 19 RSTP and its accompanying provisions regulate only a small share of the targeted activity. There is, unfortunately, also an illegal world. Circumvention of the prohibition is allegedly commonplace.[1] Visas and passports can be falsified.[2] Work permits can be obtained on the basis of jobs arranged by clubs.[3] More...


FIFA’s provision on the protection of minors - Part 2: The 2009 reform and its aftermath. By Kester Mekenkamp.

Editor’s note: Kester Mekenkamp is an LL.M. student in European Law at Leiden University and an intern at the ASSER International Sports Law Centre. This blog is, to a great extent, an excerpt of his forthcoming thesis, which he shall submit in order to complete his master’s degree.


This is the second part of a three-piece blog on FIFA’s provision on the protection of minors, Article 19 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. The contribution in its entirety aims to provide an encompassing overview of the rule’s lifespan since its inception in 2001. The previous (first) part has shed light on the “birth” and “first years” of the provision, and as such illustrated the relevant developments from 2001 till 2009. This second part covers the rule’s “adolescent years”, which span from 2009 to the present. The major changes put forward in the 2009, 2015 and 2016 versions of the RSTP will be addressed. Thereafter the important CAS decisions concerning Article 19, Muhic, Vada I and II, FC Barcelona, RFEF, and the FIFA decisions relating to Real Madrid and Atlético Madrid, will be scrutinized. The third, and final, part will constitute a substantive assessment of the provision under EU Internal Market law.

Given that the version adopted in 2008 left Article 19 untouched, the 2009 RSTP represented the next significant step in the regulation of the protection of minors. It had become clear that the system as used up to that point was inadequate to achieve its goal,[1] most notably because several national associations still neglected to strictly apply the rules.[2] More...