Editor’s note: Guido graduated cum laude from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. He teaches law at the Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam. He specializes in sports law and provides legal advice for the professional sports sector.

Introduction

This blog is a commentary on a recent case that hit like a bombshell in the Netherlands (and beyond) during the recent Olympic Games in Rio. The case concerns a Dutch athlete, Yuri van Gelder, who reached the Olympic finals in his sport, got sent home by ‘his’ NOC (NOC*NSF) after a night out in Rio and launched legal proceedings in front of a Dutch court to claim back his place in the finals. This commentary will attempt to explain the Dutch ruling and evaluate whether a different legal route would have been possible and preferable.

Yuri van Gelder is a Dutch gymnast, who is specialized in the rings. He became internationally known as ‘The Lord of the Rings’ after winning the gold medal at the World Championship in Melbourne in November 2005. After some setbacks in his career, he was not able to qualify for the 2008 Beijing Olympics. In 2009, during the Dutch Championships he was tested positive on the use of cocaine. He admitted that he had a drug problem and had been using cocaine for some years. He was suspended for a year by the Dutch Gymnastics Federation (KNGU), excluded from the 2012 London Olympics under the regulations of the IOC and even lost his job in the military. After winning the gold medal at a World league game in Gent on his comeback in 2010, he was taken off the team for the World Championships by the KNGU, claiming that he had used cocaine again.

In October 2011 the CAS found the IOC-rule that excluded athletes, who had been suspended for six months or longer, from future Olympic Games to be invalid and unenforceable. Van Gelder was therefore allowed to participate at the 2012 London Olympics, but again was not able to qualify, after failing to meet the required score at the World Championship in Tokyo at the end of 2011. From that moment on, the athlete decided to fully focus on the 2016 Rio Olympics, for which he eventually qualified. Like all other Dutch athletes who qualified and had been selected for the 2016 Rio Olympics, Van Gelder had to sign a so called ‘Athlete Agreement’ with NOC*NSF, which encapsulates the period of preparation before as well as the duration of the Games. At 33 years of age, these Olympics were his last chance to finally win that Olympic medal he so anxiously craved for.

Sent home from the Olympics

On Saturday 6 August in Rio, Van Gelder qualified for the individual finals on the rings, which were to take place nine days later, on 15 August. That same Saturday night he left the Olympic village and came back somewhere around 5 am. On Sunday he stayed in bed until approximately 3 pm, thereby missing a scheduled training session with the team. On Monday 8 August, the NOC*NSF, after hearing Van Gelder, disqualified him from further participation in the Games. That same day, an NOC*NSF employee was sent with the athlete to escort him to the airport from where he was flown back to the Netherlands. The NOC*NSF then removed Van Gelder from the finals through the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG), which appointed a replacement. A short press release by NOC*NSF stated that, in consultation with the KNGU, Van Gelder was sent home after the Federation had informed the NOC that he had come back to the village early in the morning, in spite of the team rules. It further stated that the athlete had admitted to the use of alcohol. This fueled speculation in the media, considering Van Gelder’s past. However, there was also criticism regarding the NOC*NSF’s decision, as many felt that it was disproportionate to disqualify an athlete, who had worked so hard to reach the finals, for celebrating one night out with still more than a week to go to those finals.

Van Gelder, now back in the Netherlands, took a lawyer and decided to start proceedings in front of the Dutch interlocutory judge of the Court of Gelderland (the Van Gelder Case). The oral proceedings, broadcasted live on Dutch television, took place on Friday 12 August, three days before the Olympic finals.

The ruling of the interlocutory Judge of Gelderland

Van Gelder’s lawyer requested from the court to order NOC*NSF to do everything in its power to make sure Van Gelder could participate in the individual finals on the rings on 15 August, including starting proceedings before the CAS Ad Hoc Division in Rio, or that NOC*NSF assist Van Gelder in starting proceedings for the CAS Ad Hoc Division and grant him a fee in advance for the costs.[1]

The court had to determine on which grounds the decision(s) to disqualify Van Gelder from participating in the Games had been taken and whether the severity of the measure(s) was proportionate in relation to the noncompliance with the obligations laid down in the Athlete Agreement. In doing so, the interlocutory judge applies a ‘marginal test’, which means he will keep certain deference towards the challenged decision and will consider only whether the decision ‘could reasonably have been made’.

The Athlete Agreement states that the athlete is expected to make every effort to ensure that he is capable of the maximum athletic performance, in preparation for and during the Olympics, and thereto devotes himself to the ‘Program’ completely and with optimal athletic effort.[2] Furthermore, the athlete is expected to behave as a good member of ‘TeamNL Rio 2016’ both during competition and elsewhere, having in mind the rules of the IOC Code of Ethics but not only.[3] If the athlete is not complying with the obligations as laid down in the Agreement, the NOC*NSF can decide to exclude the athlete from participating in the Games and/or impose a loss of (the right to) a medal bonus.[4] Before taking such a decision the athlete always needs to be heard/questioned.[5]

The court held for a fact that Van Gelder was told by his trainer through ‘WhatsApp’ not to stay out too late, that he should not drink and that he had to train the next day with the team.[6] However, the court was not convinced of Van Gelder’s noncompliance with the ‘behavioral rules’ enshrined in article 6, paragraph 4 of the Athlete Agreement. The Athlete Agreement or the IOC Code of Ethics do not define or specify clearly what these ‘behavioral rules’ stand for, even though the measures the NOC can take can severely affect the athlete. The court considers that these kind of behavioral rules should be drafted more precisely and should be communicated more clearly to the athletes. Thus, merely leaving the Olympic village without permission, drinking, and coming back early in the morning cannot be seen as violating article 6, paragraph 4 of the Agreement with the NOC.[7]

However, the fact that Van Gelder was warned and still went out drinking, came home early in the morning and missed a scheduled training, is undoubtedly coming short of the obligation laid down in article 6, paragraph 3 of the Athlete Agreement. This behavior is contrary to his duty to commit to the training and competition schedule.[8] Furthermore, the court continued, the athlete’s behavior undermined the team’s efforts and, considering Van Gelder’s past, this has resulted in a breach of trust with his trainer and with the NOC*NSF. Although it is possible that, based on this behavior, another NOC would have taken a different decision than kicking the athlete out of the Olympics, the court considers this irrelevant as it only applies a marginal test.[9] In addition, Van Gelder was questioned and heard twice before the decision was made. The decision therefore cannot be considered to have been made in haste or without proper deliberation.[10] In the end, the court determined that the NOC*NSF could reasonably decide that Van Gelder has committed a serious breach of his contractual duties under the Athlete Agreement. The same applied to the decision to disqualify Van Gelder from further participation in the Games.

A different legal route: The CAS Ad Hoc Division in Rio

Could Van Gelder, instead of going to the Dutch court, have taken a different strategic approach in this case? In the author’s opinion this would have been possible, as the CAS has (since the 1996 Atlanta Olympics) set up an Ad Hoc Division with the purpose of providing for arbitration of disputes, insofar as they arise during the Games, within 24 hours.[11] In the case of a request for arbitration against a decision by an NOC, the claimant must, before filing such a request, have exhausted all the internal remedies available to him pursuant to the statutes or regulations of the sports body concerned, unless the time needed to exhaust the internal remedies would make the appeal to the CAS Ad Hoc Division ineffective.[12] In this case, the internal remedy can be found in the Athlete Agreement, which states that when a dispute arises between the parties during the Games concerning or related to the compliance of the Agreement, the concerned party informs the so-called ‘Chef de Mission’. If the Chef de Mission is incapable of resolving the dispute, it will be send to a committee of binding advisors.[13] This committee has jurisdiction in case of urgency and where the athlete and NOC*NSF both choose an advisor, both advisors in turn choose an independent chairman, after which the committee gives a binding decision to end the dispute.[14]

Why Van Gelder had not chosen to apply the internal dispute resolution procedure of article 22, paragraph 3 and 4 of the Athlete Agreement is not clear from the facts of the case. In that regard, the events of 8 August, when Van Gelder was questioned or heard, become (even more) important. The Dutch courts stated that Van Gelder was questioned twice by the NOC*NSF, but did not clarify what was discussed. The only sure thing is that directly after the decision by the NOC*NSF, Van Gelder was escorted to the airport and flew back to the Netherlands. Would he still have left the country if he had been informed that the Agreement provided for an internal procedure within NOC*NSF, aimed at resolving disputes during the Games, in which he had the right to appoint one of the binding advisors? If such a procedure would have taken place and Van Gelder would have lost, an appeal in front of CAS would still have been possible. Furthermore, would he have chosen to fly back, if he had been advised that the CAS Ad Hoc Division had jurisdiction in cases of urgency or if the NOC was unwilling or unable to trigger its internal procedure? Would he have made the same choices had he known that it would help his case before the CAS Ad Hoc Division if he had attended any hearing in person?

What is clear is that Van Gelder got legal representation when he was back in the Netherlands. At that point a flight back to Rio was rather costly for the athlete. An internal procedure with the NOC*NSF might have been impractical to carry out with eight days remaining to the final, but informing the NOC*NSF in writing that there was a dispute and requesting an internal procedure could have (regardless of the NOC’s reaction) helped to establish the jurisdiction of the CAS Ad Hoc Division if needed. This CAS Ad Hoc Division procedure could also have been started from the Netherlands.

Conclusion

The remaining unknown is whether the CAS Ad Hoc Division would have ruled in favor of Van Gelder and/or have granted him access to the finals. As the Dutch court stated, the Athlete Agreement is rather unclear with respect to the obligation of an athlete to act as a good team member. The CAS Ad Hoc Division might have taken this vagueness into consideration. Furthermore, the CAS Ad Hoc Division would not have applied the same level of deference as the Dutch court. It could have also taken into account the fact that the consequences of the decision of the NOC*NSF were very severe for the athlete, especially since this would be his last Games. Against all this, the fact would have remained that the behavior of the athlete did breach article 6, paragraph 3 of the Athlete Agreement and that a replacement for Van Gelder in the finals was already appointed. Yet, even if the CAS had invalidated the decision by the NOC without granting Van Gelder a place in the finals, he would have been in a good position to claim damages.

The conclusion that can be drawn from this episode is that Van Gelder could have followed a different legal route. This might have provided the athlete a better chance at winning his legal challenge and get back into the Olympics. The Dutch court has made it clear that it wants the ‘behavioral rules’ drafted by the NOC*NSF, or other sports bodies for that matter, to be more precise and better communicated to the athletes, especially when the measures at the disposal of the NOC can severely affect the rights of an athlete. Besides not drinking, going to bed on time, and never missing training a week before the most important finals of your life, there is another lesson to be learned from the case. As an athlete, when facing sanctions from a Federation, NOC or other SGBs, it is wise to get legal representation immediately. This might increase your chances of successfully challenging the decision and taking part in the Olympic Games or any other competition.

[1] Van Gelder Case, point 3.1.

[2] Article 6, paragraph 3, Athlete agreement. The Program is defined in the agreement as: The training and competition schedule for the Athlete, approved by the Federation after consultation with NOC*NSF, with the goal of qualifying for and participating in the Olympic Games.

[3] Article 6, paragraph 4, Athlete agreement. TeamNL Rio 2016 is defined in the agreement as: The group of both athletes and their trainers/coaches, that is participating in the Olympic Games (and with whom NOC*NSF has a written agreement for the Olympic Games Rio 2016) and that has asked for accreditation by OCOG through NOC*NSF.

[4] Article 20, paragraph 1, sub a and b, Athlete Agreement.

[5] Article 20, paragraph 2, Athlete Agreement.

[6] Van Gelder Case, point 4.3.

[7] Ibid, point 4.6.

[8] Ibid, point 4.7.

[9] Ibid, point 4.9.

[10] Ibid, point 4.10.

[11] See on the CAS Ad Hoc Division for example: C. Keidel and A. Engelhard,’The Legal Framework of the CAS Ad Hoc Division at the Rio Olympic Games’, LawInSport August 4 2016, via: http://www.lawinsport.com/articles/item/the-legal-framework-of-the-cas-ad-hoc-division-at-the-rio-olympic-games, viewed on the 24th of August 2016. And from the same authors: ‘Key Ad Hoc Division Cases handed down at the Olympic Games, LawInSport August 4 2016, via: http://www.lawinsport.com/articles/item/key-cas-ad-hoc-division-cases-handed-down-at-the-olympic-games, viewed on the 24th of August 2016.

[12] See Article 1 of the Arbitration Rules applicable to the CAS ad hoc division for the Olympic Games.

[13] Athlete agreement, Article 22, paragraph 4.

[14] Ibid, Article 22, paragraph 3.

Editor's note: 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 result of the Brexit referendum on 23 June 2016 took the European Union (almost) by surprise. A lot has been said and written about the impact of the United Kingdom leaving the EU. As in all other areas, the British sport sector will also face the effects of the modification of the relationship between the EU and its (probable) former Member State, the UK. It is nearly impossible to foresee all consequences as the UK has not even triggered article 50 TFEU yet to officially start the exit negotiations. However, as the UK position toward the EU will change in any case, this two-part blog aims to examine the main practical implications of such an exit for the UK, but also for the EU, in relation to the actual application of EU law in sport and the EU sport policy.

Unless stated otherwise, the use of the terms Brexit in this blog should be understood as a complete exit of the UK from the European Union. This blog focus in particular on this worst case scenario and its consequences for UK sport. However, it is highly improbable that the future Brexit negotiations with the EU will end up without some kind of special agreement between the two parties the first of which being an EEA type of agreement with full access to the internal market and applicability of EU law. 

The first part of this blog will examined the consequences for UK sport in terms of access to the EU internal market and the applicability of free movement principles. The second part is focused on specific impacts with regard of others domain of EU law for professional and grassroots UK sport. 

Part 1. EU free movement and the internal market

The EU internal market and its free movement of people declination was at the centre of the Brexit referendum. The potential consequences for the Premier League and professional footballers have been commented upon thoroughly elsewhere. Yet, Brexit’s impact is not restricted to British sport’s leading product, such as the Premier League, nor solely the freedom of movement provisions.

The controversy: free movement of sportspeople

The right to free movement is one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the EU to its citizens and it is at the core of EU treaties. It means that any direct or indirect discrimination based on nationality is prohibited (article 18 TFEU), leaving EU citizens free to exercise their right to move freely and reside within the territories of the 28 EU Members States (article 21 TFEU). These rights apply to both professional and amateur sportspeople, and Brexit will have consequences for them whether they are British citizens or from other Members States.

First, in relation to professional and semi-professional sportspeople, when looking for example at consequences of Brexit on the Premier League, it is the principle of free movement of workers (article 45 TFEU) that is at stake. It should be noted that Brexit will impact not only footballers but also all professional athletes that are considered as “workers” within the meaning of the Treaty. In this context, “workers” means those who are gainfully employed (as stated in 1976 by the European Court of Justice - ECJ - in the Donà and Mantero case, 13/76). These athletes might be rugby or basketball players in a professional clubs or cyclists in a team to give a few examples. Also, other individuals associated with sportspeople may rely on the provisions of free movement of workers, such as doctors, physiotherapists, stable staff, coaches or administrative staff. 

Free movement also currently applies to professional and semi-professional sportspeople that are not “workers”. Freedoms of establishment (article 49 TFEU) and provision of services (article 56 TFEU) apply to athletes that are self-employed (for example tennis players, sailors or horse riders) or to instructors, coaches, or physical trainers. Sports agents may also rely on both freedoms if they are established in another of the EU’s Members States and/or if they are providing their services during a player transfer for example. To illustrate these provisions with genuine practical cases, you may want to think of a UK tennis player that has established himself in France for training purposes for a long period, or of Italian professional horse rider coming to the UK to provide a couple of hours of training for a master class. These situations are much more common than one believes and Brexit might have an important impact on significant number of people working in the sport sector.

At the time of writing it is impossible to know (or even guess) how events will unfold or what the future position of the UK toward the EU will be after Brexit negotiations. The impact will have to be assessed depending on whether and, if so, how the UK will have access to the internal market. A few UK sports officials have raised their voices to recall, for example, the strong position of British football in Europe and asked for exception regimes for their players. Without intending to sound pessimistic, EU officials have already made it very clear that the UK may not pick and choose how they access the internal market and it is difficult to see how a “sport exemption” regarding free movement of athletes may be granted against any other sectors. A solution might be to implement national UK legislation giving free access to professional players to the UK labour market. A problem will however remain regarding free access to the EU market for UK players as, in that case, there is no obligation for the EU to grant reciprocity. If the professional and semi-professional sport sector in the UK (and in the EU as well for UK players) wishes to still be able to recruit athletes that are EU citizens after the exit as easily as it was before Brexit, it should advocate for an EEA agreement (“EEA type” - which seems inconsistent with the intended aims of the referendum as, in this situation, the UK would retain its access to the internal market but would give up its voting rights). 

In the worst case scenario of a complete exit from the EU, is there any good news for UK sport? British sports federations will be able to implement rules entailing direct discrimination, including introducing quotas of players based on nationality or favouring their own athletes which is, for now, completely forbidden under EU law. On the other hand, the return of visas and work permits between the UK and the EU might lessen the level of competition in national championships as it will hinder exchanges of athletes on both sides. It is quite unsure that this is the best option for British sport. Moreover, one should remember that non-discrimination is also granted to sportspeople coming from non-EU countries under the terms of agreements between the EU and third countries (Igor Simutenkov C-265/03). For example, under the terms of the Cotonou Agreements, it is impossible to impose nationality based quotas for sportsmen from Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific Group of States provided the player entered the territory of one of the Member States legally, which is a strict condition. This principle implies that a player coming from one of the countries covered by that agreement is not considered as a “foreign” player if quotas for such players are in force in that sport (this is the case for Rugby Union for example). It also means that the UK not only has to renegotiate its relationship with the EU but with all other non-EU countries that are, for now, covered by these association or partnership agreements. British sport will need to be cautious about it.

It should also be noted that Brexit will lead to the end of the mutual recognition of professional qualifications (see directive 2005/36). This principle applies in the sport sector as well whenever the possession of a diploma is legally required; Member States cannot refuse to permit EU citizens from other Member States to participate in a profession if they hold a recognised qualification from their country for working in that profession unless there are substantial differences in the level of qualification or duration of training. This applies to coaches (i.e. ski instructors) or doctors in the sport sector for example. Another very specific example is the European professional card (directive 2013/55/EU, applicable from 18 January 2016) that has been implemented for mountain guides (and physiotherapists) and allows for a simple and rapid recognition of professional qualifications. Consequences might be less important where an international sports governing body sets up its own set of qualifications (think about the UEFA Pro Licence for football coaches).

Free movement provisions likewise apply to amateur athletes. Based on a combined reading of articles 18, 21 and 165 TFEU, EU citizens who participate in an amateur sporting activity by using their right to free movement should not be discriminated on grounds of nationality. It is, once more, nearly impossible to currently illustrate the impact of Brexit with tangible facts but it means that free movement of EU citizens who are amateur athletes will be affected while coming to or from the UK for competition or training purposes. Furthermore, in terms of injuries or accidents while training or competing, it should be recalled that Brexit may affect the European health insurance system. This system gives every EU citizens access to state-provided healthcare during a stay in any of the EU countries under the same conditions as people insured in that country.

Finally, it should be mentioned that Brexit may impact upon the sport sector as it has links to EU citizenship. A complete Brexit will entail that sports supporters cannot travel as freely between the UK and the EU as they used to. Again, a return to a strict visa policy seems unlikely but giving up EU citizenship will have consequences on border and passport controls and on the organisation of sport events in the UK. The UK and the EU will also no longer be entitled to the cooperation organised against violence and hooliganism within the EU (Council Decision 2002/348/JHA, security at international football matches), or, at least, not in the same terms.

The underlying problem: free movement of goods

Free movement of goods is an essential element of the single market (articles 30, 34 and 35 TFEU) and it provides for the prohibition of measures that restrict trade between Member States, including not only customs duties and quantitative restrictions on imports and exports but all equivalent measures. Sports clothing and materials are covered by these provisions. We shall probably enter a period of uncertainty but the future of trade relations between the UK and the EU will be at the top of the agenda as soon as the negotiations start. Also, in order to facilitate free movement, European standards for sporting purposes goods have been set up by the European Committee for Standardization – n°136 - (full list of standards here). This probably exposes the EU to the bureaucratic suspicion but these harmonisations are necessary to facilitate trade between the EU and to ensure a common level of consumer safety. UK/EU negotiations on Brexit will surely and primarily focus on trade agreements which hopefully will lower the risk of a return to full quotas and tariffs obligations. Nonetheless, trade between the UK and the EU will suffer as much in the sport sector as for other sectors and, again, an EEA type agreement would be welcome for both parties. 

One specific category of goods is important for the sport sector, namely the circulation of civil firearms. EU sport shooters have access to a European firearms pass under directive 91/477/EEC on the control of the acquisition and possession of weapons. This means that they can cross EU internal market borders without prior authorisation in order to attend competitions and trainings. Brexit will withdraw the possibility of obtaining that pass which may result in more red tape for sportspeople at the borders.

Finally, free movement also concerns horses which under EU law are qualified of “goods intended for sporting purposes”. This term is used to refer to the set of directives regulating the movement of and trade in equidae at the EU level. Three different directives are in force and may be impacted by Brexit. In turn, this will have severe consequences for the UK as the horse sector, whether for competition or horseracing, is really strong. Identification requirements – name, genealogy and victories – are established by EU law (directive 90/427/EEC and regulation 504/2008/EC) under strict animal health conditions and “regional” quarantine principles in case of disease (directive 2009/156/EEC). Trade of horses and participation in competitions within the EU is subject to non-discrimination and equal treatment principles between horses without distinction based on the Member States of origin (directive 90/428/EEC). This principle applies to the rules of competition, the judging and the prizes awarded for that competition. Some exceptions regarding specific stud-book, regional or traditional competition are possible. Finally, it should also be noted that a European Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products exists to implement the free movement of veterinary products and to prevent animal doping. Re-entry of registered horses for racing, competition and cultural events after temporary export to non-EU countries is also regulated (directive 93/195/EEC). The UK horse sector will have to change its habits (see, for example the reaction of British horseracing authority to the Brexit vote) after Brexit and the movement of horses with the EU will be more difficult as a consequence. However, as a former EU Member State, the UK will certainly negotiate a favourable agreement with the EU even though obligations concerning the arrival from and return to their home countries outside the EU of sport horses is already regulated. Additionally, it will be possible to negotiate bilateral agreements.[1]

The impact of Brexit regarding the rules of the internal market is important and goes further than just football and the Premier League. The push for a trade agreement with access to the EU internal market here has a special importance for UK sport as for the EU. Otherwise, a complete Brexit will surely end up in a difficult step backward alongside a complete reorganisation of national rules.  

[1] Such an agreement – Tripartite Agreement (TPA) – already exists between France, the United Kingdom and Ireland.