Asser International Sports Law Blog

The IOC has trumpeted it worldwide as a « historical milestone »: the United Nations has recognised the sacrosanct autonomy of sport. Indeed, the Resolution A/69/L.5 (see the final draft) adopted by the General Assembly on 31 October states that it “supports the independence and autonomy of sport as well as the mission of the International Olympic Committee in leading the Olympic movement”. This is a logical conclusion to a year that has brought the two organisations closer than ever. In April, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon appointed former IOC President, Jacques Rogge, Special Envoy for Youth Refugees and Sport. At this occasion, the current IOC President, Thomas Bach, made an eloquent speech celebrating a “historic step forward to better accomplish our common mission for humanity” and a memorandum understanding was signed between the UN and the IOC. This is all sweet and well, but is there something new under the sun?More...

A warning addressed to fans of French teams featuring in the recently launched video game NBA 2K15: Hurry up! The last jump ball for Strasbourg and Nanterre in NBA 2K 15 may occur earlier than expected. The French Labour Union of Basketball (Syndicat National du Basket, SNB) is dissatisfied that Euroleague and 2K Games did not ask (nor paid) for its permission before including the two teams of Pro A in the NBA 2K15 edition. What is at issue? French basketball players’ image rights have been transferred to SNB, which intends to start proceedings before the US Courts against 2K Games requesting 120.000 euros for unauthorized use of the players’ image rights. SNB is clear: it is not about the money, but rather to defend the players’ rights.[1] Strasbourg and Nanterre risk to “warm up” the virtual bench if this litigation goes ahead.

Source: http://forums.nba-live.com/viewtopic.php?f=149&t=88661&start=250 More...

The European Commission’s competition decisions in the area of sport, which set out broad principles regarding the interface between sports-related activities and EU competition law, are widely publicized. As a result of the decentralization of EU competition law enforcement, however, enforcement activity has largely shifted to the national level. Since 2004, national competition authorities (NCAs) and national courts are empowered to fully apply the EU competition rules on anti-competitive agreements (Article 101 TFEU) and abuse of a dominant position (Article 102 TFEU).

Even though NCAs and national courts have addressed a series of interesting competition cases (notably dealing with the regulatory aspects of sport) during the last ten years, the academic literature has largely overlooked these developments. This is unfortunate since all stakeholders (sports organisations, clubs, practitioners, etc.) increasingly need to learn from pressing issues arising in national cases and enforcement decisions. In a series of blog posts we will explore these unknown territories of the application of EU competition law to sport.

In this second installment of this blog series, we discuss a recent judgment of the regional court (Landgericht) of Dortmund finding that the International Handball Federation (IHF)’s mandatory release system of players for matches of national teams without compensation infringes EU and German competition law.[1] More...

The year is coming to an end and it has been a relatively busy one for the CAS Ad Hoc divisions. Indeed, the Ad Hoc division was, as usual now since the Olympic Games in Atlanta in 1996[1], settling “Olympic” disputes during the Winter Olympics in Sochi. However, it was also, and this is a novelty, present at the Asian Games 2014 in Incheon. Both divisions have had to deal with seven (published) cases in total (four in Sochi and three in Incheon). The early commentaries available on the web (here, here and there), have been relatively unmoved by this year’s case law. Was it then simply ‘business as usual’, or is there more to learn from the 2014 Ad Hoc awards? Two different dimensions of the 2014 decisions by the Ad Hoc Division seem relevant to elaborate on : the jurisdiction quandary (part. 1) and the selection drama (part. 2). More...

On 6 October 2014, the CAS upheld the appeal filed by the former General Secretary of the World Karate Federation (WKF), George Yerolimpos, against the 6 February 2014 decision of the WKF Appeal Tribunal. With the award, the CAS confirmed a six-months membership suspension imposed upon the Appellant by the WKF Disciplinary Tribunal.[1] At a first glance, the case at issue seems to be an ordinary challenge of a disciplinary sanction imposed by a sports governing body. Nevertheless, this appeal lies at the heart of a highly acrimonious political fight for the leadership of the WKF, featuring two former ‘comrades’: Mr Yerolimpos and Mr Espinos (current president of WKF). As the CAS puts it very lucidly, "this is a story about a power struggle within an international sporting body"[2], a story reminding the Saturn devouring his son myth.

This case, therefore, brings the dirty laundry of sports politics to the fore. Interestingly enough, this time the CAS does not hesitate to grapple with the political dimension of the case. More...

Yesterday, the European Commission stunned the European Sports Law world when it announced unexpectedly that it had signed a “partnership agreement” with UEFA named (creatively): ‘The Arrangement for Cooperation between the European Commission and the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA)’. The press release indicates that this agreement is to “commit the two institutions to working together regularly in a tangible and constructive way on matters of shared interest”. The agreement was negotiated (as far as we know) secretly with UEFA. Despite recent meetings between EU Commissioner for sport Vassiliou and UEFA President Platini, the eventuality of such an outcome was never evoked. It is very unlikely that third-interested-parties (FIFPro, ECA, Supporters Direct etc.) were consulted in the process of drafting this Arrangement. This surprising move by an outgoing Commission will be analysed in a three-ponged approach. First, we will discuss the substance of the Arrangement (I). Thereafter, we will consider its potential legal value under EU law (II). Finally, and maybe more importantly, we will confront the political relevance of the agreement (III). More...

It took almost six months, a record of 26 witnesses and a 68 pages final award for the CAS to put an end to a long-delayed, continuously acrimonious and highly controversial presidential election for the Football Association of Thailand (FAT). Worawi Makudi can sit easy and safe on the throne of the FAT for his fourth consecutive term, since the CAS has dismissed the appeal filed by the other contender, Virach Chanpanich.[1]

Interestingly enough, it is one of the rare times that the CAS Appeal Division has been called to adjudicate on the fairness and regularity of the electoral process of a sports governing body. Having been established as the supreme judge of sports disputes, by reviewing the electoral process of international and national sports federations the CAS adds to its functions a role akin to the one played by a constitutional court in national legal systems. It seems that members of international and national federations increasingly see the CAS as an ultimate guardian of fairness and validity of internal electoral proceedings. Are these features - without prejudice to the CAS role as an arbitral body- the early sign of the emergence of a Constitutional Court for Sport? More...

This post is an extended version of an article published in August on hostcity.net.

The recent debacle among the candidate cities for the 2022 Winter Games has unveiled the depth of the bidding crisis faced by the Olympic Games. The reform process initiated in the guise of the Olympic Agenda 2020 must take this disenchantment seriously. The Olympic Agenda 2020 took off with a wide public consultation ending in April and is now at the end of the working groups phase. One of the working groups was specifically dedicated to the bidding process and was headed by IOC vice-president John Coates. More...

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

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

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

This is the second part of a blog series on the Real Madrid State aid case. In the previous blog on this case, an outline of all the relevant facts was provided and I analysed the first criterion of Article 107(1) TFEU, namely the criterion that an advantage must be conferred upon the recipient for the measure to be considered State aid. Having determined that Real Madrid has indeed benefited from the land transactions, the alleged aid measure has to be scrutinized under the other criteria of Article 107(1): the measure must be granted by a Member State or through State resources; the aid granted must be selective; and it must distorts or threatens to distort competition. In continuation, this blog will also analyze whether the alleged aid measure could be justified and declared compatible with EU law under Article 107(3) TFEU.More...

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

The Headlines

September hosted the very last bit of the sport summer 2016, most notably in the form of the Rio Paralympic Games. Next to the spectacular achievements displayed during these games, in the realm of sports law similar thrilling developments hit town. The first very much expected #Sportslaw highlight was the decision by the German Bundesgerichtshof in the case concerning SV Wilhelmshaven. The second major (less expected) story was the Statement of Objections issued by the European Commission against the International Skating Union.

The Bundesgerichtshof’s ruling in the SV Wilhelmshaven case

On Tuesday 20 September, Germany’s highest court, the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), sided with the German (now) amateur football club SV Wilhelmshaven in its fight against a forced relegation at the end of the 2013/2014 season, ordered by FIFA and effectuated by the North German Football Federation. This relegation was the ultimate result of the non-payment of training compensation fees owed by SV Wilhelmshaven to two Argentinian Clubs under the FIFA training compensation system. For the ins and outs of the story leading up to the BGH’s decision, please read our earlier blog post ‘SV Wilhelmshaven: a Rebel with a cause!’.

In short, the current ruling annulled the relegation, because of the unclear nature of the North German Football Federation’s statutes. A disciplinary measure can only be applied when it derives from the federation’s statutes. The BGH found that the penalty in the form of a forced relegation could not be inferred from the statutes. It was not foreseeable for SV Wilhelmshaven that their non-payment of the imposed trainings fees would lead to this dire consequence. Unfortunately, the BGH did not answer the question whether the forced relegation infringed the free movement rights of football players under Article 45 TFEU. Thus ignoring the criticisms raised by the Bremen court in earlier instance. Henceforth, the ruling constitutes an important blow for the German football federations and a relatively harmless defeat for FIFA.

The EU Commission’s Statement of objections to ISU

On the morning of 27 September, for the first time nearly 20 years(!), the European Commission issued a Statement of Objections (SO) in the field of sport. The SO was addressed to the International Skating Union (ISU) in relation to its eligibility rules. The ASSER Institute (via Ben Van Rompuy and Antoine Duval) was at the origin of the complaint and was representing the skaters along the proceedings. The SO concluded the first phase of the Commission’s investigation that was opened in October 2015 following a complaint by two Dutch professional speed skaters, Mark Tuitert and Niels Kerstholt.

The preliminary view of the Commission is that the ISU breaches EU competition law through its rules under which athletes can be severely penalized (i.e. a ban from the Olympic Games or the World Championship, and possibly even life time bans) for their participation in speed skating events not authorised by the ISU. The commercial freedom of athletes is ‘unduly’ restricted by these rules, which ultimately leads to preventing new entrants on the market of speed skating events, as these organizers are not able to attract the top athletes. Commissioner Vestager expressed the concerns that ‘the penalties the ISU imposes on skaters through its eligibility rules are not aimed at preserving high standards in sport but rather serve to maintain the ISU's control over speed skating’. The length of the possible penalties (leading up to a ban for life) are, considered the short time span of a professional athlete’s career, extremely harmful and potentially career ending. The Commission is thus concerned that these ISU eligibility rules are ‘disproportionately punitive’ and, as such, may breach Article 101 TFEU.

In a defensive response, the ISU declared that it believes the European Commission’s allegations are unfounded. The ‘surprised’ ISU stressed that the SO is merely a one of the stages in a Commission antitrust investigation and ‘does not imply that the ISU is responsible or liable for any violation of EU antitrust legislation’. Striking was the claim stating that any such allegations appear ‘to be based on a misplaced understanding of the governance structure of sport and the Olympic movement’ together with the reference to the wore-out life buoy of the ‘autonomous governance structure of sport’.

In any case, the mere fact that the Commission decided to issue an SO is a strong indicator of its grave concerns regarding the (bad) governance of global sport and the tendency of the Sports Governing Bodies (SGBs) to abuse their monopoly position for the sole sake of making more money for themselves. That, or Margrethe Vestager has a secret passion for ice skating.

Other headlines

The month of September also saw the publication of the Spanish Tribunal Supremo’s ruling of 28 July 2016 concerning the legality of the whereabouts requirement imposed on athletes in the fight against doping. The case dates back to 2013 when the Spanish High Council for Sports adopted resolution 1648/2013 providing two forms (Annex I and Annex II) for athletes to complete in order to fulfil their whereabouts requirements. In June 2014, the Adiencia Nacional (an Exceptional High Court) considered that the resolution was contrary to the right to privacy and was going beyond the wording enshrined Spain’s anti-doping laws. It consequently declared the whereabouts requirement null and void. For more information on the Audiencia Nacional’s judgment, see our Blog from July 2014. In cassation, the Supreme Court agreed with the Audiencia Nacional and deemed the whereabouts requirement to be disproportionate and contrary to the right to privacy. According to the Court, the general policy (objective) of a (global) fight against doping cannot be considered a sufficient justification for limiting a person’s freedom too such an extent.

As regards the aftermath of the Rio Olympics, the CAS Ad Hoc Division proved to have a rather busy schedule during and after these games. One of the main reasons for this was the ‘willingness’ of Russian athletes to challenge the ban imposed on them by the IAAF. Even though these decisions have been rendered in August, we published a five-part blog by Antoine Duval this month, which analyses the published CAS awards related to Russian athletes: Act I: Saved by the Osaka déjà-vu, Act II: On being implicated, Act III: On being sufficiently tested, Act IV: On bringing a sport into disrepute and Act V: Saving the Last (Russian) Woman Standing.

Case law

CAS