Editor's note: Jeremy Abel is a recent graduate of the LL.M in International Business Law and Sports of the University of Lausanne.

1.     Introduction

The famous South African athlete Caster Semenya is in the last lap of her long legal battle for her right to run without changing the natural testosterone in her body. After losing her cases before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and the Swiss Federal Tribunal, she filed an application before the European Court of Human Rights (Court). In the meantime, the Court has released a summary of her complaint and a series of questions addressed to the parties of the case.

As is well known, she is challenging the World Athletics’ Eligibility Regulations for the Female Classification (Regulations) defining the conditions under which female and intersex athletes with certain types of differences of sex development (DSDs) can compete in international athletics events. Despite the Regulations emanating from World Athletics, the last round of her legal battle is against a new opponent: Switzerland.

The purpose of this article is to revisit the Semenya case from a European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) perspective while considering certain excellent points made by previous contributors (see here, here and here) to this blog. Therefore, the blog will follow the basic structure of an ECHR case. The following issues raised by Semenya shall be analysed: the applicability of the ECHR, Semenya’s right to private life (Article 8 ECHR) and to non discrimination (Article 14 ECHR), as well as the proportionality of the Regulations.

2.     Applicability of the ECHR

An interesting question is how the Court will apply the ECHR to the case at hand. It has two options at its disposal. It can either use the doctrine of positive or negative obligations to resolve the case. The most logical solution would be to favour the positive obligations route. This doctrine allows the Court to hold states accountable in situations involving private parties. It obliges states to intervene in these situations and not to simply sit back and remain passive. In essence, the present case opposes two private parties: Caster Semenya on the one side and World Athletics on the other. The only connection of the case to Switzerland is a judgment by its Federal Tribunal reviewing the award rendered by the CAS. Indeed, unlike most international federations, World Athletics is registered in Monaco and not in Switzerland.

The Court’s case law also appears to favour this option. In Mutu and Pechstein, the Court indirectly stated that Switzerland’s positive obligations were at play (paras 65-67). The problem with this approach is that it makes it difficult to test a set of private regulations directly against the Convention. In its Mutu and Pechstein decision, the Court sidestepped this problem by somewhat ignoring Switzerland’s positive obligations. It simply applied the requirements of Article 6 ECHR directly to the CAS proceedings without worrying about the role of Switzerland and its Federal Tribunal.[1] Mutu and Pechstein suggests that the Court is willing to use the positive obligations doctrine and tweak it where it feels it is necessary to uphold athletes’ Convention rights. It is argued here that the Court’s approach in Semenya will be similar since the case raises several fundamental rights questions which have not been dealt with extensively by previous courts.

3.     Substantive issues

a.      Semenya’s right to private life (Article 8 ECHR)

Another crucial question is whether the Court will be willing to rely on its Article 8 ECHR case law relating to transgender persons. A.P., Garçon and Nicot is of particular importance in this context. This case was about a French law making the recognition of transgender persons’ preferred gender conditional on a sterilisation surgery or treatment. The Court stated that this law presented transgender persons not willing to undergo sterilisation with an “impossible dilemma” (para 132). They had to choose between their physical integrity or the legal recognition of their gender identity. The Court deemed this burden to be unnecessary to guarantee the principle of the inalienability of civil status and the need for consistency and reliability of civil-status records and thus in violation of Article 8 ECHR.

The Regulations create a similar dilemma. Despite having been identified by the South African State and identifying herself as a female, Semenya cannot compete in the female category unless she compromises her right to physical integrity by undergoing testosterone lowering treatment. In addition, noncompliance with the Regulations means that she cannot run the middle-distance events she excels at. It is therefore likely that she must give up her international sports career.[2]

It can be argued that both cases are comparable. While it is true that, unlike the French law, the Regulations aim her sports status and not her legal sex, both rules are not so different when one considers the specificity of her profession. As a famous athlete whose life revolves around sport, a mismatch between her legal sex and “sports” sex has major consequences on her life as a professional athlete and beyond. In these special circumstances, it is difficult to strictly differentiate the legal sex from the “sports” sex. Indeed, she finds herself in the very peculiar situation of suddenly having to explain why, after a lifetime of being female for the purposes of both sex categories, she is still female enough for one but not the other. Another distinction between the Regulations and the French law is that the latter contained a sterilization requirement absent in the former. This distinction can be relativised in two ways. Firstly, both set of rules require the same type of medical treatment: surgery or hormone treatment. Secondly, although the Regulations do not require a permanent physical change, the recommended surgical and hormonal treatment may lead to irreversible changes and ultimately sterility.[3]

b.      Semenya’s right to non discrimination (Article 14 ECHR)

Regarding the potential discriminatory nature of the Regulations in the sense of Article 14 ECHR, Semenya will most likely question why the Regulations only institute a testosterone limit for female athletes. This assertion runs up against the legal hurdle of finding an appropriate comparator. For there to be a discrimination, it must in principle be possible to compare Semenya with a class of persons who are treated more favourably. This task is not made easier by the fact that no intersex case has ever been decided by the Court.[4]

In theory, three comparisons are imaginable[5]: a comparison with male, female, or intersex athletes. The viability of each comparator depends on which definition of sex is used.[6] Sex can be understood from a civil status, gender identity or biological standpoint. It is unclear whether the Court will be convinced by World Athletics’ preference for the biological sex definition. World Athletics used this definition to argue that Semenya is “biologically male” for the purpose of athletics and must therefore be compared to male and not female athletes.[7] If the condition of participation is being “biologically female”, there is no discrimination because Semenya is being treated like all the other athletes who do not fulfil this condition.[8] However, the situation completely changes if the biological sex definition is dropped in favour of the others.

4.     Proportionality of the Regulations

Finally, the Court may have to engage in a delicate balancing act between the different interests at stake. On the one hand, there are the interests of World Athletics. As an international federation, it considers it is in the best position to develop the most appropriate rules for dividing females and males for the purpose of athletics. On the other hand, there are the opposing interests of Semenya and her fellow competitors. It is a classic case of competing rights which happen also to be fundamental goals of sport: inclusion vs fairness.[9] Including intersex athletes in the female category might be unfair towards the other female athletes. Contrary to other physical or genetical traits, high levels of testosterone are viewed by some to give intersex athletes an insurmountable advantage over their female competition. By adopting and defending the Regulations, it is clear that World Athletics shares this view and is sensitive to the fairness argument.

One way of avoiding this balancing of interests exercise is to decide that the Regulations are not fit for purpose. Without getting into scientific arguments, it appears safe to affirm that while most experts agree that testosterone has a positive effect on performance, there is still a lack of consensus on the degree of that effect.[10] Both the CAS and the Swiss Federal Tribunal overcame this uncertainty by giving a lot of weight to the statistical overrepresentation of women with DSDs in elite athletics.[11] A striking example of this overrepresentation is the women’s 800 m final at the 2016 Olympics where Semenya and two other athletes with DSDs occupied all three podium places thanks to the suspension of a previous version of the Regulations.

However, an alternative view is plausible. The capability of the Regulations to achieve their goal of ensuring fairness can be called into question on three fronts.

Firstly, there is a twofold problem relating to the quality of the evidence and the conclusions drawn from it. The quality of the evidence is low because in addition to there only existing few studies on the relationship between testosterone and performance, those that do exist rely on flawed data such as double counting athletes and times.[12] Irrespective of the concerns regarding the quality of the evidence used, the conclusions drawn from it are inconsistent because World Athletics’ choice to establish a testosterone limit for some, but not other athletic events is illogical.[13] According to the evidence, female athletes with high levels of testosterone have a competitive advantage in the following athletic disciplines: 400 m (2,73%), 400 m hurdles (2,78%), 800 m (1,78%), hammer throw (4,53%) and pole vault (2,94%).[14] No performance advantage was shown to exist in other athletic disciplines.[15] The inclusion of the 1500 m and one mile events into the Regulations but not the hammer throw and pole vault runs counter to the evidence and the goal of ensuring a level playing field.

Secondly, there appears to be no satisfying answer as to why there is no equivalent testosterone limit for male athletes despite their testosterone levels differing much more significantly[16].

Thirdly, the choice of using testosterone as the determining factor can be called into question. Given the wide range of physical attributes that are helpful in sport, it is not clear what makes testosterone so different from other physical attributes. Would a mix of physical attributes and parameters like the one used in Paralympics not be fairer and more inclusive?[17]

5.     Conclusion

The Semenya case has the potential to appreciably change international federations’ and Switzerland’s relationship with the ECHR. It is shown above that if the Court wants to apply the ECHR directly to the Regulations, it must bend the doctrine of positive obligations. Until now, the Court has not explained its unconventional use of the doctrine. Two explanations are at the Court’s disposal.[18] They are both premised on the idea that Semenya is in a position of dependence towards World Athletics.

Firstly, it is possible to extend the reasoning behind Mutu and Pechstein according to which the CAS (a private Court) must, in situations involving forced arbitration, offer the same fair trial guarantees as a state court, to all types of sports regulations.[19] Indeed, if one accepts that sports arbitration clauses are compulsory, it becomes very difficult to argue that sports regulations in general are not compulsory since the former are contained in the latter.[20]

Secondly, the Court can treat international federations analogous to state-like entities.[21] The relationship between Semenya and World Athletics is akin to that between regular citizens and a state due to the size, power, and monopolistic position it holds in the sport of athletics.[22] The Semenya case exemplifies this power imbalance well. World Athletics’ monopoly means that it can impose the Regulations upon Semenya. She cannot object to this effectively since giving up her international athletics career is not an option as she would put her livelihood at risk.[23]

In the present case, the first explanation is more fitting because World Athletics’ seat is in Monaco and not in Switzerland. If, as argued here, the Court bends the positive obligations doctrine to properly engage with the arguments raised by Semenya, this would give it the opportunity to explain its unusual approach. But even if the Court does not take this opportunity, its unconventional use of the doctrine of positive obligations would still send a message to international federations and Switzerland that they must take ECHR considerations seriously in spite of the private nature of international sports disputes.

Beyond the question of the applicability of the Convention, the Semenya case has the potential to have far-reaching consequences for the world of sports. This is because of the wide-ranging reach of the Court’s decisions and the fact that World Athletics’ policy on intersex athletes is based on a recommendation made by the International Olympic Committee (IOC). As the supreme governing body of global sports, the IOC’s policy on this matter influences sports regulations at all levels throughout the world.

Finally, the case is infused with highly relevant but difficult scientific, sports and societal issues. The discussions around the definition of sex are particularly sensitive in today’s society. The complexity and sensitive nature of the case as well as the clash between two fundamental goals of sport are all ingredients for an extremely contentious fight which will ultimately come down to the judges’ scorecards. Whilst a split decision is likely, controversy is certain.

[1] Franck Latty, "Le TAS marque des points devant la CEDH" (2018) issue 192 Revue juridique et économique du sport 31, 32.

[2] Unless she competes in disciplines not covered by the Regulations. After contemplating competing in events without testosterone limits, Caster Semenya had to give up trying to qualify for the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo.

[3] Mandates of Special Rapporteurs and the Working Group “Special Procedures Communication to the IAAF” (18 September 2018) OL OTH 62/2018 5.

[4] Although this is due to change soon. See C Delrave “Medical “normalisation” of intersex persons: third-party intervention to the ECTHR in the case of M. v. France” (Strasbourg Observers, 7 April 2021).

[5] See generally Robert Wintemute, "Recognising New Kinds of Direct Sex Discrimination: Transsexualism, Sexual Orientation and Dress Codes" (1997) vol 60 issue 3 The Modern Law Review 334, 334-336.

[6] Janis Block, Geschlechtergleichheit im Sport – Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Diskriminierung von trans- und intersexuellen Sportlerinnen unter den Voschriften des Allgemeinen Gleichbehandlungsgesetzes (Schriften zur Gleichstellung Band 39, Nomos 2014) 328-329.

[7] Mokgadi Caster Semenya v International Association of Athletics Federations [2019] Court of Arbitration for Sport 2018/O/57294 para 295.

[8] The same considerations apply under German law (see endnote 6).

[9] “The battle over trans athletes in American schools heats up – Inclusivity bumps up against fairness” The Economist (London, 5 September 2020).

[10] Mokgadi Caster Semenya v International Association of Athletics Federations paras 473-538.

[11] ibid para 527 and Judgment of DSD Regulations [2020] Swiss Federal Tribunal 4A_248/2019 and 4A_398/2019 para 9.8.3.4.

[12] Roger Pielke Jr, Ross Tucker and Erik Boye, “Scientific Integrity and the IAAF testosterone regulations” (2019) vol 19 issue 1-2 International Sports Law Journal 18, 21-22.

[13] See also Matthieu Maisonneuve, "Tribunal arbitral du sport, Mokgadi Caster Semenya & Athletics South Africa c/ International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) c/ Suisse, sentence du 30 avril 2019" (2019) issue 3 Revue de l’Arbitrage 941, 955.

[14] Mokgadi Caster Semenya v International Association of Athletics Federations para 338.

[15] ibid.

[16] The normal range for men is 8-30 nmol/L compared to 0.1-1.8 nmol/L for women. See “What Caster Semenya’s case means for women’s sport” The Economist (London, 8 May 2019).

[17] Maayan Sudai “The testosterone rule – constructing fairness in professional sport” (2017) vol 4 issue 1 Journal of Law and the Biosciences 181, 193.

[18] Maisonneuve (n 13) 964-965.

[19] Björn Hessert, “Cooperation and reporting obligations in sporting investigations” (2020) issue 3-4 International Sports Law Journal 145, 149.

[20] ibid.

[21] Latty (n 1) 32.

[22] French authors speak of the similarity between the "Sporting power" and "State power". See for instance Clémentine Legendre, "La soumission de la Puissance sportive à la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme: réflexions à partir de l’arrêt Mutu et Pechstein" (2020) issue 11 Recueil Dalloz 618.

[23] Hessert (n 20) 149.

Introduction: FIFA’s TPO ban and its compatibility with EU competition law.
Day 1: FIFA must regulate TPO, not ban it.
Day 2: Third-party entitlement to shares of transfer fees: problems and solutions
Day 3: The Impact of the TPO Ban on South American Football.
Day 5: Why FIFA's TPO ban is justified.

Editor's note: In this fourth part of our blog symposium on FIFA's TPO ban Daniel Geey shares his 'UK perspective' on the ban. The English Premier League being one of the first leagues to have outlawed TPO in 2010, Daniel will outline the regulatory steps taken to do so and critically assess them. Daniel is an associate in Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP's Competition and EU Regulatory Law Group. As well as being a famous 'football law' twitterer, he has also published numerous articles and blogs on the subject.

What is Third Party Investment?
In brief Third Party Investment (TPI) in the football industry, is where a football club does not own, or is not entitled to, 100% of the future transfer value of a player that is registered to play for that team. There are numerous models for third party player agreements but the basic premise is that companies, businesses and/or individuals provide football clubs or players with money in return for owning a percentage of a player’s future transfer value. This transfer value is also commonly referred to as a player’s economic rights. There are instances where entities will act as speculators by purchasing a percentage share in a player directly from a club in return for a lump sum that the club can then use as it wishes.

Why did the Premier League ban the practice?
The Premier League, Football League, Football Association, the Polish and French leagues have all brought in TPI bans. The original ban in the Premier League came as a result of the Tévez affair where a third party owner had the contractual right to force West Ham to sell the player if a suitable bid was received. This was against the 'material influence' regulations that were in place at the time. Previously, there was no express clause prohibiting TPI; only the act of influencing a club’s policies or performance was forbidden. Tévez’s third party contract contained a clause giving exclusive power to the third party owners, MSI and Just Sports, to facilitate the transfer of the player. West Ham did not have a veto over this right and such a stipulation breached the above Premier League rule as it meant that outside parties had material influence over the decision making of West Ham.
A common misconception throughout and after the Tévez case was that any third party player owner would have been in breach of the Premier League rules. This was not the case. It was the clause giving the owners of Tévez influence over West Ham which incurred the Premier League’s wrath (plus the non-disclosure of the agreement itself). It was for this reason that West Ham was judged to have breached the old Premier League rule Rule U18 and fined £5.5 million by the Premier League.
Subsequently, the Premier League significantly strengthened its regulations to prohibit any type of TPI. Other leagues followed as a result. The Premier League decided that from the beginning of the 2008/9 season an absolute ban on TPI was required. A spokesman stated:
“The clubs decided that third-party ownership was something they did not want to see. It raises too many issues over the integrity of competition, the development of young players and the potential impact on the football pyramid. It was felt the Premier League was in a position to take a stand on this. No one wants to see what has happened to club football in South America repeated over here”.

There are also Football League and Football Association rules prohibiting TPI but the below analysis takes the Premier League rules by way of example. Current Premier League Rules U39-40 (which at the time were rules L34-35) govern the actual prohibition and buy-out mechanism.
Premier League Rule U39 is the exemption rule which covers scenarios where clubs are allowed to receive money or incur a liability, for example, for the player registration or transfer of a player registration. Such instances include payments or receipts of transfer fees, loan fees and sell-on fees, payments for image rights contracts, payments for agency/intermediary work and payment of training compensation and solidarity contributions as set out in the FIFA regulations.
Premier League rule U40 is the mechanism to enable a third party owned player to transfer to a Premier League club. This can occur so long as the Premier League club purchases the third party’s economic interest in the player. It states:
"In respect of a player whom it applies to register as a Contract Player, a Club is permitted to make a payment to buy out the interest of a person or entity who, not being a Club or club, nevertheless has an agreement either with the club with which the player is registered, or with the player, granting it the right to receive money from a new Club or club for which that player becomes registered. Any such payment which is not dependent on the happening of a contingent event may be made either in one lump sum or in instalments provided that all such instalments are paid on or before the expiry date of the initial contract between the Club and the player. Any such payment which is payable upon the happening of a contingent event shall be payable within 7 days of the happening of that event".
This ensures that any future transfer sums, should the player be subsequently sold, would be kept by the selling Premier League club and eliminates any third party element to any future sale transaction. Interestingly, the Premier League club who 'buys-out' the third party interest may still be paying the third party investor through installments during the period that the player is playing for his new Premier League club. Whilst the player is owned by the club and no third party interest is possible, there is still the eventuality that a club could default on the installment plan and then the third party investor could sue based on the buy-out obligations in the contract. It would be unlikely yet is unclear from the regulations whether the investment stake could be transferred back to third party investor if default occurred or what other alternative recourse that an investor may have.
Nonetheless, any player registered to play in the Premier League cannot be third party owned by a TPI company. It means that the buying Premier League club has to satisfy the football authorities that all other economic interests have been extinguished. This occurred over the summer when TPI players Markovic and Mangala were transferred to Liverpool and Manchester City respectively. Premier League clubs undertake to the football authorities that it is the only entity that owns the player’s economic rights and only then can the transfer can be completed. It is likely that Falcao had a TPI contract whilst he was at Porto but as the French league also prohibits TPI, when Monaco bought him, there may well have been a requirement in place to extinguish any third party rights. As such, when he was then loaned to Manchester United this summer, his TPI rights would certainly have been extinguished to ensure there were no major complications with his Premier League registration.

Why is it such a problem?
As the Premier League spokesman explained above, their major concerns related to integrity, youth player development and money flowing out of the game. An internal FIFA report recently concluded that TPI trapped clubs in a “vicious cycle of debt and dependence” and “posed risks to players and to the integrity of the game”.
The main concerns about TPI include:
1. Conflicts of interests can potentially occur between investors, club owners, agents and coaches. For example, what if the owner of Club A also owns an economic stake in Player B playing against his club? What if an agent of a manager who buys TPI players is also an advisor of a TPI fund? Regardless of any actual conflict, there is certainly a perceived conflict which may damage the image of the game, public confidence in integrity of competitions and even lead to potential match-fixing or insider trading concerns. Questions continue to be asked over the transparency of the TPI funds and what role they have, if any, in influencing clubs.
2. Clubs become reliant on such funding which in turn leads to dependence on external owners to continue to assist in such financing arrangements. As such, TPI encourages short-term profit making with economic owners looking to the club to sell its players to realise their ‘asset’ ahead of purely on-field sporting concerns. The consequence is that the rapid turnover of TPI players at certain clubs means fans become less loyal to the players who know they will be transferred when the right offer is received. Clubs are seen as a short term ‘speculation tools’ with the result that money leaves the football family.

Why is the practice necessary?
To counter the arguments set out above, the following points demonstrate are why TPI is so vital for many clubs around the world.
1. A growing number of clubs cannot compete with the larger commercial and broadcasting deals of the bigger European leagues. Clubs in so-called smaller European leagues, for example, need to leverage their assets and find innovative ways to find competitive advantage for playing against teams in the Champions League.
2. Purchasing players is an inherently risky business. Clubs with less money to spend would therefore usually be more risk-averse when having to invest heavily in transfers. One way of limiting such risk, is to share the financial burden. Therefore contracts are entered into between economic owners and clubs to either help the club with the purchase price for a talented individual or free up capital and ‘monetise’ a current players value whilst he still remains at the club. In either event, the club benefits from external finance that cushions the club’s position if the player is not a world beater. Both the club and the fund then benefit if the player is a success through a large transfer fee received that is shared according to the contract.
3. There are various ways to alleviate conflict of interest, integrity and transparency issues. Instead of banning TPI, many believe regulation through a transparent approach to TPI by disclosing a register of interests would alleviate a number of concerns as well as making TPI contracts available to FIFA/UEFA to ensure ‘material influence’ issues are correctly dealt with in the TPI contracts.
With FIFA regulating to ban players who are third party owned, many are questioning whether regulation of the practice rather than an outright ban would be preferable. In addition, some believe that it is not a ban but total transparency of the arrangements that is required. This could even be expanded to include a list of the owners of such transfer rights. Such transparency could allow the football family to scrutinise any potential conflicts of interest between, for example, those who own the economic rights of a player and those who also own a stake in a football club. With FIFA’s regulation governing the TPI prohibition, UEFA and FIFPro have backed such a position too.

What is the current state of play?
The current FIFA Rule Article 18bis of FIFA’s Rules on the Status and Transfer of Players states that:
“No club shall enter into a contract which enables any other party to that contract or any third party to acquire the ability to influence in employment and transfer related matters its independence, its policies or the performance of its teams.”
This was not a specific ban on TPI but a ban on a third party owner from influencing a club’s employment or transfer related matters.
Throughout 2014, UEFA and FIFA made a number of public statements concerning their aim to outlaw TPI. In September FIFA’s President Sepp Blatter explained that:
“We took a firm decision that [TPI] should be banned but it cannot be banned immediately there will be a transitional period”.
FIFA then set up a working group to address the topic of TPI. At the time, in their press release there was no explicit mention of a ban but “to analyse all possible regulatory options in relation to this complex practice and to make preliminary suggestions”. It was to the surprise of many that in late December, whilst the working group was still debating several possibilities that FIFA announced that they were to ban TPI globally. It is important to set out the exact wording of the FIFA circular to grasp the wide scope of the prohibition. Specifically, a third party is defined as "a party other than the two clubs transferring a player from one to the other, or any previous club, with which the player has been registered".
"Article 18ter Third-party ownership of players' economic rights
1. No club or player shall enter into an agreement with a third party whereby a third party is being entitled to participate, either in full or in part, in compensation payable in relation to the future transfer of a player from one club to another, or is being assigned any rights in relation to a future transfer or transfer compensation.
2. The interdiction as per paragraph 1 comes into force on 1 May 2015.
3. Agreements covered by paragraph 1 which predate 1 May 2015 may continue to be in place until their contractual expiration. However, their duration may not be extended.
4. The validity of any agreement covered by paragraph 1 signed between 1 January 2015 and 30 April 2015 may not have a contractual duration of more than 1 year beyond the effective date.
5. By the end of April 2015, all existing agreements covered by paragraph 1 need to be recorded within the Transfer Matching System (TMS). All clubs that have signed such agreements are required to upload them in their entirety, including possible annexes or amendments, in TMS, specifying the details of the third party concerned, the full name of the player as well as the duration of the agreement.
6. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee may impose disciplinary measures on clubs or players that do not observe the obligations set out in this article".
Article 18ter imposes a blanket global ban for TPI specifically forbidding any entity that is not a club from being entitled to future economic rights and/or transfer compensation. Whilst it has been explicitly considered that the prohibition only comes into force in May 2015, agreements entered into from 1 January can only be one year in length. This effectively reduces the possibility of new TPI contracts being entered into. Interestingly, Sporting Lisbon for example, recently announced that they had bought back a number of economic rights contracts from third party investors. They presumably considered that their position may well have been strengthened as a result of the new regulations.
Nonetheless, existing third party contracts will continue until expiry meaning that some players may still be subject to third party investment contracts for a number of seasons to come.  Such contracts will however be monitored through FIFA's TMS system as any club will be required to disclose a valid third party contract due to the mandatory disclosure obligations set out in paragraph 5 above. Such obligations are required to be adhered to in a relatively short time period (by the end of April 2015). The result of such disclosure may be that the contracts submitted to FIFA may themselves breach Article 18bis, for example, regarding TPI material influence clauses. Clubs will be faced with the obligation to provide all continuing TPI contracts to FIFA and will be subject to disciplinary measures if they do not. There is now an added compliance factor for clubs to adhere to under the new regulations and a variety of disciplinary cases against clubs should not be ruled out.
Lastly, the Portuguese and Spanish leagues are reported to have made a formal complaint to the European Commission, presumably assessing that Article 18ter is contrary to the free movement and competition rules. They will no doubt be arguing that the absolute ban that FIFA has imposed, is disproportionate i.e. that there are less restrictive ways of achieving the same objective.
Many have suggested that regulating TPI through transparency and disclosure obligations is a better alternative than an outright ban. It will be for the European Commission to decide whether to take the complaint forward and make a more substantive assessment or to reject the complaint. It should be noted that when the Premier League banned TPI, although there were some that argued that the prohibition breached competition law, no one actually came forward to challenge the regulation. A mere two months after FIFA announced the ban did the two Iberian associations challenge Article 18ter. That suggests, as many believe, that TPI has played an integral part in the way that clubs in those leagues use finance to 'de-risk' transfers and compete against clubs in associations with higher revenue generating capabilities. TPI has been an essential financing option.

Conclusion

Whilst the Premier League, as a reaction to the Tévez affair, made a strong policy decision to ban the practice in its league, a more fundamental shift is occurring on the global stage. Football specifically is very much in the European Commission's view with current Intermediary and TPI complaints and a previous Financial Fair Play complaint that was rejected but is now before the Belgian national courts. The TPI complaint will not be a quick process and in the meantime, unless interim relief is sought, existing TPI contracts will soon have to be lodged with FIFA and from 1 May, no new contracts can be entered into. Whether the practice is banned for good is now in the hands of the European Commission

The summer saga surrounding Luis Suarez’s vampire instincts is long forgotten, even though it might still play a role in his surprisingly muted football debut in FC Barcelona’s magic triangle. However, the full text of the CAS award in the Suarez case has recently be made available on CAS’s website and we want to grasp this opportunity to offer a close reading of its holdings. In this regard, one has to keep in mind that “the object of the appeal is not to request the complete annulment of the sanction imposed on the Player” (par.33). Instead, Suarez and Barcelona were seeking to reduce the sanction imposed by FIFA. In their eyes, the four-month ban handed out by FIFA extending to all football-related activities and to the access to football stadiums was excessive and disproportionate. Accordingly, the case offered a great opportunity for CAS to discuss and analyse the proportionality of disciplinary sanctions based on the FIFA Disciplinary Code (FIFA DC). 

I.               Admissibility: Can FC Barcelona join the appeal?

As a preliminary matter, FIFA was contesting the right of FC Barcelona to take part in the appeal against the decision. The Panel judged that “in light of the specific circumstances of the case, taking into account the impact of the specific sanction imposed, the Panel finds that the Club is sufficiently affected by the Appealed Decision and that the Club has a tangible interest of financial and sporting nature at stake” (par. 47). In other words, “in a case where the FIFA authorities are issuing a sanction against a player and such sanction affects direct financial interests of a club, such club must have the possibility to appeal (within the applicable deadline) such decision in order to be able to protect its legal interests, even if this interests became actual after the challenged decision was issued” (par.48). In short, the right to appeal to CAS is extended to the club of the player, even when he is not party to the original proceedings.

II.             Merits: Is it the right sanction?

a.     The applicability of Art. 57 FIFA DC

The first problem raised was “whether the actions of the Player at the Match constitute […] an unsporting behaviour to be sanctioned […] under art. 57 FIFA DC” (par.69). The club and the player were invoking various well-known principles of criminal law (ne bis in idem and nulla poena sine lege certa) against it, but the arbitrators decided to reject these objections (par.70-74). Interestingly, the Panel held that “it is not necessary for the principles of predictability and legality to be respected that the football player should know, in advance of his infringement, the exact rule he may infringe, as well as the measure and kind of sanction he is liable to incur because of the infringement”. Furthermore, “[t]he fact that the competent body applying the FIFA DC has the discretion to adjust the sanction mentioned in the rules deemed applicable to the individual behaviour of a player breaching such rules is not inconsistent with those principles” (par.73). Yet, the Panel was also of the opinion that “the wording of art. 57 FIFA DC shows that this provision contains a mere general clause, trying to cover all possible conducts against fair play, which are not yet covered by other articles, or “consumed” by the application of any other provision, of the FIFA DC”. Hence, “to the extent the action of biting (in the circumstances in which it occurred at the Match) falls within the scope of art. 48 par. 1 lit. d) FIFA DC (as all the parties concede), since the kinds of “assaulting” therein described (“elbowing, punching, kicking”) are expressly not exhaustive (“... etc.”), the same action could not be comprised in the scope of art. 57 FIFA DC, even though the Player’s assaulting in the case at hand, being a misconduct, is also against fair play”. Thus, “the punishment of the Player is already and fully covered by the application of art. 48 par. 1 lit. d) FIFA DC – with no room left for art. 57 FIFA DC, wrongly applied by the FIFA disciplinary bodies” (par.77). In short, article 48 par. 1 lit. d) FIFA DC is deemed the lex specialis to art. 57 FIFA DC. Therefore, “any sanction going beyond those allowed by art. 48 par. 1 lit. d) FIFA DC would be inappropriate to the peculiarities of the case and would be disproportionate” (par.78).

b.     The existence of mitigating factors and aggravating circumstances

The claimants argued that the FIFA disciplinary bodies did not take in account the mitigating factors and wrongfully assumed aggravating circumstances. The Panel rebuts this line of thinking. Indeed, regarding “the question of the relevance to be given to the Player’s remorse as a mitigating factor, the Panel, looking at the non-contested facts and the Parties’ allegations, finds that the margin of discretion the FIFA Appeal Committee had to judge this case was not exceeded, and that it was correctly exercised” (par.81). The arbitrators find that “the remorse of an offender can hardly be given any weight when the same offender had in precedent occasions committed the same infringement and in those occasions had already expressed its remorse and pledged not to repeat that infringement” (par.83). Moreover, “the remorse and apologies shown by the Player after having already been sanctioned cannot have the same impact as a remorse expressed immediately after the event and before any disciplinary proceeding is started and/or sanction is imposed” (par.83). Additionally, “the disciplinary bodies could take into account the fact that the Player had already committed in two preceding occasions the very same infringement, and irrespective of the level (national) of the competition in which they had occurred” (par.87). Thus, the Panel is of the view that the discretion granted to the FIFA Appeal Committee by art.39 par. 4 FIFA DC in weighing the mitigating factors and aggravating circumstances was properly exercised (par.90). The sanction against Luis Suarez is not based on an erroneous analysis of the factual situation. Indeed, remorse can only come into play if immediately voiced, while the concept of recidivism should be interpreted widely as including a similar wrongdoing in the framework of any football competition. 

c.      The proportionality of the ban

The key argument raised by the appellants against the length (and nature) of the FIFA sanctions imposed on Luis Suarez concerned the proportionality of the sanctions (par.91-108). In that regard, FC Barcelona and Suarez argued that “the biting of the Player is not an act of extreme violence and that there was no damage or injury caused to the opposing player, as he was able to continue to play without medical assistance” (par.93), while FIFA dismissively stated that “CAS should not correct any of its decisions if it is not considered to be “evidently and grossly disproportionate to the offence”” (par.94). The Panel rejected both analyses. On the one hand, it held that “biting is absolutely foreign to football and therefore to be considered as a sort of aggravated assault” and “the fact that the opposing player was not injured could not be considered a mitigating factor in the case at hand “(par.95). However, on the other hand, it also held that “the Player is responsible (only) for the violation of art. 48 par. 1 lit. d) FIFA DC” (par.96). Therefore, “the four (4) month ban on taking part in any football-related activity and the prohibition of entering the confines of any stadiums, not allowed for a violation of art. 48 par. 1 lit. d) FIFA DC, could not be applied” (par.96). Nevertheless, due to its specific nature as an intentional assault, the biting “deserves a sanction well above the minimum level of a two match suspension and a fine indicated as such in art. 48 FIFA DC” (par.97).

In conclusion, “the Panel finds that the four (4) month ban of the Player on taking part in any football-related activity and the prohibition of entering the confines of any stadiums are not contemplated by art. 48 par. 1 lit. d) FIFA DC, and are also not appropriate to the infringement committed by the Player on the pitch” (par.104). Moreover, “the FIFA Disciplinary Committee and the FIFA Appeals Committee did not take into consideration that with the four (4) months ban of the Player on taking part in any football-related activity and from entering the confines of any stadiums, the Player actually was prohibited to train with a team and keep his fitness in order to be ready to start playing for the Club after and above this four (4) month ban” (par.105). Furthermore, “this prohibition appears to impact, without any legitimate justification in the case at hand, on the general possibility for the Player to derive profits from his image as football player – beyond the simple participation in football matches” (par.105). Besides, “no justification was offered in the Appealed Decision (beyond a generic reference to the gravity of his actions) in support of the specific sanction of the stadium ban– a measure usually imposed to hooligans, which in the case of the Player does not seem to pursue any legitimate purpose” (par.106). In light of all of this, the Panel decides “to replace the sanction of the prohibition on exercising any football-related activity for four (4) months with the sanction of a match ban (applicable to official matches played at any level) for the same period” (par.107). 

Conclusion

Luis Suarez is long back on the pitch and the practical relevance of this discussion is very limited for his future career. Yet, interesting insights can be derived from this award. Litigants in disciplinary cases involving FIFA will be interested to know that a Club, even if it is not directly part to a dispute in front of FIFA’s disciplinary bodies, might have a legitimate right to appeal a decision rendered against one of its players. More importantly, the systematic interaction between article 48 and 57 FIFA DC has been clarified. Article 48 FIFA DC constitutes a lex specialis to article 57 FIFA DC and, thus, both cannot be applied cumulatively to sanction a player more heavily. This is not to say that a very peculiar offense, like the one at hand, will not face a tough sanction. Nonetheless, a sanction imposing a drastic stadium or football-related activity ban, threatening the player’s ability to derive any revenues from his work, will be deemed disproportionate unless it is thoroughly justified. This is a clear warning not only to FIFA’s disciplinary bodies but also to any Sports Governing Body: the harsher you get, the stronger the supporting reasoning must be.

Introduction: FIFA’s TPO ban and its compatibility with EU competition law.
Day 2: Third-party entitlement to shares of transfer fees: problems and solutions
Day 3: The Impact of the TPO Ban on South American Football.
Day 4: Third Party Investment from a UK Perspective.
Day 5: Why FIFA's TPO ban is justified.

Editor's note: This is the first blog of our symposium on FIFA's TPO ban, it features the position of La Liga regarding the ban and especially highlights some alternative regulatory measures it would favour. La Liga has launched a complaint in front of the European Commission challenging the compatibility of the ban with EU law, its ability to show that realistic less restrictive alternatives were available is key to winning this challenge. We wish to thank La Liga for sharing its legal (and political) analysis of FIFA's TPO ban with us.

INTRODUCTION

The Spanish Football League (La Liga) has argued for months that the funding of clubs through the conveyance of part of players' economic rights (TPO) is a useful practice for clubs. However, it also recognized that the practice must be strictly regulated. In July 2014, it approved a provisional regulation that was sent to many of the relevant stakeholders, including FIFA’s Legal Affairs Department.

Although initially we felt that FIFA would focus on strict regulation, FIFA finally tilted the balance towards the idea of an absolute ban. FIFA even put an end to the working parties it had put in place to regulate this issue. After verbal and written notices, La Liga has filed a complaint with the Competition Authorities of the European Union, since the prohibition of TPO violates the EU competition rules. In our view, apart from breaching the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, it also violates the rules on competition in place in other countries, such as Argentina and Brazil.

La Liga has raised the following arguments to show the disproportion of the absolute prohibition of TPO:

• FIFA now prohibits undue third-party influence on a team and on players' agents' economic rights.

• The UEFA now regulates the financial aspects of TPO in its Financial Fair Play Regulations.

• Only three professional leagues worldwide have banned TPO.

• The two independent studies commissioned by FIFA do not support the prohibition of TPO.

• The General Assembly of FIFA concluded that TPO is a complex issue that must continue to be studied in detail.

• The FIFA Working Party on TPO held only one meeting before it was banned and adapted no specific recommendations.

• The FIFA Executive Committee agreed to ban TPO with no supporting report or internal proposal.

• FIFA has not consulted governments, authorities or, in particular, the European Commission before adopting the ban.

• The arguments used to ban TPO reveal the lack of proportionality of the measure.

• Independent experts have denounced the lack of proportionality of a TPO ban.

The lack of proportionality of the measure

FIFA’s main argument is that TPO threatens the integrity of sporting competitions. In La Liga’s view, both the integrity of the competition and, where appropriate, footballers' independence could be protected by measures that do not require the full prohibition of TPO. For example, it could limit third-party economic rights to a minority percentage (>50%) together with other measures, such as limiting the number of players from the same club in which a third-party has minority economic rights.[1] Indeed, in its ENIC/UEFA decision, the European Commission took into account that the UEFA rule only prohibits the control of multiple clubs, but not the acquisition of minority stakes in them ("(T)he UEFA rule does not limit the freedom of action of investors that have shares in clubs below the level that gives them control over the club, because clubs with such ownership structure remain free to play in the same UEFA competition”).

Consideration must also be given to the fact that the risk to the integrity of competitions is much greater when two teams controlled by the same investor play against each other compared to when a certain number of players over whom a third party holds economic rights play each other. In the former case, the owner or investor of the clubs may want a team to lose if they can avoid relegation, win the championship or qualify for an international competition. In the latter case, a third-party investor's interest is for players to play as well as possible to increase their economic value, regardless of the result of the match. In fact, there is an increased risk of conflict of interest if a player has been loaned by one club to another and has to play against the club that holds the economic rights. It should be highlighted that neither FIFA nor UEFA have taken steps to regulate loans of players between clubs, despite the fact that loans account for a significant part of player transfer[2] and that independent experts recommend more restrictive regulations for loans.[3] Similarly, we fail to understand why FIFA, prohibits TPO when it is considering deregulating the profession of player agent and accepts that only a few agents represent and share economic interests with star football players.[4]

FIFA further argues that banning TPO will avoid speculation and inflation of transfer costs, preserve economic flows within football clubs, protect players' human dignity, combat economic crime, etc. La Liga is of the opinion that these arguments violate even further the principle of proportionality and are of questionable legitimacy. Therefore, they should be rejected from the outset. 

POLITICAL ASPECTS

As the Association of Spanish Football Clubs, we first and foremost defend a regulation of TPO. Banning it would be denying a fundamental tool for our clubs' funding and competitiveness

Based on the current socio-economic context of the football sector and its practical reality, it seems particularly inappropriate to reject a source of external funding used in every sector of the economy and which, when appropriately regulated, could create greater legal certainty for all concerned.

More specifically, from a political point of view, it is essential to design the regulation of TPO so that La Liga and its clubs maintain or even increase their current competitiveness.

Indeed, there is no doubt about the benefits provided by TPO/TPI since many clubs are in the position to sign players who they otherwise could not afford. Moreover, clubs also profit from the ability to anticipate revenue by selling the rights of the squad players in their team. Thus, in terms of the competitive balance, the use of TPO enables small/medium-sized clubs to maintain their competitiveness against their "bigger" rivals. For example, winning the Spanish league and reaching the Champions League final in the 2013/14 season is an achievement Atlético Madrid would probably not have reached without having recourse to TPO. Furthermore, it makes it possible to increase investment in sports facilities for better training and the development of young players.

The above shows that the private investor also "shares" a risk with the club: when investing in a specific player, the investor also assumes the negative results of the potential investment, which is then shared between the club and the investor, greatly reducing the negative impact on the accounts of the club in question.

And finally, taking into account the economic and financial difficulties currently affecting football clubs, it is necessary to support appropriate financing mechanisms in football to foster investment in the sector, since, at present, most clubs would not be able to survive on their current sources of income.

Should the absolute prohibition of TPO/TPI be maintained, as intended by FIFA and UEFA, it will be very difficult to keep the constellation of star players in our affiliated Clubs. They will most certainly leave their respective clubs for other competitions and clubs that have greater financial resources. It is clear that a large number of Spanish teams will see their competitiveness reduced and, at the same time, the competitiveness of and interest in our competition will plummet. 

In addition, proper regulation of this issue would avoid the risk of compromising the integrity of competitions, since it would provide greater legal certainty for all the involved parties. Instead, the absolute ban imposed by FIFA will lead to the creation of a "black market” that would be out of regulatory control and would therefore endanger the very integrity of the competitions. Thus, it is absolutely necessary to regulate the matter appropriately. 

LEGAL ASPECTS:

In line with the aforementioned political aspects, from a strictly legal perspective, regulating TPO is particularly advisable since:

a. It is a common practice in the football sector and it is a source of funding that promotes the competitiveness of clubs. Moreover, it stimulates competition and allows clubs to attract and retain top-level players.

In recent years, the number of investments in football players has increased. These investments were sought by Spanish clubs in order to finance the registration of the players’ federative rights. Furthermore, the investor’s remuneration is (wholly or partially) calculated depending on the positive economic results that may be obtained through future transfers of the player’s federative rights by the club that received the investment money.

La Liga believes that investments of this nature can constitute a useful alternative source of financing for clubs and investment for funds, especially now that the Spanish financial sector and the Spanish professional football sector are undergoing a profound financial crisis. Accordingly, these investments may foster the competitiveness of Spanish professional football clubs in Spain and outside. Indeed, the signing and retention of players’ federative rights cannot be secured without third-party investments.  

b. TPO requires an adequate regulatory framework to ensure legal certainty and promote the integrity of professional football competitions.

Based on the widespread use of TPO in practice, La Liga considers it appropriate to introduce certain rules and provide legal certainty to both the clubs as well as the investors. This would require imposing reasonable limitations and duties, and providing for the transparency of the TPO transactions, to protect good sportsmanship and the integrity of competitions.

La Liga’s proposal for a regulatory framework is based on the following basic principle:

Compliance with FIFA’s rules on the influence of third parties in clubs, according to which no club may enter into a contract whereby any party to said contract or third party may assume a position that could influence labour issues and transfers in relation to the independence, policies or actions taken by the teams of any club.

Based on this principle, the following regulatory measures are suggested:

• prohibition of certain transactions based on the player's age;

• maximum percentage of participation in the "economic rights";

• quantitative  limitations  on  the  maximum  number  of  players  per club;

• maximum remuneration for the investor;

• prohibition of certain clauses that may limit the independence and autonomy of the clubs; and

• prohibition of transactions depending on the investor's particular status or business (or participation in the same) such as shareholders, directors and managers of the clubs.

This regulatory framework would provide transparency through duties of information and registration of the investors (including full identification of the real owners) and the financial transactions themselves. 

CONCLUSION

There is no doubt that the use of TPO/TPI needs to be regulated in Spanish professional football. However, it is also necessary to acknowledge that the full prohibition of TPO by FIFA will only trigger a search for "creative" alternatives to fulfil the same purpose, using fraud and/or other contractual fictions. Furthermore, the prohibition of TPO will be very difficult to enforce and it will generate a great deal of conflicts, which is obviously not a desirable outcome. This is also without prejudice to the considerable loss of competitiveness and footballing talent for our clubs and our competitions.

Thus, it is necessary to devise an alternative approach to the issue by means of a specific regulation. Indeed, we consider that third-party investment in football is a legitimate financing vehicle for clubs, based on risk-sharing and productive investments through private funds. However, there are also obvious threats that need to be tackled. Therefore, in the view of La Liga, it is necessary to establish a sustainable, secure and transparent regulatory system that encourages sound investment in the sector and provides for a better control of the investors.

The benefits to be gained from regulating TPO/TPI are more than evident and would be shared by all the stakeholders that make up the ‘football family’. We believe that an adequate regulation in this area would pave the way for a secure, reliable and transparent system, allowing the ‘football family’ to safely enjoy the benefits TPO can provide.

[1] See, for example, alternatives to the total ban proposed by Luís Villas-Boas Pires, "Third Party Ownership- To ban or not to ban?, LawInSport,10.12.2013: http://www.lawinsport.com/articles/regulation-a-governance/item/third-party-ownership-to-ban-or-not-to-ban.

[2] The Economic and Legal Aspects of Transfers of Players”, KEA-CDES, December 2013, p. 193: “These operations involve a large number of transfers in Europe – 21% i.e. 1333 in 2011, according to TMS”.

[3] The Economic and Legal Aspects of Transfers of Players”, KEA-CDES, December 2013, study performed for the European Commission, pp. 253-254: "Proposal 4:Regulate the loan transfer

Abusive loan transfer practices contribute to competitive imbalance and unfairness of the competitions. We suggest regulation to limit or prevent such abusive practices. This could encompass:

-  Limiting the number of loans by the lending clubs

-  Limiting to xx the number of loans to the beneficiary clubs

-  Regulating loan contracts between clubs which pose a risk to the integrity of competition (for instance: a contractual clause that prevents a player from participating in a certain competition or a given match). Main stakeholders: International federations, national federations and leagues.”

[4] The Economic and Legal Aspects of Transfers of Players”, KEA-CDES, December 2013, pp. 128-129:

“The second feature of the upper primary segment is the concentration of superstars in the hands of a few agents (individual or agencies). It is a question of knowing what the actual market power of these agents is and what can be done to regulate their actions. For example, let us note that Gestifute, the Portuguese agency led by Jorge Mendes, has in its portfolio José Mourinho, Cristiano Ronaldo, Nani, Anderson, Pepe, Ricardo Carvalho, Raul Meireles and Miguel Veloso.  This agency has generated €369.85m in transfer rights (Poli, 2012). The role of the major sporting agents should be better known, in order to assess whether they are responsible for an increase in the dualisation of the labour market and, therefore, for a deterioration in competitive balance. Small championships can no longer hang on to their stars and the major championships are competing to attract them, thus contributing to the inflation of speculative bubbles regarding the salaries and transfer fees of these stars.

In the lower primary market, as in the higher primary market, the role of agents is decisive in transactions and we once more find the same recommendations:

An analysis of the concentration of wage

-  bills.

-  An analysis of the concentration of transactions at the agent level.”

On Thursday 25 February 2021 from 16.00-17.30 CET, the Asser International Sports Law Centre, in collaboration with Dr Marjolaine Viret (University of Lausanne), organizes a Zoom In webinar on the recent award of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in the case World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA), delivered on 17 December 2020.

Background
In its 186 pages decision the CAS concluded that RUSADA was non-compliant with the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) in connection with its failure to procure the delivery of the authentic LIMS data (Laboratory Information Management System) and underlying analytical data of the former Moscow Laboratory to WADA. However, the CAS panel did not endorse the entire range of measures sought by WADA to sanction this non-compliance. It also reduced the time frame of their application from four to two years. The award has been subjected to a lot of public attention and criticisms, and some have expressed the view that Russia benefited from a lenient treatment.   

This edition of our Zoom in webinars will focus on assessing the impact of the award on the world anti-doping system. More specifically, we will touch upon the decision’s effect on the capacity of WADA to police institutionalized doping systems put in place by certain states, the ruling’s regard for the rights of athletes (Russian or not), and its effect on the credibility of the world anti-doping system in the eyes of the general public.

To discuss the case with us, we are very happy to welcome the following speakers:

• Michele Verroken (Sporting Integrity Limited, Independent Anti-Doping Expert)
• Herman Ram (CEO of the Dutch NADO/Dopingautoriteit)
• Prof. Jean-Loup Chappelet (University of Lausanne)

Participation is free, register HERE.