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

Revisiting FIFA’s Training Compensation and Solidarity Mechanism - Part. 5: Rethinking Redistribution in Football - By Rhys Lenarduzzi

Editor’s note: Rhys Lenarduzzi recently completed a Bachelor of Law (LL.B) and Bachelor of Philosophy (B.Phil.) at the University of Notre Dame, Sydney, Australia. As a former professional athlete, then international sports agent and consultant, Rhys is interested in international sports law, policy and ethics. He is currently undertaking an internship at the T.M.C. Asser Institute with a focus on Transnational Sports Law.

 

As one may have gathered from the series thus far, the question that comes out of this endeavour for me, is whether redistribution in football would be better divorced from the transfer system?

In my introductory blog I point towards historical, cultural, and of course the legal explanations as to why redistribution was established, and why it might be held onto despite obvious flaws. In my second blog, I point out how the training compensation and solidarity mechanisms work in practice through an African case study, as well as the hindrance caused and the Eurocentricity of the regulations. The key take-away from my third blog on the non-application of training compensation in women’s football might be that training compensation should apply to both men’s and women’s football, or neither. The sweeping generalisation that men’s and women’s football are different as justification for the non-application to the women’s game is not palatable, given inter alia the difference between the richest and poorest clubs in men’s football. Nor is it palatable that the training compensation mechanism is justified in men’s football to incentivise training, yet not in women’s football.

In the fourth blog of this series, I raise concerns that the establishment of the Clearing House prolongs the arrival of a preferable alternative system. The feature of this final blog is to consider alternatives to the current systems. This endeavour is manifestly two-fold; firstly, are there alternatives? Secondly, are they better?  More...


Revisiting FIFA’s Training Compensation and Solidarity Mechanism - Part. 4: The New FIFA Clearing House – An improvement to FIFA’s training compensation and solidarity mechanisms? - By Rhys Lenarduzzi

Editor’s note: Rhys Lenarduzzi recently completed a Bachelor of Law (LL.B) and a Bachelor of Philosophy (B.Phil.) at the University of Notre Dame, Sydney, Australia. As a former professional athlete, then international sports agent and consultant, Rhys is interested in international sports law, policy and ethics. He is currently undertaking an internship at the T.M.C. Asser Institute with a focus on Transnational Sports Law.

In September 2018, the Football Stakeholders Committee endorsed the idea of a Clearing House that was subsequently approved in October of the same year by the FIFA Council. A tender process commenced in July 2019 for bidders to propose jurisdiction, operation and establishment. Whilst many questions go unanswered, it is clear that the Clearing House will be aimed at closing the significant gap between what is owed and what is actually paid, in respect to training compensation and solidarity payments. The Clearing House will have other functions, perhaps in regard to agents’ fees and other transfer related business, though those other operations are for another blog. It will hence act as an intermediary of sorts, receiving funds from a signing and therefore owing club (“new” club) and then moving that money on to training clubs. Whilst separate to FIFA, to what extent is unclear.

I have landed at the position of it being important to include a section in this blog series on the soon to commence Clearing House, given it appears to be FIFA’s (perhaps main) attempt to improve the training compensation and solidarity mechanisms. As will be expanded upon below, I fear it will create more issues than it will solve. Perhaps one should remain patient and optimistic until it is in operation, and one should be charitable in that there will undoubtedly be teething problems. However, it is of course not just the function of the Clearing House that is of interest, but also what moving forward with the project of the Clearing House represents and leaves unaddressed, namely, the issues I have identified in this blog series. More...

Revisiting FIFA’s Training Compensation and Solidarity Mechanism - Part. 3: The Curious Non-Application of Training Compensation to Women’s Football – By Rhys Lenarduzzi

Editor’s note: Rhys Lenarduzzi is a final semester Bachelor of Law (LL.B) and Bachelor of Philosophy (B.Phil.) student, at the University of Notre Dame, Sydney, Australia. As a former professional athlete, then international sports agent and consultant, Rhys is interested in international sports law, policy and ethics. He is currently undertaking an internship at the T.M.C. Asser Institute with a focus on Transnational Sports Law.

 

As recently as September 2020, questions were raised in the European Parliament on the non-application of training compensation to women’s football. Whilst this blog will predominantly consider potential inconsistencies in reasoning for and against training compensation in men’s and women’s football, the questions before the Commission were largely on the theme of disrespect and discrimination. Somewhat unfortunately, the questions raised were side-stepped, with Ms Gabriel (Commissioner for Innovation, Research, Culture, Education and Youth) simply stating that: “The TFEU does not give the Commission the competence to interfere in the internal organisation of an independent international organisation such as FIFA.” This might be true in theory, though one might feel some degree of uneasiness if privy to the Commission’s role in the 2001 FIFA regulatory overhaul.

It is currently explicit in the regulations and the commentary, that in women’s football, signing clubs are not required to compensate training clubs for developing players, through the training compensation mechanism that exists in men’s football. Though it is a contentious comment and as will be expanded below, this may not have always been the case.

At Article 20 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), one will find that the principles of training compensation shall not apply to women’s football. Further, in FIFA’s recently released Women’s Football Administrator Handbook (the handbook), it states that disputes relating to training compensation are limited for the moment to male players only.[1]

Regulations on solidarity contributions on the other hand do apply to women’s football, but given transfer fees are not so common, the use of the mechanism is not either. As an indication of how uncommon the activation of the solidarity contribution mechanism in women’s football might be, FIFA reported in the handbook just four claims with the Players’ Status Department in 2016 (three claims involving the same player), and zero since.[2] That is in comparison to hundreds of claims made per season in men’s football, where signing and owing clubs had not fulfilled their obligation to pay the solidarity contribution.

Given the aforementioned, this blog will largely focus on training compensation and how it came to be the case that this mechanism, often presented as critical in the context of men’s football, does not apply in women’s football. To do so, I will first discuss the reasoning advanced in an unpublished CAS award, which one may reasonably suspect played a fundamental role in shaping the current exemption. I will then turn to FIFA’s timely response to the award and the adoption of its Circular No. 1603. Finally, I will point out the disconnect in FIFA’s decision to adopt two radically different approaches to the issue of training compensation in male and female professional football. More...


Revisiting FIFA’s Training Compensation and Solidarity Mechanism - Part. 2: The African Reality – By Rhys Lenarduzzi

Editor’s note: Rhys Lenarduzzi is a final semester Bachelor of Law (LL.B) and Bachelor of Philosophy (B.Phil.) student, at the University of Notre Dame, Sydney, Australia. As a former professional athlete, then international sports agent and consultant, Rhys is interested in international sports law, policy and ethics. He is currently undertaking an internship at the T.M.C. Asser Institute with a focus on Transnational Sports Law.


Having considered the history and justifications for the FIFA training compensation and solidarity mechanisms in my previous blog, I will now consider these systems in the African context. This appears to be a worthwhile undertaking given these global mechanisms were largely a result of European influence, so understanding their (extraterritorial) impact beyond the EU seems particularly important. Moreover, much has been written about the “muscle drain” affecting African football and the need for such drain to either be brought to a halt, or, more likely and perhaps more practical, to put in place an adequate system of redistribution to ensure the flourishing of African football that has essentially acted as a nursery for European football for at least a century. In the present blog, I intend to draw on my experiences as a football agent to expand on how FIFA’s redistributive mechanisms function in practice when an African player signs in Europe via one of the many kinds of entities that develop or purport to develop talent in Africa. I will throughout address the question of whether these mechanisms are effective in a general sense and more specifically in relation to their operation in Africa.More...



Revisiting FIFA’s Training Compensation and Solidarity Mechanism - Part.1: The historical, legal and political foundations - By Rhys Lenarduzzi

Editor’s note: Rhys Lenarduzzi is a final semester Bachelor of Law (LL.B) and Bachelor of Philosophy (B.Phil.) student, at the University of Notre Dame, Sydney, Australia. As a former professional athlete, then international sports agent and consultant, Rhys is interested in international sports law, policy and ethics. He is currently undertaking an internship at the T.M.C. Asser Institute with a focus on Transnational Sports Law.


In 2019, training compensation and solidarity contributions based on FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) amounted to US$ 75,5 million. This transfer of wealth from the clubs in the core of the football hierarchy to the clubs where the professional players originated is a peculiar arrangement unknown in other global industries. Beyond briefly pointing out or reminding the reader of how these systems work and the history behind them, this blog series aims to revisit the justifications for FIFA-imposed training compensation and the solidarity mechanism, assess their efficacy and effects through a case study of their operation in the African context, and finally analyse the potential impact of upcoming reforms of the FIFA RSTP in this context.

First, it is important to go back to the roots of this, arguably, strange practice. The current transfer system and the legal mechanisms constituting it were largely the result of a complex negotiation between European football’s main stakeholders and the European Commission dating back to 2001. The conclusion of these negotiations led to a new regulatory system enshrined in Article 20 and Annex 4 of the RSTP in the case of training compensation, and at Article 21 and Annex 5 in the case of the solidarity mechanism. Before paying some attention to the historical influences and how we arrived at these changes, as well as the justifications from the relevant bodies for their existence, let us briefly recall what training compensation and the solidarity mechanisms actually are. More...



The entitlement to Training Compensation of “previous” clubs under EU Competition Law. By Josep F. Vandellos Alamilla

Editor’s note: Josep F. Vandellos is an international sports lawyer associated to RH&C (Spain). He is also a member of the Editorial Board of the publication Football Legal and a guest lecturer in the ISDE-FC Barcelona Masters’ Degree in Sports Management and Legal Skills.


Article 6 of Annexe IV (Training compensation) of the FIFA-RSTP (Ed. 2016) contains the so-called “Special Provisions for the EU/EEA” applicable to players moving from one association to another inside the territory of the European Union (EU) or the European Economic Area (EEA).
The provisions regarding training compensation result from the understanding reached between FIFA and UEFA with the European Union in March 2001[1], and subsequent modifications introduced in the FIFA-RSTP revised version of 2005 to ensure the compatibility of the transfer system with EU law.[2]
This blog will focus on the exception contained in article 6(3) Annexe IV of the FIFA-RSTP. According to this article, when “the former club” fails to offer a contract to the player, it loses its right to claim training compensation from the players’ new club, unless it can justify that it is entitled to such compensation. Instead, the right of “previous clubs” to training compensation is fully preserved irrespective of their behaviour with the player.[3] From a legal standpoint, such discrimination between the “former club” and the “previous clubs” raises some questions that I will try to address in this paper. More...



The CAS and Mutu - Episode 4 - Interpreting the FIFA Transfer Regulations with a little help from EU Law

On 21 January 2015, the Court of arbitration for sport (CAS) rendered its award in the latest avatar of the Mutu case, aka THE sports law case that keeps on giving (this decision might still be appealed to the Swiss Federal tribunal and a complaint by Mutu is still pending in front of the European Court of Human Right). The decision was finally published on the CAS website on Tuesday. Basically, the core question focuses on the interpretation of Article 14. 3 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players in its 2001 version. More precisely, whether, in case of a dismissal of a player (Mutu) due to a breach of the contract without just cause by the player, the new club (Juventus and/or Livorno) bears the duty to pay the compensation due by the player to his former club (Chelsea). Despite winning maybe the most high profile case in the history of the CAS, Chelsea has been desperately hunting for its money since the rendering of the award (as far as the US), but it is a daunting task. Thus, the English football club had the idea to turn against Mutu’s first employers after his dismissal in 2005, Juventus and Livorno, with success in front of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), but as we will see the CAS decided otherwise[1]. More...

SV Wilhelmshaven: a Rebel with a cause! Challenging the compatibility of FIFA’s training compensation system with EU law

Due to the legitimate excitement over the recent Pechstein ruling, many have overlooked a previous German decision rendered in the Wilhelmshaven SV case (the German press did report on the decision here and here). The few academic commentaries (see here and here) focused on the fact that the German Court had not recognized the res judicata effect of a CAS award. Thus, it placed Germany at the spearhead of a mounting rebellion against the legitimacy of the CAS and the validity of its awards. None of the commentators weighed in on the substance of the decision, however. Contrary to the Court in Pechstein, the judges decided to evaluate the compatibility of the FIFA rules on training compensations with the EU free movement rights. To properly report on the decision and assess the threat it may constitute for the FIFA training compensation system, we will first summarize the facts of the case (I), briefly explicate the mode of functioning of the FIFA training compensation system (II), and finally reconstruct the reasoning of the Court on the compatibility of the FIFA rules with EU law (III).More...

Asser International Sports Law Blog | The International Sports Law Digest – Issue II – July-December 2014

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 International Sports Law Digest – Issue II – July-December 2014

I. Literature


1. Antitrust/Competition Law and Sport

G Basnier, ‘Sports and competition law: the case of the salary cap in New Zealand rugby union’, (2014) 14 The International Sports Law Journal 3-4, p.155

R Craven, ‘Football and State aid: too important to fail?’ (2014) 14 The International Sports Law Journal 3-4, p.205

R Craven, ‘State Aid and Sports Stadiums: EU Sports Policy or Deference to Professional Football (2014) 35 European Competition Law Review Issue 9, 453


2. Intellectual Property Rights in Sports law / Betting rights/ Spectators’ rights/ Sponsorship Agreements

Books

W T Champion and K DWillis, Intellectual property law in the sports and entertainment industries (Santa Barbara, California; Denver, Colorado; Oxford, England: Praeger 2014)

J-M Marmayou and F Rizzo, Les contrats de sponsoring sportif (Lextenso éditions 2014) 


Articles

M Bambaci, ‘Algunas consideraciones sobre la inclusión de la liga Argentina de fútbol en los videojuegos. A propósito de la aparición de jugadores aficionados y la explotación comercial de su imagen’ (2014) Revista de Derecho del Deporte Número 8

A L Dias Pereira, ‘Media rights and online betting in football matches under Portuguese law’ (2014)14 The International Sports Law Journal 3-4, p.167

M M García Caba, ‘A propósito de la reciente jurisprudencia comunitaria sobre los derechos audiovisuales futbolísticos: ¿hacia una reinterpretación del interés general del fútbol Español?’ (2014), 511

D A Heitner and AWilmot, ‘Score a Touchdown, Kiss Your Tattoo, and Get Sued for Copyright Infringement?’ (2014) 21 Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal Issue 2, 299

S N Horner, ‘DMCA: Professional Sports Leagues' Answer to Protecting Their Broadcasting Rights Against Illegal Streaming’ (2014) 24 Marquette Sports Law Review Issue 2, 435

A Lelyukhin, ‘The European Court of Justice (ECJ) confirmed Member States’ discretion to determine free to view sporting events. Note on Case T-385/07, Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v European Commission, Judgement of General Court (Seventh Chamber), 17 February 2011’ (2014) 6 Sport& EU Review Issue 2, 14 (Upcoming)

J T Wendt and P C Young, ‘Protecting spectator rights: reflections on the General Law of the Cup’ (2014) 14 The International Sports Law Journal 3-4, p.179


 3. Labour Law and Sport/Free movement law in Sport/Players’ Agents 

Books-Bulletins

M Colucci and F Hendrickx, ‘Regulating employment relationships in professional football’, Michele Colucci and Frank Hendrickx (eds.) European Sports Law and Policy Bulletin Issue 1-2014

S Weatherill, European sports law: collected papers (The Hague, The Netherlands: T.M.C. Asser Press 2014) 


Articles

A Brandt and others ‘An Inside Look at the World of Agents: Past Present, and Future: Panels 1 & 3’ (2014) 21 Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal Issue 2, 259

C Daugherty Rasnic and R Resch, ‘Missing the puck at the bargaining table: the 2012–2013 National Hockey League labor dispute with some comparisons to European law’ (2014) 14 The International Sports Law Journal 3-4, p.192 

S Davidson and M Štefko, ‘Institutionalised Exploitation of U.S. College Basketball and Football Players: A Case for Protection of Employees’ Rights’ (2014) (Forthcoming)

P Disseldorp, ‘De jeugd heeft de toekomst? Over de houdbaarheid van UEFA’s home grown player rule naar Europees recht’ (2014) Tijdschrift voor Sport & Recht (TvS&R) Issue 2

T Martin, ‘The case against strengthening the home grown player rule’ (2014) African Sports Law and Business Bulletin Issue 2/2014, 51


4. Corruption in Sport 

E Barak and D Koolaard, ‘Match-fixing. The aftermath of Pobeda – what have the past four years brought us?’ (2014) TAS/CAS Bulletin 1/2014, 5

L Colantuoni, ‘Match-fixing in international sports: recent issues and TAS/CAS cases’ Papers from 19th IASL Congress, Bali 2013 (2014) 10 International Sports Law Review (ISLR), Pandektis Issues 3-4

A Di Giandomenico, ‘Toward a European regulation on sports fraud? Legal criticalities’ Papers from 19th IASL Congress, Bali 2013 (2014) 10 International Sports Law Review (ISLR), Pandektis Issues 3-4

M Kudzai Chiweshe, ‘The problem with African football: Corruption and the (under development of the game on the continent’ (2014) African Sports Law and Business Bulletin Issue 2/2014, 27

C Ordway, ‘Why this Australian supported Germany to win the World Cup’ (2014) 6 Sport& EU Review Issue 2, 6 (Upcoming)

J Tsabora, ‘Cleansing the game: mapping and tackling state-induced corruption trends in African football’ (2014) African Sports Law and Business Bulletin Issue 2/2014, 13  


5. Doping

N Ayanda Majozi, ‘Doping, are there only a few good apples in the barrel?’ (2014) African Sports Law and Business Bulletin Issue 2/2014, 41

A Duval, ‘Cocaine, doping and the court of arbitration for sport’ (December 2014) The International Sports Law Journal (available online)

A Nemes, ‘What did the Lance Armstrong case teach to the world’s doping controllers?’ Papers from 19th IASL Congress, Bali 2013 (2014) 10 International Sports Law Review (ISLR), Pandektis Issues 3-4

A Olmeda and J  Rodriguez García, ‘El código mundial antidopaje 2015’ (2014) Revista Aranzadi de derecho de deporte y entretenimiento, 289

E de La Rochefoucauld, ‘WADA Code Review Summary’ (2014) TAS/CAS Bulletin 1/2014, 36

J Viejo, ‘El caso de Marta Domínguez: el pasaporte biológico’ (2014) Revista Aranzadi de derecho de deporte y entretenimiento, 247

J T Wendt, ‘Toward harmonization in anti-doping regulation in equestrian sport’ (2014) 10 International Sports Law Review (ISLR), Pandektis Issues 3-4

E Atienza-Macias, ‘Doping and health protection: A review of the current situation in the Spanish legislation’ (2014) 10 International Sports Law Review (ISLR), Pandektis Issues 3-4


6. Human Rights in Sport

F Faut, ‘The prohibition of political statements by athletes and its consistency with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights: speech is silver, silence is gold?’ (2014) 14 The International Sports Law Journal 3-4, p. 253

T Galaz, ‘Bargaining for the Next Gay Player: How Can Jason Collins Help to Develop the National Basketball Association into a More Inclusive Workplace?’ (2014) 21 Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal Issue 2, 461

J Liljeblad, ‘Foucault, justice, and athletes with prosthetics: the 2008 CAS Arbitration Report on Oscar Pistorius’ (December 2014)

M Noland and K Stahler, ‘What Goes into a Medal: Women's Inclusion and Success at the Olympic Games’ (2014) (Forthcoming)

O A Shevchenko, ‘Role of human rights and decent work in sports’ Papers from 19th IASL Congress, Bali 2013 (2014) 10 International Sports Law Review (ISLR), Pandektis Issues 3-4 


7. Sports Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

I Blackshaw, ‘Settling Sports Disputes by CAS Mediation’ (2014) TAS/CAS Bulletin 1/2014, 25

L Beffa and O Ducrey, ‘Review of the 2012 Case Law of the Swiss Federal Tribunal Concerning Sports Arbitration’ (2014) Causa Sport : die Sport-Zeitschrift für nationales und internationales Recht sowie für Wirtschaft Issue 1, 3

L Beffa and O Ducrey, ‘Review of the 2013 Case Law of the Swiss Federal Tribunal Concerning Sports Arbitration’ (2014) Causa Sport : die Sport-Zeitschrift für nationales und internationales Recht sowie für Wirtschaft Issue 3, 212

M Duthie, ‘Experience of a sports lawyer in mediation’ (2014) TAS/CAS Bulletin 1/2014, 31

M Grabowski, ‘Both Sides Win: Why Using Mediation Would Improve Pro Sports’ (2014) 5 The Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law (JSEL) Number 2, 190

D Mavromati, ‘The Panel’s right to exclude evidence based on Article R57 para. 3 CAS Code: a limit to CAS’ full power of review?’ (2014) TAS/CAS Bulletin 1/2014, 48

G von Segesser, Schellenberg Wittmer, ‘Admitting illegally obtained evidence in CAS proceedings – Swiss Federal Supreme Court Shows Match-Fixing the Red Card’  Kluwer Arbitration Blog (17 October 2014) 


Book Reviews

A Duval, ‘The “Swiss Army Knife” of CAS arbitration’ (November 2014) The International Sports Law Journal (available online)


8. Lex Sportiva/ Sports Governance

B Barquero, ‘Fundamentos a favor de una postura amplia en torno a la operatividad del fuero de atracción en la Ley de Salvataje de Entidades Deportivas en Crisis’ (2014) Revista de Derecho del Deporte Número 8

A Brand, ‘Changes and Challenges of Sports Policy in Europe – Sport & EU Conference Report’ (2014) 6 Sport& EU Review Issue 2, 28 (Upcoming)

M E Boyd, ‘Riding the Bench – A Look at Sports Metaphors in Judicial Opinions’(2014) 5 The Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law (JSEL) Number 2, 245

S Boyes, ‘Sports Law: Its History and Growth and the Development of Key Sources’ (2013) 21 Sport & Law Journal Issue 3

J de Dios Crespo and S Santorcuato, ‘The union of European football associations (“UEFA”) financial fair play’ (2014) African Sports Law and Business Bulletin Issue 2/2014, 56

C Pérez González, ‘Crónica sobre cuestiones relativas al derecho internacional y de la Unión Europea del deporte.’ (2014) Revista Aranzadi de derecho de deporte y entretenimiento, 549

N Grow, ‘Regulating Professional Sports Leagues’ (2015) 72 Washington and Lee Law Review (Forthcoming)

V Kapogianni, ‘The cornerstone of the frontierless sports law’ (2014) 10 International Sports Law Review (ISLR), Pandektis Issues 3-4

T Meakin, ‘The evolving legal issues on Rugby Neuro-trauma’ (2013) 21 Sport & Law Journal Issue 3

D P Panagiotopoulos, ‘General principles of law in international sports activities and lex sportiva’ Papers from 19th IASL Congress, Bali 2013 (2014) 10 International Sports Law Review (ISLR), Pandektis Issues 3-4

I V Ponkin and A I Ponkina, ‘On correlation of lex sportiva and sports law’ Papers from 19th IASL Congress, Bali 2013 (2014) 10 International Sports Law Review (ISLR), Pandektis Issues 3-4

A A Solovyev, ‘The sports laws systematization models’ Papers from 19th IASL Congress, Bali 2013 (2014) 10 International Sports Law Review (ISLR), Pandektis Issues 3-4

K Vieweg, ‘Lex sportiva and the fairness principle’ Papers from 19th IASL Congress, Bali 2013 (2014) 10 International Sports Law Review (ISLR), Pandektis Issues 3-4

H Xiang, ‘Reflections on several basic issues of sports law concepts’ Papers from 19th IASL Congress, Bali 2013 (2014) 10 International Sports Law Review (ISLR), Pandektis Issues 3-4


9. Domestic Sports Law Issues

Articles

J Anderson, ‘Village greens, commons land and the emergence of sports law in the UK’ (2014) 14 The International Sports Law Journal 3-4, p. 218

F Colin, ‘La confirmation de l’intérêt généralement limité de l’exercice du recours en rectification d’erreur matérielle devant le Conseil d’État, appliqué en droit du sport Note sous CE, 5 mars 2014’ (2014) 36 CDS, 64

F Dousset and Elodie Brunner, ‘La rémunération accessoire : un élément d’appréciation du contrat de travail ? Note sous CA Toulouse, ch. soc. 4, sect.1, 15 mai 2014’ (2014) 36 CDS, 89

N Grossman, ‘What is the NBA?’ (2015)  25 Marquette Sports Law Review, Marquette Law School Legal Studies Paper No. 14-27 (Forthcoming)

M M Heekin and B W Burton, ‘Bias in the College Football Playoff Selection Process: If the Devil is in the Details, That's Where Salvation May Be Found’ (2014) 24 Marquette Sports Law Review Issue 2, 335

C Hinson, ‘Assessing the Scope of State University Sovereign Immunity: A Commentary on the Vexing Dispute over UCF Athletics Association, Inc.’ (2014) 24 Marquette Sports Law Review Issue 2, 419

J T Holden, ‘North American sports leagues and gambling policy: a comparative analysis’ (2014) 14 The International Sports Law Journal 3-4, p. 242

Mgr. M Kralik, ‘Civil liability of sports participants in the Czech Republic’ (2014) 10 International Sports Law Review (ISLR), Pandektis Issues 3-4

S Martin, ‘La limite des pouvoirs disciplinaires d’une fédération sportive Note sous CE, 28 avril 2014’ (2014) 36 CDS, 165

K C Omuojine, ‘Dispute Resolution in Nigerian football: the need for a national dispute resolution chamber’ (2014) African Sports Law and Business Bulletin Issue 2/2014, 20 

N Partington, ‘Legal liability of coaches: a UK perspective’ (2014) 14 The International Sports Law Journal 3-4, p.232

G Rabu, ‘L’impact de la loi relative à la consommation dans le sport’(2014) 36 CDS, 15

G Rabu, ‘L’illicéité de l’interdiction conventionnelle du recours au contrat à durée indéterminée Note sous Cass. soc., 2 avril 2014’ (2014) 36 CDS, 95

G Rabu, ‘La négociation des contrats de cession de droits TV soumise au droit des pratiques restrictives de concurrence Note sous Cass. com., 20 mai 2014’ (2014) 36 CDS, 183

F Razano, ‘Keeping Sport out of the courts: the national soccer league dispute resolution chamber- a model for sports dispute resolution in South Africa and Africa’ (2014) African Sports Law and Business Bulletin Issue 2/2014, 2

F Razano and F Majani, ‘Club licensing in African football- are we there yet?’ (2014) African Sports Law and Business Bulletin Issue 2/2014, 34

L Richard, ‘La disposition qui soumet le joueur à des indemnités de rupture prohibitives est contraire à la Constitution belge Note sous Cour du travail d’Anvers, 6 mai 2014’ (2014) 36 CDS, 102

J Wolohan, ‘Sports betting in the United States: Past, Present and Future’ Papers from 19th IASL Congress, Bali 2013 (2014) 10 International Sports Law Review (ISLR), Pandektis Issues 3-4

W Xiaoping, ‘The consideration of revision of Chinese sports law a tentative analysis on proposals to legislation of professional sport’ Papers from 19th IASL Congress, Bali 2013 (2014) 10 International Sports Law Review (ISLR), Pandektis Issues 3-4

R Yavner, ‘Minor League Baseball and the Competitive Balance: Examining the Effects of Baseball’s Antitrust Exemption’ (2014) 5 The Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law (JSEL) Number 2, 266

 T Yong, ‘The concept of sports law in China’ Papers from 19th IASL Congress, Bali 2013 (2014) 10 International Sports Law Review (ISLR), Pandektis Issues 3-4  


10. Olympic Games

V Postlethwaite, ‘Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics and the controversy of the Russian Propaganda Laws: is the IOC buckling under the pressure of its own incoherence in thought?’ (2014) 14 The International Sports Law Journal 3-4, p. 264


Book Reviews

K L Jones, ‘Adam Lewis QC and Jonathan Taylor: Sports: Law and Practice (2014) 14 The International Sports Law Journal 3-4, p.275 



II. Recent Developments in European Sports Law 


A. EU Press Releases

New milestone in the fight against match-fixing (Brussels 18 September 2014) 

Taxation: Commission refers The Netherlands to the Court over VAT exemption for water sport activities (Brussels 25 September 2014)

Studies on betting-related match-fixing now available (Brussels 17  September 2014) : 1)EAC/16/2013 Study on risk assessment and management and prevention of conflicts of interest in the prevention and fight against betting-related match fixing in the EU 28 (T.M.C. Asser Instituut / Asser International Sports Law Centre, July 2014) and 2) Study on the sharing of information and reporting of suspicious sports betting activity in the EU 28 (Oxford Research and VU Amsterdam) 


B. Council of Europe Conventions

Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions (adopted on 9 July 2014 and opened for signatures on 18 September 2014)


C. EU Commission Decisions

C (2014)7378, Commission decision adopting the arrangement for cooperation between the European Commission and UEFA (Brussels 14 October 2014) http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/2014/docs/uefa2014_en.pdf


D. UN Resolution

Resolution A/69/L.5 of 16 October 2014 on Sport for Development and Peace http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/69/l.5.



III. Case Law


1. TAS/CAS

CAS 2014/A/3630 Dirk de Ridder v. International Sailing Federation (ISAF)

CAS 2014/A/3665/3666/3667 Luis Suarez / FC Barcelona / Uruguayan Football Association / FIFA 

CAS 2014/A/3518 Zamalek Sporting Club v. Accra Hearts of Oak Sporting Club

CAS AG 14/03 Tai Cheau Xuen v. Olympic Council of Asia

CAS 2014/A/3516 George Yerolimpos v. World Karate Federation

CAS AG 14/02 Pg Mohammed Nasir Pg Anak Jaafar v. Brunei Darussaalam National Olympic Council

CAS AG 14/01 Rahul Kumar & Saket Wali v. ASF & OCA & WSF

CAS 2014/A/3694 Roman Kreuziger v. UCI

CAS 2013/A/3417 FC Metz v. NK Nafta Lendava

CAS 2013/A/3389 Virach Chanpanich v. The Football Association of Thailand

TAS 2014/A/3475 Charline Van Snick c. Fédération Internationale de Judo (FIJ) (Doping)

CAS 2013/A/3062 Kevin Sammut v. UEFA


2. FIFA Dispute Resolution System 

Labour Disputes

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, Club K, from country A v. Player Q, from country P (30 July 2014)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, Club S, from country A v. Player P, from country A and Club B, from country T (30 July 2014)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, Player D, from country R v. Club X, from country T and Club Y, from country T as intervening party (30 July 2014)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, Player P, from country X v. Club Y, from country S (30 July 2014)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, Player W, from country T v. Club A, from country U (30 July 2014)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, Player R, from country E v. Club C, from country M and Club W, from country G as intervening party (30 July 2014)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Judge, Player R, from country B v. Club A, from country R (27 August 2014)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Judge, Player R, from country T v. Club A, from country L (27 August 2014)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, Player G, from country N v. Club I, from country E (20 August 2014)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Judge, Player B, from country G v. Club F, from country C (27 August 2014)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Judge, Player B, from country H v. Club Z, from country I (27 August 2014)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, Player J, from country U v. Club S, from country E and Club Y (20 August 2014) (in Spanish)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, Player M, from country A v. Club L, from country G and Club T, from country A as intervening party (20 August 2014)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, Player M, from country I v. Club P, from country R (28 August 2014)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Judge, Player D, from country N v. Club S, from country H (27 August 2014)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, Player K, from country G v. Club K, from country T (20 August 2014)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Judge, Player D, from country N v. Club S, from country H (27 August 2014)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, Player K, from country G v. Club K, from country T (20 August 2014)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, Player B, from country C v. Club K, from country T (28 August 2014)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, Player F, from country A v. Club O, from country C and Club L, from country S as intervening party (20 August 2014)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Judge, Player M, from country A v. Club X, from country X (20 August 2014) (in Spanish)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Judge, Player E, from country P v. Club A, from country C (27 August 2014) (in Spanish)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Judge, Player S, from country C v. Club O, from country C (20 August 2014)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, Player I, from country M v. Club A, from country K (20 August 2014) 


Disputes about the Training Compensation

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, Club L, from country P v. Club T, from country S regarding training compensation in connection with the player M (30 July 2014)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, Club V, from country N v. Club M, from country T regarding training compensation in connection with the player O (30 July 2014)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Judge, Club X, from country U v. Club A, from country A regarding training compensation in connection with the player O (20 August 2014) (in Spanish)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, Club A, from country A v. Club X, from country M regarding training compensation in connection with the player B (28 August 2014) (in Spanish) 


Solidarity Contribution Disputes

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Judge, Club S, from country B v. Club G, from country I regarding solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player C (27 August 2014)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, Club A, from country B v. Club D, from country U and Club G, from country B as intervening party regarding solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player D (20 August 2014)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, Club J, from country B v. Club D, from country U and Club V, from country B as intervening party regarding solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player O (20 August 2014)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Judge, Club W, from country G v. Club K, from country T regarding solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player Y (27 August 2014)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Judge, Club E, from country G v. Club K, from country T regarding solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player Y (27 August 2014)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Judge, Club S, from country G v. Club K, from country T regarding solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player Y (27 August 2014)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Judge, Club B, from country G v. Club K, from country T regarding solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player Y(27 August 2014) 


3. National Courts Decisions

Swiss Federal Tribunal Decision 4A_324/2014, Fenerbahçe Spor Kulübü v Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) (16 October 2014)

United States Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, NCAA Student-Athlete name & likeness litigation (No 10-15387)


Comments are closed
Asser International Sports Law Blog | International and European Sports Law – Monthly Report – June 2016. By Kester Mekenkamp

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

International and European Sports Law – Monthly Report – June 2016. By Kester Mekenkamp

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

What a month June turned out to be. Waking up the morning after the 23rd, the results of the UK referendum on EU membership were final. The words of Mark Twain: “Apparently there is nothing that cannot happen today”, might provide the most apt description of the mood felt at the time.[1] The Leave campaign’s narrow victory has brought along tremendous economic, political and legal uncertainties for both the UK and the (other) Member States. To give but one example, with regard to the implications of Brexit on Europe’s most profiting football league, we recommend an older blog by Daniel Geey and Jonny Madill.

Perhaps just as shocking as the UK’s wish for secession, was the Bundesgerichtshof decision in the infamous Pechstein case. On 7 June the highest German civil court ruled in favour of the validity of forced CAS arbitration and the independence of the CAS, leaving Claudia Pechstein to cough up roughly EUR 300 000 in legal expenses. For a critical analysis of the decision see Antoine Duval’s blog.

Operación Puerto, deemed “one of the most infamous and obscure doping sagas in history”, saw a new chapter being added on 14 June. A Spanish special criminal appeal chamber held that the more than 200 blood bags of professional athletes (which had been stored since their confiscation in 2006) can be delivered to the Spanish Anti-Doping Agency (AEPSAD), WADA, the UCI and the Italian Olympic Committee (CONI). Oskar van Maren examined the case in a blog.

Last but not least, in June we witnessed the IAAF upholding its decision not to reinstate the Russian Athletics Federation (RusAF) for IAAF Membership. This means that Russian athletes will still not be allowed to compete in International Competitions under IAAF Rules including the European Championships and the Rio 2016 Olympic Games. A few days later, the 21th of June, the IOC endorsed IAAF’s position. Though it also potentially opened the door for Russian athletes to demonstrate that they are clean. The IAAF’s decision was appealed collectively by 61 Russian athletes to the CAS, and the final decision is due before the start of the Olympic Games in Rio. 


Case law

On June 3rd a temporary injunction was granted by the Landgericht München in the case between the International Basketball Federation (FIBA) and FIBA Europe versus several basketball clubs. The court ruled that FIBA may not prevent these clubs from participating in the so-called Euroleague competitions. The alleged abuse of a dominant position is addressed in a blog by Marine Montejo. Yet the injunction was annulled in a subsequent decision of the LG München.

Famous tennis star Maria Sharapova was found to have violated anti-doping rules for the use of the controversial ‘meldonium’. A specially appointed independent tribunal imposed a two-year ban, disqualifying her from professional tennis from 26 January 2016 to 25 January 2018 (see also this piece by James Segan). In reply, she appealed the decision to the CAS, which is due to decide the case in September. This will prevent her from participating at the Olympic Games in Rio.

A key player in our Unpacking Doyen’s TPO deals blogs, football club FC Twente, found itself in a rollercoaster of conflicting decisions during the end of season 2015/2016. On 18 May the licensing committee of the Dutch football federation (KNVB) issued a decision in which it relegated the club to the second (and lowest) professional league. It did so by creating a new ad hoc license for the second league, which did not exist before. Subsequently on 10 June, in summary proceedings before the district court, FC Twente’s request for provisional measures got rejected, and the relegation approved. Yet only a week later, the KNVB’s appeal committee overturned the licensing committee’s initial ruling. As a result FC Twente will stay in the highest professional league 


Official documents and Press releases

CAS – Statement on the decision made by the German Federal Tribunal in the case between Claudia Pechstein and the International Skating Union (ISU)

CAS – Maria Sharapova files an appeal at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, Tennis, Anti-doping

CAS – List upcoming hearings

CAS – KS Skenderbeu files an appeal at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, Football

CAS – The Appeal filed by Galatasaray SK is rejected by the Court of Arbitration for Sport

European Council - Council conclusions on enhancing integrity, transparency and good governance in major sport events

European Commission - Mapping and Analysis of the Specificity of Sport, A Final Report to the DG Education & Culture of the European Commission

FIBA - FIBA Europe welcomes Munich court decision to cancel temporary injunction

FIFA - Attorneys for FIFA provide update on internal investigation and details on compensation for former top officials

FIFA - Overview of Important Provisions contained in the Employment Contracts of Messrs. Blatter, Valcke and Kattner since 2007

FIFA - Circular no. 1542, Amendments to the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players

FIFA - Circular no. 1545, FIFA Forward Programme/2016 financial support - operational costs

IAAF – Ethics board statement 10 June 2016

IAAF - Response to Ethics Board statement

IAAF - Decision on Russia's participation in Rio Olympics

IAAF – IAAF Taskforce: Interim report to IAAF Council, 17 June 2016

IOC - Declaration of the Olympic Summit

ISU - Decision of the Bundesgerichtshof in the case of Ms. Claudia Pechstein

KNVB – Besluit licentiecommissie betaald voetbal 26 november 2015

WADA - International Standard for Laboratories (ISL)

WADA - WADA Update regarding Maria Sharapova Case

WADA - Acknowledges Madrid Court decision to provide access to "Operation Puerto" athlete blood bags

WADA - WADA Suspends the Accreditation of the Almaty Laboratory 


In the news

Athletics

Rebecca R. Ruiz, Juliet Macur and Ian Austen - Even With Confession of Cheating, World’s Doping Watchdog Did Nothing

Cycling

Stuart Clarke - Judge rules athletes implicated in Operation Puerto can be identified

Culture, Media and Sport Committee – Whistleblower Dan Stevens in front of the Committee

Football

Guardian - Football clubs in England’s top four tiers generated more than £4bn in 2014-15

Brian Homewood - No formal proceedings against FIFA chief Infantino says ethics committee

Mary Papenfuss - Auditor KPMG pulling out of Fifa because of 'lack of commitment' to reform

SBD - Barcelona Pleads Guilty To Fraud In Neymar Case, Agrees To Pay $6.2M Fine 

Olympics

Nick Butler - Exclusive: Clause at centre of European Championships contract row is "superseded"

James M. Dorsey - Kuwaiti Rulers Fight their Internal Battles on the Sports Field

Sam Morshead - 'It's like a badminton player playing tennis': Boxing comes under fire after voting for professionals to compete at Rio Olympics just 10 weeks before the Games

Dan Roan - Russia and Rio 2016: How the IOC is working up an Olympic compromise

SBS - Sailors take Olympic appeal bid to CAS

Pechstein case

Deutschlandfunk - "Sportler sollten Gerichtsbarkeit wählen können"

FAZ - Claudia Pechstein droht Schuldenberg

FIFPro - Despite decision, Pechstein must trigger reform

Johannes Herber - Urteil im Fall Pechstein, "Siegen oder sterben"

Swimming

Kor. Herald - Park Tae-hwan resumes arbitration proceedings against Olympic ban

David Leggat - Kane Radford, Charlotte Webby set to appeal Olympic snubs 


Academic materials

Dawn Aquilina and Angelo Chetcuti, The Aftermath of a Match-Fixing Case that Shook Two Nations: Insights into How Malta and Norway Are Seeking to Redeem Their Football

Bruce W. Bean, FIFA — The Reform Charade Continues

Richard Bunworth - Egg-shell skulls or institutional negligence? The liability of World Rugby for incidents of concussion suffered by professional players in England and Ireland

Antoine Duval, Getting to the games: the Olympic selection drama(s) at the court of arbitration for sport

Antoine Duval, Herman Ram, Marjolaine Viret, Emily Wisnosky, Howard L. Jacobs and Mike Morgan - The World Anti-Doping Code 2015: ASSER International Sports Law Blog symposium

Arnout Geeraert and Edith Drieskens, Theorising the EU and International Sport: The Principal-Agent Model and Beyond

Andrew C. Harmes, Forecheck, backcheck . . . paycheck? Employment status of the quasi-professional athlete: A case study of the CHL and the Major junior hockey player

Thomas Margoni, The Protection of Sports Events in the EU: Property, Intellectual Property, Unfair Competition and Special Forms of Protection

Despina Mavromati, The Legality of an Arbitration Agreement in Favour of CAS Under German Civil and Competition Law - The Pechstein Ruling of the German Federal Tribunal (BGH) of 7 June 2016

Karen Petry, The Beginnings and Development of European Sport Research at Universities: From Marginalisation to Fragmentation?

Ryan M. Rodenberg, Jeff Sackmann and Chris Groer - Tennis integrity: a sports law analytics review

Stephen Kirwan, Levelling the Playing Field? Remuneration Caps, EU Competition Law and Article 7(3) of the FIFA Regulations on Working With Intermediaries

Zachary Shapiro, Regulation, prohibition, and dantasy: The case of FanDuel, DraftKings, and Daily Fantasy Sports in New York and Massachusetts

Joshua D. Winneker, Philip Schultze and Sam C. Ehrlich, Lights, Camera, … Injury! The NBA Needs to Ban Courtside Cameramen 


Books

Michael Barry, James Skinner and Terry Engelberg, Research Handbook of Employment Relations in Sport

Antoine Duval, Ben Van Rompuy (Eds.), The Legacy of Bosman, Revisiting the Relationship Between EU Law and Sport

LawInSport and the British Association for Sport and Law, Sports Law Yearbook 2015/16 - UK, Ireland and EU eBook.

Götz Schulze, Aktuelle Rechtsfragen im Profifußball: Psychologische Faktoren und rechtliche Gestaltung Taschenbuch  


Blogs

Gregory Basnier, Joint selling of French Rugby’s tv rights: A review of the recent competition law cases

Carol Couse and Jake Cohen, The potential impact of Brexit on European football

Johanna Croon-Gestefeld, Der BGH und Pechstein: Transnationaler Konstitutionalismus sieht anders aus

Thomas Croxford and Nick De Marco, Fiduciary duties, football, and the fundamental importance of the contractual relationship

Juan de Dios and Crespo Pérez, Operación Puerto: A long and winding road in the fight against doping

Antoine Duval, The BGH’s Pechstein Decision: A Surrealist Ruling

Antoine Duval, The Pechstein case: Transnational constitutionalism in inaction at the Bundesgerichtshof

Antonia Foster, Advice for Athletes facing false allegations by the press – Practical and Legal Options

Ryan Lake, Signing new talent: How the entry draft system works in the National Hockey League

Daniel Lowen, Determining the level of compensations for out of contract football players: The PFCC Danny Ings Award

Jonny Madill and Jack Jones, Sharing sports clips in the digital age: 6 things you should know

Oskar van Maren, The EU State aid and Sport Saga: Hungary revisited? (Part 2)

Oskar van Maren, Operación Puerto Strikes Back!

Kester Mekenkamp, The Müller case: Revisiting the compatibility of fixed term contracts in football with EU Law

Lance Miller, Celeste Koravos and Nick Fitzpatrick, Sustainable procurement at Tokyo 2020 Olympics: Top 10 tips for a winning bid

Marine Montejo, FIBA/Euroleague: Basketball’s EU Competition Law Champions League- first leg in the Landgericht München

Kimberly Morris and Barry Lysaght, How FIFA TMS Investigations increase transparency and accountability in international football transfers

Tim Owen, Sport, corruption and the criminal law: the need for an expert investigative body

Fabian Reinholz, Das Pechstein urteil nimmt dem sport reformdruck

Jennifer E. Rothman and Eugene Volokh, Brief of 28 constitutional law and intellectual property law professors as Amici Curiae in support of petitioner in, No. 15-1388, In the Supreme Court of the United States, National Collegiate Athletic Association, petitioner, v. Edward C. O’Bannon et al., Respondents

James Segan, A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma: the Sharapova case

Andrew Smith, A review of the updates to FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players

The Swiss Rambler, Nottingham Forest - From The Ritz To The Rubble

The Swiss Rambler, Wolverhampton Wanderers - After The Gold Rush

WADC Commentary Team, Meldonium and Moral Fault: Five Lessons Learned from the Sharapova ITF Tribunal Decision

Mathias Wittinghofer and  Sylvia Schenk, A Never Ending Story: Claudia Pechstein’s Challenge to the CAS

John Wolohan, The integrity of education in college sport: does the NCAA model compromise athlete welfare? 


Upcoming events

14 July - Sports Corruption 2016 Conference, MBL Seminars London

19 – 21 July - Executive Programme in International Sports Law, Sports Law and Policy Centre, Ravello, Italy

2 & 3 September - International Sport Arbitration 6th Conference CAS & SAV, The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), the Swiss Bar Association (SAV / FSA) and the Swiss Arbitration Association (ASA), Lausanne Switzerland

16 September - The future of the ‘legal autonomy’ of sport, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK

26 September - Soccerex - Global Convention 2016, Manchester, UK 




[1] Mark Twain, American author (30 November 1835/21 April 1910)

Comments are closed
Asser International Sports Law Blog | Doyen’s Crusade Against FIFA’s TPO Ban: The Ruling of the Appeal Court of Brussels

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

Doyen’s Crusade Against FIFA’s TPO Ban: The Ruling of the Appeal Court of Brussels

Since last year, Doyen Sports, represented by Jean-Louis Dupont, embarked on a legal crusade against FIFA’s TPO ban. It has lodged a competition law complaint with the EU Commission and started court proceedings in France and Belgium. In a first decision on Doyen’s request for provisory measures, the Brussels Court of First Instance rejected the demands raised by Doyen and already refused to send a preliminary reference to the CJEU. Doyen, supported by the Belgium club Seraing, decided to appeal this decision to the Brussels Appeal Court, which rendered its final ruling on the question on 10 March 2016.[1] The decision (on file with us) is rather unspectacular and in line with the first instance judgment. This blog post will rehash the three interesting aspects of the case.

·      The jurisdiction of the Belgian courts

·      The admissibility of Doyen’s action

·      The conditions for awarding provisory measures

 

I.      The jurisdiction of the Belgian courts

Doyen was not the only party to the dispute dissatisfied with the first instance ruling; FIFA and UEFA also appealed the decision challenging the territorial competence of the Belgian Court to hear the claims raised against FIFA’s TPO ban. They consider that the Swiss courts are solely competent to deal with civil disputes involving its rules and decisions.

As in first instance, the thrust of the ruling on this question turns on the interpretation of the Lugano convention of 2007 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. In principle, under Article 2(1) of the Convention: “Subject to the provisions of this Convention, persons domiciled in a State bound by this Convention shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that State.” Thus, translated to the present dispute this would imply that FIFA and UEFA, which are Swiss Associations, are in principle to be sued in front of Swiss courts.

Moreover, to support their view that Swiss Courts have an exclusive jurisdiction, FIFA and UEFA also invoke Article 22(2) Lugano Convention stipulating that “proceedings which have as their object the validity of the constitution, the nullity or the dissolution of companies or other legal persons or associations of natural or legal persons, or of the validity of the decisions of their organs, the courts of the State bound by this Convention in which the company, legal person or association has its seat. In order to determine that seat, the court shall apply its rules of private international law”. Yet, the Appeal Court is of a different opinion and refers to the jurisprudence of the CJEU indicating that Article 22(2) should be interpreted as referring to disputes lodged based on company law or their statutes against decisions of a company or association.

The principle enshrined in Article 2 Lugano Convention is not absolute, many exceptions are provided in the Lugano Convention itself. In particular, Article 5(3) Lugano Convention foresees that in delictual matters the court of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur is competent. This entails both the place were the harmful conduct was put in motion and the place where the harm was felt. In the present case, the Appeal Court argues that it is “difficult to contest that by hindering the appellant to execute their partnership agreement and enter in future TPO or TPI agreements over specific players, the attacked ban is producing harmful effects on the Belgian territory”.[2] Furthermore, the TPO agreement between Doyen Sports and the ASBL RFC Seraing is not deemed fictitious, as it has been invoked by FIFA to hand out disciplinary sanctions to the ASBL RFC Seraing.[3]

Additionally, the Court derives also its competence from Article 6(1) Lugano Convention. This article provides that a party can be sued “where he is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where any one of them is domiciled, provided the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings”. The key question is whether there is sufficient connectedness between the claims raised against l’URBSFA, FIFA and UEFA. The Court refers to the recent case law of the CJEU, which is relevant to the interpretation of the Lugano Convention, on the identical provision in the Brussels Regulation (notably the case C-352/13 at para. 20). It is of the view that “FIFA and URBSFA share a regulatory and disciplinary power that enables them both, acting jointly or separately, to adopt the contested ban, to enforce it and to adopt an individual decision susceptible to block, compromise and/or restrict the execution of the contract signed by the appellants”.[4] Thus, “the autonomous regulatory power of the URBSFA justifies its participation in this proceeding, alongside FIFA in order (i) to obtain that both be prevented to act; (ii) that each of them be deprived of the opportunity to contest the opposability of a decision to which they would not have been part and lastly (iii) to deny FIFA the possibility to circumvent an interdiction pronounced against it by having recourse to the regulatory power of the URBSFA”.[5] Finally, the Court argues “if the appellant were forced to lodge a claim against FIFA in front of the Swiss courts and against URBSFA in front of the Belgian Courts, this could potentially lead to irreconcilable solutions”.[6] As far as the claims against UEFA are concerned, which has not contrary to FIFA explicitly banned TPO, the Appeal Court is also convinced of their connectedness. It is so because UEFA “imposes to the clubs needing a license to participate in its competitions that they comply with the statutes and regulations of FIFA and, thus, with the disputed TPO ban “.[7]

This is again a powerful reminder that Sports Governing Bodies (SGBs) seated in Switzerland cannot evade the jurisdiction of the national courts of EU Member States when EU competition law is involved.[8] Under Article 5(3) Lugano Convention, EU Member States courts will be competent to deal with a civil liability claim based on EU competition law if the damage caused by the disputed measure/decision/regulation can be felt on the national territory of a Member State. Furthermore, if, as is usually the case for sports regulations, the rules have to be implemented by national sporting associations, the claims raised against the national SGBs will most likely be deemed connected to the original decisions/regulations of the international SGBs and justify the jurisdiction of the court of the domicile of the national SGB.[9]

 

II.    The admissibility of Doyen’s action

In this proceeding, as well as in the one initiated in front of the Paris court (FIFA’s legal submission in the Paris procedure has been published by football leaks), FIFA argues that Doyen’s action is not admissible due to the fact that the wrong administrator has initiated it. Indeed, under article 11.1 of Doyen’s own statutes the judicial representation is to be exercised by the local administrator designated by shareholder A acting in conjunction with the local administrator designated by shareholder B or by any other person designated by the general assembly. Yet, in practice Nelio Lucas, who fulfils none of the relevant criteria and was thus not authorized to act in Doyen’s name in judicial matters, lodged the action. However, Doyen could have under Belgium procedural rules ratified the judicial initiative taken by an incompetent organ. Doyen tried to do so but failed to organize the general assembly necessary to ratify Nelio Luca’s decision. Thus, the Court deems the action initiated by Doyen inadmissible. Luckily for Doyen it was not the sole party to the proceedings as the ASBL RFC Seraing joined the procedure. The Court believes the intervention of RFC Seraing in the proceedings is admissible and its interest to act is acknowledged. On this latter point, FIFA was arguing that RFC Seraing’s interest to act was inexistent due to the fact that the partnership agreement between Doyen and Seraing was contrary to the public order. However, in light of the divergent positions regarding the legality of TPO/TPI and of the on-going proceedings before various national courts and the European commission, the Belgium court is reluctant to admit that the interest of Seraing to act in this matter is illegitimate.

 

III.  Doyen’s (un)likelihood to prevail

As explained in our previous blog on the first instance ruling in the same matter, Doyen and Seraing can obtain provisory measures if they demonstrate that those measures are urgent and that they are likely to prevail on substance in the main proceedings.

On the urgency of adopting provisory measures, the Court sided with Seraing and Doyen. It found that Seraing is subjected to disciplinary sanctions, even though their execution is suspended, and is susceptible to incur further proceedings and sanctions if it enters into new TPO/TPI agreements with Doyen.[10] Moreover, it is un-doubtable that the prohibition of the agreement with Doyen has deprived Seraing of financial resources that cannot be easily substituted by classical loans from third parties.[11] Consequently, the Court considers that the urgency requirement for provisory measures is given.

Concerning the likelihood to prevail, however, the Court sided with the federations and refused to admit that the TPO/TPI ban was likely to restrict article 101(1) TFEU. On the one hand, as indices of the compatibility of the ban with EU law, it pointed out that the Commission was inclined to support the TPO ban, that FIFPro was clearly opposed to TPO and invokes fundamental values in support of the ban, and that the ban was adopted after a collective reflection involving many stakeholders and is aimed at tackling the negative externalities listed by the first instance court.[12] On the other hand, it refers to an academic article authored by Marmayou contesting the compatibility of TPO with EU law (this reference appears poorly chosen as the article is dedicated primarily to the FIFA regulations for intermediaries, for a stronger challenge to the compatibility of the TPO ban with EU law see Lindholm).[13] In any case, “it is obvious that a preliminary assessment cannot lead the Court to conclude, with sufficient certainty, that the ban would be contrary to EU competition rules”.[14] Finally, and this is the part of the ruling that seems to have been slightly misinterpreted by the press. The Court pointed out that Seraing and Doyen were asking in the main proceedings for a preliminary reference to the CJEU and that they were, therefore, conscious that they are not certain to prevail. However, the Appeal Court cannot, in the framework of a procedure involving provisory measures, ask a question to the CJEU, as it is unable to comply with the CJEU’s requirements for the admissibility of preliminary references (see the failed attempt in the UEFA FFP case). Hence, it is for the Commercial Court of Brussels, which is competent in the main proceeding, to decide whether it is necessary to do so. The Appeal Court (and the claimants as it cheekily points out) seems to believe that it could be needed, as it is not at all clear that the ban is contrary to EU competition law.


Conclusion

There are number of lessons that can be drawn from the judgment of the appeal court. Three stand out:

  1. FIFA and UEFA cannot evade the jurisdiction of EU courts. Indeed, if an EU competition law violation of their rules is invoked they can be brought before the jurisdictions of the Member States
  2. Doyen messed up in its original court filing by failing to abide by the procedure enshrined in its own statutes. This has no dire consequences in the Belgium proceedings due to presence of Seraing, but it might be a different story before the Paris court, where Doyen stands alone and the same procedural irregularity is invoked by FIFA.
  3. To FIFA’s great satisfaction, the case against the TPO ban is not deemed strong enough to allow for the adoption of provisory measures blocking its implementation. As pointed out in our previous blog (and here) EU competition law is not a golden bullet that can be invoked easily to strike down FIFA or UEFA regulations. There is a high justificatory burden and the claimants will face an uphill battle to demonstrate that the ban is disproportionate (especially in light of the broad support for the ban amongst many key stakeholders).

This was only a small skirmish in a long legal war still before us. It will not be definitely over until the CJEU decides the matter (in 2018 at the earliest) or Doyen bows out of the game in the face of the high legal fees incurred. What is already certain is that the way EU law applies to sport is not straightforward and does not entail an economic/neoliberal logic blindly favourable to an unrestricted freedom to invest.



[1] Cour d’appel Bruxelles, Doyen Sports et ASBL RFC Seraing United c. URBSFA, FIFA et UEFA, 2015/KR/54, 10 mars 2016.

[2] “Il est difficilement contestable qu’en empêchant les appelantes de poursuivre l’exécution de leur convention de collaboration et la conclusion de nouvelles conventions « TPO » ou « TPI » spécifiques à des joueurs, l’interdiction litigieuse produit des effets dommageables sur le territoire belge.” Ibid, para.50.

[3] “C’est également en vain qu’il est soutenu que la convention de collaboration litigieuse ne serait qu’un artifice destiné à saisir les juridictions belges. En effet, elle a connu une exécution par des payements de sommes de Doyen Sports à l’ASBL RFC Seraing et surtout, son existence a été invoquée par la FIFA pour mener des poursuites disciplinaires contre le club dirigé par l’ASBL RFC Seraing et lui infliger une sanction.” Ibid.

[4] “L’URBSFA et la FIFA se partagent donc un pouvoir réglementaire et de contrainte qui leur permet, à l’une et à l’autre, agissant ensemble ou séparément, d’adopter l’interdiction litigieuse, de la mettre en œuvre et de prendre une mesure ou une décision à caractère individuel de nature à empêcher, compromettre et/ou entraver l’exécution du contrat conclu entre les appelantes.” Ibid, para.57

[5] “Le pouvoir règlementaire autonome de l’URBSFA et son pouvoir d’action propre justifient sa présence dans la procédure, en même temps que la FIFA afin (i) d’obtenir l’empêchement d’agir de l’une et de l’autre ; (ii) de priver chacune d’elles de la possibilité de contester l’opposabilité d’une décision judiciaire qui serait rendue dans une cause à laquelle elle serait demeurée étrangère et enfin (iii) d’empêcher la FIFA de contourner une interdiction qui serait prononcée à son encontre en recourant au pouvoir réglementaire de l’URBSFA.” Ibid.

[6] “Si les appelantes étaient dans l’obligation d’attraire la FIFA devant les juridictions suisses tout en citant l’URBSFA devant les juridictions belges, cette situation serait susceptible de conduire à des solutions inconciliables […]”, ibid. para.58.

[7] “En ce qui concerne l’UEFA, la connexité existe également. En effet, si elle n’est pas l’auteur des dispositions réglementaires et si elle n’est pas intervenue comme soutien dans l’exercice de poursuites disciplinaires menées contre le RFC SERAING, elle impose aux clubs qui doivent obtenir une licence pour participer aux compétitions qu’elle organise, de se plier aux statuts et aux règlements de la FIFA et à l’interdiction en cause.” Ibid., para.59.

[8] The same solution was adopted in 2012 by the French Cour de Cassation (Highest French Civil Court) in a dispute opposing the French agent Piau to FIFA. See Cour de cassation, civile, Chambre civile 1, 1 février 2012, publié au bulletin.

[9] This solution was also adopted by the OLG in the Pechstein ruling, see Oberlandesgericht München, 15 January 2015, Az. U 1110/14 Kart, para.A.I.1.a)aa) and bb).

[10] « L’urgence est établie. L’ASBL RFC Seraing est sous le coup d’une sanction disciplinaire dont seule l’exécution a été suspendue et elle est susceptible d’encourir de nouvelles poursuites et sanctions pour le cas où elle conclurait de nouvelles conventions TPO/TPI avec Doyen Sports ou toute autre société menant des activités de financement similaires.” Cour d’appel Bruxelles, Doyen Sports et ASBL RFC Seraing United c. URBSFA, FIFA et UEFA, 2015/KR/54, 10 mars 2016, para.78.

[11] « Ensuite, il n’est pas douteux que l’interdiction de poursuivre la convention de collaboration du 30 janvier 2015 et de conclure de nouvelles conventions TPO/TPI la prive d’une source de financement, sans qu’il soit démontré par les intimées qu’elle pourrait lui trouver un substitut adéquat par des emprunts classiques auprès de tiers.”Ibid.

[12] « D’un côté, il faut constater que :
- la Commission paraît s’être orientée vers la condamnation de la TPO;
- la FIPpro y est clairement opposée et invoque à cette fin des valeurs essentielles;
- l’interdiction est le résultat d’une réflexion collective à laquelle ont participé de nombreux interlocuteurs - et non pas seulement l’UEFA ou certains de ses membres - et elle est l’aboutissement de plusieurs constats que relève le premier juge dans son ordonnance : opacité, absence de contrôle des instances dirigeantes, importance du phénomène puisqu’il concerne le marché mondial, environnement ouvert à la corruption et aux pratiques frauduleuses, importance des sommes en jeu, etc...” Ibid, para.81.

[13] « De l’autre, de sérieuses réserves sont émises à propos de la légalité de l’interdiction de la TPO/TPI (voir ainsi l’article de J.M. MARMAYOU, « La compatibilité du nouveau règlement FIFA sur les intermédiaires avec le droit européen » Les cahiers de droit du sport, 2015, p. 15, pièce 38bis des appelantes).” Ibid.

[14] « Il est patent qu’un examen en apparence ne permet pas de conclure, avec la force nécessaire, que l’interdiction porte atteinte aux règles de la concurrence.” Ibid, para.82.

Comments are closed
Asser International Sports Law Blog | International and European Sports Law – Monthly Report – November and December 2019- By Thomas Terraz

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

International and European Sports Law – Monthly Report – November and December 2019- By Thomas Terraz

Editor's note: This report compiles the most relevant legal news, events and materials on International and European Sports Law based on the daily coverage provided on our twitter feed @Sportslaw_asser. 

 

The Headlines

WADA Conference and the Adoption of 2021 WADA Code Amid Calls for Reform

On November 5-7, WADA held its Fifth World Conference on Doping in Sport where it faced a busy schedule, including the adoption of the revised 2021 World Anti-Doping Code and the election of a new WADA President and Vice-President by the Foundation Board. Concerning the latter, Witold Bańka, Poland’s Minister of Sport and Tourism, was elected as WADA President and Yang Yang, a former Chinese speed skater, elected as Vice-President, replacing Sir Craig Reedie and Linda Helleland respectively.  As Helleland leaves her position, she has expressed some strong views on the state of sport governance, particularly that ‘there is an absence of good governance, openness and independence in the highest levels of international sports’. Helleland was not the only one to recently voice governance concerns, as Rob Koehler, Director General of Global Athlete, also called for a ‘wholesale structural change at WADA’, which includes giving ‘independent’ athletes a vote in WADA’s Foundation Board, ensuring a greater ‘separation of powers’ and ensuring greater protection of athletes’ rights.

In the midst of the calls for reform, the amended 2021 WADA Code and the amended International Standards were also adopted after a two year, three stage code review process. Furthermore, a major milestone in athletes’ rights was achieved with the adoption of the Athletes’ Anti-Doping Rights Acts (separate from the WADA Code), which enumerates certain basic rights to help ‘ensure that Athlete rights within anti-doping are clearly set out, accessible, and universally applicable’. On the other hand, the Act ‘is not a legal document’, which clearly circumscribes some of the potential effects the Act may have. Nonetheless, athlete representative groups have ‘cautiously welcomed’ some of the changes brought by the 2021 WADA Code, such as the ‘modified sanctions for substances of abuse violations’.

Sung Yang’s Historical Public Hearing at the CAS

After much anticipation, the second public hearing in CAS history occurred on November 15 in Montreux, Switzerland in the Sun Yang case (details of this case were discussed in August and September’s monthly report), which was livestreamed and can be seen in its totality in four different parts (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4). This was an extremely unique opportunity, which hopefully will become a more common occurrence, to see just how CAS hearings are conducted and perhaps get a taste of some of the logistical issues that can emerge during live oral hearings. One of these problems, accurate translations, rapidly became apparent as soon as Sun Yang sat in the witness chair to give his opening statements. The translators in the box seemed to struggle to provide an intelligible English interpretation of Sun Yang and other witnesses’ statements, while Sun Yang also seemingly had trouble understanding the translated questions being posed to him. The situation degenerated to such an extent that ultimately one of WADA’s officials was called to replace the translators. However, the translation drama did not end there, since during Sun Yang’s closing statements an almost seemingly random person from the public appeared next to Sun Yang who claimed to have been requested from Sun Yang’s team to ‘facilitate’ the translation. Franco Frattini, president of the panel, questioned the identity of the ‘facilitator’ and explained that one could not just simply appear before the court without notice. Interestingly, Sun Yang’s legal team also rapidly intervened claiming that it had not been made of aware of the inclusion of the supporting translator, further complicating the matter. In the end, Sun Yang concluded his statements with the translation from the WADA official.

While it was Sun Yang’s legal team that had provided the original translators in the box, it still raises the question as to how translation at CAS could be improved to ensure a certain standard of translators. After all, quality translation is critical to the parties’ right to be heard under Article 6 (e) ECHR. Regardless, in the end, neither parties made an objection that their right to be heard was violated.

Russian Doping Saga Continues: WADA Compliance Review Committee Recommends Strong Sanctions

As was already discussed in August and September’s monthly report, WADA uncovered numerous inconsistencies concerning data taken from the Moscow Laboratory. After further investigation, WADA’s Compliance Review Committee has recommended that the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) be found non-compliant with the WADA Code. Accompanying the recommendation, the Compliance Review Committee also suggested several sanctions, which include prohibiting Russian athletes from participating in major events like the Olympic Games and ‘any World Championships organized or sanctioned by any Signatory’ for the next four years unless they may ‘dmonstrate that they are not implicated in any way by the non-compliance’. It would also see an embargo on events hosted in Russia during the same period. However, these sanctions did not go far enough for some, like Travis Tygart, chief executive of USADA, who wishes to prevent a repeat of Rio 2016 and PyeongChang 2018 ‘in which a secretly-managed process permitting Russians to compete – did not work’. On the other hand, the IOC has advocated for a softer, individual based approach that pursues ‘the rules of natural justice and respect human rights’. In the midst of these developments, the Athletics Integrity Unit also decided to charge several members of the Russian Athletics Federation (RusAF), including its President Dmitry Shlyakhtin, after a 15 month investigation for ‘tampering and complicity’ concerning a Russian athlete’s whereabouts violations.

Following many calls for strong consequences, the WADA Executive Committee met on December 9th and adopted the recommendations of the Compliance Review Committee. Athlete representatives have expressed their disappointment with the sanctions, calling the decision ‘spineless’ since it did not pursue a complete ban on Russian participation at events such as Euro 2020 and the 2020 Olympics. At this point, RUSADA has sent notice to WADA that it will be disputing the decision of WADA’s Executive Committee’s decision at the CAS.

 

Major International Sports Law Decisions

Court of Arbitration for Sport – Sun Yang Public Hearing Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

Court of Arbitration for Sport – CAS 2019/A/6110 Liam Cameron v. UK Anti-Doping Limited (UKAD)

Court of Arbitration for Sport – CAS 2018/A/5989 IAAF v. Qatar Athletics Federation & Musaeb Abdulrahman Balla

 

Official Documents and Press Releases

CAS

FIFA

IOC

WADA

Other

 

In the News

Football

Doping

Other

 

Academic Materials

International Sports Law Journal

Other

 

Blog

Asser International Sports Law Blog

Law in Sport

Play the Game

Sports Integrity Initiative

SportLegis

Other

 

Podcasts

 

Upcoming Events

Comments are closed
Asser International Sports Law Blog | International and European Sports Law – Monthly Report – May 2016. By Marine Montejo

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

International and European Sports Law – Monthly Report – May 2016. By Marine Montejo

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

Challenged membership put a lot of emphasis on football federations in May. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) has rendered an award, on 27 April 2016, ordering the FIFA Council to submit the application of the Gibraltar Football Association (GFA) for FIFA membership to the FIFA Congress (the body authorised to admit new members to FIFA). The GFA has sought since 1999 to become a member of UEFA and FIFA. In May 2013, it became a member of the UEFA and went on to seek membership of FIFA. The latter refused to submit the application to its Congress as the conditions for it were (allegedly) not met. The GFA filed an appeal to this decision to CAS which also ordered that the FIFA Congress take all necessary measures to admit the GFA as a full member of FIFA as soon as possible and within the limits of the FIFA Statutes, as it does not have the power to directly award it with FIFA membership. FIFA discussed the matter during its 66th Congress on 12&13 May and finally granted it with  membership, along with Kosovo. Gibraltar had to face an opposition from Spain due to its long-standing dispute over the status of its territory. On another front, following the decision of the UEFA Congress on May 3 to integrate the football federation of Kosovo, the Football Association of Serbia (FSS) has filed an appeal with CAS against the Kosovar membership. UEFA is already looking to integrate Gibraltar and Kosovo to its 2018 World Cup qualification tournament. Kosovo is a self-proclaimed state and not a member of the United Nations. Its national Olympic committee became a full member of the International Olympic Committee in 2014 and is recognized by a number of international sports federations.

The ongoing legal battle between FIBA/FIBA Europe and Euroleague Commercial Assets (“ECA”) is firing around Europe. This time, the Spanish Higher Council for Sports (“Consejo Superior de Deportes” – “CSD”) annulled the agreement between the Spanish basketball league (“ACB”) and the Euroleague because it breaches the rules of the Spanish national basketball federation (“FEB”). Such an agreement is an infringement of the federation jurisdiction to decide on the participation of Spanish basketball clubs to international competitions. The Spanish national team was under the threat of being withdrawing of the 2016 Rio Olympic Games and the 2017 EuroBasket by the international federation (“FIBA”) and the European federation (“FIBA Europe”) because of the participation of Spanish professional basketball clubs to the Euroleague. FIBA is battling with Euroleague to impose its own European competition, the Basketball Champions League (recent update on the ongoing disagreements between the two can be found here).

The Spanish competition authority (“CNMC”) published its report on the audiovisual rights’ selling conditions for the Spanish football first and second leagues (“La Liga” and “Segunda División”) and national cup (“Copa del Rey”) until 2019. In April 2015, joint selling of the national football media rights has been imposed in Spain. The Spanish National League has to seek the advice of the competition authority previous to its tender. The main observations of the CNMC is that the penultimate and ultimate La Liga matches day should be broadcast on free-to-air TV. Also, the possibility for pay-TV broadcasters to buy more Copa del Rey matches could be anti-competitive.


Case law

Michel Platini’s suspension from all football-related activities at both national and international level was lowered by the CAS  from six to four years. The former UEFA President was first sentenced with an eight years ban by the Adjudicatory Chamber of the FIFA Ethics Committee for several breaches of the FIFA Ethics Code. This sanction was later reduced to a six years suspension by the FIFA Appeal Committee. Michel Platini filed his appeal at CAS which rendered its decision on May, 9. CAS concluded that the employment contract between FIFA and Michel Platini was valid, however, the alleged unpaid part of his salary (CHF 2 millions) was not legitimate and, as such, was an undue advantage in breach of Article 20 of the FIFA Code of Ethics. The arbitral panel also concluded on a conflict of interest in breach of article 19 of the same code. However, CAS only retained these two breaches and did not found him guilty of the others, as a consequence, its six-year suspension was reduced to four years. In particular, CAS highlighted the fact that FIFA knew about this payment in 2011 and only started its investigations in 2015. Michel Platini resigned from the UEFA presidency and announced his intention to appeal the award in front of the Swiss Federal Tribunal. 

CAS released its award on the appeal brought by the Croatian international water polo player Niksa Dobud against FINA Doping panel decision which sanctioned him for failure to submit to a doping test. He was previously sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility, the disqualification of the results obtained after 21 March 2015, the date of the attempt to test him and the forfeit of any medals, points and prizes achieved from that date. The panel found him guilty of evading a doping test and confirmed FINA decision.


Official Documents and Press Releases 


In the news

Olympics

Football


Academic materials


Books 


Upcoming Events 

27 & 28 June - Sport & EU 11th annual conference, Institute for European Studies, CEU-San Pablo University, Madrid, Spain 

28 June – LawInSport Networking Drinks, London, UK

6 July - Asser International Sports Law Lecture and Book Launch: Antidoping in the wake of the meldonium cases: How to balance scientific complexity and legal fairness. By Marjolaine Viret, Asser Institute, The Hague, The Netherlands

19 – 21 July - Executive Programme in International Sports Law, Sports Law and Policy Centre, Ravello, Italy

2 & 3 September - International Sport Arbitration 6th Conference CAS & SAV, The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), the Swiss Bar Association (SAV / FSA) and the Swiss Arbitration Association (ASA), Lausanne Switzerland

16 September - The future of the ‘legal autonomy’ of sport, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK


Comments are closed