Editor’s note: Thomas Terraz is a third year LL.B. candidate at the International and European Law programme at The Hague University of Applied Sciences with a specialisation in European Law. Currently he is pursuing an internship at the T.M.C. Asser Institute with a focus on International and European Sports Law.

1.     Introduction

To many it may seem obvious that athletes in a national championship should only be able to participate if they have the nationality of the relevant state. The Dutch Road Cycling National Championships should have Dutch cyclists, and the German Athletics Championships should have German athletes and so forth. However, in reality, foreign competitors are allowed to participate in many national championships in the EU, and there is a wide discrepancy between the rules of national sport governing bodies on this issue. There is no unified practice when investigating this point by country or by sport, and rules on participation range from a complete ban on foreign competitors to absolutely no mention of foreign athletes.[1] Thus, the question arises: should foreign athletes be able to participate in national sport championships?

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will soon be required to provide an, at least partial, answer to this dilemma as a result of an application for a preliminary ruling.  A German Court has referred three questions to the CJEU on the case TopFit e.V. Daniele Biffi v Deutscher Leichtathletikverband e.V. (DLV) which in essence ask whether EU citizenship rights and in particular, the requirement of non-discrimination on the basis of nationality, should be applied to non-nationals wishing to participate in an athletics national championship in Germany. In the meantime, the Advocate General (AG), who provides a non-binding opinion to the Court before a decision is delivered, Evgeni Tanchev has delivered an interesting opinion on the case. It addresses the claims from the applicants based on EU citizenship rights and urges the CJEU to instead review the case on the basis of the freedom of establishment.

This blog will dissect the AG’s opinion to assess the main arguments put forward in relation to freedom of establishment and EU citizenship. Furthermore, it will weigh the ramifications this case may have on the boundaries of EU law in relation to sport. To fully appreciate the AG’s opinion, it is necessary to first discuss the intriguing factual and legal background colouring this case. After all, this will not be the first time the CJEU faces thorny issues concerning discrimination on the basis of nationality and sport.

2.     Factual Background of TopFit e.V. Daniele Biffi v Deutscher Leichtathletikverband e.V. (DLV)

The second applicant in this case, Mr. Biffi, is an Italian resident in Germany since 2003. He works professionally as a personal trainer and coach and has a website which advertises his services. He has been a member of the Berlin-based athletics club TopFit (the first applicant) and has competed in athletics competitions including German national championships within the senior category of athletes above the age of 35. In these national competitions, he had his placings recorded and published his results on his website. In 2016, the DLV changed its rules on non-nationals participating in national championships across all age categories without notice or transitional period. The rules were changed to only allow German nationals to compete for the national title while non-nationals could only participate outside classification with the permission of the organisers. As a result, Mr. Biffi was even denied the ability to participate in one of the championships in which he previously participated without raising a brow. The applicants challenged the DLV rule on the basis that it is in contravention to the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of nationality under EU citizenship. 

3.     European Sports Law and Nationality Based Discrimination

Generally, sport governing bodies aim to have the maximum autonomy possible to formulate and apply their rules. In the EU, they have attempted and ultimately failed at securing an absolute autonomy.[2] The current relationship between the sport governing bodies and the EU has been described as a ‘conditional autonomy’ where sport governing bodies may exercise their discretion in formulating and applying their rules so long as they do not conflict with EU law.[3] It should be noted that the CJEU has mainly scrutinized rules from sport governing bodies which affect economic interests of the parties in the context of free movement and competition law. Evidently, this relationship has resulted in a struggle between sport governing bodies and the EU over a number of topics including non-discrimination on the basis of nationality.

Traditionally, the CJEU has addressed issues of non-discrimination on the basis of nationality in sports cases from a free movement perspective in ensuring that sport rules do not disrupt the EU’s internal market. For example, when a rule from the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) required that a pacemaker be the same nationality as the cyclist in the UCI Motor-paced World Championships, the CJEU rendered its ruling on the basis of the provisions establishing the free movement of workers and service providers. Moreover, the Union of European Football Associations’ (UEFA) 3 plus 2 rule which allowed football clubs to limit the number of foreign players who could play in a match to three players plus two more players who had been ‘assimilated’ by having played a certain amount of years in the concerned national football association were found in the famous Bosman case to be in contravention of the free movement of workers provisions.

In the present case, the parties have argued the case on the basis of the prohibition on the discrimination of nationality flowing from EU citizenship rights. Based on Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union, all nationals of an EU member state automatically have EU citizenship. However, these rights are only triggered when other more specific rights, such as free movement rights, are not activated first. Put differently, if the facts of a case fall within a free movement right, then the case can only be inspected in light of the relevant free movement provision; hence, EU citizenship rights may only be invoked where free movement rights are not applicable.

Interestingly enough, as the AG points out in his opinion, the facts of this case could also be framed as a restriction to freedom of establishment. In any event, the CJEU has yet to address sport rules which concern non-discrimination on the basis of freedom of establishment or EU citizenship.

So how should the CJEU address this issue? Freedom of establishment or EU citizenship rights?

4.     Analysing AG Tanchev’s Opinion: Freedom of Establishment or EU Citizenship Rights?

4.1.Scope of the Freedom of Establishment

Very early on in the opinion, AG Tanchev unambiguously expresses his preference for analysing the present case through a free movement lens.[4] He explains that Mr. Biffi is self-employed as a personal trainer and coach on a continuous and stable manner in Germany which amounts to an economic activity connected to his sporting pursuits.[5] Therefore, AG Tanchev believes the analysis should be pursued under the freedom of establishment provisions. For this view to be endorsed, it is essential that Mr. Biffi’s economic activity is sufficiently connected to his sporting endeavours.

In this context, AG Tanchev recalls the Deliège case which concerned a Judoka, who argued that a national sport governing body’s refusal to select her for an international competition was a violation of her freedom to provide services. The Court in that case had to determine whether she was engaged in an economic activity in order for the fundamental freedom to apply. In doing so, the Court unequivocally states that simply because a sport governing body labels its athlete an amateur, it does not mean that they are automatically disengaged from economic activity, and economic activities in the context of free movement of services should not be interpreted restrictively.[6] Therefore, the Court in the Deliège case focused on the judoka’s sponsorships deals and grants to conclude that she was engaged in economic activities.[7] AG Tanchev, in examining the Deliège case’s relevance, explains that this demonstrates EU law’s flexibility in finding a link between sporting and economic activities, and that even if the DLV’s rules only have an ‘indirect impact’ on Mr. Biffi’s economic activities, it should fall within the scope of the freedom of establishment.[8]

4.2.Restriction on the Freedom of Establishment and Justifications

The opinion then goes on to find that there has been a restriction of Mr. Biffi’s freedom of establishment because the DLV rule puts Mr. Biffi ‘at a disadvantage when compared with German nationals engaged in the provision of athletic training services’ because he is unable ‘to make reference to his achievements in national sporting championships in order to attract business.’ Furthermore, he states that consumers are ‘more likely to be drawn to an athletics coach advertising on-going excellence … in the national athletics championships.’[9] Given that the DLV rule is directly discriminatory, EU law only allows justification under the express derogations enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The DLV would have had a larger window to defend their rules if they were indirectly discriminatory since the CJEU accepts both express derogations and justifications which have been developed by its own case law.

AG Tanchev readily finds that the DLV’s rules fall under the public policy derogation by aiming to ensure that the winner of the national title has a ‘sufficiently strong link’ with the country organising the championship and to ensure that the national selection of athletes for international competitions is not disrupted. It could be argued that these aims have been too easily advanced as public policy objectives. The CJEU has never accepted the former as a derogation or a justification, and concerning the latter, the CJEU has accepted objectives which ensure national representation in international competitions only as justifications. Since justifications developed by the CJEU generally are not applicable to cases of direct discrimination, such as the present case, it can be said that the opinion perhaps too quickly embraces these pursued aims as public policy objectives. This being said, sport already enjoyed a special treatment in the past as the CJEU has been open to consider justifications for directly discriminatory measures in the Bosman case.

4.3.Is the DLV’s measure proportionate?

Assuming that these aims are accepted as express derogations, the DLV measures must then pass proportionality requirements which in EU law require a measure to be suitable for the pursued aim and necessary to achieve those aims. In the sporting context, the CJEU has explained that in order for a sporting rule to be proportionate it must be limited to its proper objective and it must be inherent to the organization of the sport event.[10] AG Tanchev affirms that the measure is disproportionate because the rule disallows Mr. Biffi from competing for the national title and precludes classification in such a competition when for many years he had been allowed to compete and be classified as any other German athlete.[11] Furthermore, given he had this pre-existing right, the DLV’s failure to take any transitional measures or give sufficient notice of this change violates the legitimate expectations of Mr. Biffi who exercised his free movement in reliance of this established regime and infringes the general principle of acquired rights.[12] Thus, it can be inferred that in AG Tanchev’s view, the measure could have been proportionate had there been sufficient transitional measures in place. Such a broad interpretation of proportionality by including the non-national's right to compete for the national title, would greatly restrict the options of a sport governing body wanting to change a rule that could negatively affect the participation of non-nationals in their national competitions.

If this broad approach is not accepted, AG Tanchev contends the measure is still disproportionate since the DLV’s rules potentially exclude non-national participants from competing at all in the national championships. Such a measure could only be legitimate in ‘unusual circumstances.’ In this vein, the opinion suggests less restrictive rules which instead limit the number of non-classified athletes.[13]

Other alternative models have been suggested which are much more likely to pass the proportionality test. One commentator has suggested that non-nationals should be allowed to compete in national championships while perhaps only restricting their ability to actually win the title.[14] If applied to this case, this model would allow Mr. Biffi to participate with classification in the national championships, but if he (or other non-national) were to take the first place, the national title would be given to the highest classified German athlete in the competition. Another model put forward in a recent study suggests that a non-national can only compete in the national championship after having been resident or being member of a local club for a certain period of time. All of these suggestions show that there are a multitude of less restrictive ways to protect the organisation of national championships and the selection process of national athletes for international competitions. An outright ban on participation or only allowing participation outside of classification is remarkably restrictive and has very little chance of passing the necessity requirements under proportionality.

Overall, the argument that this case should be analysed from the freedom of establishment perspective is rather convincing because the economic dimension is clearly present. However, there is still a possibility that the CJEU will follow the line of arguments brought by the applicants based on EU citizenship rights addressed at the end of AG Tanchev’s opinion.

4.4.EU Citizenship Rights

AG Tanchev begins by explaining that even if non-discrimination on the basis of nationality deriving from EU citizenship are applied, the result of the case should be the same because the stated aims of the DLV simply do not meet the proportionality requirements.[15]  However, the opinion goes on to firmly oppose the application of EU citizenship rights in this context.

In its submissions, the Commission had strongly endorsed a view that access to leisure activities should always fall within the scope of EU citizenship rights. AG Tanchev disagrees with such a wide-ranging interpretation because it would be a huge ‘constitutional step’ to give Article 21 TFEU horizontal direct effect, meaning a private party could invoke this provision in a national court against another private party. He maintains that this provision is meant to only have vertical direct effect, where a private party may invoke this provision in a national court against the state. He explains that extending horizontal direct effect to this rather open-ended provision would have a capricious effect that would damage legal certainty because Article 21 TFEU ‘comes into play in the broad and unpredictable range of circumstances’ where applicants are ‘unable to show a link between what is in issue and economic activities’ or ‘fall outside of EU legislation concerning freedom of movement.’[16] On the other hand, one could argue the very purpose of this Article is to provide EU citizens with other means to dispute measures which harm their free movement, and such a restricted interpretation would damage l’effet utile of this provision.   

While it is probably the case that Mr. Biffi’s circumstances fall within the scope of his free movement rights, imagine if he did not have any economic interest, and instead of a coach and personal trainer, he was an accountant or car mechanic. If AG Tanchev’s approach were to be taken in such a case, Mr. Biffi would have absolutely no recourse under EU law to challenge such a discriminatory rule. If Article 18 and 21 TFEU were to be interpreted so restrictively, private monopolistic actors who exercise powers that resemble those of a state (such as many sport governing bodies) could make the exercise of the European citizenship less attractive by limiting the participation of non-nationals in certain leisure activities. The Commission is right in taking a broad approach on this issue, although in the end it found the DLV’s rule to be proportionate, especially since Article 18 and 21 TFEU makes no express reservations against the applicability of these provisions on private parties.[17] A wide interpretation would completely fit the ‘conditional autonomy’ model in which sport rules fall within the scope of EU law, and it is for the sport governing bodies to explain how and why the rule is necessary or ‘inherent’ to the conduct of sports.

5.     Conclusion

If the CJEU finds this case to fall under the scope of the freedom of establishment, it is likely the DLV’s rules will fail to be justified or crumble under the proportionality requirements. Likewise, the outcome is likely to be the same in the improbable case that EU citizenship rights are applied. However, it truly would be a ‘constitutional step’, as AG Tanchev asserted, by greatly widening the possibility of using EU citizenship rights to challenge nationality discrimination in even amateur and leisure sport. Moreover, solidifying horizontal direct effect of the EU citizenship rights would have an impact way beyond sport related cases.

Regardless, even if Mr. Biffi’s case is examined from the freedom of establishment, it will be a momentous occasion for the CJEU to further elucidate the boundaries of the application of EU law to sport. In this respect, AG Tanchev’s opinion provides an excellent analysis of the legal issues arising from the free movement perspective and picks up on the most evident detail that all the parties in the case seemed to have glanced over: Mr. Biffi has an economic interest which is tied to his sporting activities. In the long run, the application of EU citizenship rights to sports seems inevitable, but TopFit e.V. Daniele Biffi most likely does not provide the CJEU with a golden opportunity to express itself on this matter.

[1] T.M.C. Asser Institute Report, ‘Study on the Equal Treatment of Non-Nationals in Individual Sports Competitions’ (2010).

[2] Case 36-74 B.N.O. Walrave and L.J.N. Koch v Association Union cycliste internationale, Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie and Federación Española Ciclismo [1974] ECR 1974 –01405; Case C-415/93 Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL v Jean-Marc Bosman, Royal club liégeois SA v Jean-Marc Bosman and others and Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) v Jean-Marc Bosman [1995] ECR I-04921.

[3] Stephen Weatherill, Principles and Practice in EU Sports Law (1^st edn, Oxford University Press 2017) 71.

[4] Case C-22/18 TopFit e.V. Daniele Biffi v Deutscher Leichtathletikverband e.V. [2019] ECLI:EU:C:2019:181, Opinion of AG Tanchev, para 48.

[5] ibid para 55.

[6] Joined Cases C-51/96 and C-191/97 Christelle Deliège v Ligue francophone de judo et disciplines associées ASBL, Ligue belge de judo ASBL, Union européenne de judo [2000] ECR I-02549 para 46.

[7] ibid paras 51-53.

[8] TopFit, Opinion of AG Tanchev (n 4) para 62.

[9] ibid para 70.

[10] Walrave (n 2) para 9; Deliège (n 6) para 64.

[11] TopFit, Opinion of AG Tanchev (n 4) paras 80, 88.

[12] ibid para 83.

[13] ibid paras 92-93.

[14] Weatherill (n 3) 203.

[15] TopFit, Opinion of AG Tanchev (n 4) para 97.

[16] ibid para 103.

[17] ibid paras 37-40.

 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

 
ISLJ Annual Conference on International Sports Law

On 26 and 27 October, the T.M.C. Asser Institute in The Hague will host the first ever ISLJ Annual International Sports Law Conference. This year’s edition will feature panels on the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the world anti-doping system, the FIFA transfer regulations, human rights and sports, the labour rights of athletes, and EU law and sport. We will also welcome the following distinguished keynote speakers:

•    Miguel Maduro, former Advocate General at the European Court of Justice and former head of FIFA’s Governance Committee
•    Michael Beloff QC, English barrister known as one of the ‘Godfathers’ of sports law
•    Stephen Weatherill, Professor at Oxford University and a scholarly authority on EU law and sport
•    Richard McLaren, CAS arbitrator, sports law scholar and former head of the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) investigation into the Russian doping scandal
  

You will find all the necessary information related to the conference here. Do not forget to register as soon as possible if you want to secure a place on the international sports law pitch! [Please note that we have a limited amount of seats available, which will be attributed on a ‘first come, first served’ basis.]

The CAS award in Atlético de Madrid v. FIFA

On 1 June 2017, the CAS communicated that it had rendered an award in the arbitration procedure between the Spanish club Atlético de Madrid and FIFA regarding the transfer of minor football players. The CAS Panel confirmed the transfer ban imposed on Atlético de Madrid by the FIFA Appeal Committee in its decision of 8 April 2016. This means that, unlike Real Madrid CF whose ban was reduced by the CAS from two to one entire transfer period, Atlético de Madrid remains banned from registering players both nationally and internationally for two complete and consecutive transfer periods. However, the CAS Panel found that not all of the alleged violations of the FIFA regulations concerning the registration of minor football players could be upheld. As a result, Atlético de Madrid is now obliged to pay CHF 550,000 instead of the original fine amounting to CHF 900,000. The award is not yet available.

The CAS award in ACF Fiorentina v. Mohamed Salah and Chelsea FC

This three-party dispute emerged from a loan agreement concluded between Chelsea FC and ACF Fiorentina in early 2015. Accordingly, the Egyptian international Mohamed Salah was loaned from Chelsea FC to ACF Fiorentina for the period between 2 February 2015 and 30 June 2015, with the option to extend the loan period for twelve more months from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016, if certain conditions were fulfilled. In July 2015, the player decided to remain at Chelsea FC while the representatives of the Italian club demanded his return to Florence. In August 2015, Salah joined A.S. Roma on a season-long loan from Chelsea FC.

Soon after the commencement of the 2015/2016 season, ACF Fiorentina lodged a complaint with FIFA, alleging that the player breached the loan agreement without just cause, and that Chelsea FC induced him to do so. The Italian club requested a compensation of EUR 32 million and sporting sanctions against both Chelsea FC and Salah. On 26 May 2016, the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber rejected the complaint (‘FIFA DRC Decision’). Disappointed with this decision, ACF Fiorentina filed an appeal with the CAS on 11 October 2016.

In the shadow of Salah’s recent transfer from A.S. Roma to Liverpool FC, the CAS announced on 30 June 2017 that it had dismissed ACF Fiorentina’s appeal and confirmed the FIFA DRC Decision. The award is not yet available.

FIFA’s Human Rights Policy

The amount of work done by international sports federations to strengthen their human rights compliance increases every month. In June 2017, the world’s governing body of football published FIFA’s Human Rights Policy, a document clarifying FIFA’s approach to the implementation of its human rights commitment in accordance with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Simultaneously, FIFA also published its Activity Update on Human Rights mapping the most significant steps taken by the world’s governing body of football over the past twelve months to mitigate human rights risks with which it is repeatedly involved.

Sports Law Related Decisions

• European Commission – State Aid: Denmark support to local sports associations
• European Commission – State Aid: United Kingdom Horserace Betting Levy
• European Court of Justice – Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar in the case between the English Bridge Union Limited and Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Official Documents and Press Releases

• Athletics Integrity Unit – A letter to athletes from the Chair of the Athletics Integrity Unit
• CAS – The CAS confirms the transfer ban imposed on Club Atlético de Madrid for breaches of the FIFA rules regarding the transfer of minors
• CAS – The CAS dismisses the appeal filed by Russian boxer Misha Aloyan
• CAS – The CAS dismisses the appeal of ACF Fiorentina in relation to the transfer of Mohamed Salah to Chelsea FC
• CAS – The CAS registers an appeal filed by the Palestine Football Association
• FIFA – Activity Update on Human Rights
• FIFA – Human Rights Policy
• FIFA – Statement on CAS decision relating to Atlético de Madrid
• FIFA – Statement on Human Rights Watch report on Russia
• FIFA – Statement on recent media coverage regarding the ‘Garcia Report’
• Michael J. Garcia and Cornel Borbély – Report on the inquiry into the 2018/2022 FIFA World Cup bidding process
• Human Rights Watch – Red card: Exploitation of construction workers on World Cup sites in Russia
• IOC – Beijing 2022 advances its sustainability and legacy plans
• IOC – Former United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon proposed to head IOC’s Ethics Commission
• ITF – Decision in the case of Yuri Schwanke de Andrade
• Play the Game – Report on Autonomy in National Olympic Committees 2017
• UEFA – CFCB update on break-even monitoring for 2016/2017
• UEFA – Comprehensive bidding regulations approved for all finals and final tournaments
• UEFA – Salzburg and Leipzig admitted into UEFA Champions League
• WADA – Proposed International Standard for Code Compliance by Signatories – Version 1.0
• WADA – WADA permits RUSADA to plan and coordinate testing under the supervision of international experts and the UK Anti-Doping Agency
• WADA – WADA suspends UCLA Laboratory accreditation for specific prohibited substances

In the news

Doping

• AP News Ukrainian race walker Olena Shumkina banned for doping
• Andy Brown Spanish Court rejects argument that blood tests violate privacy
• Andy Brown Urine samples at Moscow lab still under Russian protection
• Nick Butler Weightlifting given December deadline to address doping problems by IOC
• Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport Cycling Athlete Suspended for the Presence of Testosterone
• Martha Kelner Russia’s entire 2014 World Cup squad face FIFA doping investigation
• Samuel Petrequin French anti-doping officials worried about cocaine use
• Reuters Three Russian runners banned for four years after Beijing retests
• Rebecca R. Ruiz IOC Chief says Russia will face sanctions, despite new anti-doping efforts

Football

• BBC News Paul Pogba: Man Utd cleared by FIFA over deal but Juventus face charges
• Festus Chuma FIFA investigates Magogo, Ugandan football chief
• David Conn FIFA’s anti-corruption efforts criticised after speedy clearing of Gianni Infantino
• David Conn Jorge Mendes and Wolves: How deep does the agent’s influence run?
• Graham Dunbar Swiss prosecutors confirm about 25 FIFA investigations
• Karen Freifeld and Joshua Franklin Julius Baer battles FIFA corruption fallout as ex-banker set to plead guilty
• Tom Hays Ex-banker pleads guilty to US charge in FIFA probe
• Marina Hyde FIFA lets Qatar 2022 sail on, its moral lines in the sand still on the horizon
• Paul Nicholson China’s FA ushers in transfer tax, doubling cost of imported foreign players
• Ben Rumsby Garcia report into FIFA’s bidding process that awarded World Cups to Russia and Qatar is leaked
• Rory Smith FIFA pulls back the curtain, but will it ever see the light?
• The Times of India Banned Jerome Valcke gets October CAS appeal date
• Tirana Times Skenderbeu stripped of championship title over match-fixing

Other

• Jules Boykoff Los Angeles has the perfect chance to push back against a troubled IOC
• Nick Butler Barelli criticises FINA vice-President Ramsamy before CAS hearing
• Daniel Etchells Cost of Rio 2016 Olympics rises to $ 13.2 billion - $ 3.5 billion over budget
• Sean Ingle British bobsleigh team told: Keep quiet about bullying or miss Olympics
• Mari Yamaguchi Tokyo Olympics cost twice the initial estimate: Why?

Academic Materials

• Borja García and Henk Erik Meier Global Sport Power Europe? Efficacy of the European Union in Global Sport Regulation
• Peter Millward World Cup 2022 and Qatar’s Construction Projects: Relational Power in Networks and Relational Responsibilities to Migrant Workers
• Matt Mitten Why and How the Supreme Court Should Have Decided O’Bannon v. NCAA
• James Montague The Billionaires Club: The Unstoppable Rise of Football’s Super-rich Owners
• Tom Serby Sports Corruption: Sporting Autonomy, Lex Sportiva and the Rule of Law

Blog 

Asser International Sports Law Blog

• Tomáš Grell The Olympic Games and Human Rights – Part I: Introduction to the Host City Contract
• Tomáš Grell The Olympic Games and Human Rights – Part II: Human Rights Obligations Added to the Host City Contract: Turning Point or Empty Promise?

Law in Sport

• Daniel Burgess An explanation of interim injunctions in sports litigation
• Miguel Liétard Fernández-Palacios The role of the UEFA Ethics and Disciplinary Inspector in disciplinary proceedings
• Paul J. Greene and Tomislav Kasalo Key challenges facing athletes in contaminated supplement cases: A review of the Arijan Ademi decision
• Joseph M. Hanna The National Hockey League (NHL) trying to eject two retired players from concussion lawsuit
• Saurabh Mishra A short analysis of FIBA’s decision to permit the use of headgear
• Raj Pahuja Why the eSports industry needs to be aware of local laws in order to be successful in the Middle East

Others

• Andreas Selliaas Could CAS verdict shoot down Kuwaiti suspensions?

Upcoming Events

• 31 August-1 September – EU Sports Law and Policy Summer School, Business and Law Building, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, the United Kingdom
• 26-27 October – ISLJ Annual Conference on International Sports Law, T.M.C. Asser Institute, The Hague, the Netherlands (Early bird fee until 15 September!)
• 26-30 November – Play the Game 2017: Riding Waves of Change, Eindhoven, the Netherlands

Sport events, especially when they are of a global scale, have been facing more and more questions about their impact on local communities, the environment, and human rights. 

It has become clear that their social legitimacy is not a given, but must be earned by showing that sport events can positively contribute to society. During this half-day conference, we will debate the proposal of a European Social Charter for Sport Events in order to achieve this goal. 

In January 2021, a consortium of eight partners launched a three-year project, supported by the European Commission under the Erasmus+ scheme, aimed at devising a European Social Charter for Sport Events (ESCSE). The project ambitions to develop a Charter which will contribute to ensuring that sport events taking place in the European Union are socially beneficial to the local communities concerned and, more generally, to those affected by them. The project is directly inspired by the decision of the Paris 2024 bid to commit to a social charter enforced throughout the preparation and the course of the 2024 Olympics.

This first public event in the framework of the ESCSE project, will be introducing the project to a wider public. During the event we will review the current state of the implementation of the Paris 2024 Social Charter, discuss the expectations of stakeholders and academics for a European Social Charter and present for feedback the first draft of the ESCSE (and its implementing guidelines) developed by the project members. It will be a participatory event; we welcome input from the participants.

The Asser International Sports Law Centre, powered by the Asser Institute, is contributing to the project through the drafting of a background study, which we will introduce during the conference.

Please note that we can provide some financial support (up to 100 euros)  towards travel and/or accommodation costs for a limited number of participants coming from other EU Member States or the UK. To apply for this financial support please reach out to ConferenceManager@asser.nl.  `

Register HERE