The first part of this series looked at the legal framework in which FFP sits, concluding that FFP occupied a ‘marginal’ legal position – perhaps legal, perhaps not. Given the significant financial interests in European football – UEFA’s figures suggest aggregate revenue of nearly €17 billion as at clubs’ 2015 accounts – and the close correlation between clubs’ spending on wages and their success on the field,^[1] a legal challenge to the legality of FFP’s ‘break even’ requirement (the Break Even Requirement), which restricts a particular means of spending, was perhaps inevitable.

And so it followed.

Challenges to the legality of the Break Even Requirement have been brought by football agent Daniel Striani, through various organs of justice of the European Union and through the Belgian courts; and by Galatasaray in the Court of Arbitration for Sport. As an interesting footnote, both Striani and Galatasaray were advised by “avocat superstar” Jean-Louis Dupont, the lawyer who acted in several of sports law’s most famous cases, including the seminal Bosman case. Dupont has been a vocalcritic of FFP’s legality since its inception.

Mr Striani’s Complaints

Initially, Mr Striani made a complaint to the European Commission to the effect that the Break Even Requirement breached European competition law, and that it restricts several fundamental freedoms of the European Union guaranteed by the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU); namely, the right to free movement of people (Article 45 TFEU), the right to free movement of capital (Article 56 TFEU), and the right to free movement of services (Article 63 TFEU).

In his complaint to the Commission, Mr Striani identified five anti-competitive effects of the Break Even Requirement:

1. It restricts external investment into football;
2. It will have the effect of calcifying the hierarchy of the game, preventing ‘small’ clubs from competing at higher levels;
3.  It will depress the transfer market;
4.  It will depress players’ wages; and
5. It will therefore adversely affect players’ agents’ revenue.

Superficially at least, each point above has merit and internal logic. Equally, there are coherent rebuttals. For balance, some (of the various) potential counter arguments are listed below:

1. From the outset, FFP has not altogether restricted exogenous investment into football and loss making (regardless of quantum) has been permissible for certain expenditure. Rather than restricting investment, FFP funnels loss-making investment in certain directions such as stadium and infrastructure spending.
2. There is little movement in football’s sporting hierarchy under any model. The evidence suggests that those clubs who spend the most on wages tend to experience the most success on the pitch;^[2] however, it is questionable whether there is inherent merit in supplanting the clubs that are best able to maximise revenue generation with those that have the owners most willing to fund losses. Under either model, those with the most money to expend on players’ wages will usually win.^[3]
3. It is reductive to equate a healthy, functioning transfer market with clubs’ rights to make losses; nor is it of intrinsic value to the sport for transfers to be significant in magnitude, whether in cost or volume.
4. Owners’ equity inputs are far from the only source of salary growth. In any event, further consideration should be given as to whether, if a deflationary effect can be established, this is a function of the top end of the salary scale being depressed reducing mean salary, or whether the impact is felt by in modal or median salary. Ultimately, FFP could depress wages on an aggregate basis but still benefit most players should median or modal wages improve in a more financially stable environment.
5. Players’ intermediaries may not have a sufficiently proximate interest in the financial regulatory aspects of clubs’ spending. UEFA’s rule-making power is given effect and legitimacy by way of complex contractual relationship between players, clubs and the sport’s governing bodies and intermediaries do not have privity of contract with UEFA insofar as FFP is concerned.

Mr Striani also brought a claim, on similar legal basis, in the Belgian national courts (Mr Striani being based in Belgium). In part because of these collateral proceedings, the Commission rejected Mr Striani’s complaint. In a press release, Mr Dupont confirmed that the Commission had given its view to the effect that Mr Striani, being an agent and therefore not directly subject to FFP, lacked a legitimate interest in the rules, and that the Belgian national courts, already having been seized of the case, were a suitable forum for a hearing of the merits.

Mr Striani was joined by various other parties in his claim in the Belgian courts. However, Mr Striani (along with his co-complainants) was again frustrated on technical grounds outwith the substantive issues of his dispute.  The Belgian court found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute, because, to put it simply, under the relevant jurisdictional rules (the Lugano Convention), UEFA was entitled to be sued in the courts of its place of domicile, i.e Switzerland. Ben van Rompuy goes into more detail on the jurisdictional nuances here.

Somewhat oddly, given its self-proclaimed jurisdictional incompetence, the Belgian Courts did make an order referring the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the CJEU rejected the referral on the basis that it was “manifestly inadmissible,” and also “observing that the national court had failed to provide any of the necessary information to enable the European Court to address European competition law issues.”^[4]

This puts Mr Striani’s complaint into no man’s land. Rejected by the Commission; rejected by the Belgian national courts; and rejected by the CJEU; all without any substantive adjudicative decision as to the legality of the Break Even Requirement. Irrespective of one’s views on FFP, it is a source of frustration that five years on from FFP’s introduction, its legality remains an unresolved question despite vigorous and not frivolous challenge. Mr Striani’s challenges have, to date, proven impotent in settling the (increasingly academic) debate.

Evidently frustrated at the Commission’s refusal to formally review the legality of FFP, Mr Striani went on to make a complaint to the EU Ombudsman alleging maladministration by Vice President of the Commission at the material time, Joaquín Almunia. The complaint centred on Mr Almunia’s association with Athletic Bilbao and his prior statements perceived as endorsing FFP. However, the Ombudsman found no maladministration to have occurred. 

Galatasaray’s CAS Appeal

There is, however, a forum in which a decision has been made as to the legality of the Break Even Requirement; namely the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Galatasary v UEFA (CAS 2016/A/4492). Galatasaray, like Mr Striani, were represented by Mr Dupont; and, like Mr Striani, the basis of Galatasaray’s case was that the Break Even Requirement breached EU competition law and illegally trammelled EU fundamental freedoms as to workers, services and capital.

The context of the dispute was as follows: Galatasaray was investigated by the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB), which, as mentioned in Part One, oversees and enforces adherence to FFP, in respect of a potential breach of FFP, and in particular the Break Even Requirement. The procedural rules governing the CFCB allow clubs to enter into a ‘settlement agreement’ at the discretion and direction of the CFCB Chief Investigator.

The CFCB Chief Investigator determined that Galatasaray had breached the Break Even Requirement and a settlement agreement was reached that provided, inter alia, that the Turkish club must “be break even compliant…at the latest in the monitoring period 2015/16,” and that the club must not increase its aggregate wage bill, which stood at €90m.

Galatasaray hopelessly failed to meet either stipulation, increasing their wage bill by €5.5m and exceeding the acceptable deviation figure in Break Even Requirement by €134.2m. These figures were audited and verified by independent consultants.

In view of this egregious breach of the settlement agreement, the Investigatory Chamber referred Galatasaray to the Adjudicatory Chamber, who, on 2 March 2016, issued a decision ordering, inter alia, that Galatasaray reduce their wage bill to a maximum of €65m over the next two FFP reporting periods, and banning the club from any European competitions for which they otherwise qualified on sporting merit for the next two seasons.

Galatasaray appealed this decision to the CAS, arguing that the sanctions levied by UEFA were illegal because the rules on which they were based, i.e. the FFP rules, were illegal.

If the basis of Galatasaray’s appeal (breach of competition law, breach of fundamental freedoms) is familiar to those with a knowledge of the legal issues FFP presents, so too will be UEFA’s defence of the Break Even Requirement. UEFA argued that the Break Even Requirement constitutes rules that “are prudential rules necessary for the proper functioning of football clubs,” and “Any restriction they may cause pursues legitimategovernanceobjectives and isproportionate to their achievement.”^[5] (Emphasis added.) 

UEFA’s view is clearly intended to align FFP with the legal tests identified in Part One of this series; namely that FFP must be:

1. Necessary (for the proper conduct of the sport);
2.  Suitable (as a means to pursue that necessary objective); and
3. Proportionate (to the aims pursued).

Applicability of EU Law

The non-application of EU law by the CAS has previously been called ‘an absurdity’ by this blog“in light of the Bosman (and prior Walrave) case law of the CJEU, which made clear that EU law is applicable to the regulations of Sports Governing Bodies”.

In this case, UEFA postulated that EU law was “irrelevant” to the dispute – the parties both being from Turkey and Switzerland respectively, i.e. nations outside of the EU – but “did not argue” that FFP is “not subject to the invoked provisions of EU law or can be applicable even if contrary to these provisions.”^[6] Galatasaray argued that EU law applied as FFP constitutes mandatory rules in EU territory. The parties agreed that Swiss law applied.

The CAS panel of arbitrators (the Panel) found that EU law, being a foreign mandatory rule, applied pursuant to Article 19 of the Swiss Federal Act on Private International Law, under which arbitral tribunals must consider foreign mandatory rules where:

i.       such rules belong to a special category of norms which need to be applied irrespective of the law applicable to the merits of the case;

ii.      there is a close connection between the subject matter of the dispute and the territory where the mandatory rules are in force; and

iii.    in view of Swiss legal theory and practice, the mandatory rules must aim to protect legitimate interest and crucial values and their application must lead to a decision which is appropriate.

The Panel found that this test had been met on the facts in this instance. As an interesting side note, the CAS also followed this line of reasoning in the subsequent Third Party Ownership case discussed by Antoine Duval here.

Article 101 TFEU

The first hurdle for Galatasaray in establishing the illegality of the Break Even Requirement is to show that it fits within the boundaries of the prohibition laid down in Article 101 TFEU, i.e. that it has as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the European internal market.

The Panel found that FFP did not have anti-competitive intent as its object. On its face, this seems a reasonable conclusion; after all, FFP is not intended to stymie inter-club competition. However, it should not be treated as axiomatic. As Weatherill has highlighted, “UEFA’s own website (though not the FFP Regulations themselves) identify as one of the principal objectives to decrease pressure on salaries and transfer fees and limit inflationary effect”. Whether such effect was an independent goal of UEFA in instituting FFP rather than mere political bluster is open to question, but the objectives of UEFA should be subject to further interrogation.

In this instance, the Panel found that Galatasaray “failed to demonstrate that the object of [FFP] would not be stated in its Article 2 [dealing with FFP objects]”. Having considered the question, the Panel “did not find convincing evidence that the object of [FFP] would be to distort competition, i.e. to favour of disfavour certain clubs rather than to prevent clubs from trading at levels above their resources”.

Thus in order to be caught within the prohibition under Article 101 TFEU, Galatasaray would need to show that FFP had an anti-competitive effect. As FFP did not fall within the examples given in the Commission’s guidance on anti-competitive agreements (horizontal/vertical), the burden of proof fell on Galatasaray to demonstrate FFP’s anti-competitive effects.

They did not do so. However – and frustratingly for those with an interest in the topic – Galatasaray did not actually adduce any detailed empirical analysis as to the effects of FFP on competition (para. 74).

Irrespective of the lack of empirical evidence put forward, the Panel expressed a view that “competition is not distorted by ‘overspending’” (para. 76); nor does FFP ossify the structure of the market as “dominant clubs have always existed and will continue to exist”. The latter point is superficially correct; however, it fails to address the fact that the Break Even Requirement may have prevented clubs from entry to the ‘dominant club’ position of superiority. 

The Panel went on to cite with approval the applicability of the carve-out for regulatory rules developed in Wouters, as discussed in more detail in Part One of this series.

Article 102 TFEU

Galatasaray produced evidence that UEFA was a dominant undertaking (which, given UEFA is a governing body with total authority over the rules of elite European football, is a case easily made), but it did not show how it was abusing its position in the case of FFP. Thus the Panel found that Galatasaray did not demonstrate an abuse of dominance by UEFA.

Fundamental Freedoms

Galatasaray argued that the Break Even Requirement violated fundamental freedoms of the EU as to the free movement of workers, the free movement of capital, and the free movement of services. However, it submitted “very little argumentation” in support of these claims (para. 85).

The Panel highlighted the fact that FFP does not discriminate based on nationality, as the rules apply equally to all clubs participating in UEFA competitions; that the rules apply equally to “domestic operations” (para. 86); and “do not restrict fundamental freedoms: players can be transferred (or offer services cross-border without limitations; capitals can move from a EU country to another without any limit.”

Ergo, the Panel found Galatasaray had not shown any breach of a fundamental freedom of the EU.

Swiss Law

Galatasaray did not invoke the relevant provisions of Swiss competition law in detail; however, the Panel noted that the substantive nature of Swiss competition law was analogous to EU competition law, diverging only in respect of reference to the domestic market. Accordingly, the Panel’s reasoning “would be the same” (para. 89). 

The CAS’s Finding

Galatasaray did not establish its case and as such its appeal was not upheld by the CAS and the CFCB’s decision was confirmed. UEFA successfully defended the first hearing on the substantive legal issues of the Break Even Requirement. 

An Illusory Victory for UEFA?

UEFA may have successfully fended off a binding determination of the legal issues at play in challenges brought in domestic and European courts, albeit on procedural grounds; and it may have won the first serious challenge to the substantive legal issues at play in the CAS, albeit aided by a lack of proper particularisation of some of the issues by Galatasaray; but it is debatable whether it was able to altogether insulate FFP from the effect of these challenges. In the years since its inception, the nature and content of the rules has gradually shifted towards a more liberal approach to external investment, and in all probability this was influenced by the vehemence of the legal challenges to the rules.

At the outset of Mr Striani’s challenge to FFP, his lawyer, Mr Dupont, said "What my client hopes is that Uefa will be forced to review this rule and go for more proportionate alternatives”.  He may not have achieved this through a favourable determination of the courts; however, as will be examined in greater detail in Part Three of this series, he may have ultimately been successful in his objectives to some extent.

^[1] See, for example, Kuper, S and Szymanski, S 2012 Soccernomics 2nd ed. London: HarperSport at p14

^[2] See Kuper, S and Szymanski, S 2012 Soccernomics 2nd ed. London: HarperSport

^[3] It should be noted, however, that Mr Dupont has argued that a flat salary cap – in many ways more restrictive than the Break Even Requirement – would be preferable, see Stefano Bastianon, 'The Striani Challenge to UEFA Financial Fair-Play A New Era after Bosman or Just a Washout?' [2015] 11(1) The Competition Law Review 7-39 at p18

^[4] Daniel Geey, LawInSport and BASL Sport Law Year Book 2015 - 2016 (Sean Cottrell ed, LawInSport 2016) at p108

^[5] Para 50

^[6] Para 39

Part Two of this series looked at the legal challenges FFP has faced in the five years since the controversial ‘break even’ requirements were incorporated. Those challenges to FFP’s legality have been ineffective in defeating the rules altogether; however, there have been iterative changes during FFP’s lifetime. Those changes are marked by greater procedural sophistication, and a move towards the liberalisation of equity input by owners in certain circumstances. In light of recent statements from UEFA President Aleksander Čeferin, it is possible that the financial regulation of European football will be subject to yet further change.

FFP from 2010 to 2015 

FFP was integrated into UEFA’s licensing requirements in the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations Edition 2010.  In the 2010 Edition, implementation of FFP was to be overseen by the UEFA Club Financial Control Panel. Disciplinary action was carried out by the UEFA Control and Disciplinary Body, whose decisions could be appealed to the UEFA Appeals Board.

In the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations Edition 2012, the oversight and disciplinary procedure of FFP was amended. The functions of the Club Financial Control Panel, Control and Disciplinary Body, and Appeals Board were replaced with a two-tier Club Financial Control Body (CFCB). The two chambers of the CFCB are the Investigatory Chamber, which actively monitors FFP compliance; and the Adjudicatory Chamber, which levies sanctions for non-compliance.

Under Article 53.1 of the 2012 Edition rules, the CFCB “carries out its duties as specified in the present regulations and the Procedural rules governing the UEFA Club Financial Control Body” (the Procedural Rules). The bespoke Procedural Rules establish a framework for the composition of the CFCB, the decision making processes of both the Investigatory and Adjudicatory Chambers, and the rules applicable to the whole proceedings. Like the Club Licensing and FFP Regulations, the Procedural Rules have gone through iterative changes (2014, and 2015 editions).

The Procedural Rules are a welcome development to FFP, ensuring the independence of the CFCB (Articles 6 and 7); bestowing broad investigatory powers upon the Investigatory Chamber (Article 13); and setting clear parameters for disciplinary action and process, including setting out potential disciplinary measures (Article 29). Overall, the Procedural Rules increase the legal sophistication of the end-to-end FFP process, and in doing so reduce the risk of irrational or arbitrary outcomes.  This protects clubs and UEFA; clubs who are in breach of FFP have clear guidance on the process that will be followed; clubs who adhere to FFP are reassured that those clubs who breach the rules will be put through a sophisticated investigation and (if necessary) disciplinary process (and additionally, pursuant to Article 22, where third party clubs and member associations are affected and have a legitimate interest in joining proceedings before the Adjudicatory Chamber, may do so); and UEFA, in having a clear and detailed rules governing procedure, helps to insulate FFP from legal challenge.

(By way of aside, in light of the changes to the procedure governing FFP sanctions, it is noteworthy that Bursaspor, in CAS 2014/A/3870 Bursaspor Kulübü Derneği v. Union des Associations Européennes de Football, argued that Control and Disciplinary Body and Appeals Board were “not professional on financial subjects”, although the Turkish club was unsuccessful in its appeal, and UEFA’s rebuttal was to highlight that the Club Financial Control Panel was made up of “financial and legal experts” and that the creation of the CFCB was “principally motivated by a desire to streamline the process”.)

Amongst the Procedural Rules, Article 33 stipulates that decisions of the Adjudicatory Chamber are to be published (subject to redaction to protect confidential information or personal data), which has the effect not just of increasing the transparency of UEFA’s decision making, but also of increasing the transparency of the financial affairs of European club football.

Settlement Agreements

One of the more dramatic changes implemented by the Procedural Rules was the implementation of ‘Settlement Agreements’, which are “aimed at ensuring that clubs in breach of the break-even requirement become compliant within a certain timeframe and are designed to be effective, equitable and dissuasive.”

Settlement Agreements have been described as “basically a plea bargain”. Redolent of the settlement procedures in many competition law or white collar crime regimes, Settlement Agreements are consensual agreements entered into between a party who has breached FFP and the CFCB, which avoid the need for a breach to be referred to the Adjudicatory Chamber (Article 15.1).   Settlement Agreements have been viewed by the CAS as effectively giving clubs a ‘second chance’ to comply with FFP (CAS 2016/A/4692 Kardemir Karabükspor v. UEFA), albeit with more stringent conditions applied.

Settlement Agreements may include sanctions and timeframes for compliance (Article 15.2) and are monitored by the CFCB Chief Investigator (Article 15.4). If there is a breach of a settlement agreement, the matter is then referred to the Adjudicators Chamber.

FFP from 2015

The next major changes to FFP were implemented in the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations Edition 2015.

Introduction of Voluntary Agreements 

In contrast to the ex post compliance approach of Settlement Agreements, Voluntary Agreements are an ex ante mechanism for clubs to derogate from the normal FFP standards, with the ultimate aim of complying with the break-even requirement. Voluntary Agreements are defined as being “a structured set of obligations which are individually tailored to the situation of the club, break-even targets defined as annual and aggregate break-even results for each reporting period covered by the agreement, and any other obligations as agreed with the UEFA Club Financial Control Body investigatory chamber” (Edition 2015, Annex XII A.5). They can last for up to four reporting periods (Annex XII A.3).

In order to enter into a Voluntary Agreement, a club must adhere to certain procedural requirements. These include submitting a long-term business plan “based on reasonable and conservative assumptions” (Annex XII B.2(a)).

On the face of it, the concept of the Voluntary Agreements–allowing clubs with new owners to incur debts on the promise of future FFP compliance–sounds like a recipe for sort of financial peril FFP was created to avoid.  However, in order to be allowed to enter into a Voluntary Agreement, there must be put in place “an irrevocable commitment(s) by an equity participant(s) and/or related party(ies) to make contributions for an amount at least equal to the aggregate future break-even deficits for all the reporting periods covered by the voluntary agreement” (Annex XII B.2(c)).

Break Even Limit Increase

Another significant change implemented by the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations Edition 2015 was a variation to the quantum of the break even limits in certain circumstances. The limits were increased from €5m to €45m for assessment periods 2013/14 and 2014/15, and €30m for assessment periods 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18  “if it is entirely covered by a direct contribution/payment from the club owner(s) or a related party” (Article 61.2).

This balance between short-term losses, guaranteed in the event of financial failure (per the Voluntary Agreement process) or offset by owner input, against long term sustainability are superficially congruent with the objectives identified by UEFA for its licensing regime, which include “to introduce more discipline and rationality in club football finances; to encourage clubs to operate on the basis of their own revenues; to encourage responsible spending for the long-term benefit of football; and to protect the long-term viability and sustainability of European club football” (Article 2 (c)-(f)).  But this takes a somewhat narrow view of the impact of spending in football. A club’s spending affects not just a buying and selling club in a market transaction for a player’s registration, but affects the overall market in football players.

Inflation in the market for player registrations far outstrips inflation across the broader economy (by one estimate, inflation in football transfer fees runs ten times higher than inflation in the “normal” economy – and those figure were calculated before Paris Saint Germain doubled the record transfer fee with the purchase of Neymar in the summer of 2017. Player wage growth runs at over 10% per annum. Voluntary Agreements and increased owner investment may contribute to this vertiginous inflation. This runs in contrast to some of UEFA’s messaging around FFP. For example, it has previously been stated that FFP was intended to “decrease pressure on salaries and transfer fees and limit inflationary effect”.

Of course, it should be borne in mind that there is nothing inherently wrong with inflation where it is sustainable; but when considered in an environment where capital is accruing to the wealthy elite (top 15 European clubs) at a quicker rate than the rest of the market (see UEFA’s Financial Fair Play Regulations and the Rise of Football’s 1% by van Maren for further analysis), there is a risk of bifurcation of the financial capabilities of football clubs, with inflation marginalising the non-elite.  European clubs have seen revenue growth at over 9% per annum on UEFA’s figures, although since 2009, the average English Premier League club has added “five times more revenue than the average Italian Serie A or French Ligue Un club”. Inflation, if not intrinsically problematic, certainly has the potential to cause problems; and UEFA, in administering and approving Voluntary Agreements, and in weakening its stance on owners offsetting losses, should consider the impact on inflation and stability. Voluntary Agreements and financial input by owners are potentially gateways to the elite level; however, this should not be at the expense of those who do not have wealthy owners or pre-existing wealth.

Perhaps more significantly, there is a normative dimension to the introduction of Voluntary Agreements and the relaxation of financial input from benefactors. The message behind FFP was one of “revolutionising European football”, with then President of UEFA Michel Platini saying that UEFA would “never [be] going back on this.” Quite conversely, the changes brought about by the 2015 Edition of FFP were welcomed with a message of FFP being “eased”. This is disappointing because, on UEFA’s own figures, FFP has had a considerable positive impact on the European football financial landscape. On one view, allowing equity input from owners is a pro-competitive encouragement of exogenous investment; on another, it is rowing back from a positive and successful policy initiative at the expense of those not fortunate enough to have a benefactor owner.

The impact of FFP

In defence of its loosening of the restriction on loss-making, UEFA would doubtless point to the positive impact the FFP has had to date,^[1] which, perhaps, creates financial latitude that once did not exist.

As a part of FFP, the clubs under UEFA’s direct jurisdiction report standardised, audited, financial information. UEFA publishes annual benchmarking reports, which draw upon the information clubs submit. Since the introduction of FFP, there has been a general positive trend in European clubs’ finances.

For example, UEFA’s 7th Benchmarking Report, covering the financial year 2014, showed wage growth to have slowed to its “lowest rate in recent history” at 3%. Overdue payables (essentially debts that clubs owe but have not paid on time) had reduced by 91%. The most recent report published by UEFA, its eight Club Licensing Benchmarking Report, covering the financial year 2015, indicates that clubs “have generated underlying operating profits of €1.5bn in the last two years, compared with losses of €700m in the two years before the introduction of [FFP]”; whereas “Combined bottom-line losses have decreased by 81% since the introduction of [FFP]”.

Of course, there are methodological problems in ascribing the improvement in European clubs’ finances exclusively to FFP when in reality there are a combination of factors at play. However, what we can comfortably say is that there is an evident correlation between FFP and the stabilisation of the football financial landscape.

There is also a second-order effect of FFP at play. UEFA, in its position as the game’s regulator, in introducing FFP, has had a hegemonic influence on the governance of the game at national level.  For example, in England, domestic iterations of FFP have been instituted in the Football League, and the Premier League has introduced its own Short Term Cost Control Measures.

Thus, by setting the tone of sustainability expectations, UEFA has influenced the financial stability of clubs outside of its jurisdiction. This is highlighted neatly in the following passage from UEFA’s eight Benchmarking Report:

“The centrepiece of financial fair play, the break-even rule, may not directly address small and medium-sized clubs with costs and incomes below €5m, but financial fair play has other direct and indirect impacts on these clubs. Direct in that UEFA and the Club Financial Control Body pass their eyes over detailed financial data from all clubs competing in UEFA competitions and in particular take careful, regular note of all overdue payables. And indirect in that financial fair play has resulted in a significantly higher level of scrutiny of club finances and the actions of club owners and directors. In addition, some countries, such as Cyprus, have introduced their own versions of financial fair play, tailored to their clubs and the scale of their financial activities.” 

So, whilst UEFA can legitimately point to the more secure position across the financial landscape as a good reason that Voluntary Agreements or wider economic input from owners will do no harm, it should continue to reflect on the message this loosening of FFP may send to the wider football market.

FFP Exemptions

One area of change for which UEFA should be applauded is in its use of certain exemptions from the FFP ‘break even’ calculation. These include areas such as infrastructure and youth football, both essential to the game’s long-term sustainability. By exempting these areas from the break even calculation, clubs’ owners are incentivised to invest (by equity rather than debt) in the game’s future, without an impact on short-term competitiveness.

More recently (from 2015), UEFA has moved to exclude expenditure on women’s football from the break-even calculation (Annex X C(i). Again, UEFA should be praised for taking positive steps to encourage growth across less wealthy areas of the game.

The Future of FFP after Neymar

Over the summer of 2017, public interest in FFP has reignited. The rules are now becoming synonymous with Neymar and his new club, Paris Saint Germain, after the Brazilian player’s reported €222m release clause was activated, doubling the world record fee for a player transfer.   This move, followed by French player Kylian Mbappe joining Paris Saint Germain from Monaco for similarly large fee, has upset some in the game.

These events pose a significant problem for UEFA. It is not yet known whether PSG are in breach of FFP (and, of course, it is conceivable that they have sufficient financial capabilities to fund the purchases without any breach of the rules); however, the transactions have raised questions, including La Liga President Javier Tebas stating that he believed PSG were guilty of “infringing on UEFA regulations, financial fair play and EU laws”, and Arsenal manager Arsène Wenger saying that “it looks like we have created rules that cannot be respected…there are too many legal ways to get around it.” 

The public grievances around FFP precipitated by PSG’s spending do, to an extent, seem to conflate simply spending large sums of money with breaching FFP. The rules do not prohibit spending large sums on transfers or otherwise; rather, they limit how much debt can be incurred by a club, assessed over a three year rolling period, with only limited equity input from an owner. The rules were not designed to prevent a €222m transfer per se (with the fee amortised across the length of the contract period, as is standard practice in the football industry); rather, they were designed to ensure that any such spending was sustainable, and did not put clubs at risk.

However, FFP is a reactive, not a proactive tool. Clubs report spending after the event; they are not required to seek permission from UEFA to make a capital investment. This ex post approach does perhaps reveal a flaw in managing any egregious short-term infractions that should arise, the impact of which will be felt by other clubs before UEFA, through the CFCB, can have its say.

The broader problem associated with PSG’s spending is one of opacity. PSG is owned by Oryx Qatar Sports Investments, which is an investment vehicle for the state of Qatar. There were contemporary (unconfirmed) reports that the deal would be structured to take place off of PSG’s accounting books, with Neymar being paid the value of his release clause directly for agreeing to become an ambassador to the Qatar World Cup, so that he could in turn pay his own release clause.  If true, this would notionally take the release clause fee off of PSG’s books, but would almost certainly qualify as a related party transaction with the meaning of FFP’s Annex X F and thus remain examinable by the CFCB. Similarly, it was reported that PSG’s loan-come-purchase of Kylian Mbappe was “complex”. While complicated transfer arrangements are to be expected in a game that is going through increasing commercial sophistication, there are evidently some suspicions that PSG are attempting to circumvent FFP (or, more colourfully, ‘peeing in the pool’).

However, UEFA anticipated clubs employing ‘creative’ tactics to superficially comply with FFP, and gave the CFCB jurisdiction to consider “at all times…the overall objectives of these regulations, in particular to defeat any attempt to circumvent these objectives” (Article 72.1). (At this stage, one can only speculate as to what, if any, FFP objectives PSG may have breached, but the CFCB will surely consider Article 2.2 (a) and (c) - (f)).

UEFA has publicly stated that it is investigating PSG’s FFP compliance, saying “The investigation will focus on the compliance of the club with the break-even requirement, particularly in light of its recent transfer activity”. Of course, this should not be particularly surprising given the CFCB annually examines the finances of each club that enters into UEFA competitions under the standard FFP procedure, but it will be interesting to observe how CFCB’s investigation progresses, and, if PSG is found to have breached FFP in letter or in spirit, what punishment is meted out to PSG. 

Whether PSG’s aggressive spending was emboldened by UEFA’s weakening of the more restrictive elements of FFP will remain unknown.  Similarly, one can only speculate as to whether the dilution of FFP, through changes such as the implementation of Settlement Agreements and Voluntary Agreements, came about as a result of legal challenges already brought and defended by UEFA; or whether UEFA is insulating itself from further legal challenges; or whether UEFA is simply altering the rules for the good of the game. As detailed in Part One of this series, the legality of FFP will rest on its proportionality. These changes have moved FFP towards a more flexible, and arguably more proportionate, proposition; but, given the public exposure that PSG’s spending has precipitated,UEFA will surely wish to ensure that FFP is not seen as a paper tiger.

The matter is on UEFA’s agenda. Even before the events involving PSG in the summer of 2017, incoming UEFA president, Aleksander Čeferin, spoke about the possibility of a fixed wage cap and closing the gap between the game’s haves and have nots. Such changes would certainly make FFP more congruent with its name. FFP is not about being ‘fair’ in the sense of being egalitarian or introducing a level playing field. It is a gentle brake applied to the rate of growth in the game, aimed predominantly at reducing long-term loss making and insolvency. Perhaps the rules might have been less controversial from the outset, and might not have been a mechanism for the frustration ventilated by sum following PSG’s purchase of Neymar and Mbappe, if instead of being called FFP, the rules were called ‘financial management rules’, and absolved themselves from the pretence of ‘fairness’.

Alternatively, UEFA could revisit FFP, implementing a genuinely egalitarian set of rules – a hard salary cap, a luxury tax, the abolition of the transfer market, or some combination of those things and others. This would, however, undoubtedly engender its own set of legal challenges, as we have seen with FFP. 

Whilst the challenges to various aspects of FFP have been largely ineffective in defeating FFP (see for example CAS 2016/A/4692 Kardemir Karabükspor v. UEFA; CAS 2016/A/4492 Galatasary v. UEFA; CAS 2014/A/3870 Bursaspor Kulübü Derneği v. UEFA; CAS 2014/A/3533 Football Club Metallurg v. UEFA; CAS 2013/A/3067 Málaga CF SAD v. UEFA; CAS 2012/A/2824 Beşiktaş JK v UEFA; CAS 2012/A/2821 Bursaspor Kulübü Dernegi v. UEFA; CAS 2012/A/2702 Györi ETO v. UEFA ), the rules have, against the backdrop of repeated disputes about their legality, iteratively changed, including a move towards greater liberalisation in respect of equity input into clubs by owners. 

And so UEFA finds itself at a crossroads. FFP, bombarded with legal challenges (which it has to date ridden) has gradually developed and liberalised as financial stability in European football has improved. Now, with the transfer market having escalated, the efficacy of the rules has come into question. UEFA must decide on the path it wishes to take; whether to liberate the market altogether,  whether to institute a truly ‘fair’ system, or whether to continue on FFP’s current centrist ground. Aleksander Čeferin, a lawyer by extraction, is certain to face a legal and political struggle in whichever direction he turns.

^[1] For further discussion on the efficacy of FFP, see Neil Dunbar (2015) "The union of European football association’s club licensing and financial fair play regulations - are they working?" ISSN 1836-1129 http://epublications.bond.edu.au/slej/27

I think we would all agree that the reputation of players’ agents, nowadays called intermediaries, has never been a good one for plenty of reasons. But the truth is their presence in the football industry is much needed and probably most of the transfers would never take place if these outcast members of the self-proclaimed football family were not there to ensure a fluid and smooth communication between all parties involved.

For us, sports lawyers, intermediaries are also important clients as they often need our advice to structure the deals in which they take part. One of the most recurrent situations faced by intermediaries and agents operating off-the-radar (i.e. not registered in any football association member of FIFA) is the risk of entering in a so-called multiparty or dual representation and the potential risks associated with such a situation.

The representation of the interests of multiple parties in football intermediation can take place for instance when the agent represents the selling club, the buying club and/or the player in the same transfer, or when the agent is remunerated by multiple parties, and in general when the agent incurs the risk of jeopardizing the trust deposited upon him/her by the principal. The situations are multiple and can manifest in different manners.

This article will briefly outline the regulatory framework regarding multiparty representation applicable to registered intermediaries. It will then focus on provisions of Swiss law and the identification of the limits of dual representation in the light of the CAS jurisprudence and some relevant decisions of the Swiss Federal Tribunal.

A)  Regulatory framework:

Those agents acting in the market as registered intermediaries will necessarily be subjected to the specific football regulations enacted by FIFA and the national associations in which they operate. The answer as to the possibility to represent more than one party to a deal will therefore, be necessarily found in internal rules of each association. 

As opposed to the obsolete FIFA Players’ Agent Regulations[1], the FIFA Regulations on Working with Intermediaries (RWWI) allow intermediaries to represent more than one party in a transaction. Pursuant to the definition of intermediary[2] in combination with Article 8 RWWI, the only substantive requirement to intermediaries willing to act for multiple parties is that they obtain prior written consent and confirmation in writing on which party (i.e. the player and/or the club) will remunerate the services of the intermediary. The regulations, therefore, prioritize transparency over the question of who pays for the services of the intermediary. Consequently, it is not forbidden for an intermediary to represent and be paid by multiple parties to a transaction, as long as they all know and agree to it in advance.  

At a national level, most FIFA member associations[3] have followed the solution adopted in the RWWI and have transposed ad literam the right of intermediaries to multiparty representation as long as the transparency and information requirements are met (i.e. any potential conflict of interest is disclosed to the parties in advance, and subject to the prior written consent of the parties to the transaction).

However, there are still many agents that prefer to operate off-the-radar of organized football and its regulations. For these ‘rogue’ agents, the scenario is different and the question of the legality of multiparty representation will ultimately depend on the applicable law chosen by the parties[4]. Based on my personal experience, off-the-radar agents often end up acting through very rudimentary authorizations subject to the ordinary jurisdiction of the CAS. For this reason, I chose to dissect in this paper the limits of multiparty representation according to Swiss law, for based on article XY of the CAS Code of Sports Arbitration it represents the applicable law to ordinary disputes before the CAS when parties fail to make a particular choice of law.

The provisions of the contract of brokerage (“contrat de courtage”) in Articles 412-418 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (CO) are of relevance in this regard. The cornerstone provision concerning conflict of interest is found in Article 415 CO[5] whose English translation reads as follows:

“Where the broker acts in the interests of a third party in breach of the contract or procures a promise of remuneration from such party in circumstances tantamount to bad faith, he forfeits his right to a fee and to any reimbursement of expenses”.

The article differentiates between two non-cumulative hypothetical situations where the broker (i.e. agent) may be in a position of conflict of interests.

• First: the broker “Acts in the interest of a third party in breach of the contract”.
• Second: the broker “Procures a promise of remuneration from such party in bad faith”.

The first hypothesis establishes the prohibition of the broker to act in the interest of a third party if the obligations towards his client are breached. Accordingly, an agent representing a player is prevented from assisting the players’ contracting club to negotiate the terms of his employment contract, as he would be defending irreconcilable interests (i.e. the interest of the club to pay the lowest salary possible v/ the interest of the player to obtain the highest possible salary). Conversely, the same agent could be hired by the club in a different transaction without incurring a conflict of interest with the player. The condition triggering this first hypothesis will be thus, whether the agent acting for the third party is in breach of his contractual obligations.

It is important to note that the published English translation of the CO differs slightly from the original text of the code[6]. While the English translation refers to the breach of the “contract”, the original French version refers instead to a breach of the “obligations” which has obviously a broader scope, covering a wider range of situations than a contract might include.

This linguistic difference can be misleading as the obligations emanating from the CO may go beyond the obligations set forth in a simple authorization or a brokerage contract. By way of example, think of a very simple “Authorization” that does not explicitly prohibit the agent of the player to simultaneously act for the club. Sticking to literal text of the English translation, one could be tempted to believe that the agent was not acting in breach of the contract. However, the same situation seen under the lens of the legal obligations would imply that the agent could still be infringing the obligation of loyalty and trust stemming from the CO.

In view of the above, a correct evaluation of the first hypothesis will necessarily account for the legal obligations inherent to the brokerage contract, the scope of which might go beyond the obligations stipulated in the contract. Amongst these, the obligation of loyalty, the obligation to safeguard the interest of the client by not entering into conflictive situations, and the obligation of transparency and information.

The second hypothesis covers the prohibition in Swiss law of dual representation by procuring a promise of payment from third parties to the relationship broker/principal, if such a promise amounts to bad faith.

It needs to be underlined that this provision does not exclude dual payment, but subjects it to a certain limit, i.e. not incurring in bad faith. Delineating bad faith can turn out to be a difficult task as the concept itself has an inevitable component of subjectivity and, as opposed to good faith which is legally presumed (cf. Article 3 of the Swiss Civil Code), bad faith must always be proven by the party claiming it, who ultimately bears the burden of proof[7]. 

Applied to football agents, it can be safely assumed that an agent acting in good faith towards his client would necessarily act in a transparent way and inform his client that he is simultaneously acting for the other contracting party. Not disclosing such information in the context of negotiations can serve as indication of bad faith when combined with other elements. However, to prove the presence of bad faith will still require sufficient material evidence in order to discharge the burden of proof, since the simple negligence of the broker would not be sufficient to fall under the scope of the article.

The consequence for a broker (i.e. football agent) infringing the prohibition of dual representation in he hypotheses described in article 415 CO is the nullity of the contract and the forfeiture of the right to be remunerated, or the obligation to reimburse the amounts received if the infringement is ascertained after the realization of the contract and payment of the fee (“quod nullum est nullum producit effectum”).  

With the above premises in mind, a detailed look into the CAS and the Swiss Federal Tribunal jurisprudence regarding Article 415 CO will help identifying the scope of the legal obligations of a football agent towards his client (i.e. club and/or player), as well as the mechanisms used by the decision-making bodies to determine the existence of bad faith.

B)  Jurisprudence:

One of the very few CAS cases dealing with Article 415 CO in the context of football agents' relationships with clubs is the CAS award  2012/A/2988 PFC CSKA Sofia v. Loic Bensaid.

In short, the dispute opposed the flagship Bulgarian football club CSKA Sofia against a French football agent and revolved around the right of the latter to be remunerated by the club, considering he had acted simultaneously in representation of the player in the signature of the employment contract.

One of the many arguments used by the club in support of its alleged right not to pay the agent was based on Article 415 CO. The club asserted that the agent acted in violation of his obligations for having represented both parties. On the merits, the Sole Arbitrator concluded, nevertheless, that the agent had fulfilled the obligations of transparency and information as the Club was aware at all times that the agent also acted for the player and knew about the existence of the representation contract with the player[8]. The full knowledge and acceptance of the situation impeded the club to contend, at a later stage, the violation of the duty of loyalty and transparency.

Secondly, adhering to the grounds of the supporting FIFA decision, the Sole Arbitrator also remarked that the mandate between the Agent and the player did not contain any obligation to remunerate the services of the agent. The prohibition of agents to be remunerated twice for their services has been traditionally a key element in previous FIFA decisions where dual representation was at the center of the dispute[9]. This fact possibly led the Sole Arbitrator to also highlight this circumstance when assessing the behavior of the agent. However, the Sole Arbitrator further stated that, even if the mandate would have provided for a remuneration in favor of the agent (quod non), Article 415 CO would still not have been violated as the club failed to discharge the burden of proof as to the existence of bad faith, reinforcing with it that dual representation is only forbidden to the extent the agent acts in bad faith[10].

This final remark of the Sole Arbitrator is crucial as it evidences, in my view, that whether the player and the agent agreed upon a remuneration, remains in the end irrelevant for the evaluation of a possible violation of Article 415 CO. Indeed, pursuant to the CAS arbitrator’s interpretation of the article, the agent can be remunerated twice, as it is the disregard of the obligations inherent to the contract and in particular for the second hypothesis acting in bad faith that determines compliance with Article 415 CO.

To better illustrate the irrelevance of the “double remuneration” discussion, think for a moment of a brokerage contract where there is no explicit reference to the remuneration. Does such a lacuna in the contract imply that the brokerage is necessarily, pro bono? The answer is no, for as a general rule, mandates given in the context of professional relationships are presumed to be lucrative (see Art. 394(3) CO). That is precisely the case of football agents when they contract with players or clubs. This circumstance renders the reference to a remuneration in the contract a secondary element, or at least not an essential one. The former FIFA PAR (Ed. 2008[11]) followed this ratio legis when explicitly providing for a default remuneration of 3% of the players’ basic income where the parties cannot agree on the remuneration.

Beyond the specific CAS awards, some decisions of the Swiss Tribunal Federal help getting the full perspective on dual representation in the context of disputes subject to Swiss law. Although these do not refer to football agents, the similarities that exist with real estate and/or corporate brokers allow to derive important conclusions that can be applied to football agents.

A first decision worth mentioning is no. 4A_214/2014 of 15 December 2014. The case concerned a classic real estate intermediation where the agent agreed a commission from both the seller and the buyer involved in the transaction. The agent also failed to inform the seller of the existence of a better buying offer from a third potential buyer. In this context, after concluding the deal, the buyer refused to pay the agent, invoking Article 415 CO.

This case is important because it reveals the existence of two types of brokerage contracts under Swiss law (i.e. “courtage de negotiation” and the “courtage d’indication”). Whereas in a brokerage of negotiation the broker is entrusted by his client to negotiate the conditions of the transaction, in a brokerage of indication, the broker is simply called to indicate the possibility to conclude a transaction, with no negotiation duties involved. Furthermore, according to the doctrine cited in the decision, both types of contract are treated differently under Article 415 CO.

In casu, the Federal Tribunal qualified the contracts signed by the agent with the buyer and the seller as “courtage de negotiation” as he was entrusted with conducting all aspects related to the transaction. The agent was required to obtain the best possible conditions for his clients (e.g. the best buying and selling price respectively) and this circumstance directly generated an irremediable conflict of interest (i.e. the negotiation was either benefitting the financial interests of seller or the buyer) infringing the obligation of loyalty inherent to the brokerage contracts with the parties.

All in all, the Federal Tribunal rejected the appeal submitted by the real estate agent and confirmed the nullity of both contracts for violating Article 415 CO. The Federal Tribunal followed a strict interpretation of Article 415 CO according to which “no one can serve two masters” and thus, dual representation would only be possible (if so) in simple intermediations where no negotiation from the broker is required[12], in other words in “courtage d’indication”. In addition, in this case the agent also acted in bad faith for failing to disclose the existence of a more favorable offer to the detriment of the seller.

The main lesson that can be learnt from this decision is that Article 415 CO must be interpreted restrictively and that it has to be distinguished between those intermediation contracts that imply an active involvement of the agent (i.e. the agent is contractually required to negotiate the terms of a transaction for the player and/or the club) and those contracts of intermediation where the agent is called to simply indicate the possible opportunity for his client to conclude a deal with no other involvement in the transaction. In this last case, dual representation could be allowed for there would be no conflict of interests, and therefore, no infringement of the obligations under the brokerage contract. The specific contractual clauses are therefore crucial as they ultimately reveal the extent of the role assumed by the agent.

The second importantdecision by the SFT is more recent, no.4A_529/2015 of 4 March 2016. The factual background of this dispute is extremely complex. In brief, the case revolved around the selling and buying of the shares of a company exploiting a luxurious Hotel located in Switzerland. The seller and the broker entered into a negotiation brokerage contract whereby the latter was entrusted to find a buyer of the company against the payment of remuneration. The principal had to agree with the final potential buyer. In the end, it was proved that the broker misled the principal about the true identity of the final buyer (to whom the principal expressly refused to sell), with whom the broker had also agreed remuneration. On the basis of these facts, the principal refused to pay the broker. 

The Federal Tribunal confirmed again that Article 415 CO is always interpreted strictly, and considered that by allowing the banned buyer to indirectly acquire the company, the broker acted in the interest of a third party against the obligation of loyalty. What is most significant about this decision is that the court delimitates very clearly the scope of the obligation of loyalty. It is described as a double-edged sword, implying on the one side: a positive obligation consisting of actively safeguarding and defending the interest of the principal; and on the other side: a negative obligation, consisting of abstaining from any conduct that could harm the interests of the client.  

In particular, the fact that the principal had not objected to a previous e-mail sent by the broker where he expressly indicated that the potential buyer was “C or any company indicated by it” was also irrelevant for the principal could not expect in ‘good faith’ that the buyer would make use of this substitution prerogative in favor of the real buyer. The arguments of the broker according to which it was not important for the principal to know who the buyer was and that he suffered no damage, were also dismissed.   

Finally, the argument of the broker according to which the remuneration to be received from the buyer was agreed after the transaction took place was also irrelevant in the eyes of the court.

With these cases in mind, when applying the holding of the SFT above to football agents' professional relationships, it follows that the scope of the obligation of loyalty will be significantly wider for football agents entrusted with negotiations than for agents simply tasked with identifying possible opportunities to close a deal.

Likewise, in order to determine the existence of a violation of the obligations assumed by the agent, it will not be enough to demonstrate that there has been no threat to the interests of the client or that the agent has not actively engaged in a conduct against those interests. Indeed, a simple passive conduct with the potential of jeopardizing the interests of the principal, such as failing to disclose relevant information, can be sufficient to violate the obligation of loyalty and deprive the agent from the right to be remunerated.

To this effect, the correct identification of the interest pursued by the client will ultimately determine the infringement by the agent of his obligations under the representation contract. In the end, the agent will only violate his obligation of loyalty as long as his behavior damages the interests of his client. These interests will vary depending on whether the principal is a football club or a player. If a club is trying to transfer or recruit a player, the interests will in most cases be of a financial nature. If instead, the principal is a football player terminating or signing a contract with a club, he might have non-economic interests (e.g. willing to play in a different championship, lack of integration of the family in the country etc.). Furthermore, the moment in which the remuneration is agreed is not relevant to establish the violation of the obligation of loyalty.

In conclusion, the contract of representation and its clauses in combination with the particular circumstances of each case will be fundamental to establish compliance with Article 415 CO when multiple representation takes place.   Football agents pretending to be remunerated by both contracting parties simultaneously without risking to violate their obligations must either enter into simple brokerage contracts with no negotiation attributions, or, when acting through a negotiation brokerage, always inform all parties in complete transparency. 

[1] See Article 19.8 FIFA PAR.

[2]“Definition of an intermediary

A natural or legal person who, for a fee or free of charge, represents players and/or clubs in negotiations with a view to concluding an employment contract or represents clubs in negotiations with a view to concluding a transfer agreement.” [Emphasis added]

[3] Only the FFF (France), the RFU (RUSSIA), the BFU (Bulgaria) the JFA (Japan) have explicitly adopted stricter rules prohibiting any conflict of interest. See Comparative Table of “The FIFA Regulations on Working with Intermediaries Implementation at a national level” (Ed. Michele Colucci).

[4] E.g. ArbitrageTAS 2007/O/1310 Bruno Heiderscheid c. Franck Ribéry.

[5] See article R45 of the CAS Code (ed. 2017).

[6] Art. 415. III. Déchéance:

“Le courtier perd son droit au salaire et au remboursement de ses dépenses, s'il agit dans l'intérêt du tiers contractant au mépris de ses obligations, ou s'il se fait promettre par lui une rémunération dans des circonstances où les règles de la bonne foi s'y opposaient.”

https://www.admin.ch/opc/fr/classified-compilation/19110009/index.html

[7] See. Decision of the SFT 131 III 511 para. 3.2.2 of  http://relevancy.bger.ch/php/clir/http/index.php?highlight_docid=atf%3A%2F%2F131-III-511%3Ade&lang=de&type=show_document

[8] See para. 118.

[9] E.g. Decision of the Single Judge of the PSC of 12 January 2012:“12. In view of the above, the Single Judge formed the view that, although the Claimant appears to have represented the Respondent and the player in the same transaction, the documentary evidence contained in the file clearly demonstrates that the Claimant could not have possibly been remunerated twice for his services. Consequently, and in accordance with the general principles of bona fide and pacta sunt servanda the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must fulfill the obligation it voluntarily entered into with the Claimant by means of the representation agreement concluded between the parties, and therefore, the Respondent must pay the Claimant for the services he rendered in connection with the transfer of the player to the Respondent.”

[10] See also para. 118.

[11] See i.c. article 20 para. 4 FIFA PAR (ed. 2008).

[12] See para. 1.1.3 of the SFT decision. An example of a courtage d’indication would be the brokerage of insurances, where the broker, acting for the policy-holder, is paid instead, by the insurance company.

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 

2024 and 2028 Olympic Games to be held in Paris and Los Angeles respectively

On 13 September 2017, the Session of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) held in Lima, Peru, elected Paris and Los Angeles as host cities of the 2024 and 2028 Olympic Games respectively. On this occasion, the IOC President Thomas Bach said that ''this historic double allocation is a 'win-win-win' situation for the city of Paris, the city of Los Angeles and the IOC''. The idea of a tripartite agreement whereby two editions of the Olympic Games would be awarded at the same time was presented by a working group of the IOC Vice-Presidents established in March 2017. Both Paris and Los Angeles have pledged to make the Olympic Games cost-efficient, in particular through the use of a record-breaking number of existing and temporary facilities. In addition to economic aspects, it will be worthwhile to keep an eye on how both cities will address human rights and other similar concerns that may arise in the run-up to the Olympic Games. 

FIFA President accused of interfering with the work of the FIFA Governance Committee

On 13 September 2017, Miguel Maduro, a former Chair of the FIFA Governance Committee who was summarily dismissed in May 2017, appeared in the UK House of Commons to give testimony on the undue influence that FIFA's President Gianni Infantino allegedly exerted over the work of the Governance Committee. Most importantly, Maduro claimed that Infantino attempted to interfere with the Governance Committee's decision to bar Vitaly Mutko, a Deputy Prime Minister of Russia, from sitting on the FIFA Council. The former Chair of the Governance Committee commented that Infantino ''chose to politically survive'' and carried on to assert that FIFA has a ''deeply embedded structure that is extremely resistant to independent scrutiny, transparency and accountability''. FIFA denied Maduro's accusations, stating that ''exchanges between the administration and FIFA's committees […] are logical and even desirable, so for these exchanges to be portrayed as undue influence is factually incorrect''.

The CAS award in Jersey Football Association v. UEFA

In its press release of 28 September 2017, the CAS communicated that it had delivered an award in the dispute between the Jersey Football Association (JFA) and UEFA which emerged from the JFA's application for UEFA membership submitted in December 2015. The CAS set aside the decision rendered by the UEFA Executive Committee on 1 September 2016 in which the JFA's application for UEFA membership was rejected, and ordered that the respective application be forwarded to the UEFA Congress for consideration. In view of the CAS, it is the UEFA Congress and not the UEFA Executive Committee that is competent to consider membership applications. It should be stressed, however, that the CAS dismissed the JFA's request to ''take all necessary measures to admit the JFA as a full member of UEFA without delay'', noting that the UEFA Congress has discretionary powers to admit new members. In this regard, the CAS further held that, on the basis of the evidence provided, it appeared that the JFA did not satisfy the requirements for UEFA membership laid down in Article 5(1) of the UEFA Statutes.

Official Documents and Press Releases

• CAS – The CAS rules on the case Jersey Football Association v. UEFA
• Human Rights Now – Letters demanding that Olympic authorities end rainforest destruction and human rights abuses connected to Tokyo 2020 Olympics construction
• Human Rights Watch – Qatar: Take urgent action to protect construction workers
• IOC – Declaration of the IOC Executive Board in Lima
• IOC – IOC Athletes' Commission Strategy
• IOC –IOC makes historic decision by simultaneously awarding Olympic Games 2024 to Paris and 2028 to Los Angeles
• IOC –Report of the IOC 2028 Evaluation Commission
• UEFA – 13^th Extraordinary UEFA Congress decisions
• UEFA – Keeping competitive balance – Aleksander Čeferin
• UEFA – Nations League regulations approved
• UEFA – UEFA President reflects on a rewarding year of progress
• WADA –2018 List of Prohibited Substances and Methods
• WADA –2018 Summary of major modifications and explanatory notes
• WADA – Proposed International Standard for Code Compliance by Signatories – Version 2.0
• WADA –Tanzania ratifies UNESCO Anti-Doping Convention
• WADA – WADA launches Phase II of stakeholder consultation on Compliance Standard
• WADA –WADA provisionally suspends accreditation of Paris Laboratory

In the news

Doping

• Associated Press Russian doping whistleblower faces arrest if he returns
• Sean Ingle Anti-doping agencies call on IOC to ban Russia from 2018 Winter Olympics
• Tariq Panja IOC investigation of Russian doping might soon yield penalties
• RT NewsMcLaren denies he 'dropped charges' of state involvement in doping in Russia
• Swimming World Court of Arbitration for Sport reduces sanctions on Canadian swimmer William Brothers

Football

• Ed Aarons FIFA and UEFA accused of being 'enablers' of tax evasion in football by MEPs
• CIES Football Observatory Balance sheets for transfer operations: From Monaco to Paris St-Germain
• David Conn FIFA's Infantino accused of interfering with governance committee decisions
• David Conn FIFA President Gianni Infantino accused of bad governance by former committee member
• Paul Ferguson Irish FA to ask FIFA for money back after poppy u-turn
• FIFPro Danish women's World Cup conflict explained
• Rob Harris Spanish league wants UEFA to investigate Man City's spending
• Steve Menary Tebas calls for European Union probe into Neymar transfer
• Tariq Panja FIFA President Gianni Infantino faces new ethics complaint
• Tariq Panja Former FIFA official's testimony could raise new ethics questions
• John Percy Leicester City submit appeal to FIFA in bid to complete £25 million Adrien Silva signing
• Ben Rumsby Chelsea face second FIFA investigation in eight years over youth transfer policy
  

Other

• BBC News Sergey Bubka: Athletics Integrity Unit looking into payment to ex-IAAF treasurer
• Tim Daniels Prosecutors allege Brazil's Olympic Committee conspired to buy IOC votes
• Marina Hyde IOC selective blindness continues but Rio 2016 scandal looks all too familiar
• Liam Morgan IOC admit votes may have been bought by Diack in Olympic Games bidding process
• Sebastian Smith Brazil police say Rio Olympics were bought in corrupt scheme

Academic Materials

• Antoine Duval and Oskar van Maren The Labour Status of Professional Football Players in the European Union: Unity in/and/or Diversity?

Blog

Asser International Sports Law Blog

• Christopher Flanagan The Evolution of UEFA's Financial Fair Play Rules – Part 1: Background and EU Law
• Christopher Flanagan The Evolution of UEFA's Financial Fair Play Rules – Part 2: The Legal Challenges
• Tomáš Grell FIFA's Human Rights Agenda: Is the Game Beautiful Again?

Law in Sport

• Jack Anderson and Neil Partington Duty of care in sport: The case for a sports ombudsman in the UK
• Hazar El-Chamaa The lifecycle of an international athlete: Part 2 – Key immigration issues when entering the UK
• Laura Dadswell The lifecycle of an international athlete: Part 3 – Key UK income tax points for non-residents
• Tim Meakin, Tim Walker and Richard Davies Confidential data leaks: What are the vicarious liability risks for sports organizations?
• John Mehrzad Who has jurisdiction over international football transfer disputes?
• Michael Savva An update on Financial Fair Play – Case study: The Neymar transfer
• Gavin Stenton The lifecycle of an international athlete: Part 4 – Dealing with branding and image rights

Others

• James M. Dorsey Tackling the elephant in the room: The incestuous and inseparable relationship between sports and politics
• Simon Kuper Soccer's culture of corruption
• Nick De Marco New regulation of football intermediaries

Upcoming Events

• 26-27 October – ISLJ Annual Conference on International Sports Law, T.M.C. Asser Institute, The Hague, the Netherlands [We have only a couple of seats left, register now!]

Introduction

On 13 September 2017, more than 40,000 people witnessed the successful debut of the football club RasenBallsport Leipzig (RB Leipzig) in the UEFA Champions League (UCL) against AS Monaco. In the eyes of many supporters of the German club, the mere fact of being able to participate in the UEFA's flagship club competition was probably more important than the result of the game itself. This is because, on the pitch, RB Leipzig secured their place in the 2017/18 UCL group stage already on 6 May 2017 after an away win against Hertha Berlin. However, it was not until 16 June 2017 that the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) officially allowed RB Leipzig to participate in the 2017/18 UCL alongside its sister club, Austrian giants FC Red Bull Salzburg (RB Salzburg).[1] As is well known, both clubs have (had) ownership links to the beverage company Red Bull GmbH (Red Bull), and therefore it came as no surprise that the idea of two commonly owned clubs participating in the same UCL season raised concerns with respect to the competition's integrity.

The phenomenon of multi-club ownership is nothing new in the world of football. As will be seen below, the English company ENIC plc. (ENIC)[2] established itself as a pioneer in this type of business activity, having acquired in the late 1990s, through subsidiaries, controlling interests in several European clubs, including SK Slavia Prague in the Czech Republic (Slavia), AEK Football Club in Greece (AEK) or Vicenza Calcio in Italy (Vicenza). Apart from ENIC and Red Bull, a more recent example of a global corporation investing in multiple football clubs worldwide is the City Football Group owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. In August 2017, the City Football Group acquired 44.3% stake in Girona FC, a Spanish club that had just been promoted to La Liga for the first time in their history, thereby adding a sixth club to its portfolio consisting of Manchester City, New York City, Melbourne City, Yokohama Marinos[3] (Japan) and Club Atlético Torque (Uruguay).[4] Private individuals may also become owners of two or more football clubs, the most prominent examples being Giampaolo Pozzo and his son Gino who are in possession of the Italy's second oldest club Udinese Calcio and the English top-flight club Watford FC respectively,[5] or Roland Duchâtelet, a Belgian millionaire whose dubious management of his five clubs, namely Charlton Athletic (England), Carl Zeiss Jena (Germany), AD Alcorcón (Spain), Sint-Truiden (Belgium) and Újpest FC (Hungary), has been met with considerable opposition. Moreover, clubs themselves have acquired stakes in other clubs, including, for instance, Atlético Madrid's investment in RC Lens (France) and Club Atlético de San Luis (Mexico), or AS Monaco's recent takeover of the Belgian second-division club Cercle Brugge.

Leaving commercial and marketing aspects aside, the investment in multiple football clubs is often driven by the vision of recruiting talented players at low cost, preferably in Latin American or African countries, and subsequently facilitating their development in smaller European clubs to prepare them for the level required at the lead club. Hence, should Manchester City discover in Uruguay a 'new Luis Suárez', it will not take much effort (and money) to convince such a player to join the academy of Club Atlético Torque, especially if he is promised further development at language-barrier-free Girona and sees himself wearing the Citizens' sky blue shirt one day. Along these lines, it could well be argued that the phenomenon of multi-club ownership in fact creates a supply chain for talent.

For reasons suggested above, qualification for a UEFA club competition is normally not the primary objective of clubs like Girona, which find themselves somewhere in the middle of this supply chain. This at least partially explains why, to the best of my knowledge, only twice the prospect of two or more commonly owned clubs participating in the same UEFA club competition became so imminent that it required UEFA's direct intervention. The first intervention dates back to May 1998 when the UEFA Executive Committee adopted a landmark rule entitled 'Integrity of the UEFA Club Competitions: Independence of the Clubs' (Original Rule) in response to Slavia and AEK, both under ENIC's control, having qualified for the 1998/99 UEFA Cup. The Red Bull case, for its part, revolved around the interpretation of 'decisive influence in the decision-making of a club', a concept that could not be found in the Original Rule.

Against this background, this two-part blog will focus on the UEFA rule(s) aimed at ensuring the integrity of its club competitions. The first part will take a closer look at how the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and the European Commission (Commission) dealt with ENIC's complaints alleging that the Original Rule was incompatible, inter alia, with EU competition law. The second part will then examine the relevant rule as it is currently enshrined in Article 5 of the UCL Regulations 2015-18 Cycle, 2017/18 Season (Current Rule) and describe how the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber interpreted the aforementioned concept of decisive influence[6] in the Red Bull case. Finally, in light of the conclusions reached by the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber, the second part of this two-part blog will discuss whether any modification of the Current Rule is desirable.

The ENIC saga: How the Original Rule survived EU competition law scrutiny

Background

It has already been noted that the adoption of the Original Rule was prompted, first and foremost, by the fact that ENIC-controlled Slavia and AEK qualified on sporting merit for the 1998/99 UEFA Cup. However, what needs to be added is that the initial impulse came a season before, when Slavia, AEK and Vicenza all reached the quarter-final of the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup. Although UEFA was fortunate that time as the clubs were not drawn to play against each other and only Vicenza advanced to the semi-final, it learnt its lesson and as a result of this situation adopted robust rules aimed at ensuring the integrity of its club competitions.

The Original Rule

The Original Rule made admission to the UEFA club competitions conditional upon fulfilment of three specific criteria. First, a club participating in a UEFA club competition must have refrained from (i) holding or dealing in the securities or shares; (ii) being a member; (iii) being involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration, and/or sporting performance; and (iv) having any power whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of any other club participating in the sameUEFA club competition. Second, the Original Rule stipulated that no person could be simultaneously involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of more than one club participating in the sameUEFA club competition. Third, an individual or legal entity was prohibited from exercising control over more than one club participating in the same UEFA club competition. The Original Rule further clarified that an individual or legal entitywas deemed to have control over a club, and thus the third criterion was not satisfied, where he/she/it (i) held a majority of the shareholders' voting rights; (ii) was authorized to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the administrative, management or supervisory body; or (iii) was a shareholder and single-handedly controlled a majority of the shareholders' voting rights. In principle, under this third criterion, it was permissible for an individual or legal entity to hold up to 49% of the shareholders' voting rights in multiple clubs participating in the same UEFA club competition.

Proceedings before the CAS

It was the third criterion that was applicable to ENIC, a company listed on the London Stock Exchange. Given that both Slavia and AEK were owned as to more than 50% by ENIC, the respective criterion was not satisfied. Consequently, the Committee for the UEFA Club Competitions, a body responsible for monitoring fulfilment of the aforementioned criteria, ruled that only Slavia was eligible to take part in the 1998/99 UEFA Cup on account of its higher club coefficient. Not content with this decision, Slavia and AEK filed a request for arbitration with the CAS on 15 June 1998, challenging the validity of the Original Rule, inter alia, under Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community (TEC) (now Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)). On the same day, the clubs also lodged a request for interim relief which was eventually granted on 16 July 1998.[7] As a result, UEFA was barred from giving effect to the Original Rule for the duration of the arbitration procedure and both Slavia and AEK were given the green light to participate in the 1998/99 UEFA Cup. On 20 August 1999, the CAS rendered its award in which it upheld the validity of the Original Rule and allowed UEFA to apply the rule in question as of the 2000/01 season.

Before embarking on a comprehensive analysis of the compatibility of the Original Rule with EU competition law, the Panel recognized that participation of two or more commonly owned clubs in the same UEFA club competition creates fertile ground for conflicts of interest, and thus ''represents a justified concern for a sports regulator and organizer''.[8] The Panel then confirmed that EU law was applicable to the case before it as the Original Rule could not benefit from any 'sporting exception'.[9] That being clarified, the Panel moved on to examine the relevant market potentially affected by the Original Rule. It defined the relevant product market as the ''market for ownership interests in football clubs capable of taking part in UEFA competitions'' which would include, on the supply side, ''all the owners of European football clubs which can potentially qualify for a UEFA competition'', and, on the demand side, ''any individual or corporation potentially interested in an investment opportunity in a football club which could qualify for a UEFA competition''.[10] The relevant geographic market, for its part, was confined to the territories of national football federations affiliated to UEFA.[11]

Analysis under Article 81 TEC

Article 81 TEC (now Article 101 TFEU) prohibits ''all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which […] have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal market''. While it is evident that UEFA could be classified as an undertaking[12] or an association of undertakings (representing national football federations) within the meaning of Article 81 TEC, it is less clear whether UEFA could also be regarded, through national football federations representing both professional and amateur clubs, as an association of 'club undertakings'. This question is of crucial importance because if UEFA was not to be regarded as an association of 'club undertakings', the Original Rule would not be considered as the product of a horizontal collusion between clubs and, as a result, would fall outside the scope of Article 81 TEC.[13] The role of UEFA in such a case would not go beyond a mere sports regulator.[14] In this context, Advocate General Lenz insisted in the Bosman case that even though national football federations encompass a sheer number of amateur clubs not engaged in economic activities, this does not alter the conclusion that (i) national football federations are to be regarded as associations of undertakings in accordance with Article 81 TEC; and consequently that (ii) UEFA, through these national football federations, is to be regarded as an association of 'club undertakings'.[15] Although not entirely persuaded by the respective argument, the Panel assumed for the purposes of conducting an analysis under Article 81 TEC that the Original Rule represented a decision by an association of 'club undertakings' and, as such, did not fall outside the scope of Article 81 TEC.[16]

The Panel then turned to the question lying at the heart of the dispute, that is, whether the Original Rule had as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal market. It found that the Original Rule was only designed to ''prevent the conflict of interest inherent in commonly owned clubs taking part in the same competition and to ensure a genuine athletic event with truly uncertain results'', thereby excluding any anti-competitive object of the Original Rule.[17] With respect to the effect of the Original Rule, the Panel asserted that even though the rule in question may have discouraged an owner who had already been in possession of a high-level European club from acquiring controlling interest in another such club, its overall effect was pro-competitive in that it enabled more undertakings to enter the relevant market, and thus stimulated investment in professional football.[18] Moreover, the Panel was concerned that, in the absence of the Original Rule, high-level European clubs would potentially be concentrated in few hands which would, in turn, lead to an increase in prices for ownership interests in those clubs.[19]

Having found that neither the object nor the effect of the Original Rule was anti-competitive, the Panel was further not required to pronounce itself on whether the Original Rule was necessary and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Yet, it held that the Original Rule was ''an essential feature for the organization of a professional football competition and [was] not more extensive than necessary to serve the fundamental goal of preventing conflicts of interest''.[20] In a similar vein, the Panel could not identify any plausible less restrictive alternative to the Original Rule, and therefore it declared that the Original Rule was proportionate to the stated aim of preventing conflicts of interest.[21]

Based on the above considerations, the Panel ultimately concluded that the Original Rule was compatible with Article 81 TEC.       

Analysis under Article 82 TEC 

Article 82 TEC (now Article 102 TFEU) prohibits abusive conduct by companies that have a dominant position on a relevant market. Since UEFA cannot become an owner of a football club, the Panel maintained that it was not present on the relevant market for 'ownership interests in football clubs capable of taking part in UEFA competitions', and for that reason UEFA could not be held to enjoy a dominant position.[22] Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the Original Rule did not violate Article 82 TEC.  

Proceedings before the Commission

In the wake of the CAS award, ENIC's business strategy suffered a blow. However, the English company was not yet ready to give up and lodged a complaint with the Commission on 18 February 2000, again claiming that the Original Rule infringed Articles 81 and 82 TEC.

In its decision, the Commission relied to some extent on the CAS award, adopting the definition of the relevant market or confirming that the Original Rule could not benefit from any 'sporting exception'. As far as the object of the Original Rule was concerned, the Commission articulated that the rule was not intended to distort competition, but rather to ''avoid conflicts of interest that may arise from the fact that more than one club controlled by the same owner […] play in the same competition''.[23] With respect to the Original Rule's effect, the Commission referred to the Wouters case in which the European Court of Justice held that an agreement between undertakings or a decision of an association of undertakings restricting the freedom to act may nevertheless fall outside the scope of Article 81 TEC, provided that its restrictive effects are inherent in the pursuit of a legitimate objective.[24] Applied to the case before it, the Commission ruled that the restrictive effects of the Original Rule were ''inherent in the pursuit of the very existence of credible pan-European football competitions''.[25] Consequently, the Commission found no violation of Article 81 TEC. Turning to Article 82 TEC, the Commission briefly noted that ''if one were to assume that UEFA enjoys a dominant position in whatever market, the fact that UEFA has adopted such a rule does not appear to constitute in itself an abuse of dominant position''.[26]

Conclusion

It is quite intuitive that the aim of preserving the integrity of the UEFA club competitions should outweigh the restriction introduced by the Original Rule which essentially rendered owners of high-level European clubs unable to acquire controlling interests in similar clubs. However, the fact that the Original Rule appeared bullet-proof under EU competition law does not mean that it was entirely without flaws. As will be seen in the second part of this blog, UEFA later decided to make the Original Rule more stringent since it realized that even if an individual or legal entity does not have de jure control over a club, it may still be able to exercise de facto control over such club.

[1]  RB Salzburg were eliminated by HNK Rijeka in the third qualifying round.

[2]  ENIC is currently a majority shareholder of the English top-flight club Tottenham Hotspur.

[3]  Among the clubs listed, Yokohama Marinos is the only club in which the City Football Group holds a minority stake (20%).

[4]  Furthermore, Manchester City have a formal cooperation agreement with Dutch side NAC Breda.

[5]  The Pozzo family also owned Spanish side Granada FC, before selling the club to a Chinese firm in 2016.

[6]  UCL Regulations 2015-18 Cycle, 2017/18 Season, Article 5.01(c)(iv).

[7]  According to the CAS, the fact that UEFA enacted the Original Rule shortly before the start of the 1998/99 season contravened the principles of good faith, procedural fairness and legitimate expectations. See CAS 98/200 AEK Athens and SK Slavia Prague / UEFA, Award of 20 August 1999, p. 5.

[8]  CAS 98/200 AEK Athens and SK Slavia Prague / UEFA, Award of 20 August 1999, para. 48.

[9]  Ibid. para. 83. According to the well-established jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, ''the practice of sport is subject to [EU] law only in so far as it constitutes an economic activity''. See Case 36/74 Walrave [1974] ECR 1405, Judgment of 12 December 1974, para. 4. See also Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, Judgment of 15 December 1995, para. 73. On the 'sporting exception', see also Richard Parrish and Samuli Miettinen, The Sporting Exception in European Union Law (T.M.C. Asser Press 2008).

[10]AEK Athens and SK Slavia Prague / UEFA (n 8) paras 101-104.

[11] Ibid. para. 108.

[12] According to the European Court of Justice, ''the concept of an undertaking encompasses every entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of the legal status of the entity and the way in which it is financed''. See Case C-41/90 Höfner [1991] ECR I-1979, Judgment of 23 April 1991, para. 21.

[13]AEK Athens and SK Slavia Prague / UEFA (n 8) para. 88.

[14] Ibid.           

[15]Bosman, Opinion of Advocate General Lenz delivered on 20 September 1995, para. 256.

[16]AEK Athens and SK Slavia Prague / UEFA (n 8) para. 94.

[17] Ibid. para. 113.

[18] Ibid. paras 114-119.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid. para. 136.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid. para. 141. It should be noted, however, that this assertion was later challenged, albeit in the context of FIFA, by the Court of First Instance in the Piau case. The Court held in this case that the fact that FIFA is not itself an economic operator on the market for the services provided by players' agents was ''irrelevant as regards the application of Article 82 TEC, since FIFA is the emanation of the national associations and the clubs, the actual buyers of the services of players' agents''. See Case T-193/02 Piau[2005] ECLI:EU:T:2005:22, Judgment of 26 January 2005, para. 116.

[23] Case COMP/37 806: ENIC / UEFA [2002] Commission, para. 28.

[24] Case C-309/99 Wouters [2002] ECR I-1577, Judgment of 19 February 2002, para. 97.

[25] See Commission decision (n 23) para. 32.

[26] Ibid. para. 45.

Introduction 

The first part of this two-part blog on multi-club ownership in European football outlined the circumstances leading to the adoption of the initial rule(s) aimed at ensuring the integrity of the UEFA club competitions (Original Rule) and retraced the early existence of such rule(s), focusing primarily on the complaints brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport and the European Commission by the English company ENIC plc. This second part will, in turn, introduce the relevant rule as it is currently enshrined in Article 5 of the UCL Regulations 2015-18 Cycle, 2017/18 Season (Current Rule). It will then explore how the UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) interpreted and applied the Current Rule in the Red Bull case, before drawing some concluding remarks. 

The Red Bull case: The concept of decisive influence

Background 

The company Red Bull GmbH (Red Bull) started building its football empire[1] in 2005 by transforming the Austrian club SV Wüstenrot Salzburg[2] into what would henceforth be known as FC Red Bull Salzburg (RB Salzburg). As regards its legal form, RB Salzburg is currently a limited liability company (GmbH) wholly owned by the association FC Red Bull Salzburg e.V. Until 2015, when the club began a disengagement process from Red Bull, the statutes of FC Red Bull Salzburg e.V. conferred on Red Bull the right to appoint and remove the members of the association's board.

In 2009, with the objective of playing the top-flight Bundesliga within a decade, Red Bull invested in the German club SSV Markranstädt, at that time competing in the fifth tier of German football. The club was subsequently rechristened as RasenBallsport[3] Leipzig (RB Leipzig) and rebranded. Although RB Leipzig thrived on the pitch, it attracted much criticism off the pitch for attempting to circumvent the so-called '50+1 rule', according to which German football clubs may not allow investors to acquire a majority of their voting rights.

Since Red Bull's takeover of RB Leipzig in 2009, the two clubs have maintained a close cooperation involving an increased transfer activity which has seen players moving from one club to the other on a regular basis. With the help of players like Naby Keïta, who moved from RB Salzburg to RB Leipzig in the summer of 2016, the German club finished second in the 2016/17 Bundesliga season, its first-ever in the top flight, and qualified for the 2017/18 UCL group stage. RB Salzburg, for their part, added in the 2016/17 campaign another domestic title to their collection and secured a spot in the 2017/18 UCL second qualifying round.

The Current Rule  

As mentioned above, the Current Rule is encapsulated in Article 5 of the UCL Regulations 2015-18 Cycle, 2017/18 Season (UCL Regulations). It preserves the structure of the Original Rule, making admission to the UEFA club competitions conditional upon fulfilment of three specific criteria. In terms of substance, however, the Current Rule differs in two important aspects. First, unlike the Original Rule which outlawed ownership, personal and other links only between clubs participating in the same UEFA club competition, the Current Rule extends this prohibition to clubs participating both in the UCL and the UEFA Europe League. Second, an individual or legal entity is now deemed to have control over a club not only if he/she/it (i) holds a majority of the shareholders' voting rights; (ii) is authorized to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the administrative, management or supervisory body; or (iii) is a shareholder and single-handedly controls a majority of the shareholders' voting rights, but also if he/she/it (iv) is able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club.[4] The purpose of this latter change is to address situations where an individual or legal entity falls short of having de jure control over a club, but nevertheless remains able to exercise such an influence that may, if exercised in more than one club, jeopardize the integrity of the UEFA club competitions. As will be discussed in the next section, the concept of decisive influence played a pivotal role in the Red Bull case.

Furthermore, the club coefficient no longer serves as a principal criterion in determining which of the two or more commonly owned clubs should participate in a UEFA club competition. Under the Current Rule, the club which qualifies on sporting merit for the more prestigious UEFA club competition is to be favoured.[5] If two or more commonly owned clubs qualify for the same UEFA club competition, then the club which was best-ranked in its domestic championship should be admitted.[6]

Proceedings before the CFCB

On 15 May 2017, soon after RB Salzburg and RB Leipzig had both secured their place in the 2017/18 UCL, the UEFA General Secretary dispatched a letter to the CFCB, expressing his concern that the clubs might not fulfil the criteria enshrined in the Current Rule. The subsequent investigation conducted by the CFCB Investigatory Chamber relied to a great extent on compliance reports prepared by independent auditors. On 26 May 2017, the CFCB Chief Investigator referred the case to the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber, concluding that the clubs had failed to satisfy the criteria set out in the Current Rule and, as a result, only RB Salzburg should be admitted to the 2017/18 UCL.[7] In particular, the CFCB Chief Investigator suggested that Red Bull exercised decisive influence in the decision-making of both RB Salzburg and RB Leipzig, and identified several ways in which this influence manifested itself. For instance, the CFCB Chief Investigator drew attention to the presence of certain individuals allegedly linked to Red Bull in the decision-making bodies of both clubs or an unusually high level of income received by the clubs from Red Bull via sponsorship agreements.[8]

In its decision handed down on 16 June 2017, the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber paid attention mainly to the changes made by RB Salzburg as part of the club's disengagement process from Red Bull. As noted above, Red Bull ceased to have the right to appoint and remove the board members of FC Red Bull Salzburg e.V. in 2015, when the association's statutes were amended accordingly. With this in mind, the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber had to examine whether Red Bull was not able to exercise decisive influence in the decision-making of RB Salzburg (and RB Leipzig) by any other means.

The CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber was confronted with an onerous task, in particular because the UCL Regulations do not specify when an individual or legal entity is deemed to havedecisive influence in the decision-making of a club. Nor do these regulations clarify how such a level of influence could be attained. Having examined the wording and purpose of the Current Rule, the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber asserted that ''the benchmark for establishing decisive influence is a high one'',[9] finding support for its conclusion in the EU Merger Regulation.[10] For the avoidance of doubt, the Chamber further noted that the concept of decisive influence is not to be confused with that of significant influence which features in the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations, Edition 2015.[11]

In determining whether Red Bull was indeed capable of exercising decisive influence in the decision-making of both clubs, the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber observed from the aforementioned compliance reports that RB Salzburg had removed certain individuals allegedly linked to Red Bull from the club's decision-making bodies and terminated certain loan agreements entered into with the beverage company.[12] With the aim of refuting the CFCB Chief Investigator's allegations, RB Salzburg presented additional documentary evidence. According to the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber, it followed from such evidence, inter alia, that Red Bull had reduced the amount of sponsorship money paid to the Austrian club or that a cooperation agreement between the two clubs had been terminated.[13] This evidence alleviated the CFCB Chief Investigator's concerns to such an extent that he eventually decided to withdraw his objection to the admission of RB Salzburg and RB Leipzig to the 2017/18 UCL.[14] Consequently, the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber held that, at the time of its decision, Red Bull's relationship with RB Salzburg resembled ''only a standard sponsorship relationship''.[15] Having concluded that Red Bull did not have decisive influence in the decision-making of RB Salzburg, there was no need for the Chamber to consider Red Bull's relationship with RB Leipzig.[16]

Furthermore, the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber verified whether one of the clubs did not exercise decisive influence over the other. In this regard, the Chamber referred to the cooperation agreement and the increased transfer activity between the clubs. Nonetheless, the Chamber eventually stated that there was insufficient evidence to arrive at the conclusion that RB Salzburg exercised decisive influence over RB Leipzig or vice versa.[17]

Further implications and concluding remarks

Rules aimed at ensuring the integrity of club competitions also exist at the national level. In England, the Rules of the Premier League stipulate, inter alia, that a person[18]– be it either natural person, legal entity, firm or unincorporated association – may not (i) be involved in or have any power to determine or influence the management or administration of more than one club participating either in the Premier League or the English Football League;[19] and (ii) hold or acquire any significant interest in more than one club participating in the Premier League. A person is deemed to have acquired significant interest in a club if he/she/it holds 10 per cent or more of the shareholders' voting rights.[20] In Spain, an individual or legal entity may not hold 5 per cent or more of the shareholders' voting rights in more than one club participating in a professional competition at the state level.[21]

It follows that both in England and Spain, the pertinent regulations set a relatively low threshold of the shareholders' voting rights that an individual or legal entity may not exceed in more than one club participating in the same domestic club competition. Moving back to UEFA, the Current Rule sets the relevant threshold at 50 per cent (majority of the shareholders' voting rights), but complements it with the 'catch-all' notion of decisive influence.

I believe that the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber may have missed a golden opportunity in the Red Bull case to clarify further the rather vague concept of decisive influence. Unfortunately, the Chamber limited itself to stating that ''the benchmark for establishing decisive influence is a high one'',[22] without providing any concrete examples of how such a level of influence could be attained or manifested in practice.[23] The concept of decisive influence therefore remains shrouded in legal uncertainty. Moreover, in order to avoid speculations, the Chamber could have provided more details about the changes made by RB Salzburg. For instance, it could have specified which individuals allegedly linked to Red Bull were removed from the club's decision-making bodies or how the amount of sponsorship money paid to the club was reduced. Such details become particularly important if the concept of decisive influence plays a central role, because in this context the general public will not be able to access most of the relevant information via commercial registers. In contrast, this will not be the case with legal systems in England or Spain which employ a threshold of the shareholders' voting rights as a key criterion. Thus, if UEFA fails to provide such details (subject to confidentiality rules) in its decisions, its credibility might suffer.

Despite the fact that this post has identified certain flaws of the concept of decisive influence, I do not believe that a modification of the Current Rule should be a matter of urgency. As suggested above, a well-reasoned decision may foster UEFA's credibility and help reduce the legal uncertainty emanating from the concept of decisive influence. Bearing in mind the recent revitalization of multi-club ownership in European football, UEFA might soon get another opportunity to deliver such decision.

[1]  It should be noted that in addition to FC Red Bull Salzburg and RasenBallsport Leipzig, Red Bull also owns the U.S. club New York Red Bulls and the Brazilian club Red Bull Brasil.

[2]  It was often referred to as SV Austria Salzburg, a name that was given to the club at its foundation in 1933.

[3]  In fact, due to the rules prohibiting clubs to be named after their sponsors, the abbreviation 'RB' does not officially stand for Red Bull, but rather for RasenBallsport which can be roughly translated as 'lawn ball sports'.

[4]  UCL Regulations, Article 5.01(c).

[5]  Ibid. Article 5.02(a).

[6]  Ibid. Article 5.02(b).

[7]  As the Austrian club finished first in its domestic championship (whilst RB Leipzig finished second).

[8]  CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber AC-01/2017 RasenBallsport Leipzig GmbH and FC Red Bull Salzburg GmbH, Decision of 16 June 2017, para. 11.

[9]  Ibid. para. 41.

[10] Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, Article 3(2). See also Commission Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings.

[11] CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber decision (n 8) para. 40.

[12] Ibid. para. 50.

[13] Ibid. para. 51.        

[14] Ibid. para. 52.

[15] Ibid. para. 55.

[16] Ibid. para. 57.

[17] Ibid. para. 58.

[18] Rules of the Premier League to be found in the Premier League Handbook, Season 2017/18, Rule A.1.122.

[19] Ibid. Rule F.1.2. This provision in essence corresponds to Article 5.01(b) of the UCL Regulations.

[20] Rules of the Premier League, Rule F.1.3.

[21]Royal Decree No 1251/1999 on Sports Limited Liability Companies, Article 17(1) and (2). Professional football competitions at the state level include only La Liga and Segunda División A.

[22] See CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber decision (n 8) para. 41.

[23] Such examples could only be inferred from the changes made by RB Salzburg.

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

Chairman of the Rio 2016 Organising Committee arrested on corruption charges

On 4 October 2017, Brazilian authorities arrested (now former) President of the Brazilian Olympic Committee and an IOC Honorary Member Carlos Arthur Nuzman. The chairman of the Rio 2016 Organising Committee was allegedly implicated in a vote-buying scheme associated with the host selection process for the 2016 Olympic Games. Consequently,the IOC Executive Board provisionally suspended Mr Nuzman from his function as an IOC Honorary Member and further decided to withdraw him from the Coordination Commission for the 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo. Moreover, the IOC also provisionally suspended the Brazilian Olympic Committee, noting that this decision shall not affect Brazilian athletes. Subsequently, Mr Nuzman resigned as the President of the Brazilian Olympic Committee. On 31 October 2017, the IOC communicated that the Brazilian Olympic Committee would be allowed to exercise again its membership rights in associations of National Olympic Committees. However, the IOC also emphasised that other measures imposed as part of the provisional suspension of the Brazilian Olympic Committee would remain in place until the relevant governance issues are addressed to the satisfaction of the IOC Executive Board.

China accused of running a systematic doping programme in the 1980s and 1990s

On 21 October 2017, a German television broadcasted a documentary featuring Xue Yinxian, a 79-year-old Chinese doctor currently seeking political asylum in Germany. Mrs Yinxian spent a great part of her life as a physician looking after some of the most prominent Chinese athletes, in particular the successful gymnasts. In the relevant documentary, she described a sophisticated state-sponsored doping programme allegedly prevailing in China in the 1980s and 1990s, and demanded that all medals won by Chinese athletes during the period in question be withdrawn. In response, the World Anti-Doping Agency informed that it had commissioned its Intelligence and Investigations team to initiate an investigative process in this regard.

Preliminary ruling of the European Court of Justice in the case involving the English Bridge Union

Duplicate bridge is not a sport, at least not for the purposes of the Council Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax (VAT Directive). This conclusion was reached by the judges of the European Court of Justice in the preliminary ruling proceedings involving the English Bridge Union and the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs. Most importantly, the Court asserted that ''an activity such as duplicate bridge, which is characterised by a physical element that appears to be negligible, is not covered by the concept of 'sport' within the meaning of the VAT Directive''.

Sports Law Related Decisions

• European Court of Justice – Decision in the case between the English Bridge Union Limited and the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
•  ITF – Decision under the 2017 Tennis Anti-Doping Programme in the case of Daniel Evans

Official Documents and Press Releases

• CAS – The appeal filed by high jumper Anna Chicherova dismissed
• FIFA – FIFA Council Statement on the final report by the FIFA Monitoring Committee Israel-Palestine
• FIFA –FIFA suspends the Pakistan Football Federation
• IOC – Candidature Process for the Olympic Winter Games 2026
• IOC –Candidature Questionnaire for the Olympic Winter Games 2026
• IOC –Decision of the IOC Executive Board regarding Mr Carlos Nuzman and the Brazilian Olympic Committee
• IOC –Decision of the IOC Executive Board regarding the Brazilian Olympic Committee
• IOC –IOC launches a new approach to the Candidature Process for the Olympic Winter Games 2026
• Tennis Integrity Unit –Briefing note October 2017
• UEFA – 2016/17 solidarity payments for youth development
• UEFA –Club licensing and FFP keeps clubs on positive course
• UEFA –UEFA and FARE network unite to promote inclusion, diversity and accessibility
• UNI Global Union – Human rights are also player rights
• WADA – Anti-Doping Rules applicable to the Olympic Winter Games PyeongChang 2018
• WADA –Statement on German television documentary alleging systematic doping in China during the 1980s and 1990s
• WADA –WADA Executive Committee ratifies Board Membership for Independent Testing Authority
• WADA –WADA publishes 2016 Testing Figures Report

In the news

Doping

• Associated Press CAS uses McLaren report to uphold doping suspension
• Associated Press Italian cyclist Pirazzi gets 4-year ban for pre-Giro doping
• Andy Brown NADO Italia announces five sanctions for anti-doping rule violations
• Rob Draper and Nick Harris IOC 'did not want drug samples retested to avoid scandals' claims explosive memo sent to the KGB
• Sean Ingle China 'compulsorily doped' athletes in 1980s and 90s, claims whistleblower
• Martha Kelner Call for athletes to be fitted with microchips in fight against drug cheats
• RT NewsRussian Sports Minister: People must own up to mistakes, but collective responsibility is wrong
• SportschauChina's doped ascent to sports superpower
• TASS Russian Olympic chief: IOC received full report on Russia's anti-doping fight progress

Football

• Al Jazeera FIFA will not take action on Israeli settlement teams
• Associated Press Former FIFA official Valcke testifies in soccer ban appeal
• BBC News Adrien Silva: Leicester City do not rule out CAS appeal over signing
• Michael Church Chinese Super League to bring in foreign referees for final rounds
• CIES Football Observatory Apollon Limassol at the top of the expatriate table
• David Conn PSG chairman Nasser al-Khelaifi accused of World Cup bribe by Swiss prosecutor
• European Professional Football Leagues Legal Newsletter
• Brian Homewood FIFA hopeful transfer system complaint will be withdrawn
• Jack Newsham Jury to be kept from media in FIFA corruption case
• Tariq Panja Brazil's women soccer players in revolt against federation
• Tariq Panja How did a tiny Swiss company quietly secure valuable World Cup TV rights?
• Qatar TribuneKuwait and FIFA reach agreement on country's sports law
• ReutersFIFA to look into changing nationality rules
• ReutersRicardo Carvalho given prison sentence for tax fraud in Spain
• Grant Wahl What FIFA and the rest of the world can learn from Norway's equitable pay agreement
• World Sports Advocate Interview with Miguel Maduro, former chair of FIFA's Governance Committee

Other

• Matthew Allen Swiss economy to benefit from Olympics and World Cup

• Andy Brown Worley's case opens the courts to athlete human rights cases
• Nick Butler IOC members raise concerns over reputational damage to Olympic Movement following corruption allegations
• Nick Butler Olympic summit a missed opportunity to make a decisive statement
• Nick Butler Olympic summit calls for all athlete commissions to be elected in apparent dig at WADA
• Sayan Das British tennis player reveals match-fixing offer at tournament in Greece
• Martha Kelner Rio 2016 Olympic chief Carlos Nuzman arrested in corruption investigation
• Yoon Min-Sik PyeongChang Olympics ticket sales get icy reception
• Sporting Life Tennis Integrity Unit reveals 65 'match alerts' received in third quarter of 2017 of suspicious betting patterns
• SportschauGerman Olympic athletes ready to set up an autonomous athletes organisation

Academic Materials

•  Michael A. McCann The Oxford Handbook of American Sports Law

Blog

Asser International Sports Law Blog

• Christopher Flanagan The Evolution of UEFA's Financial Fair Play Rules – Part 3: Past Reforms and Uncertain Future
• Tomáš Grell Multi-Club Ownership in European Football – Part 1: General Introduction and the ENIC Saga
• Tomáš Grell Multi-Club Ownership in European Football – Part 2: The Concept of Decisive Influence in the Red Bull Case
• Josep F. Vandellos Alamilla The Limits to Multiple Representation by Football Intermediaries under FIFA Rules and Swiss Law

Law in Sport 

• Roberto Carlos Branco Martins and Matthew Graham How football intermediaries are regulated in the Netherlands: The role of pro-agent
• Rebecca Carlyon and Kate Molan The lifecycle of an international athlete – Part 6: Dealing with divorce
• Jeremy Clarke-Williams The lifecycle of an international athlete – Part 7: Protecting your reputation
• Clare Coley The lifecycle of an international athlete – Part 5: Important pension considerations
• Philip Hutchinson Key changes in WADA's 2018 Prohibited List: IVS & gene doping
•  Nan Sato and Shoichi Sugiyama Must athletes prove how a banned substance entered their body to establish lack of intention?
• Duncan Taylor The lifecycle of an international athlete – Part 8: Navigating the UK property market

Others

• Stephen Nathan Tax raid on Premier League club lawful
• Grigory Rodchenkov Russia's Olympic cheating, unpunished
• Eran Yashiv The value of top footballers, bubbles, and pitfalls of the free market

Upcoming Events

• 16 November – WISLaw Annual Conference and General Assembly, Madrid, Spain
• 26-30 November – Play the Game 2017: Riding Waves of Change, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
• 16 March 2018 – Sports Law & Business Conference, Etihad Stadium, Manchester, England

Close to 100 participants from 37 different countries attended the first ISLJ Annual International Sports Law Conference that took place on 26-27 October 2017 in The Hague. The two-day programme featured panels on the FIFA transfer system, the labour rights and relations in sport, the protection of human rights in sport, EU law and sport, the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and the world anti-doping system. On top of that, a number of keynote speakers presented their views on contemporary topics and challenges in international sports law. This report provides a brief summary of the conference for both those who could not come and those who participated and would like to relive their time spent at the T.M.C. Asser Institute.

Day 1

Opening Keynote by Miguel Maduro

The audience did not have to wait long for one of the highlights of the conference as Miguel Maduro, a former Chair of the FIFA Governance Committee, took the floor immediately after Johan Lindholm, an Editor-in-Chief of the International Sports Law Journal, and Antoine Duval, the Head of the Asser International Sports Centre, had delivered their opening speeches. Drawing on his experience as a Chair of the FIFA Governance Committee, Miguel identified the resistance to public scrutiny, accountability and transparency as root causes of the governance crisis currently faced by FIFA. He suggested that an independent international agency be established to supervise the governance of international sports governing bodies. According to him, only the European Union is capable of taking such an initiative.

Panel Sessions

The first panel, chaired by Johan Lindholm, revolved around the FIFA transfer system. Jakub Laskowski from Legia Warszawa explained why we might need a different approach to solidarity in professional football. Eleanor Drywood from the University of Liverpool then examined the FIFA's ban on the international transfer of minors, suggesting that international sports governing bodies in general, and FIFA in particular, should take account of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in order to enhance the protection of minors in sport. Finally, William McAuliffe, a sports lawyer practising in Switzerland, spoke about buy-out clauses and the club's consent to transfer under the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.

The afternoon session started with a panel on the labour rights and relations in sport chaired by Professor Richard Parrish from Edge Hill University. Jack Withaar from Tilburg University focused on employment contracts in professional sport, concluding with the question whether international sports federations should take into consideration labour standards elaborated by the International Labour Organization. Thereafter, Matthew Graham from the World Players Association shared his insights on the functioning of international players' unions. Finally, Andrea Cattaneo from Edge Hill University encouraged a greater use of social dialogue to regulate professional football.

The last panel of the day, chaired by Professor Mark James from Manchester Metropolitan University, tackled a relatively new topic in international sports law – the protection of human rights. Whereas our research intern Tomáš Grell and Daniela Heerdt from Tilburg University discussed how human rights could be affected by the organisation of a mega-sporting event, Brendan Schwab from the World Players Association shed light on the more specific human rights risks faced by professional athletes. Both Tomáš Grell and Daniela Heerdt agreed that international sports governing bodies need to translate their human rights commitments from bidding and hosting agreements to actual practice. Brendan Schwab, for his part, emphasised that sportspeople are human first and athletes second, and introduced the World Player Rights Policy adopted by the World Players Association in July 2017.

Keynote Discussion between Michael Beloff QC and Sean Cottrell

Throughout his more than 50-years-long career in sports law, Michael Beloff QC, also known as one of the 'godfathers of sports law', has witnessed first-hand the professionalization of sport. This and many more aspects of his truly exceptional career as a sports lawyer featured in his keynote discussion with Sean Cottrell from LawInSport (a trusted media partner of the conference). Michael also touched upon some of the contemporary sports law themes, among which the lack of gender equality in the composition of international sports governing bodies, the role of athletes in good governance of sport, inaccuracies in sporting regulations or transparency at the Court of Arbitration for Sport.   

Day 2

Keynote Lecture by Stephen Weatherill

The second day also kicked off with a keynote lecture, this time delivered by Professor Stephen Weatherill from Oxford University, who examined the conditional autonomy enjoyed by international sports governing bodies under EU law. Against the background of UEFA's Financial Fair Play rules or the FIFA's ban on third-party ownership, he explained how sporting rules that would otherwise be incompatible with EU law could nevertheless be justified on account of the specific nature of sport, what he called the 'sporting margin of appreciation'. However; he also criticised the pyramidal structure of international sport for not allowing those at the bottom end (athletes and clubs) to participate in decision-making processes of international sports governing bodies.

Morning Session

The first panel of the day, chaired by Ben Van Rompuy from Leiden University, offered some interesting perspectives on the application of EU law to sport. Stefania Marassi from The Hague University of Applied Sciences explored the policies adopted by the European Union with a view to contributing to the promotion of sporting issues in line with Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Christopher Flanagan, a lawyer practising in England, discussed why attempts to regulate the financial aspects of professional football are met with challenges under EU law. Employing FIFA's private order as a case study, Branislav Hock from the University of Portsmouth argued in his presentation that successful private modes of governance continuously emerge from public interventions, provided that the public acts as a reversed civil society. It is worthwhile to note that Branislav won the award for the best paper presented at the conference.

Thanks to Women in Sports Law, an association that unites women from more than 40 countries who specialise in sports law, the conference also continued over lunch. Lindsay Brandon, a sports lawyer practising in the United States, and Despina Mavromati, a Co-Founder of Women in Sports Law and a former Managing Counsel at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, talked about the current state of whereabouts requirements in the world anti-doping system. They were joined in the discussion by Professor Richard McLaren.

Keynote Lecture by Richard McLaren

After lunch, Professor Richard McLaren from Western University in Ontario, the former head of WADA's investigation into the Russian doping scandal, spoke about broader challenges to the operation of the world anti-doping system. Among other things, he stressed that athletes have a crucial role in uncovering doping practices, as they know much more about these practices than anybody else. Having insisted that whistleblowers are of utmost importance, he also criticised the International Olympic Committee for its treatment of the Russian athlete Yuliya Stepanova who was eventually blocked from competing at the Rio Olympics despite her exceptional contribution to the fight against doping. In more general terms, Richard asserted that the integrity of sport is threatened not only by doping but also by archaic governance, corruption or match-fixing.

Afternoon Session

After the lecture given by Richard McLaren, the conference continued with a panel on international sports arbitration chaired by Despina Mavromati. Howard Jacobs, an American sports lawyer, together with Lindsay Brandon from his office, discussed the proposal to create a permanent anti-doping division at the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Professor Jernej Letnar Černič from the Graduate School of Government and European Studies in Ljubljana then looked at how the guarantee of a fair trial could be strengthened in proceedings before the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Finally, Kazushige Ogawa from Rikkyo University in Tokyo shared his insights on the functioning of the Japan Sports Arbitration Agency.

The last panel of the conference, chaired by Antoine Duval, addressed one of the most pressing issues in the world of sport – the fight against doping. Kelsey Erickson from Leeds Beckett University examined a range of psychological factors influencing athletes who intend to blow the whistle on doping. Jan Exner from the Czech Olympic Committee focused on the sanctions for anti-doping rule violations, suggesting that a four-year period of ineligibility might be disproportionate. Finally, our last speaker Louise Reilly, an Irish barrister and a former counsel at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, provided a precise overview of jurisprudence dealing with intentional anti-doping rule violations under the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code.

A thank you note

We would like to take this opportunity to thank all the speakers and participants not only for joining but also for actively contributing to the very rich discussions that followed after each session. We hope that this is only the beginning and that the ISLJ Annual International Sports Law Conference will become a tradition in the coming years. For those who did not have the chance to attend, the ISLJ will publish a special issue including the papers of the conference, so stay tuned!

Looking forward to seeing you next year,

The team of the Asser International Sports Law Centre

PS: Feel free to leave us comments with your feedback/suggestions, so that we can work on improving the conference.

Editor’s Note: Oytun Azkanar holds an LLB degree from Anadolu University in Turkey and an LLM degree from the University of Melbourne. He is currently studying Sports Management at the Anadolu University.

Introduction

On 19 October 2017, the Turkish Professional Football Disciplinary Committee (Disciplinary Committee) rendered an extraordinary decision regarding the fixing of the game between Manisaspor and Şanlıurfaspor played on 14 May 2017. The case concerned an alleged match-fixing agreement between Elyasa Süme (former Gaziantepspor player), İsmail Haktan Odabaşı and Gökhan Sazdağı (Manisaspor players). The Disciplinary Committee acknowledged that the evidence relevant for proving the match-fixing allegations was obtained illegally and therefore inadmissible, and the remaining evidence was not sufficient to establish that the game was fixed. Before discussing the allegations, it is important to note that the decision is not only significant for Turkish football but is also crucial to the distinction between disciplinary and criminal proceedings in sports.

Background of the Case

During the last weeks of the 2016/2017 season in Turkish 2^nd Division League, three teams, namely Manisaspor, Şanlıurfaspor and Gazişehir Gaziantep, were competing to avoid relegation. At the penultimate week, Manisaspor played against Şanlıurfaspor and won the game. Gazişehir Gaziantep also won its match. As a consequence of these results, Şanlıurfaspor was relegated to a lower division. At the end of the season, on 5 July 2017, Şanlıurfaspor claimed that the club Gazişehir Gaziantep had attempted to influence the outcomes of the games and Şanlıurfaspor appealed to the Turkish Football Federation (TFF).

Şanlıurfaspor’s claims mainly focused on the recording of the talk between Nizamettin Keremoğlu (Vice-President of Gazişehir), Elyasa Süme (a former Gaziantepspor player), Gökhan Sazdağı (Gazişehir player who was on loan at Manisaspor at the time) and İsmail Haktan Odabaşı (Manisaspor player). The recording was leaked and uploaded on Youtube. The content of the recording clearly demonstrates that incentives were provided to Manisaspor players by Gazişehir in order to encourage them to win against Şanlıurfaspor. Furthermore, Gökhan Sazdağı confessed in the recording that he had been involved in match-fixing before and that this would not be his first time. In addition, Gaziantepspor claimed that Elyasa Süme was involved in match-fixing. On 20 July 2017, based on these serious allegations and the incriminating evidence publically released, the TFF referredŞanlıurfaspor’s application to the Turkish Football Federation Ethics Committee (Ethics Committee). Following the Ethics Committee’s report, the TFF subsequently referred the case to the Disciplinary Committee for determining the possible sanctions to be imposed on Gazişehir Gaziantep, Nizmettin Keremoğlu, Elyasa Süme, Gökhan Sazdağı and İsmail Haktan Odabaşı. Finally, on 19 October 2017, the Disciplinary Committee decided that the evidence relevant for proving match-fixing was illegally obtained and the remaining evidence was not enough to establish an instance of match-fixing.

Separating Disciplinary and Criminal Proceedings

It is generally accepted that in sports law disciplinary proceedings are to be treated differently than criminal investigations.[1] In countries like Turkey, match-fixing and/or match-fixing attempts also constitute a crime. Article 11(1) of the Act on the Prevention of Violence and Disorder in Sports stipulates that a person providing advantages or benefits in order to influence the final result of a game shall be punished with imprisonment from five to twelve years. Article 11(5) of the same regulation also states that in case of commission of the offense by offering or promising incentive pay with the intention of enabling one team to win a match, only half of the punishment is to be imposed.

On the other hand, match-fixing and incentives also appear in Article 58 of the Turkish Football Disciplinary Instruction. The said provision makes clear that it is forbidden to influence the outcome of the games illegally or unethically. Incentives fall also within the scope of this provision. In case of a breach, individuals will face a life-long ban. In case of an attempt at match-fixing or of the provision of unlawful incentives, clubs will be sanctioned by at least a 12 points deduction.

It is important to note that Turkish prosecutors have not yet opened a criminal investigation for the allegations related to the provision of incentives, even if the allegations and evidence are serious.

The Position of FIFA, UEFA, and CAS with respect to Match-Fixing Allegations and Binding Rules for Turkish Authorities     

FIFA as the world's governing body of football has put in place significant provisions regarding match-fixing and corruption in football. Article 69 FIFA Disciplinary Code stipulates that anyone who unlawfully influences the outcomes of football games can be banned from taking part in any football-related activity for life. Furthermore, Article 3.10 FIFA Code of Conduct also highlights the importance of zero tolerance for bribery and corruption.  

UEFA president Michael Platini announced in 2011 that a zero tolerance policy was adopted by UEFA regarding match-fixing, and that all match-fixing allegations would be seriously investigated. Moreover, as evidenced in Sport Lisboa e Benfica Futebol SAD, Vitoria Sport Clube de Guimaraes v. UEFA and FC Porto Futebol SAD, UEFA is not bound by national associations’ decisions in this regard.

A zero-tolerance policy requires that match-fixing attempts be punished heavily. This does not mean, however, that there is no standard of proof for match-fixing allegations. According to the CAS, match-fixing allegations must be proved to its comfortable satisfaction. [2] Comfortable satisfaction is defined by the CAS as a standard that is higher than the civil standard of “balance of probability” but lower than the criminal standard of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”.[3] In my view, considering the evidence in the case of Şanlıurfaspor, in particular the recordings and the statements of the clubs, it should be accepted that the standard of proof for match-fixing allegations was met.

What is crucial in our case is that UEFA and the CAS cannot intervene in the Turkish match-fixing proceedings due to Article 64(1) of the Statutes of the Turkish Football Federation stating that “CAS shall not, however, hear appeals on violation of the laws of the game, suspensions according to relevant provisions of the FIFA and UEFA Statutes, or decisions passed by the independent and duly constituted Arbitration Committee of the TFF”. Moreover, Article 59(3) of the Turkish Constitution provides that “the decisions of sports federations relating to administration and discipline of sporting activities may be challenged only through compulsory arbitration. The decisions of the Arbitration Board are final and shall not be appealed to any judicial authority”. On the other hand, in case of a breach, FIFA has the authority, relying on its Code of Conduct and Disciplinary Code, to take important steps in order to sanction clubs and/or individuals, even where national federations fail to do so. Therefore, on 25 October 2017, Şanlıurfaspor declared that if the Arbitration Board of the TFF did not sanction clubs and individuals who were allegedly involved in match-fixing, it would apply to FIFA to do so.

The Validity of Evidence

The main reason why the Disciplinary Committee did not find the clubs and individuals guilty of match-fixing was that the evidence, which was crucial to support the allegations, was obtained illegally.Therefore, it is of primary importance to compare this position to the one adopted by UEFA, CAS, and the Swiss Federal Tribunal with respect to the validity of illegally obtained evidence in disciplinary proceedings involving match-fixing.

UEFA’s position regarding the admissibility of evidence can be derived from specific provisions in its regulations. For instance, Article 4(2) 2017/2018 UEFA Champions League Regulations expressly states that if UEFA is comfortably satisfied that a club was involved in any activity aimed at arranging or influencing the outcome of a match, such club will be ineligible for the participation. While taking its decision, UEFA can rely on the decision of a national or international sporting body, but it is not bound by these decisions. Article 4(2) allows UEFA to punish clubs, even if they have been exonerated by other sporting bodies. Therefore, it can be concluded that if UEFA is comfortably satisfied, the validity of evidence will not be questioned. The article says nothing about the validity of evidence. In addition, even if national sports governing bodies do not punish clubs and/or individuals, UEFA is not bound by national decisions even if the evidence was illegally obtained. [4]

The CAS also supports the approach of UEFA with regard to the admissibility of evidence in match-fixing cases. According to the CAS jurisprudence, “even if evidence might not be admissible in a civil or criminal court in Switzerland, this does not automatically prevent a sports federation or an arbitration tribunal from taking such evidence into account in its deliberations”.[5] This statement clearly shows that the CAS distinguishes criminal or civil court proceedings from disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, it can be argued that the CAS allows national sports governing bodies to evaluate the admissibility of match-fixing evidence less strictly than in criminal proceedings.

In general, the CAS is bound by Swiss law because it is domiciled in Switzerland. Therefore, the Swiss Federal Tribunal may annul the CAS awards if they are contrary to Swiss public policy. One could argue that a decision based on illegally obtained evidence violates Swiss public policy. Thus, the approach of the Swiss Federal Tribunal also needs to be taken into account. The Swiss Federal Tribunal discussed the admissibility of evidence in A. v The Football Federation of Ukraine. In this case, the appellant claimed that using illegally obtained evidence, violated Swiss public policy. As a response to this claim, the respondent (CAS) argued that there was an overriding public interest in preserving football’s integrity. Therefore, the evidence should have been admissible according to the CAS. The Swiss Federal Tribunal held that pursuant to Article 152(2) Swiss Private International Law Act (PILA), “illegally obtained evidence shall be considered only if there is an overriding interest in finding the truth”. In that particular case, the Swiss Federal Tribunal upheld the decision of the CAS and stated that if necessary to prove an instance of match-fixing, illegally obtained evidence was not inadmissible.

The Approach of Turkish Law against Match-Fixing

As explained above, the Act on the Prevention of Violence and Disorder in Sports and the Turkish Football Disciplinary Instruction contain significant provisions aimed at combating match-fixing. However, these rules say nothing about the admissibility of evidence. Pursuant to Article 38(6) Turkish Constitution, “findings obtained through illegal methods shall not be considered evidence”. Contrary to the PILA, the Turkish Constitution does not provide for exemptions. Additionally, Article 206(2) and 217(2) Turkish Criminal Procedure Code provide that illegally obtained evidence cannot be accepted by criminal courts in Turkey. Nevertheless, there is no definitive verdict about the admissibility of evidence in sporting disciplinary proceedings in Turkey. Furthermore, Turkish sports regulations do not contain specific rules for assessing the evidence in match-fixing allegations. Therefore, it can be argued that in Turkey, there is a loophole in disciplinary proceedings as to whether illegally obtained evidence is admissible or not.

Conclusion

The fight against match-fixing is vital for sports governing bodies. This article has demonstrated that UEFA, CAS, and the Swiss Federal Tribunal share the same view that illegally obtained evidence is not always inadmissible when used to evidence an instance of match-fixing. In my view, the Disciplinary Committee disregarded the approach of UEFA, CAS, and the Swiss Federal Tribunal, and instead followed the practice of the Turkish Criminal Court. Because match-fixing is also a breach of the Turkish Act on the Prevention of Violence and Disorder in Sports, it is the duty of criminal courts in Turkey to assess whether the evidence was obtained legally or not. However, as a disciplinary body, the Disciplinary Committee was not forced to deny the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence. I believe it should have followed the established practices of UEFA, FIFA, and the CAS, and assess the available evidence to determine whether it met the comfortable satisfaction standard of proof. Hence, based on the confession recorded in the YouTube video, the Disciplinary Committee should have decided that the individuals concerned, at a minimum, attempted to fix the match and it should have imposed the corresponding sanctions.   

___________________________

[1] Adam Lewis and Jonathan Taylor, Sport: Law and Practice (Bloomsbury, 3rd ed, 2014) 249.

[2] Michael J Beloff et al, Sports Law (Hart Publishing, Second edition, 2012) 188.

[3] Beşiktaş Jimnastik Kulübü v UEFA [2013] CAS 2013/A/3258 [119].

[4] Public Joint-Stock Company “Football Club Metalist” v. Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) & PAOK FC [2013] CAS 2013/A/3297 [8.8].

[5] Public Joint-Stock Company “Football Club Metalist” v. Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) & PAOK FC [2013] CAS 2013/A/3297 [2].

Editor's Note: Ryan Gauthier is Assistant Professor at Thompson Rivers University in Canada. Ryan’s research addresses the governance of sports organisations, with a particular focus on international sports organisations. His PhD research examined the accountability of the International Olympic Committee for human rights violations caused by the organisation of the Olympic Games.

Publicly Financing a Stadium – Back in the Saddle(dome)

Calgary, Canada, held their municipal elections on October 16, 2017, re-electing Naheed Nenshi for a third term as mayor. What makes this local election an interesting issue for sports, and sports law, is the domination of the early days of the campaign by one issue – public funding for a new arena for the Calgary Flames. The Flames are Calgary’s National Hockey League (NHL) team, and they play in the Scotiabank Saddledome.

Scotiabank Saddledome, credit to Lorraine Hjalte, Calgary Herald

The team began play in 1972 as the Atlanta Flames, moving to Calgary in 1980. The Saddledome was built in 1983 to support both the newly-arrived Flames, and Calgary’s 1988 Winter Olympic Games. Today, the Saddledome is the oldest arena in operation in the NHL. Due to its age, and the damage caused by floods in 2013, the Flames are looking for a new home. As is the norm in North America, the Flames have no intention of going it alone, but are seeking a deal with the City of Calgary where the city would subsidize part of the arena. Negotiations have been ongoing for several years, with a few possible sites discussed.

Shortly into the 2017 municipal election campaign, negotiations between Calgary and the Flames broke down. The City of Calgary publicly released their proposal for a $555 million stadium, where the city would effectively subsidize 33% of the stadium through a mix of funding, land, and demolition of the old Saddledome. The team would pay 33% of the costs, and the fans would kick in the final 33% through a ticket tax. The Flames responded by releasing their proposal for a $500 million stadium, where the city would provide 45% of the funding through a ‘Community Revitalization Levy’ (a loan from the province of Alberta, paid off by property taxes on new developments around the arena), with the team providing 55% of the remainder. The difference in costs may be that the Flames’ proposal does not appear to consider the demolition of the old Saddledome. While the team’s proposal has the team paying more costs up-front, it would also see the Flames pay no property tax or rent during their tenure in the new stadium, while keeping all revenue generated by the arena.

Canadian national media praised Mayor Nenshi for not simply capitulating to the demands of the Flames. Print media exhorted taxpayers to “Just say ‘No’” to subsidizing the Flames, and called Nenshi’s re-election “a win for every city blackmailed by a sports team”. The Calgary Flames, and the NHL were less sanguine, as NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman blamed Nenshi for not getting a new arena for the Flames, and Flames’ management suggesting that the team would have to move. The night of Nenshi’s re-election saw the communications director of the Flames, Sean Kelso, take a more direct stance:

The ongoing dispute in Calgary is emblematic of a larger problem in North America – the public financing of stadiums for professional sports teams.

Public Financing of Stadiums in North America – A General Overview

North American cities have subsidized stadiums for professional sports teams for decades. However, cities rarely simply transfer cash to a team. Instead, more complex mechanisms are used: issuing bonds, tax increases, lotteries, and the use of “eminent domain”.

First, cities may provide money for stadiums through providing bonds to team owners. These bonds are tax-exempt, and are normally used by cities for public improvements. Cities have been able to justify their use for stadiums, and the tax-exempt nature of the bonds lowers the lifetime borrowing costs for a team. Second, cities may simply increase taxes. Cities used to increase property taxes to raise money for stadiums, but local residents began to resent such increases. Today, cities often increase “sin taxes” (e.g., on alcohol, or gambling), or taxes on hotels, in an attempt to move the burden of increased taxation to out-of-town people who won’t be voting in the next municipal election. Third, cities may set up lotteries, in conjunction with the state or province, to raise money for the stadium. Finally, cities may exercise their use of “eminent domain”. This tactic enables cities to condemn the land, with payment of just compensation (which is often not market value) to the original owner, for the furtherance of a “public purpose” (what constitutes a public purpose is broad, following the US Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)).

After understanding the what, the question remains: why do cities subsidize sports stadiums? Ultimately, there is a limited supply of major-league teams, and cities view being a “major league” city as a benefit. Unlike European professional leagues, where any local team could make it to the top league through promotion, the top leagues in North America are closed leagues, currently limited to 30-32 teams in the “big four” leagues. Cities that want to be home to a professional team must convince a league to expand, placing a new team in their city (as Las Vegas recently did with the NHL), or convince an owner of an already-existing team to relocate (as Las Vegas has done with the National Football League’s Oakland Raiders). One way to encourage expansion or relation is to offer a subsidized stadium. It can be argued that these tactics are no different than a city offering a subsidy to convince a company to establish or relocate an office – like what is happening with Amazon right now– except for the scale of the subsidy.

Boosters of stadium subsidies have argued that cities should be happy to have sports teams, as the teams will generate an economic boost. They claim that the team, and their new stadium, will increase local income, employment rates, property values, and the well-being of citizens. However, economists have generally debunked these claims. While there are examples of successful stadiums, they are generally not as successful as predicted, often not worth the costs, and the few successes are drowned out by every other instance where the economic impact was not realized (sort of like hosting the Olympic Games or FIFA World Cup).

Proposed Legal Solutions to Halt Public Financing of Stadiums

Given the lack of economic benefits generated by stadiums, particularly given the hundreds of millions of dollars of subsidies granted to each stadium, legal scholars have proposed legislative, regulatory, and judicial solutions to halting this gravy train.

In regards to legislative solutions, Canada and the United States could follow the model of the European Union (EU). The EU has restrictions on government assistance to private industries, to prevent the distortion of competition across the EU – these are known as the “State Aid” rules, found in Art. 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In practice, the EU has an uneven history of applying the State Aid rules to sport. However, it has shown more enthusiasm over the past year to find evidence of state aid that is incompatible with the Treaty, including in a case that involved a questionable deal involving land next to Real Madrid’s Bernabéu Stadium. However, legislative solutions are unlikely to be enacted by either the American Congress or the Canadian Parliament (or local legislative bodies). There appears to be no interest to do so, and why would there be? Politicians can benefit from new stadiums by working with business elites who support the stadiums, and the evidence of repercussions at the ballot box appear to be mixed.

Some legal scholars have suggested regulatory or judicial solutions, such as: halting the tax-free status of municipal bonds, ending the use of eminent domain to obtain land for stadiums, and advocated a stronger role for antitrust oversight over the conduct of teams and leagues in this regard. However, courts have construed these particular laws broadly enough to allow the public financing of stadiums to continue.

A Good Governance Approach to the Public Financing of Stadiums – Atlanta Braves Case Study

When even Calgary’s stance, which had the city subsidizing at least 1/3 of the stadium, is considered brave, it seems reasonable to presume that publicly-subsidized stadiums will continue apace in North America. As such, it may be more helpful to consider what happens after a stadium project is proposed. Applying a good governance approach to stadium financing could be a helpful way forward. If stadiums are going to be built, regardless, then it is best to make those who build stadiums – governments and teams – accountable to the taxpayers and fans.

Good governance principles have been increasingly applied to the organization of sport – particularly the governance of international sporting organisations. While good governance can be defined in a myriad of ways, it is often broken down to particular principles. In examining stadium projects, I suggest that four principles should be considered: transparency, public participation, solidarity, and review. These principles closely track those used by the Sports Governance Observer.

One recent stadium project seems to have studiously avoided all of these principles entirely – in a way that demonstrates the need for these principles to be applied in the first place. This project took place in the Calgary Flames’ old home of Atlanta, USA.

                                                                                          Turner Field, credit to Zpb52

In 2013, the Atlanta Braves announced that they were leaving their current stadium in downtown Atlanta. They weren’t moving to a new city, but were moving 32 kilometres north to the suburb of Cobb County. The reason for the move? A brand new, publicly-financed stadium. The Atlanta Braves had played at Turner Field since 1997. Not even twenty years later, the stadium, originally built as the centrepiece of the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, was deemed to be obsolete by the Braves. Enter Cobb County. To pay for a new stadium for the Braves, Cobb County issued $368 million in municipal bonds (originally estimated at $276 million). The Braves, in chasing public money, bucked the trend of teams moving closer to the city centre, as suburbs are not conducive to stadiums.

While the rationale and the dollar figure should raise some eyebrows, the process used to secure funding for the stadium should be deeply disturbing to fans of democratic processes. The deal itself was negotiated in secret between a single Cobb County commissioner, and the Atlanta Braves. The president of the Atlanta Braves, John Schuerholz, stated that if news of the deal “had leaked out, this deal would not have gotten done…If it had gotten out, more people would have started taking the position of, ‘We don’t want that to happen. We want to see how viable this was going to be.’” Eventually, the deal needed to be voted on by Cobb County commissioners. At the public vote held in May 2014, only twelve speaking slots were available to the public. Stadium supporters had lined up by 2pm for the 7pm meeting, and the Commissioners denied any additional speaking slots. The same Commissioners voted 5-0 to fund the stadium. Opponents of the stadium filed a suit in the Georgia courts, alleging that the bonds used to finance the new stadium violated the Georgia state constitution, and various state laws. However, the opponents were defeated in the courthouse, too, as the Georgia Supreme Court upheld the validity of the bonds as they provided at least some plausible public benefit. The stadium opened in 2017 to positive reviews from fans and ballpark enthusiasts.

In examining the Atlanta Braves new ballpark by applying principles of good governance, the results are discouraging. Transparency was almost non-existent throughout most of the process, as the deal was completed in secret, as admitted by the president of the team. Public participation was curtailed throughout the process, and most galling, at the eve of the final vote on the funding. There have been no solidarity benefits that have come to the forefront, although it should be noted that it is possible that money that was raised to pay for public parks was diverted to funding the stadium, which cuts against the idea of solidary benefits. Finally, there will likely be no post facto review of the stadium and any attendant benefits it may claim. While there was review of the deal itself through the courts, the Georgia Supreme Court noted that “we do not discount the concerns Appellants have raised about the wisdom of the stadium project and the commitments Cobb County has made to entice the Braves to move there. But those concerns lie predominantly in the realm of public policy….”.

SunTrust Field, Credit to David Goldman/AP

The Value of Good Governance Principles in the Stadium Debate

The case of Atlanta demonstrates the importance of good governance in the public financing of stadiums. Proponents, critics, and scholars can apply these principles to evaluate and engage in more thoughtful debates over the processes of public financing of stadiums. Since stadiums are likely to receive public funding, regardless of the merits, a better process should improve the benefits to the public, while constraining the costs.

Applying principles, as opposed to enacting legislation, may lead the reader to ask “can these principles be enforced?” In terms of traditional legal enforcement, namely recourse to a regulatory body or a court, a city would probably need to implement these terms into a Memorandum of Understanding with the team. For principles such as solidarity, particulars could be written into the final funding agreement. This has been done, for example, with the Community Benefits Agreement implemented between the City of Edmonton, and the Edmonton Oilers hockey team, for a publicly-subsidized stadium that opened in 2016.

However, even if the city itself refuses to implement these principles, they do provide a framework to hold decision-makers to account. In instances where the government has done wrong by the citizens, but there are no judicial remedies, the remedy is then to vote the government out. In establishing these principles, they then provide standards by which the government can be held to account, if not formally, then at least through the ballot box.

Editor's note: We (Ben Van Rompuy and Antoine Duval) are at the origin of today's decision by the European Commission finding that the International Skating Union's eligibility rules are contrary to EU competition law. In 2014, we were both struck by the news that ISU threatened lifetime ban against speed skaters wishing to participate in the then projected Icederby competitions and convinced that it was running against the most fundamental principles of EU competition law. We got in touch with Mark and Niels and lodged on their behalf a complaint with the European Commission. Three years after we are pleased to see that the European Commission, and Commissioner Vestager in particular, fully embraced our arguments and we believe this decision will shift the tectonic structure of sports governance in favour of athletes for years to come.

Today is a great day for Mark Tuitert and Niels Kerstholt, but more importantly for all European athletes. The European Commission did not only consider the International Skating Union's eligibility rules contrary to European law, it sent out a strong message to all international sports federations that the interests of those who are at the centre of sports, the athletes, should not be disregarded. This case was always about giving those that dedicate their lives to excelling in a sport a chance to compete and to earn a decent living. The majority of athletes are no superstars and struggle to make ends meet and it is for them that this decision can be a game-changer.

However, we want to stress that this case was never about threatening the International Skating Union’s role in regulating its sport. And we very much welcome the exceptional decision taken by the European Commission to refrain from imposing a fine which could have threatened the financial stability of the International Skating Union. The International Skating Union, and other sports federations, are reminded however that they cannot abuse their legitimate regulatory power to protect their economic interests to the detriment of the athletes.

We urge the International Skating Union to enter into negotiations with representatives of the skaters to devise eligibility rules which are respectful of the interests of both the athletes and their sport.

Since the summer of 2014, it has been our honour to stand alongside Mark and Niels in a 'David versus Goliath' like challenge to what we always perceived as an extreme injustice. In this fight, we were also decisively supported by the team of EU Athletes and its Chance to Compete campaign.

Finally, we wish to extend a special thank you to Commissioner Vestager. This case is a small one for the European Commission, but Commissioner Vestager understood from the beginning that small cases do matter to European citizens and that European competition law is there to provide a level playing for all, and we are extremely grateful for her vision.

Dr. Ben Van Rompuy (Leiden University) and Dr. Antoine Duval (T.M.C. Asser Instituut)

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

FIFA and FIFPro sign landmark agreement

A six-year cooperation agreement concluded between FIFA and FIFPro on 6 November 2017 puts an end to protracted negotiations which began after the latter had filed in September 2015 a complaint with the European Commission, challenging the validity of the FIFA transfer system under EU competition law. This agreement, together with an accord reached between FIFA, FIFPro, the European Club Association, and the World Leagues Forum under the umbrella of the FIFA Football Stakeholders Committee, should help streamline dispute resolution between players and clubs, avoid abusive practices in the world of football, or contribute to the growth of professional women's football. In addition, the FIFA Football Stakeholders Committee is now expected to establish a task force to study and conduct a broader review of the transfer system. As part of the deal, FIFPro agreed to withdraw its EU competition law complaint.

FIFA strengthens its human rights commitment amid reports of journalists getting arrested in Russia

It is fair to say that human rights have been at the forefront of FIFA's agenda in 2017. Following the establishment of the Human Rights Advisory Board in March and the adoption of the Human Rights Policy in June this year, in November FIFA published the bidding regulations for the 2026 World Cup. Under these new regulations, member associations bidding to host the final tournament shall, inter alia, commit themselves to respecting all internationally recognised human rights in line with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights or present a human rights strategy on how they intend to honour this commitment. Importantly, the human rights strategy must include a comprehensive report that is to be complemented and informed by a study elaborated by an independent expert organisation. Moreover, on 9 November 2017, the Human Rights Advisory Board published its first report in which it outlined several recommendations for FIFA on how to further strengthen its efforts to ensure respect for human rights.

While all these attempts to enhance human rights protection are no doubt praiseworthy, they have not yet produced the desired effect as reports of gross human rights abuses linked to FIFA's activities continue to emerge. Most recently, Human Rights Watch documented how Russian police arrested a newspaper editor and a human rights defender whose work focused on exposing World Cup-related corruption and exploitation of migrant construction workers. On a more positive note, a bit of hope comes with the announcement by a diverse coalition, including FIFA, UEFA, and the International Olympic Committee, of its intention to launch a new independent Centre for Sport and Human Rights in 2018.

More than 20 Russian athletes sanctioned by the Oswald Commission for anti-doping rule violations at the Sochi Games  

November has been a busy month for the International Olympic Committee, especially for its Oswald Commission. Established in July 2016 after the first part of the McLaren Independent Investigation Report had been published, the Oswald Commission is tasked with investigating the alleged doping violations by Russian athletes at the 2014 Winter Olympic Games in Sochi. Its first sanctions were handed down last month. As of 30 November 2017, the Commission chaired by the IOC Member Denis Oswald sanctioned 22 athletes (see here, here, here, here, here, and here) who competed at the Sochi Olympics in the following sports: biathlon, bobsleigh, cross country skiing, skeleton, and speed skating. The Commission published its first full decision on 27 November 2017 in the case against the cross country skier Alexander Legkov, a gold and silver medallist from the Sochi Olympics, who was ultimately banned for life from attending another Olympics.

Sports Law Related Decisions

• CAS – Award delivered in the arbitration between Danis Zaripov and the International Ice Hockey Federation
• IOC – Decision of the Disciplinary Commission in the proceedings against Alexander Legkov
• Swiss Federal Tribunal – Judgment in the case between Michel Platini and FIFA (translated to English)

Official Documents and Press Releases

• Amnesty International – FIFA under pressure over handling of World Cup construction abuse
• CAS – CAS cancels two fines imposed on the Mexican Football Federation and imposes warnings in their place
• CAS – CAS rejects an application for urgent provisional measures filed by Adrien Silva
• CAS –CAS upholds the appeal of football club Real Garcilaso; decision of the Peruvian Football Federation reversed
• FIFA – Adjudicatory Chamber of the independent Ethics Committee bans former football officials
• FIFA – Circular no. 1600 re participation of clubs in the benefits of the 2018 FIFA World Cup Russia
• FIFA –Circular no. 1601 re professional female players in the international transfer matching system
• FIFA –FIFA and FIFPro sign landmark agreement and announce measures to enhance professional football
• FIFA – First report of the FIFA Human Rights Advisory Board
• FIFA –Guide to the bidding process for the 2026 FIFA World Cup
• FIFPro –Player unions create sexual abuse protocols
• FIFPro – Turkish football tribunal questioned
• Human Rights Watch – Russian human rights defender faces police in court
• IOC – IOC President highlights athletes' exemplary role as the UN General Assembly adopts Olympic Truce for Pyeongchang 2018 by consensus
• IOC –IOC sanctions Russian athletes Anna Nazarova and Yulia Gushchina for failing anti-doping tests at London 2012
• IOC –Oswald Commission findings with regard to Russian athletes:
• Aleksandr Kas'yanov, Aleksei Pushkarev, and Iivir Khuzin
• Alexander Legkov and Evgeniy Belov

• Olga Stulneva, Aleksandr Zubkov, Olga Fatkulina, and Aleksander Rumyantsev
• Sergei Chudino, Aleksei Negodailo, Dmitrii Trunenkov, Yana Romanova, and Olga Vilukhina
• Yuliia Ivanova, Alexey Petukhov, Evgeniya Shapovalova, and Maksim Vylegzhanin
• IOC –Statement on IOC member Frank Fredericks
• United Nations General Assembly – Draft resolution on building a peaceful and better world through sport and the Olympic ideal
• WADA – Compliance Review Committee update
• WADA –Foundation Board takes important decisions that will significantly strengthen the Agency and the future of clean sport
• WADA – WADA in possession of new intelligence from Moscow Laboratory
• WADA – WADA suspends accreditation of Paris Laboratory
• WADA – WADA welcomes the IOC Oswald Commission’s first sanctions against Russian athletes identified via the Agency’s McLaren Investigation

In the news

Doping

• Rachel Axon How will World Anti-Doping Agency decision on Russia impact International Olympic Committee?
• Andy Brown Russian investigation denies WADA evidence and State doping
• Nick Butler WADA obtain key database proving Russian doping before Sochi 2014
• Govorit Moskva The honorary president of Russia’s Olympic Committee says the whistleblower who exposed Moscow’s doping program ‘should be shot, like Stalin would have done’
• Duncan Mackay South African golfer banned after failing drugs test
• Associated Press FIFA suspend Peru striker Guerrero for failing doping test
• Canadian Press Canadian powerlifter Niko Somos gets two-year sanction for anti-doping violation
• Loretta Race Austrian champion Sebastian Steffan handed 12-month doping ban
• Rebecca R. Ruiz Olympic doping diaries: Chemist's notes bolster case against Russia 

Football

• BBC News FIFA insists Isha Johansen is still Sierra Leone FA President
• BBC News Paradise Papers: Who is in control of Everton?
• David Conn FIFA urged to press Qatar on conditions for World Cup stadium workers
• David Conn How the FBI won ‘the World Cup of fraud’ as FIFA scandal arrives in court
• Simon Griver Match not over as West Bank football claim moves to court
• Josimar Interview with Miguel Maduro, former chair of FIFA’s Governance Committee
• Martha Kelner Gay fans warned holding hands at Russia World Cup will be dangerous
• Lombardi Associates The Court of Arbitration for Sport rejects Genoa CFC’s appeal against FIFA decision
• Tariq Panja As sponsors shy away, FIFA faces World Cup shortfall
• Keir Radnedge Warner secures new delay in fight against FIFAGate extradition to United States
• Barney Ronay FIFA’s World Cup debacle is not just about money – there is horror and death too
• Rebecca R. Ruiz FIFA trial: Notable moments from first four days
• Sui-Lee Wee, Ryan McMorrow and Tariq Panja China’s soccer push puts a storied team under murky ownership
• Minky Worden Time for FIFA to act on human rights

Other

• Katie Gainer 2018 Winter Olympics tickets sales could set historic low
• Tariq Panja Powerful Sheikh linked to sports corruption case resurfaces in Prague
• Reuters EU set to rule in favour of speed skaters over ISU ban threat

Academic Materials

• Leonardo de Oliveira Lex Sportiva as the Contractual Governing Law

Blogs

Asser International Sports Law Blog

•  Oytun Azkanar Illegally Obtained Evidence in Match-Fixing Cases: The Turkish Perspective

• Report from the first ISLJ Annual International Sports Law Conference – 26-27 October at the T.M.C. Asser Institute

Law in Sport

• Sarah Bruce Is bridge a sport for VAT purposes? The ECJ's decision in English Bridge Union v. HMRC
• Richard Cooke The lifecycle of an international athlete: Part 9 – Key tips on renovating or building a home
• Hamish Corner The lifecycle of an international athlete: Part 10 – Negotiating sponsorship & endorsements deals
• Ani Ghazikhanian Cycling, doping & the importance of due process: A review of the Karl Murray case
• Mathilde Groppo Defamation in sport: A comparison of the law in France, England and Australia
• Joseph Richmond Financial Fair Play: How clubs justify spending & related party transactions

Others

• Declan Hill FIFA trial: It is a mob affair

Upcoming Events

• 3-4 July 2018 – 13^th Sport & EU Annual Conference, Edge Hill University, England

Editor’s note: Tomáš Grell holds an LL.M. in Public International Law from Leiden University. He contributes to the work of the ASSER International Sports Law Centre as a research intern.

It has been more than seven years since the FIFA Executive Committee awarded the 2022 World Cup to Qatar. And yet only in November 2017 did the Qatari government finally agree to dismantle the controversial kafala system, described by many as modern-day slavery. Meanwhile, hundreds of World Cup-related migrant workers have reportedly been exposed to a wide range of abusive practices such as false promises about the pay, passport confiscation, or appalling working and living conditions.[1] On top of that, some workers have paid the highest price – their life. To a certain extent, all this could have been avoided if human rights had been taken into account when evaluating the Qatari bid to host the tournament. In such a case, Qatar would not have won the bidding contest without providing a convincing explanation of how it intends to ensure that the country's poor human rights record will not affect individuals, including migrant workers, contributing to the delivery of the World Cup. An explicit commitment to abolish the kafala system could have formed an integral part of the bid.

Urged by Professor John Ruggie and his authoritative recommendations,[2] in October 2017 FIFA decided to include human rights within the criteria for evaluating bids to host the 2026 World Cup, following similar steps taken earlier this year by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and UEFA in the context of the Olympic Winter Games 2026 and the Euro 2024 respectively. This two-part blog critically examines the role human rights play in the new bidding regulations adopted by the IOC, UEFA, and FIFA. The first part sheds light on the IOC and UEFA. The second part then takes a closer look at FIFA and aims to use a comparative analysis to determine whether the new bidding regulations are robust enough to ensure that selected candidates abide by international human rights standards.

IOC: Olympic Winter Games 2026

About the host selection process

Compared to the past, cities bidding to host the 2026 Games could expect lower costs, simplified procedures, and more assistance provided by the IOC.[3] All interested cities[4] might enter a Dialogue Stage[5] and engage with the IOC to learn more about the benefits and responsibilities associated with the hosting and staging of the Games. Although the Dialogue Stage is non-committal, cities that join are supposed to present their consolidated Games concepts,[6] outlining their vision, long-term plan alignment, or initial financial strategy, as well as providing information with regard to a potential referendum.[7] These consolidated concepts, together with the IOC's own research, will serve as a basis for a preliminary report exploring the capacity of interested cities to deliver successful Games.[8] The IOC Executive Board will review this report and recommend to the IOC Session which cities should be invited to the Candidature Stage.[9] The IOC Session will designate Candidate Cities in October 2018 during its meeting in Buenos Aires.[10]

Candidate Cities will then have until 11 January 2019 to prepare and submit their Candidature Files together with an initial set of core guarantees.[11] In their Candidature Files, Candidate Cities shall provide answers to a variety of questions as set out in the Candidature Questionnaire, covering areas such as sustainability and legacy, transport, accommodation, safety and security, finance, or marketing. Thereafter, Candidate Cities will be visited by the IOC Evaluation Commission that is tasked with conducting an in-depth assessment of each bid and producing a report to help the IOC Session elect the most suitable candidate. The Host City of the 2026 Games will be elected in September 2019.[12]

Human rights as selection criteria

Little attention is paid to human rights in the Candidature Questionnaire. Candidate Cities are only required to provide a guarantee whereby the national government and relevant local authorities undertake to respect and protect human rights and ensure that any violation of human rights is remedied ''in a manner consistent with international agreements, laws and regulations applicable in the Host Country and in a manner consistent with all internationally-recognised human rights standards and principles, including the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, applicable in the Host Country''.[13] This language is somewhat ambiguous because when defining human rights that should be respected and protected in connection with the hosting and staging of the Games, the guarantee first refers to human rights applicable in the Host Country and only then to the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UN Guiding Principles).[14] The latter make clear that the responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights extends to specific international treaties and other instruments.[15] However, some of these treaties could be inapplicable in the Host Country if not ratified. This would make the guarantee to some extent self-contradictory. Apart from the guarantee, the IOC does not ask for any other human rights-related information from Candidate Cities. In the absence of such information, it is difficult to see how the Evaluation Commission[16] will assess the Candidate Cities' capacity to respect and protect human rights.

UEFA: Euro 2024

About the host selection process

While the Euro 2020 will be a bit of an experiment with games scheduled to take place in 12 different cities across the continent, the Euro 2024 returns to its classic format as only one member association will host the tournament. In March 2017, UEFA confirmed that it would be either Germany or Turkey. The next step for both member associations is to submit their Bid Dossiers to UEFA by no later than 27 April 2018.[17] In principle, the bidders must demonstrate in their Bid Dossiers that they meet all Tournament Requirements. Importantly, UEFA reserves the right to appoint independent consultants when evaluating bids.[18] A written evaluation report on each bid will be circulated in September 2018 before the UEFA Executive Committee finally decides which member association will host the Euro 2024.[19]

Human rights as selection criteria

UEFA requires that the bidders and then the Host Association respect, protect, and fulfil human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the rights of workers and children, in line with international treaties and other instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, or the Convention on the Rights of the Child.[20] In order to meet this obligation, the bidders should in particular seek to culturally embed human rights, proactively address human rights risks, engage with relevant stakeholders, and implement means of reporting and accountability.[21] The bidders' capacity to respect, protect, and fulfil human rights will be evaluated based on their human rights strategy that must be included in their Bid Dossiers.[22] As part of this strategy, the member associations bidding to host the Euro 2024 should explain how they are going to integrate the UN Guiding Principles in their activities related to the organisation of the tournament.[23] While no further details are given about the required content of this strategy, UEFA suggests that a successful bid should not fail to: (i) outline proposed measures aimed at preventing human rights abuses, in particular child labour in supply chains and violations of workers' rights; (ii) provide evidence of meaningful consultation with vulnerable groups; or (iii) describe grievance mechanisms that will be available for victims of human rights abuses.[24]

Conclusion

Unlike UEFA, the IOC has attracted widespread criticism for being involved with negative human rights impacts.[25] Nevertheless, it is the former who gives more weight to human rights in its new bidding regulations. This is even more surprising given that the IOC introduced its bidding regulations later than UEFA. It seems that the IOC deliberately avoids including human rights within the criteria for evaluating bids to host the Olympic Games, hoping that this would encourage more cities to participate in the host selection process. Further reflections on human rights as selection criteria in bidding regulations for mega-sporting events will be presented in the second part of this blog that will focus on FIFA and provide some comparative perspectives.

[1]   Amnesty International, The Ugly Side of the Beautiful Game: Exploitation of Migrant Workers on a Qatar 2022 World Cup Site, 30 March 2016. See also Human Rights Watch, Qatar: Take Urgent Action to Protect Construction Workers, 27 September 2017.

[2]   John G. Ruggie, For the Game. For the World. FIFA and Human Rights, p. 32.

[3]   IOC, IOC Approves New Candidature Process for Olympic Winter Games 2026, 11 July 2017.

[4]   To the best of my knowledge, Calgary (Canada), Salt Lake City (United States), Sapporo (Japan), Sion (Switzerland), and Telemark (Norway) consider bidding.

[5]   The Dialogue Stage runs from September 2017 to October 2018. Interested cities can join until 31 March 2018. See IOC, Candidature Process for the Olympic Winter Games 2026, pp. 11-17.

[6]   Ibid.

[7]   On 15 October 2017, a referendum was held in the Austrian province of Tirol. A negative outcome prevented the city of Innsbruck from launching a bid to host the 2026 Games.

[8]   This report is to be drawn up by the Olympic Winter Games 2026 Working Group overseen by an IOC member and consisting of individuals representing the International Paralympic Committee, the IOC's Athletes Commission, International Winter Sports Federations, and National Olympic Committees. See Candidature Process for the Olympic Winter Games 2026, p. 16.

[9]   Ibid.

[10]  The capital of Argentina will host the 2018 Youth Olympic Games.

[11]  IOC, Candidature Process for the Olympic Winter Games 2026, p. 18.

[12]  Ibid. p. 22.

[13]  IOC, Candidature Questionnaire for the Olympic Winter Games 2026, pp. 86, 88.

[14]  Ibid.

[15]  These include, at a minimum, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the principles concerning fundamental rights in the eight ILO core conventions as set out in the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. See UN Guiding Principles, Principle 12.

[16]  The Evaluation Commission may be assisted by experts. See IOC, Olympic Charter, Bye-Law to Rule 33.

[17]  UEFA, Bid Regulations for the UEFA Euro 2024, Article 5.05.

[18]  Ibid. Article 14.

[19]  Ibid. Articles 6.02 and 6.04.

[20]  UEFA, Tournament Requirements for the UEFA Euro 2024, Sector 03 – Political, Social and Environmental Aspects, p. 5.

[21]  Ibid. pp. 5-6.

[22]  UEFA, Bid Dossier Template for the UEFA Euro 2024, Sector 03 – Political, Social and Environmental Aspects, p. 5.

[23]  Ibid.

[24]  UEFA, Tournament Requirements for the UEFA Euro 2024, Sector 03 – Political, Social and Environmental Aspects, p. 6.

[25]  Jonathan Watts, Rio Olympics linked to widespread human rights violations, report reveals, 8 December 2015. See also Human Rights Watch, Race to the Bottom: Exploitation of Migrant Workers Ahead of Russia's 2014 Winter Olympic Games in Sochi, 6 February 2013. See also Human Rights Watch, 'One Year of My Blood': Exploitation of Migrant Construction Workers in Beijing, 11 March 2008. 

The first part of this two-part blog examined the new bidding regulations adopted by the IOC and UEFA, and concluded that it is the latter who gives more weight to human rights in its host selection process. This second part completes the picture by looking at FIFA's bidding regulations for the 2026 World Cup. It goes on to discuss whether human rights now constitute a material factor in evaluating bids to host the mega-sporting events organised by these three sports governing bodies.

FIFA: 2026 World Cup

About the host selection process

The United States, Mexico, and Canada together on the one side and Morocco on the other are bidding to host the 2026 World Cup. The bidders must now prepare and submit their Bid Books to FIFA by no later than 16 March 2018, providing the world's governing body of football with information regarding their hosting vision and strategy, the country's political system and economic situation, technical matters, other event-related matters, or human rights and environmental protection.[1] FIFA will then commission a Bid Evaluation Task Force,[2] composed of the chairman of the Audit and Compliance Committee, the chairman of the Governance Committee, one member of the Organising Committee for FIFA Competitions, and certain members of the General Secretariat with relevant expertise, to prepare a written report evaluating each bid. This report will be split into three sections, namely (i) compliance assessment; (ii) an assessment of the risks and benefits of each bid, including the risks of adverse impacts on human rights; and (iii) an assessment of key infrastructural and commercial aspects of each bid, including stadiums, transport infrastructure, organising costs, or estimated media and marketing revenues.[3] The Bid Evaluation Task Force will apply a scoring system that might eventually lead to the exclusion of a bid from the host selection process in the event of its failure to reach a required minimum score.[4] It is critical to note, however, that this scoring system will only be used to evaluate infrastructural and commercial aspects of each bid.[5] In other words, human rights or environmental protection are not subject to this scoring system.

The Bid Evaluation Task Force will forward its report to the members of the FIFA Council who will determine whether or not each bid qualifies to be voted on by the FIFA Congress.[6] While until now the decision on the venue for the FIFA's flagship event has been taken by the Council (formerly the Executive Committee), the host of the 2026 World Cup will be elected for the first time by the members of the Congress.[7] The Congress will meet for this purpose in June 2018 and it may either award the right to host the tournament to one of the candidates or reject all bids designated by the Council.[8] In the latter case, FIFA will launch a new procedure that will culminate with a final decision in May 2020.[9] It is also worthwhile noting that the entire host selection process will be overseen by an independent audit company.[10]

Human rights as selection criteria

A number of human rights requirements could be found across different bidding documents relating to the host selection process for the 2026 World Cup. This section takes a closer look at the content of these requirements. 

First, each member association bidding to host the tournament must undertake to respect all internationally recognised human rights in line with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UN Guiding Principles).[11] Importantly, this commitment covers not only the member association's own activities, but also the activities of other entities that are in a business relationship with the member association, be it for the production of goods or provision of services. In this respect, FIFA acknowledges that ''a significant part of human rights risk may be associated with the activities of third parties''.[12]

Second, FIFA requires that each bidder provide a human rights strategy outlining how it is going to honour its commitment mentioned above.[13] While a similar requirement also appears in the UEFA's bidding documentation for the Euro 2024, FIFA is much more specific in defining the essential elements of this strategy. Accordingly, the strategy shall include a comprehensive report ''identifying and assessing any risks of adverse human rights impacts […] with which the member association may be involved either through its own activities or as a result of its business relationships''.[14] Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the entire host selection process is the follow-up requirement that this report be complemented by an independent study carried out by an organisation with recognised expertise in the field of human rights.[15] This independent expert organisation will examine to what extent does the national context, including the national legislation, influence the member association's capacity to respect all internationally recognised human rights.[16] As part of their strategy, the bidders should further explain what measures they intend to take in order to mitigate any human rights risks identified in the comprehensive report.[17] Moreover, the strategy should contain information about the implementation of an ongoing due diligence process, the plans for meaningful community and/or stakeholder dialogue and engagement,[18] the protection of human rights defenders' and journalists' rights, or grievance mechanisms.[19]

Third, each bidder must provide a report summarising its ''stakeholder engagement process implemented as part of the development of the […] human rights strategy''.[20] Fourth and last, the government of each country bidding to host the 2026 World Cup shall express its commitment to: (i) respecting, protecting, and fulfilling human rights in connection with the hosting and staging of the tournament; and (ii) ensuring that victims of human rights abuses will have access to effective remedies.[21] To this effect, each of the involved governments is required to sign a separate declaration.

A comparative overview

It remains to be seen whether the new bidding regulations will help reduce the number and severity of adverse human rights impacts linked to mega-sporting events. For the time being, it is essential to identify the strong and weak points of these regulations.

When discussing strengths, FIFA and UEFA come to mind. Both organisations should be applauded for demanding that the bidders pledge to respect and protect internationally recognised human rights independently of the locally recognised human rights.[22] FIFA moreover extends this obligation to the activities of third parties that are in a business relationship with the bidding member association. Both FIFA and UEFA also ask for a human rights strategy that should include some crucial information such as evidence of meaningful consultation with potentially affected communities. Again, FIFA goes one step further by requiring that this strategy be accompanied by an independent expert study.

All three sports governing bodies reserve the right to assign a role to independent human rights experts in evaluating or preparing bids.[23] And while this is in itself commendable, it should be noted that such a role is limited because it does not entail decision-making competences. For instance, the expert institution responsible for developing an independent study in the host selection process for the 2026 World Cup will not have the power to exclude a bid if it ascertains that the national context significantly undermines the member association's capacity to respect internationally recognised human rights. This expert institution will certainly put more pressure on FIFA in the sense that any action contrary to the institution's recommendations will have to be publicly justified by compelling reasons, but FIFA may nevertheless decide to consider a bid even if it entails serious human rights risks. Moreover, it is difficult to understand why only infrastructural and commercial aspects of a bid are subject to the scoring system applied by the Bid Evaluation Task Force. If the main reason for this is the fact that the members of the Bid Evaluation Task Force lack expertise in the field of human rights, then the assessment of human rights aspects should perhaps be left to independent experts only. It would be crucial to give these human rights experts some power to decide whether or not a bid qualifies for the next stages of the host selection process. A greater role for independent human rights experts in evaluating bids to host mega-sporting events could come with the establishment of an independent Centre for Sport and Human Rights in 2018. However, this will probably not affect the host selection processes that are currently underway.

Conclusion 

Including human rights within the criteria for evaluating bids to host mega-sporting events may deter many countries, especially those with a negative human rights record, from launching a bid. However, as Professor John Ruggie makes clear, human rights requirements in bidding regulations for mega-sporting events are not aimed at ''peremptorily excluding countries based on their general human rights context''.[24] Indeed, a country where human rights abuses occur can nevertheless deliver an abuse-free event. To do so, it will need to develop an effective strategy and, if selected, guarantee the implementation of this strategy from day one.

[1]   FIFA, Structure, Content, Presentation, Format and Delivery of Bid Book for the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

[2]   FIFA, Bidding Registration regarding the submission of Bids for the hosting and staging of the 2026 FIFA World Cup, pp. 23-28.

[3]   Ibid. pp. 24-25. See also FIFA, Guide to the Bidding Process for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, p. 7.

[4]   FIFA, Bidding Registration, pp. 25-27.

[5]   Ibid.

[6]   Ibid. p. 31. See also FIFA Statutes, Article 69(2)(d).

[7]   FIFA, Bidding Registration, pp. 31-32. See also FIFA Statutes, Article 69(1).

[8]   FIFA, Bidding Registration, p. 31.

[9]   FIFA, Guide to the Bidding Process, p. 13.

[10]  FIFA, Bidding Registration, pp. 22-23.

[11]  FIFA, Structure, Content, Presentation, Format and Delivery of Bid Book, Section 23 – Human Rights and Labour Standards. In addition to international treaties and instruments mentioned in Principle 12 of the UN Guiding Principles, FIFA concedes that ''the scope […] of internationally recognised human rights may be enlarged to include, for instance, the United Nations instruments on the rights of indigenous peoples; women; national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities; children; persons with disabilities; and migrant workers and their families''. See FIFA, Bidding Registration, p. 74.

[12]  FIFA, Structure, Content, Presentation, Format and Delivery of Bid Book, Section 23 – Human Rights and Labour Standards.

[13]  Ibid.

[14]  Ibid.

[15]  Ibid.

[16]  Ibid.

[17]  Ibid.

[18]  The community and/or stakeholder dialogue and engagement should be in line with relevant authoritative standards such as the AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement Process.

[19]  FIFA, Structure, Content, Presentation, Format and Delivery of Bid Book, Section 23 – Human Rights and Labour Standards.

[20]  Ibid.

[21]  FIFA, Overview of Government Guarantees and the Government Declaration, pp. 11-12.

[22]  In this regard, FIFA also notes that ''where the national context risks undermining FIFA's ability to ensure respect for internationally recognised human rights, FIFA will constructively engage with the relevant authorities and other stakeholders and make every effort to uphold its international human rights responsibilities''. See FIFA's Human Rights Policy, para. 7.

[23]  IOC, Report of the IOC 2024 Evaluation Commission, p. 7. UEFA, Bid Regulations for the UEFA Euro 2024, Article 14. As mentioned earlier in this blog, FIFA demands that the bidders put forward a human rights strategy complemented by an independent expert study.  

[24]  John G. Ruggie, For the Game. For the World. FIFA and Human Rights, p. 32.

Editor’s note: Stefano Bastianon is Associate Professor in European Law at the University of Bergamo and lawyer admitted to the Busto Arsizio bar. He is also member of the IV^th Division of the High Court of Sport Justice (Collegio di Garanzia dello sport) at the National Olympic Committee.

1. From the very beginning, the outcome of the ISU case was highly predictable, at least for those who are familiar with the basics of antitrust law. Nevertheless, more than twenty years after the Bosman judgment, the sports sector has shown the same shortsightedness and inability to see the forest for the trees. Even this attitude was highly predictable, at least for those who know the basics of sports governance. The final result is a clear-cut decision capable of influencing the entire sports movement.

2. On the 8^th of December 2017, the European Commission ruled that ISU’s eligibility rules breached EU competition law. In particular, the Commission focused on the ISU’s eligibility rule, according to which speed skaters participating in competitions that were not approved by the ISU face severe penalties up to a lifetime ban from all major international speed skating events. The Commission found that such rules restrict competition and enable the ISU to pursue its own commercial interests to the detriment of athletes and organizers of competing events[1]. In sharp contrast with the Commission’s decision is the ISU’s statement published the same day. Indeed, according to the ISU the Commission’s decision is wrong because it fails to consider the specific nature of sports by putting commercial interests ahead of the principles of integrity, health and safety that protect fair play in sport. For this reason the statement ends with the ISU’s reserve to appeal the decision.

3. As it often occurs, small cases (that is cases involving almost unknown athletes or less popular sports and for this reason often underestimated) are able to generate consequences of great importance, presenting many aspects of interest to scholars of EU sports law: this is the case of the ISU affair.

4. First of all, it is a matter of common knowledge that the Commission tends not to intervene in cases dealing with regulatory and organizational aspects of sport. To this regard, it is sufficient to consider that in the 1999 Mouscron case the Commission took the view that the UEFA Cup rule requiring that each club must play its home match at its own ground ("at home and away from home" rule) was a sports rule that did not fall within the scope of the Treaty's competition rules and therefore rejected the complaint. In the 2001 FIA case the Commission closed various anti-trust investigations into certain regulations and commercial arrangements involving Formula One after the parties agreed to make changes which limited the FIA to a regulatory role, so as to prevent any conflict of interests and remove certain commercial restrictions imposed on circuit owners and TV broadcasters. Similarly, in the 2002 FIFA case, the Commission closed its investigation into the rules governing international transfers of football players, in which it formally rejected the complaints related to FIFA in the light of the adoption of new rules capable of balancing a player’s fundamental right to free movement and stability of contracts together with the legitimate objective of integrity of the sport and the stability of championships. Lastly, in the 2002 UEFA multi-ownership rule case the Commission established that the purpose of the rule was not to distort competition, but to guarantee the integrity of the competitions it organizes and rejected the complaint. More recently, in the 2011 Formula One Engine Manufacturers case and the 2014 Financial Fair-Play case the Commission rejected the complaints because of a lack of community interest. In this context, even from a purely statistical point of view, the ISU decision cannot be underestimated.

5. Secondly, one aspect of the importance of the ISU decision lies in the specific matter dealt with. Indeed, eligibility rules (although sometimes differently named) are a common element of many sports. For example the FINA General Rule 4, under the heading “Unauthorised relations”, states that

«no affiliated Member shall have any kind of relationship with a non-affiliated or suspended body (…). Any individual or group violating this Rule shall be suspended by the affiliated Member for a minimum period of one year, up to a maximum period of two years. (…). Each Member that conducts a competition shall strictly enforce the FINA Rules governing eligibility».

The FIG Technical Regulations, Appendix B (Rules of Eligibility for the International Gymnastic Federation) state that

«an eligible gymnast is any gymnast who abides by the eligibility rules of the FIG and the gymnast's National Federation. In any competition sanctioned or conducted by the FIG, each National Federation is responsible for certifying the eligibility of gymnasts from its country. Only gymnasts meeting the requirements of Regulation I are authorised to participate in official competitions and particularly those competitions which qualify gymnasts for Olympic Games and Youth Olympic Games (…). A gymnast may not: (…); b) take part in any gymnastic competition or exhibition which is not sanctioned by the FIG or his/her National Federation (…). Any gymnast infringing these rules, after their enforcement, may not claim to be eligible to participate in the Olympic Games and Youth Olympic Games or qualifying tournaments for the Games».

The FIH Regulations on Sanctioned and Unsanctioned Events state that

«it is prohibited for any National Association, and for any organisation or individual (including Athletes, technical officials, umpires, coaching or management staff) under the jurisdiction of a National Association, to participate in any manner in an Unsanctioned Event. Any Athlete or other individual who participates in any capacity in an Unsanctioned Event is automatically ineligible for twelve months thereafter to participate in any capacity in any International Event».

The UCI Cycling Regulations, under the heading «Forbidden Races», state that

«no licence holder may participate in an event that has not been included on a national, continental or world calendar or that has not been recognised by a national federation, a continental confederation or the UCI».

As a consequence, the ISU decision goes far beyond the specific sport considered (speed skating) and represents a clear message sent by the Commission to the entire sports world.

6. From this point of view, it is important not to forget that before the Commission there are still pending two complaints lodged respectively by the Euroleague Basketball and by FIBA. The dispute between FIBA and Euroleague Basketball goes back to the end of 2015 when FIBA announced the creation of a basketball Champions League in direct competition with the two European professional clubs’ competitions organized by the ECA. In order to force professional clubs to participate in the new Basketball Champions League, FIBA did not hesitate to put pressure on national federations threatening the possibility of excluding their national teams from participation in main competitions such as EuroBasket and the Olympic Games. According to the Euroleague Basketball the complaint «targets the unacceptable and illegal threats and pressures that FIBA and its member federations are making against clubs, players and referees to force them to abandon the Euroleague and the EuroCup and only participate in FIBA competitions. The complaint's objective is to guarantee that clubs, players and referees can freely make the choice to participate in the competitions that they consider appropriate without being subject to threats or pressures. FIBA is violating European Union law because, in a blatant conflict of interest, FIBA has rules on its books that provide for sanctions against those who are involved in competitions not approved by FIBA». In a completely specular way, FIBA has lodged a complaint against the Euroleague Basketball alleging an abusive tying by imposing undue pressure on leagues and clubs, as well as threatening exclusion from the Euroleague unless they commit to the EuroCup (…); a “syndication agreement” circulated among the 11 A license clubs who hold the majority of votes in ECA, meaning that six clubs control ECA, including all Euroleague and EuroCup decisions in sporting and commercial matters; arbitrarily cherry-picking clubs for Euroleague and EuroCup, which means destroying any commercial and sporting value of domestic leagues and undermining the competitive balance in European basketball; abusively discriminating against financially weaker clubs, thereby placing them at a further competitive disadvantage». However, the FIBA/Euroleague dispute involves another fundamental aspect related to the scheduling of competitions. According to FIBA, the new Euroleague calendar does not include windows of time for national team competitions in February or November, and for this reason, the Euroleague is preventing the release of players to national team competitions. On the contrary, according to the Euroleague, FIBA’s new windows in February and November represent a change from the past where international competitions, including the World Cup qualifiers, were held in the summer, during the offseason for most leagues.[2]

Although different in many respects compared to the ISU case, the FIBA/Euroleague affair raises again the problem of conflict of interest when sports federations pretend to exercise autonomously their regulatory power for the sake of the organization of sport and to simultaneously carry out an economic activity related to the organization of sporting events. In consideration of the dual nature of sports federations, the basic problem to be solved is to clarify if and to what extent the conduct of a sports federation is legitimate when it uses its regulatory power to exclude or marginalize third parties from the market of the organization of sporting events. 

7. Going back to the merit of the ISU affair and waiting to read the decision, the Commission’s press release and the statement by Commissioner Vestager are very important in order to better understand the scope and limits of the decision. The decision is not about the pyramid structure of European sports. The principle of a single federation for each sport and the right of the federations to organise competition from local to international levels is a milestone of the European model of sport. In this context the decision does not question the right of sports federations to enact rules necessary to achieve those goals. However, the ISU decision confirms that sport is not just for fun, but it is also a business. Therefore, although the Commission does not intend “to be the referee in every dispute about sport”, in matters dealing with the economic dimension of sport, sports federations must understand that the business of sports has to comply with competition rules. This means that the sole fact that eligibility rules or any other rule enacted by sports federations pursue a legitimate objective (for example, the protection of athletes’ health, the integrity and the proper conduct of sport, the fight against doping) does not represent a valid justification to put those rules outside the scope of EU law. Indeed, according to the Court of Justice’s case law, sporting rules set up by sports federations are compatible with EU law only if they pursue a legitimate objective and the restrictions that they create are inherent and proportionate to reaching this objective. Therefore, in cases relating to the exercise of regulatory power by sports federations the problem does not concern the legitimate nature of the objectives pursued. Generally speaking, in all the cases examined by the Commission and National antitrust authorities, the legitimacy of the objectives pursued by the federations has never been questioned. On the contrary, in those cases the problem was the inherent and proportionate character of the restrictions created by the federations through the exercise of their regulatory power. From this point of view, therefore, it can be said that it must certainly be considered inherent and proportionate to the objective of ensuring the integrity of the sport the rule requiring the athletes who participate in an event not authorized by the respective federation to undergo, at their own expense, an anti-doping tests before being able to attend an event organized by the federation. Quite the reverse, a clause sanctioning the athlete who participates in a competition not authorized by the federation with a lifetime ban from all the events organized by the federation appears totally disproportionate. Similarly, it must certainly be considered inherent and proportionate to the objective of ensuring the integrity of the sport the rule requiring anyone who intends to organize a sporting event outside the federation to ensure compliance with the rules of the game, as elaborated by the federation, and the anti-doping controls. In contrast, the clause that imposes on the organizer of an event the obligation to respect the rules of the federation in regards to the choice of the athletes or teams admitted to participate in such competition must be considered disproportionate. Although it is true that the European model of sport expressly refers to the mechanism of promotion and relegation as a distinguishing feature compared to the US model, it is equally true that the Commission has never qualified the structure of open leagues as a legitimate objective capable of justifying the provision of rules restricting competition or the free movement of persons. Moreover, even considering the model of the open leagues a necessary feature of the European sports model, it must be emphasized that the organization of a sporting event based on a system of special licenses is not in itself in contrast with the founding values ​​of the European sports model. On the one hand, the existence of other events (national and European) characterized by the traditional mechanisms of promotion and relegation represents the best safeguard of the European model of sport. However, it is clear that in order to protect the meritocratic criterion behind the mechanism of promotion and relegation it is sufficient to provide a mixed system where some athletes or teams are admitted on the basis of a licence and other athletes/teams are admitted on the basis of the results achieved on the pitch.

8. We can imagine the ISU’s disappointment regarding the Commission’s decision.  On the contrary, what is really difficult to understand is the ISU’s position shown in the statement published on the same day of the Commission’s decision. The idea that the Commission’s decision fails to consider the specific nature of sport is simply nonsense considering the rather vague nature of the notion of specificity of sports, especially in the post Meca Medina era. Similarly, the idea that the Commission’s decision puts commercial interests ahead of the principles of integrity, health, and safety that protect fair play in sports has no legal basis. In the same way, the idea that the decision is contrary to the Treaty, which recognizes the voluntary, social, and educational functions of sports reveals a serious lack of knowledge of the basics of EU law applied to the sports sector. On the other hand, the ISU correctly affirms that its eligibility rules—similar to the eligibility rules of many other international sports federations—ensure the protection of the health and safety of athletes at all authorized events as well as the integrity of sports events, and that these rules are essential to the role of international federations as the guardians of sports movement. However, it is easy to assert that the Commission’s decision does not question this argument and the fundamental role of international federations to organize the proper and correct conduct of sport.  To this regard, the decision not to impose a fine on the ISU is a clear signal. Another signal is represented by the recognition that there are many disputes which have little or nothing at all to do with competition rules as they raise primarily issues related to the governance of a sport. In other words, sports federations must understand that the sole fact that they are charged to guarantee the integrity and proper conduct of their sport, the protection of athletes’ health, and other fundamental values related to sports does not automatically mean that the rules enacted to pursue these objectives cannot be scrutinized through the lens of EU law. Once and for all, it should be understood that when the exercise of regulatory power by sports federations is able to affect the distinct market of the organization of sports events, in which sports federations compete with other sports events organisers, EU law applies. This new context should have been evident following the Bosman ruling and, above all, after the Meca Medina judgment. Unfortunately, the ISU decision (and the ISU’s reaction) confirms that this is not yet the case.

[1] For more details, see http://leidenlawblog.nl/articles/what-can-eu-competition-law-do-for-speed-skaters 

[2] On this subject it is worthy to note that the statement by Commissioner Vestager on the ISU decision clearly highlights that things like the penalties for doping or match-fixing, or deciding the precise scheduling have little or nothing at all to do with antitrust. For these, sports organisations must live up to their responsibilities and find solutions and mechanisms for solving disputes that deliver the results that the public and the athletes deserve.

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 

The International Skating Union's eligibility rules declared incompatible with EU competition law

On 8 December 2017, the European Commission announced that it had rendered a decision in the case against the International Skating Union (ISU). The Commission upheld the complaint lodged in October 2015 by two Dutch professional speed skaters Mark Tuitert and Niels Kerstholt, represented in this case by Ben Van Rompuy and Antoine Duval (you can read their joint statement here), and ruled that the ISU's eligibility rules preventing athletes from participating in speed skating competitions not approved by the ISU under the threat of severe penalties are in violation of EU competition law. In particular, the Commission held that these rules restrict the commercial freedom of (i) athletes who may be deprived of additional source of income as they are not allowed to participate in speed skating competitions other than those authorised by the ISU; and (ii) independent organisers who are unable to attract top athletes. And while the Commission recognised that sporting rules with restrictive effects might be compatible with EU law if they pursue a legitimate objective such as the protection of athletes' health and safety or the protection of the integrity and proper conduct of sport, it found that the ISU's eligibility rules pursue only its own commercial interests to the detriment of athletes and independent organisers of speed skating competitions. The ISU eventually escaped financial sanctions, but it must modify or abolish its eligibility rules within 90 days; otherwise it would be liable for non-compliance payments of up to 5% of its average daily turnover. For more information on this topic, we invite you to read our recent blog written by Professor Stefano Bastianon.

The International Olympic Committee bans Russia from the upcoming Winter Olympic Games

The world has been waiting impatiently for the International Olympic Committee's (IOC)decision on the participation of Russian athletes in the upcoming 2018 Winter Olympic Games in Pyeongchang. This was finally communicated on 5 December 2017. Having deliberated on the findings of the Schmid Commission, the IOC Executive Board decided to suspend the Russian Olympic Committee with immediate effect, meaning that only those Russian athletes who demonstrate that they had not benefited from the state-sponsored doping programme will be able to participate in the Games. Such clean athletes will be allowed to compete under the Olympic Flag, bearing the name 'Olympic Athlete from Russia (OAR)' on their uniforms. Further to this, the IOC Executive Board sanctioned several officials implicated in the manipulation of the anti-doping system in Russia, including Mr Vitaly Mutko, currently the Deputy Prime Minister of Russia and formerly the Minister of Sport. Mounting public pressure subsequently forced Mr Mutko to step down as head of the Local Organising Committee for the 2018 FIFA World Cup.

Meanwhile, 21 individual Russian athletes were sanctioned (see here, here, here, and here) in December (in addition to 22 athletes in November) by the IOC Oswald Commission that is tasked with investigating the alleged doping violations by Russian athletes at the 2014 Winter Olympic Games in Sochi. The Oswald Commission also published two full decisions in the cases against Evgeny Belov and Aleksandr Tretiakov who were both banned from all future editions of the Games. It is now clear that the Court of Arbitration for Sport will have quite some work in the coming weeks as the banned athletes are turning to this Swiss-based arbitral tribunal to have their sanctions reviewed (see here and here).

Universal Declaration of Player Rights

14 December 2017 was a great day for athletes all over the globe. On this day, representatives of the world's leading player associations met in Washington D.C. to unveil theUniversal Declaration of Player Rights, a landmark document developed under the aegis of theWorld Players Association that strives to protect athletes from ongoing and systemic human rights violations in global sport. The World Players Association's Executive Director Brendan Schwab emphasised that the current system of sports governance ''lacks legitimacy and fails to protect the very people who sit at the heart of sport'' and stated that ''athlete rights can no longer be ignored''. Among other rights, the Declaration recognises the right of athletes to equality of opportunity, fair and just working conditions, privacy and the protection of personal data, due process, or effective remedy.

Chris Froome failed a doping test during the last year's Vuelta a España

The world of cycling suffered yet another blow when it transpired that one of its superstars Chris Froome had failed a doping test during the last year's Vuelta a España, a race he had eventually emerged victorious from for the first time in his career. His urine sample collected on 7 September 2017 contained twice the amount of salbutamol, a medication used to treat asthma, than permissible under the World Anti-Doping Agency's 2017 Prohibited List. Kenyan-born Froome has now hired a team of medical and legal experts to put forward a convincing explanation for the abnormal levels of salbutamol in his urine and thus to avoid sanctions being imposed on him.

Sports Law Related Decisions

• CAS – Award delivered in the arbitration between Drug Free Sport New Zealand and Karl Murray
• European Commission – State Aid decision on the construction of a multi-purpose arena in Tampere, Finland
• IOC – Decision of the Disciplinary Commission in the proceedings against Aleksandr Tretiakov
• IOC – Decision of the Disciplinary Commission in the proceedings against Evgeniy Belov
• IOC – Decision to ban Russian athletes from the 2018 Winter Olympic Games in Pyeongchang

Official Documents and Press Releases

• CAS – 22 Russian athletes file appeals
• CAS – 3 additional Russian athletes file appeals
• CAS – American bobsledder Ryan Bailey sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility
• CAS –José Enrique Angulo Caicedo sanctioned with four-year period of ineligibility
• CAS –The appeals filed by Artur Taimazov and Tatyana Chernova are dismissed
• Council of Europe – Good football governance
• Council of Europe – Working towards a framework for modern sports governance
• European Commission – An evaluation of the anti-doping laws and practices in the EU Member States in light of the General Data Protection Regulation
• European Commission – International Skating Union's restrictive penalties on athletes breach EU competition rules
• FIFA – Appeal Committee reduces the sanction imposed on Paolo Guerrero to a six-month suspension
• FIFA – Circular no. 1603 re amendments to the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players' Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber and to the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
• FIFA – Circular no. 1605 re 2018 World Cup Russia Media and Marketing Regulations
• FIFA –Normalisation committee appointed for the Malian FA
• FIFA –Suspension of the Kuwait Football Association lifted
•  IOC –IOC and international partners establish taskforces to tackle corruption in sport
• IOC –IOC sanctions one athlete for failing anti-doping tests at Vancouver 2010
• IOC –IOC suspends Russian NOC and creates a path for clean individual athletes to compete in Pyeongchang 2018 under the Olympic flag
• IOC –Olympic Athlete from Russia (OAR) Invitation Review Panel discusses objectives and methodology
• IOC –Oswald Commission's findings with regard to Russian athletes:
•  Yulia Chekaleva, Anastasia Dotsenko, and Olga Zaytseva
• Inna Dyubanok, Ekaterina Lebedeva, Ekaterina Pashkevich, Anna Shibanova, Ekaterina Smolentseva, and Galina Skiba
• Ivan Skobrev, Artem Kuznetcov, Tatyana Ivanova, Albert Demchenko, Nikita Kryukov, Alexander Bessmertnykh, Natalia Matveeva, Liudmila Udobkina, Maxim Belugin, Tatiana Burina, and Anna Shchukina
• Alexey Voevoda
•  IOC –Schmid Commission's report to the IOC Executive Board
• Tennis Integrity Unit –CAS rejects appeal for lifetime ban on Nick Lindahl but upholds existing seven-year sanction
• Tennis Integrity Unit – Piotr Gadomski disciplined for breach of seven-year corruption ban
• WADA –Statement from WADA Athlete Committee regarding the IOC's decision on Russia
• WADA –Statement regarding the IOC's decision concerning Russia
•  WADA – WADA launches first phase of 2021 World Anti-Doping Code review process
•  WADA –WADA meets with International Federations and provides intelligence from Moscow's Laboratory Information Management System Database
• World Players Association –Universal Declaration of Player Rights

In the news

Doping

• Associated Press Suspension lifted on French anti-doping lab

• Associated Press UCI bans Italian cyclist Nicola Ruffoni for doping
•  Rachel Axon Lifetime bans for Russian athletes are unlikely to stands, experts say
• Cycling News Chris Froome hires former Bruyneel and Contador lawyer for salbutamol case
• Sean Ingle British Olympians back IOC's decision to ban Russia from Pyeongchang 2018
• Sean Ingle and Martha Kelner Chris Froome fights to save career after failed drugs test result
• Chijioke Jannah Over 100 Nigerian athletes tested positive for doping since 2002
•  Meduza Russia indicts doping whistleblower Grigory Rodchenkov on trafficking charges
• Sky Sports Russia claim whistleblower Grigory Rodchenkov's doping diaries are fake

Football

• AS FIFA threaten Spain's place in World Cup 2018 over 'Villar Case'

• Associated Press FIFA bribery trial jury set to begin deliberations in New York
• David Conn FIFA trial leaves questions over 2022 Qatar World Cup
• David Conn FIFA's desperate dependence on Russia exposed in flimsy response to IOC ban
• David Conn Trabzonspor challenge puts Gianni Infantino's stint at UEFA under scrutiny
• Sean Ingle Vitaly Mutko in spotlight but IOC and FIFA want to escape to shadows
• Martha Kelner 2022 World Cup migrant workers 'systematically' exploited, Amnesty says
• Martha Kelner Vitaly Mutko steps down as head of Russia World Cup organising committee
• ReutersBrazilian football boss Del Nero banned for 90 days
• Rebecca R. Ruiz FIFA trial ends: ''They have a theory that everyone in soccer is dirty''

Other

•  Associated Press Kuwait parliament passes law addressing IOC, FIFA bans

• Nick Butler European Commission order International Skating Union to change competition rules in landmark legal ruling
• Graham Dunbar European lawmakers slam FIFA, IOC for leadership issues

Academic Materials

• Antonio Rigozzi, Emily Wisnosky and Brianna Quinn The Proceedings of the 2017 Macolin Anti-Doping Summit: A Fresh Look at the Science, Legal and Policy Aspects of Anti-Doping
• Brendan Schwab ''When We Know Better, We Do Better.'' Embedding the Human Rights of Players as a Prerequisite to the Legitimacy of Lex Sportiva and Sport's Justice System

Blog

Asser International Sports Law Blog

•  Ryan Gauthier A Good Governance Approach to Stadium Subsidies in North America

•  Tomáš Grell Human Rights as Selection Criteria in Bidding Regulations for Mega-Sporting Events – Part I: IOC and UEFA
• Ben Van Rompuy and Antoine Duval Statement on the European Commission's ISU Decision

Law in Sport

•  Sean Cottrell The evolution of athlete rights with Brendan Schwab of the World Players Association

• Henry Goldschmidt Football's greatest threat: Why technology and stakeholder collaboration are key to combating global match-fixing
• Chris Hurlston and Neerali Madhvani A review of the current inquiries and investigations into abuse in UK football
• Viktoria Tsvetanova Why sports federations are under increasing scrutiny from competition authorities
• John Wolohan Sports betting in the United States: Supreme Court begins hearing Christie v. NCAA

Others

• Jack Anderson Russia's humiliating ban from the Winter Olympics is the right move to protect integrity in sport
• Nick Butler Russian compromises and European Commission precedents in another nice easy week for the IOC
• Borja GarcíaA historic decision: The European Union curtails the power of international federations
•  Nicholas McGeehan The men behind Man City: A documentary not coming soon to a cinema near to you
• David Owen A trawl through the latest ISU financial report reveals a rich store of assets, while pointing to an uncertain future
• Navi Pillay Miguel Maduro and Joseph Weiler Our sin? We appeared to take our task at FIFA too seriously
• Rebecca R. Ruiz Why Russia tried to cheat its way to glory
• Giles Tremlett Manchester City's plan for global domination

Upcoming Events

• 16 March – Sports Law& Business Conference, Etihad Stadium, Manchester, England
• 3-4 July – 13^th Sport & EU Annual Conference, Edge Hill University, England

Editor's note: Deeksha Malik is a final-year student at National Law Institute University, India. Her main interest areas are corporate law, arbitration, and sports law. She can be reached at dkshmalik726@gmail.com.

In 2015, while interrogating cricketer Sreesanth and others accused in the IPL match-fixing case, Justice Neena Bansal, sitting as Additional Sessions Judge, made the following observations as regards betting on cricket matches.

“Cricket as a game of skill requires hand-eye-coordination for throwing, catching and hitting. It requires microscopic levels of precision and mental alertness for batsmen to find gaps or for bowlers to produce variety of styles of deliveries’ (medium pace, fast, inswing, outswing, offspin, legspin, googly). The sport requires strategic masterminds that can select the most efficient fielding positions for piling pressure on the batsmen. Based on above description, cricket cannot be described anything, but as a game of skill.”

The debate on the issue of betting in sports has since resurfaced and gained the attention of sportspersons, media, sports bodies, policymakers, and the general public. In April 2017, the Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Dipak Misra and AM Khanwilkar agreed to hear a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking an order directing the government to come up with an appropriate framework for regulating betting in sports. The arguments put forth in the PIL present various dimensions. One of these pertains to economic considerations, a submission that regulated betting would be able to generate annual revenue of Rs. 12,000 crores by bringing the earnings therefrom within the tax net. As for policy considerations, it was submitted that a proper regulation in this area would enable the government to distinguish harmless betting from activities that impair the integrity of the game such as match-fixing. Further, betting on cricket matches largely depends on the skill of the concerned players, thereby distinguishing it from pure chance-based activities.

The issue of sports betting witnesses a divided opinion till this day. This is understandable, for both sides to the issue have equally pressing arguments. Aside from its regulation being a daunting task for authorities, sports betting is susceptible to corruption and other unscrupulous activities. At the same time, it is argued that it would be better for both the game and the economy if the same is legalised.

THE MAGNITUDE OF CONSIDERATIONS

It is feared by some that the consequences of recognition and legalisation of betting could be negative, considering what happened in Australia. Australia legalised online betting in 2001, and by 2009, it found itself in a situation where betting took over the sporting landscape in a big way. The impact was clearly visible; betting was marketed extensively in public places, attracting many young potential punters. Some found the trend disturbing, for sports fans were more concerned about their personal gains than about the sport itself. It is estimated that around 500,000 Australians are on the verge of becoming “problem gamblers.”

There has been an increasing support for the other side of the debate that argues for recognition of betting as a legal activity. It is argued that criminalising betting does not prevent its happening; it merely drives the activity underground where it continues to thrive. Add to it the substantial revenues that government would be able to obtain therefrom. In fact, the Report of the Supreme Court Committee on Reforms in Cricket, also called the Lodha Committee Report, submitted that given the worldwide legal sports betting market which is worth over $400 billion, it will be in the best interest of the economy if betting is given legal recognition.

POSITION IN THE USA AND THE UK: GROWING ACCEPTANCE OF THE UK-BASED MODEL

In the USA, federal law has taken a tough stand against betting and gambling. The 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) makes it unlawful for a person to sponsor, operate, advertise, or promote betting, gambling, or wagering scheme based, directly or indirectly, on one or more competitive games in which amateur or professional athletes participate. The provision prima facie makes no distinction between betting and gambling, and it is, therefore, irrelevant for the purpose of establishing an offence under this provision whether the activity in question involves skill or not.

On the other hand, one may refer to the position in the UK, where there has been a well-developed betting market with appropriate measures to ensure that the system is not abused. The governing organisation in this regard is the UK Gambling Commission, initially set up under the 1960 Betting and Gaming Act which works in partnership with all the sporting bodies which, in turn, frame their own bye-laws to regulate betting.[1] Apart from licensing requirements, the framework provides for an information-sharing system, whereby bookies are required to report any suspicious betting activity within their knowledge to the Gambling Commission.[2] The example of the UK shows how through appropriate safeguards and implementation policy that involves various stakeholders such as the sports bodies and the booking companies, sports betting could be effectively regulated, bringing, at the same time, significant economic advantage. It does not come as a surprise that a majority of Americans have advocated for a UK-based model.

Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States began dealing with the issue in the case of Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association. The State of New Jersey seeks to get the PASPA annulled, which, in turn, would facilitate state-sponsored sports betting. It is being submitted that the federal government through the aforesaid statute is violating the anti-commandeering principle of the Tenth Amendment, according to which states cannot be mandated to carry federal acts into effect. The outcome of the case would certainly have an impact on the debate, one way or the other.

POSITION IN INDIA: THE ‘GAME OF SKILL’ DEBATE

In India, the power to legislate on betting and gambling is conferred on states, since these subjects are enlisted in the State List. Nevertheless, the pre-independence legislation, namely the 1867 Public Gambling Act (Act), is still valid today, though some states have enacted their own laws pertaining to betting and gambling. Section 12 of this Act provides that it does not apply to a ‘game of skill.’ The legislation, therefore, makes a distinction between a ‘game of chance’ and a ‘game of skill.’ The term ‘game of chance’ has been explained in the case of Rex v. Fortier[3] as a game “determined entirely or in part by lot or mere luck, and in which judgment, practice, skill or adroitness has honestly no office at all or is thwarted by chance.” It has further been held in the case of State v. Gupton that any athletic game or sport is not a game of chance and instead depends on a number of factors such as skill, ability, form and practice of the participants.

At this juncture, reference must be made to the case of KR Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu, wherein it was held by the Supreme Court of India that horse racing, foot racing, boat racing, football and baseball are all games of skill. Betting on, say, a horse race entails use of evaluative skills in order to assess several factors such as speed and stamina of the horse, performance of the jockey, and the like. Similarly, the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. K Satyanarayana observed that rummy is not like a three-card game which is based substantially on chance. There is considerable amount of skill involved in memorising the cards, or in holding and discharging them, in a rummy game. The uncertainty involved in shuffling and distribution of the cards does not alter the character of the game to one based on chance.

Based on these judgments, it is reasonable to infer that betting in cricket, too, is an activity involving sufficient skill and is not based merely on chance. A person who studies the form and performance of a player, the conditions of play and the like could predict the outcome of a game with a reasonable accuracy. The mere uncertainty of the outcome should not come in the way of understanding sports betting as an activity based on skill. Considering this important factor, the government should proceed to develop an appropriate framework to regulate betting. 

A PRACTICAL POLICY FRAMEWORK

The International Cricket Council, too, has suggested that India should come up with a suitable policy framework to regulate betting.[4] Such a framework would keep a check on individuals and further help detect and prevent corrupt activities. The above-mentioned Lodha Committee Report has strongly recommended legalising cricket betting in India. The suggestion is based on the premise that while match-fixing interferes with the integrity of the game itself and is unacceptable, betting is a “general malaise” indulged by different sections of the society and is capable of being regulated. Therefore, betting should not be equated with unscrupulous activities such as match-fixing.

Having been so distinguished, a regulation along the lines of the UK model could be put in place to establish regulatory watchdogs tasked with monitoring betting houses and persons entering into betting transactions. Those placing bets could be brought within a licensing system wherein their identification and other details are recorded. This could be supplemented by an information-sharing mechanism whereby a database of undesirable entities such as bookies and fixers would be shared with players so that they do not remain in the dark with respect to suspicious activities. Importantly, players, match officials and administrators should be kept out of such regulated betting, and they should continue to be bound by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and IPL rules. It is important to note here that the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code prohibits participants from soliciting, authorising, placing, accepting, laying, or otherwise entering into any bet with any person in relation to the result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of any match or event. The Code further makes it an offence to ensure “the occurrence of a particular incident in a match or event, which occurrence is to the participant’s knowledge the subject of a bet and for which he/she expects to receive or has received any reward.” As can be seen from the provisions, the liability is imposed specifically on the participant. This is in line with the opinion of the Lodha Committee, which has recommended that if betting were to be legalised, the players should nevertheless be barred from indulging in the activity so as to prevent any apprehension concerning their integrity. It is submitted that bringing these reforms in the current uncertain and highly ambiguous regime would address several surrounding issues, provided all the stakeholders work in tandem.

Lesson could be learnt from the state of Nagaland, which recently enacted a law, namely the 2016 Nagaland Prohibition of Gambling and Promotion and Regulation of Online Games of Skill Act. The said legislation defines “games of skill” as including “all such games where there is a preponderance of skill over chance, including where the skill relates to strategising the manner of placing wagers or placing bets, or where the skill lies in team selection or selection of virtual stocks based on analyses, or where the skill relates to the manner in which the moves are made, whether through deployment of physical or mental skill and acumen.” Besides providing such an inclusive definition, the Act sets out a schedule enlisting certain activities that shall be regarded as games of skill, such as poker, rummy and virtual games of cricket and football. All such games shall be regulated by way of issuance of a license to persons or entities based in India. Upon receiving the license, such a person or entity is eligible to earn revenue from games of skill, whether by way of advertising, obtaining a share of winnings or charging a fee for membership.

Some stakeholders are advocating for a uniform legislation on betting that would ensure that the legal position on betting remains the same across all the states. In July 2017, the All India Gaming Federation along with an advisory panel presented a white paper to Law Commissioner BS Chauhan, recommending a central legislation regulating online skill gaming, and that sports betting in general and cricket betting in particular be recognised as a game of skill. Such a legislation could introduce a system of checks and balances along the lines of that existing in the UK, for instance. A proposal has also been moved from the Central Information Commission in the case of Subhash Chandra Agrawal v. PIO, recommending the Government of India to consider moving the subject of sports from the State List in the Constitution of India to the Concurrent List so as to ensure a uniform policy regulating sports bodies and national sports federations such as the BCCI.

CONCLUSION

The international discourse on the issue of sports betting shows just how inadequate the Indian legal regime is to cater to the same. Suggestions have been pouring in from all quarters as to how, upon being legalized, cricket betting could be regulated. These suggestions, along with international best practices concerning ethics and betting, should be taken into account by the legislature and the executive to bring in an appropriate framework to address cricket betting. This, of course, requires the active participation of all the stakeholders, with the BCCI leading the way. 

[1] Ali Qtaishat and Ashish Kumar, ‘Surveying the Legality Issues and Current Developments’ (2013) 20 JL Policy and & Globalization 40, 42.

[2]See Gambling Act 2005 s 88.

[3]Rex v. Fortier 13 Que. KB 308.

[4] Rohini Mahyera, ‘Saving Cricket: A Proposal for the Legalization of Gambling in India to Regulate Corrupt Betting Practices in Cricket’ (2012) 26 Emory Int'l L. Rev.

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 

Anti-doping whereabouts requirements declared compatible with the athletes' right to privacy and family life

On 18 January 2018, the European Court of Human Rights rendered a judgment with important consequences for the world of sport in general and the anti-doping regime in particular. The Strasbourg-based court was called upon to decide whether the anti-doping whereabouts system– which requires that a limited number of top elite athletes provide their National Anti-Doping Organisation or International Federation with regular information about their location, including identifying for each day one specific 60-minute time slot where the athlete will be available for testing at a pre-determined location – is compatible with the athletes' right to private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and their freedom of movement pursuant to Article 2 Protocol No. 4 of the Convention. The case was brought by the French cyclist Jeannie Longo and five French athlete unions that had filed their application on behalf of 99 professional handball, football, rugby, and basketball players.

While acknowledging that the whereabouts requirements clash with the athletes' right to private and family life, the judges took the view that such a restriction is necessary in order to protect the health of athletes and ensure a level playing field in sports competitions. They held that ''the reduction or removal of the relevant obligations would lead to an increase in the dangers of doping for the health of sports professionals and of all those who practise sports, and would be at odds with the European and international consensus on the need for unannounced testing as part of doping control''. Accordingly, the judges found no violation of Article 8 of the Convention and, in a similar vein, ruled that Article 2 Protocol No. 4 of the Convention was not applicable to the case.

Football stakeholders preparing to crack down on agents' excessive fees

It has been a record-breaking January transfer window with Premier League clubs having spent an eye-watering £430 million on signing new acquisitions. These spiralling transfer fees enable football agents, nowadays also called intermediaries, to charge impressive sums for their services. However, this might soon no longer be the case as the main stakeholders in European football are preparing to take action. UEFA, FIFPro, the European Club Association and the European Professional Football Leagues acknowledge in their joint resolution that the 2015 FIFA Regulations on Working with Intermediaries failed to address serious concerns in relation to the activities of intermediaries/agents. They recognise in broad terms that a more effective regulatory framework is needed and call among other things for a reasonable and proportionate cap on fees for intermediaries/agents, enhanced transparency and accountability, or stronger provisions to protect minors.

The CAS award in Joseph Odartei Lamptey v. FIFA 

On 15 January 2018, FIFA published on its website an arbitral award delivered on 4 August 2017 by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in the dispute between the Ghanian football referee Joseph Odartei Lamptey and FIFA. The CAS sided with FIFA and dismissed the appeal filed by Mr Lamptey against an earlier decision of the FIFA Appeal Committee which (i) found him to have violated Article 69(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code as he unlawfully influenced the 2018 World Cup qualifying match between South Africa and Senegal that took place on 12 November 2016; (ii) as a consequence, banned him for life from taking part in any football-related activity; and (iii) ordered the match in question to be replayed. In reaching its conclusion, the CAS relied heavily on multiple reports of irregular betting activities that significantly deviated from usual market developments. 

Sports Law Related Decisions

• CAS – Award delivered in the arbitration between Joseph Odartei Lamptey and FIFA
• CAS – Award delivered in the arbitration between the Virgin Islands Olympic Committee and the International Olympic Committee
• CAS – Award delivered in the arbitration between WADA and Gil Roberts
• European Court of Human Rights – Judgment on the compatibility of the anti-doping whereabouts rules with the fundamental rights of athletes

Official Documents and Press Releases

• CAS – CAS declares Lao Toyota Football Club eligible to participate in the 2018 AFC Cup
• CAS – CAS does not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the International Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federatio
• CAS – CAS has opened its temporary offices on the site of the Pyeongchang Winter Olympic Games
• CAS –CAS has registered 42 appeals filed by Russian athletes against the Disciplinary Commission of the International Olympic Committee
• CAS – Dutee Chand case: The application of the IAAF Hyperandrogenism Regulations remain suspended
• Council of Europe – FIFA and the Council of Europe to promote human rights
• FIFA – Global Transfer Market Report: A review of all international football transfers in 2017
• FIFA – Guidance on the Bid Rules of Conduct for the process to select the host(s) of the 2026 FIFA World Cup
• FIFA –Normalisation committee appointed for the Kuwait FA
• FIFA –Statement on CAS decision relating to match official Joseph Odartei Lamptey
• FIFPro – Belounis settles with Qatari club
• IOC – International Testing Agency (ITA) moves closer to being operational
• IOC –IOC issues Conduct Guidelines for Olympic Athlete from Russia delegation
• IOC – Olympic Athlete from Russia (OAR) Invitation Review Panel releases list of information used as part of its deliberations
• IOC –Reduced pool of Russian athletes and officials who can be considered for invitation to Pyeongchang 2018 determined
• Tennis Integrity Unit –Annual Review 2017
• UEFA – Club Licensing Benchmarking Report: Financial Year 2016
• UEFA – EU Sectoral Social Dialogue Committee for Professional Football: Resolution on intermediaries/agents
• UEFA –Professional Football Strategy Council meets in Nyon
• UEFA – UEFA bans six Malta under-21 players for match-fixing offences
• WADA – WADA announces that 2018 List of Prohibited Substances and Methods is now in force
• WADA –WADA investigates potential integrity issue with new generation BEREG-KIT Geneva security bottles
• WADA –WADA's fifth World Conference on Doping in Sport to be held in November 2019

In the news

Doping

• Andrew Aloia Ryan Bailey: Ex-England and Great Britain prop avoids ban after 'landmark' drugs case
• Nick Butler European Court dismisses claim anti-doping whereabouts system violates human rights
• Nick Butler NADOs criticise IOC for not revealing criteria for Russian eligibility at Pyeongchang 2018
• Nick Butler Russian sliders still eligible to compete in IBSF events after CAS decide against ruling
• Daniel EtchellsRussia work on sanctions against WADA officials in response to Pyeongchang 2018 ban
• Martha Kelner and Sean Ingle Chris Froome says report of plea bargain over failed drug test 'completely untrue'
• Victor Mather and Rebecca R. Ruiz Russia is barred from Winter Olympics. Russia is sending 169 athletes to Winter Olympics
• ReutersIOC 'concerned' about potential integrity issues with testing bottles
• Rebecca R. Ruiz American sprinter used 'passionate kissing' defence in doping case. And it worked
• Rebecca R. Ruiz IOC clears nearly 400 Russians to compete in Winter Games
• Rebecca R. Ruiz Russia is banned from Paralympics, again, for doping

Football

• Global Legal Post Mainz 05 obtains landmark ruling on temporary contracts
• Martha Kelner Chelsea racism allegations: Four more players to take legal action against club
• Thomas Klein Training in Qatar: 'Bayern Munich cannot remain silent'
• Tariq Panja Critics say FIFA is stalling a doping inquiry as World Cup nears
• Sky Sports Michel Platini takes FIFA ban appeal to European Court of Human Rights
• Sky Sports Prosecutors investigating FIFA payment to head of Austrian Football Federation

Other

• David Conn The Lawn Tennis Association launches review into procedural failings over jailed tennis coach
• Mike Dunne Show jumping awaits competition body ruling
• SportBusiness International Force India, Sauber witdraw EU complaint against Formula One

Blog 

Asser International Sports Law Blog

• Stefano Bastianon The ISU Commission's Decision and the Slipery Side of Eligibility Rules
• Tomáš Grell Human Rights as Selection Criteria in Bidding Regulations for Mega-Sporting Events – Part II: FIFA and Comparative Overview

Law in Sport

• Nick Fitzpatrick and Ruth Hoy The major global challenges in managing data to protect sporting integrity
• Graham Gilbert Athlete cocaine use: The cases of Dale Swift, Graham Gibbons and Dan Evans
• Alex Haffner Why the International Skating Union was found in breach of EU competition law
• Manali Kulkarni and Sean Cottrell Key sports law cases and developments to watch in 2018: Europe, Middle East, Africa, Asia and Australia
• Manali Kulkarni and Sean Cottrell Key sports law cases of 2017: Europe, Middle East, Africa, Asia and Australia
• Nick Tsatsas Will the FA score with its adoption of the Rooney Rule?
• Sophie Wilkinson and Adam Leadercramer Key information on the General Data Protection Regulation for the sports industry

Others

• Jens Sejer Andersen European politicians demand radical change of sports governance
• Andy Brown ECHR judgment fails to consider alternatives to 'whereabouts'
• Braham Dabscheck Why Djokovic is right to say tennis players need a union
• European Professional Football Leagues Legal Newsletter January 2018
• Nick De Marco Italian parliament enacts new regulation of football agents
• Despina Mavromati SFT Judgment 4A_312/2017: Compatibility of an agent's commission fee with public policy
• David Owen European football: A cash magnet, but is the pyramid's base starting to erode?
• Tariq Panja At African soccer event, games of cat and mouse
• Daisuke Takahashi Tokyo Olympic Sustainable Sourcing Code and its grievance mechanism in a Japanese legal context

Upcoming Events

• 16 March – Sports Law & Business Conference, Etihad Stadium, Manchester, England
• 3-4 July – 13^th Sport & EU Annual Conference, Edge Hill University, England

Editor's note: Prof. Thomas Kruessmann is key expert in the EU Technical Assistant Project "Strengthening Teaching and Research Capacity at ADA University" in Baku (Azerbaijan). At the same time, he is co-ordinator of the Jean-Monnet Network "Developing European Studies in the Caucasus" with Skytte Institute of Political Studies at the University of Tartu (Estonia).

The notion that “fish rots from the head down” is known to many cultures and serves as a practical reminder on what is at stake in the current wave of anti-corruption / integrity and good governance initiatives. The purpose of this blog post is to provide a short update on the recent founding of the International Partnership against Corruption in Sport (IPACS), intermittently known as the International Sports Integrity Partnership (IPAS), and to propose some critical perspectives from a legal scholar’s point of view.

During the past couple of years, the sports world has seen a never-ending wave of corruption allegations, often followed by revelations, incriminations and new allegation. There are ongoing investigations, most notably in the United States where the U.S. Department of Justice has just recently intensified its probe into corruption at the major sports governing bodies (SGBs). By all accounts, we are witnessing only the tip of the iceberg. And after ten years of debate and half-hearted reforms, there is the widespread notion, as expressed by the Council of Europe’s (CoE’s) Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) Resolution 2199/2018 that “the sports movement cannot be left to resolve its failures alone”.

What is IPACS and why has it been created? 

IPACS was founded under the authority of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) as “a cross-sectorial, multi-stakeholder platform to enable a pragmatic partnership allowing the development and implementation of programmes and initiatives by the various partners, to strengthen efforts promoting transparency, integrity and good governance in sports organisations, in particular through education and awareness-raising initiatives.” These words, taken from the Declaration of the Second International Forum for Sports Integrity (IFSI), held in Lausanne on 15 February 2017, provide a summary of the tasks IPACS was agreed to address. Interestingly, later on the official mission statement was significantly watered down: “To bring together international sports organisations, governments, inter-governmental organisations and other relevant stakeholders to strengthen and support efforts to eliminate corruption and promote a culture of good governance in and around sport.” This change mission statement betrays some of the controversies that lie behind the difficult quest for good governance and integrity.

One obvious question is why was it only in 2017 that IPACS was created? The short answer is that IFSI took up an idea that had been put forward at the UK Anti-Corruption Summit one year earlier. However, the real question is, why did this initiative emerge only in 2016/17 after corruption scandals had been hitting SBGs over the entire past decade and had become particularly acute withFIFA around 2010? The reason is that there is a major undercurrent in fighting corruption in SGBs: the doctrine of the autonomy of sports. For historical reasons, most major SGBs have been created as private entities, often associations or non-commercial entities, and are adamant at defending the notion of independence and autonomy of sports. While international anti-corruption conventions by the nature of international law address only states, SGBs are in the fortunate position to have to comply only with the criminal laws of their host state. And despite the fact that the commercialisation of sports has turned SGBs into multi-billion dollar ventures, since their inception their internal structures have resembled “gentlemen’s clubs”. It therefore comes as no surprise that even in the IFSI Declaration of February 2017, participants are eager to refer to the 69^th United Nations General Assembly proclaiming the autonomy of sports and shifting the responsibility in fighting corruption primarily to governments.

This undercurrent explains why the original IPACS mission statement calls for a “pragmatic partnership” and emphasizes education and awareness-raising initiatives. The truth is that even by 2017, many stakeholders (“participants to the IFSI Declaration”) were fighting to protect the independence of SGBs teeth and claw. And that only now a consensus is emerging, as expressed in the CoE PACE Resolution 2199/2018, that “enough is enough” and that SGBs have actually failed in cleaning up their business. Earlier resolutions, e.g. by the 14^th CoE Conference of Ministers responsible for Sport from 22 February 2017, have been more diplomatic in language. But it is clear that IPACS, despite all defensive battles from SGBs, is now representing a change in the tide of governments and anti-corruption related international organisations (such as CoE, OECD and UNODC) finally eager “to talk tough” with SGBs.

Is “talking tough” with SGBs credible? 

Now, even if we assume that the most recent investigations into corruption scandals were the straw that broke the camel’s back, will international anti-corruption organisations and governments be credible in fighting corruption by breaking up the doctrine of sports autonomy? Switzerland has been in the vanguard of national governments extending the offense of corruption in the private sector to NGOs and other non-commercial entities. This new offense (Arts 322^octies – 322^decies Swiss Criminal Code) is innovative because it does no longer require a distortion of the market. GRECO is reported to be preparing a “Typology Study on Private Sector Corruption” which will also cover the sports sector.

International anti-corruption organisations, by contrast, have a more careful line to tread. Arguably, there is a host of integrity-related problems in the world of sports that has been viewed for a long time in a reductionist way. Doping, match-rigging and other kinds of manipulation of sports events have ever too often been seen independently of the governance regimes of SGBs. Looking at them as individual wrongdoing at best supported the argument that SGBs may not have been vigilant enough. But this never came close to insisting that such kinds of wrongdoing are the logical consequence of structural governance defects in these bodies. As IPACS is now marking a shift in the consensus towards a more holistic and interventionist approach, what will this mean for international anti-corruption organisations? The problem is that during the past decade, many of them were only too happy to focus on singular problems while being co-opted by SGBs into “partnerships” to “address” governance issues. Analytically, this can be described as a horizontal legitimacy-building strategy by SGBs. By concluding memoranda of understanding, e.g. between the IOC and the UN or between FIFA and the CoE, SGBs, depending on their level of regional or universal activities, co-opted their potential critics and tried to acquire legitimacy by involving them into so-called reform processes.

Arguably, by being drawn into piecemeal reforms of SGBs over the last decade, international anti-corruption organisations have become part of the problem. The question is, how can they become part of the solution again? This is where IPACS presents an answer: it can be understood as a tacit dissolution of the prevailing partnerships and, depending on style and substance, offering a fresh start for a holistic and thus governance-related approach to establishing integrity. 

How is IPACS going about its work?

As mentioned before, IPACS was created in the wings of the Second IFSI, held on 15 February 2017 in Lausanne, and it will operate within the broader IFSI structure. By 2019 when the Third IFSI is scheduled, IFSI participants will therefore review a progress report on the activities realized which invariably includes any progress made by IPACS.

The work of IPACS itself is structured on three levels. There is a core group in which the most important anti-corruption international organisations are represented, a Working Group which is basically a tripartite structure representing the interests of SGBs, governments and inter-governmental organisations, and topical task forces. Core group members (CoE, IOC, OECD, UNODC and the UK Government) are in charge of preparing and co-ordinating the Working Group meetings. The first Working Group meeting took place at the CoE’s venue on 21 June 2017, the second Working Group meeting was held at the OECD on 14-15 December 2017. The third Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 2018 at the IOC’s headquarters in Lausanne.

So far, three task forces with experts from outside the Working Group have been established:

• Task force 1 (TF1) on reducing the risk of corruption in public procurement;
• Task force 2 (TF2) on ensuring transparency and integrity in the selection of major sport events, with an initial focus on managing conflicts of interest; and
• Task force 3 (TF3) on optimising the processes of compliance with good governance principles to mitigate the risk of corruption.

The expected outputs from these task forces are as follows:

(1) TF1 to develop by the end of 2018 a general mapping of procurement standards to the specific context of sport, possibly complemented by illustrative case studies on how these standards could be applied in practice.

(2) TF2 to define conflict of interest in the specific sports context and undertake a stock-taking exercise of procedures and practices for managing conflict of interest in the specific context of the selection of major sporting events.

(3) TF3 “to aim to”

• map relevant governance standards and their applicability to the sports context;
• consider developing indicators to evaluate compliance with these standards;
• consider means for building capacity to implement good governance standards.

From the wording it appears that from TF1 to TF3, the tasks get ever larger and the commitment ever more unspecific. While TF1 is given a precise task with a definitive deadline, TF3 is asked to “aim to” reach certain goals. But this specific wording is perhaps a correct reflection of the difference in the scope of the problem. Procurement standards can easily be adopted from the corporate world. There is no specific challenge in running procurement for SGBs. Conflicts of interest, in particular when selecting major sports events, are of a different magnitude. Very often, the traditional ways of addressing such conflicts in the corporate setting or in public administration are clear-cut and addressed in a number of regulations. In SGBs which have been traditionally considered as “gentlemen’s clubs”, conflicts of interest run through the entire fabric of the institution. Therefore, the magnitude is much larger. But the real issue is how shall the mandate of TF2 be distinguished from that of TF3? Conflicts of interest and bad governance are twin concepts, and both flourish in the same environment. So, let us now turn to the central question: what can be expected from the most crucial TF3 in the IPACS setting?

Do governance standards finally get applied? 

In its first set of assignments, TF3 is asked to look into “relevant” governance standards, map them and analyse their applicability to the sports context. What sounds like a logical sequence of steps is actually quite muddled. Judging what is relevant and what is not is certainly the task at hand, but if we assume that “relevant standards” have been found, why is it necessary in a second step to “analyse their applicability in the sports context”? Is not applicability in the sports context the key criterion for judging what is relevant and what is not? Or will there first be other criteria for judging relevance outside from applicability in the sports context?

The point here is not to ridicule the language of the task force assignment, but to point to a deeper problem. Over the entire past decade, there have been numerous projects seeking to identify relevant governance standards. Without going into this issue very deeply, let me name just the most important ones:

• IOC Basic Universal Principles of Good Governance of the Olympic and Sports Movement of 11/12 February 2008;
• IOC 2016 Code of Ethics;
• CoE Committee of Ministers Rec(2005)8 “On the Principles of Good Governance in Sport”;
• CoE PACE Resolution 1875 (2012) “Good Governance and Ethics in Sport” with appendix “Guidelines on good governance and ethics in sport”;
• CoE PACE Resolution 2053(2015) “The Reform of Football Governance”;
• CoE PACE Resolution 2199 (2018) “Working Towards a Framework for Modern Sports Governance” plus appendix;
• CoE PACE Resolution 2020 (2018) “Good Football Governance”;
• EPAS Study “A Review of Good Governance Principles and Indicators in Sport” (2016);
• EU Expert Group’s “Principles of Good Governance in Sport”;
• Sport Integrity Global Alliance’s (SIGA’s) “Good Governance Universal Standards Implementation Guidelines”.

In addition, when it comes the second set of assignments to TF3, in particular “developing indicators to evaluate compliance with these standards”, the following benchmarking tools already exist:

• EU’s Sports Governance Observer;
• EU’s “Support the Implementation of Good Governance in Sport” (SIGGS) project;
• and finally, the aforementioned Sport Integrity Global Alliance with a specific three-step benchmarking model.

So all things considered, a large amount of work has already been done to identify relevant standards for SGBs. Would it not simply be enough to take these project results seriously and start implementing them and evaluate their effects? Indeed, from an outside observer’s point of view, it looks as if this entire process is flawed. There is simply no need to go into another round of identifying standards, assessing their relevance and benchmarking them with indicators when all the work has already been done.

One argument to support the TF3 engagement is that there are simply too many different standards, and that, when it comes to governments intervening with SGBs and forcing them to adopt good governance standards, there should be one agreed-upon set of standards for all cases. Likewise, CoE PACE Resolution 2199 (2018) “strongly calls for the development and implementation of a solid set of harmonised good governance criteria” (italics not in the original). And in para 4 of the appendix to this Resolution, PACE even speaks of the necessity of identifying “core criteria” of good governance in sport. While such quest for harmonising and reducing to core elements may be intellectually stimulating, there is doubt whether the sports world can accept another round of soul-searching. The fish has already been rotting for a while, and the same “brave men” (aka experts) who had been dealing with the issue for a decade are now employed again in yet another attempt of the international community to clear up the mess of SGBs. We will eagerly await some results when the IPACS Working Group will convene for its next meeting in June 2018.

Editor’s Note: Etienne Gard graduated from the University of Zurich and from King's College London. He currently manages a project in the field of digitalization with Bratschi Ltd., a major Swiss law firm where he did his traineeship with a focus in international commercial arbitration.

1. Prelude

On the 10^th of June, 1958, the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, widely known as the “New York Convention”, was signed in New York by 10 countries.[1] This rather shy figure progressively grew over the decades to now reach 157 signatory countries, turning the New York Convention into the global recognition and enforcement instrument it is today. As V.V. Veeder’s puts it, “One English law lord is said to have said, extra judicially, that the New York Convention is both the Best Thing since sliced bread and also whatever was the Best Thing before sliced bread replaced it as the Best Thing.”[2]

However, among the overall appraisal regarding the New York Convention, some criticisms have been expressed. For instance, some states use their public policy rather as a pretext not to enforce an award than an actual ground for refusal.[3] A further issue is the recurring bias in favor of local companies.[4] Additionally, recognition and enforcement procedures in application of the New York Convention take place in front of State authorities, for the most part in front of courts of law, according to national proceeding rules. This usually leads to the retaining of a local law firm, the translation of several documents, written submissions and one, if not several hearings. Hence, the efficiency of the New York Convention as a recognition and enforcement mechanism comes to the expense of both money and time of both parties of the arbitral procedure.

In contrast with the field of commercial arbitration, where the New York Convention is often considered the only viable option in order to enforce an award, international football organizations, together with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”), offer an effective enforcement alternative. This article aims at outlining the main features of the indirect enforcement of CAS awards in football matters in light of a recent case.

2.  Facts of the Case

The dispute at hand involved a football club affiliated with the United Arab Emirates Football Association (“UAEFA”) and a player’s agent. The club at hand owed a commission to the agent following the completion of a player’s transfer. The agent ultimately won the case before the CAS and the latter awarded him monetary compensation against the football club.

Shortly thereafter, means of enforcement against the club were sought.

It is widely recognized that the awards rendered by the CAS do qualify as awards under the New York Convention and may thus be subject to the classic enforcement provided therein.[5]

Whilst this is to be welcomed because it offers alternatives to the prevailing party seeking recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award, the following will show that another route exists, which may prove just as effective whilst saving both time and money.

Indeed, though the United Arab Emirates did ratify the New York Convention, the general critics mentioned above also applied in the case at hand. This meant that going down the route of direct enforcement against the UAE-based football club would have had several drawbacks. First, the translation workload in order to comply with the local procedural rules was significant. Second, since the recognition procedure was due to take place in front of national courts, a local law firm would have had to be retained. Finally, there was no clear timeline as to when exactly the due compensation would effectively be paid.

3. The Indirect Enforcement

Luckily, the world of football organizations provides for an alternative path, which proved to be highly effective at hand. Indeed, as a result of the deep-rooted integration of CAS and of its decisions in effectively all organizational layers of national and international football, the New York Convention is not the only global enforcement mechanism available to a prevailing party in that field. Although it requires to take steps outside that Convention and, as a result, of the entire ‘state-supported’ enforcement system, the indirect enforcement described below nonetheless proves to be a viable alternative for parties involved in football-related arbitration.

3.1 The Statutory Basis of Indirect Enforcement

It all starts with art. 15 para. 1 let. f of the FIFA Statutes which stipulates that the statutes of the member associations shall ensure that, inter alia, all relevant stakeholders must agree to recognize the jurisdiction and authority of CAS.[6] Art. 23 para. 1 let. f provides for a similar obligation with regard to the confederations’ statutes.[7]

Pursuant to art. 61 para. 1 of the Statutes of the Asian Football Confederation (“AFC”), to which the UAEFA is a member, the AFC recognizes the CAS to resolve disputes between, inter alia, clubs and intermediaries.[8] Further, according to art. 62 para. 1 of said Statutes, the member associations, among which the UAEFA, shall agree to recognize CAS as an independent judicial authority and to ensure that their members and clubs comply with the decisions passed by CAS. Any violation of these provisions will trigger a sanction on the breaching party, according to art. 62 para. 3 of the AFC Statutes.

Finally, art. 19 para. 4 of the UAEFA Statutes provides that each club, upon application for affiliation, shall provide a declaration whereas it undertakes to accept and implement the decisions rendered by the CAS.[9]

In light of the above, the rules of football organizations put in place a terraced indirect enforcement mechanism regarding CAS awards, whereas each club undertakes to comply with such awards vis-à-vis its home association, each such association being in turn similarly obligated vis-à-vis FIFA and its own Confederation. The latter finally has the duty to ensure that its affiliated associations recognize the authority of CAS, thereby closing the loop.

The broad sanction mechanism at every stage leaves considerable discretionary powers to the competent bodies in order to appropriately pressure the breaching stakeholder, on whichever link in the chain the latter may be, into complying with CAS decisions.

3.2 The Indirect Enforcement Procedure

The FIFA Statutes do not provide for any particular body directly tasked with the enforcement of CAS awards against FIFA’s affiliates and their stakeholders. Nor is there any particular procedure enshrined in the FIFA Statues as to how the indirect enforcement of CAS awards shall take place. In particular, art. 64 FIFA Disciplinary Code only applies to CAS decisions in appeal arbitration proceedings regarding the decisions of FIFA and not to CAS decisions rendered in an ordinary arbitration procedure.[10]

However, art. 45 of the FIFA Statutes does provide that the Member Associations Committee shall deal with relations between FIFA and its member associations as well as the member associations’ compliance with the FIFA Statutes. The same is true at the level of the AFC, whereas art. 54 of its Statutes provide that the Associations Committee shall be responsible for relations between the AFC and its Member Associations as well as Member Association’s compliance with FIFA and AFC Statutes and Regulations.

In other words, both at FIFA and AFC level, a standing committee is responsible for ensuring that the Members comply with the applicable statutes and thus, inter alia, with awards rendered by CAS.

Based on the above, we concluded that in order for the competent FIFA and AFC standing committees to examine the case of a club not complying with a CAS award, they needed to be first convinced that (i) a final and binding CAS award had been rendered against a club affiliated with a member association and that (ii) such club refused to comply with said award. Second, the above-mentioned committees would need to be shown that the national football association has been notified of such occurrence and been asked to take appropriate actions against the club according to its own statutes.

From this point in time onwards, the FIFA and AFC standing committees will have been notified that a member’s association has been asked to remedy a matter of non-compliance of an affiliated club with a CAS award and thus such association is now under a statutory obligation to ensure compliance from the club, as described above, or else may itself be found to have breached the FIFA and/or AFC Statutes and sanctioned accordingly.

4. Epilogue and Conclusion

Shifting the focus back to the case that prompted the idea of this blog, once the route leading to indirect enforcement was mapped, we proceeded with gathering the evidence needed, i.e. that the CAS award was final and binding upon the football club.

Section 193 of the Swiss Private International Law Act – which applies to international CAS proceedings – enables the parties to request an enforceability certificate from the competent state court regarding an award rendered by an international arbitral tribunal with its seat in Switzerland. This document certifies that the award in question is final and that no appeal can be filed against it. In the case of the CAS, the state court competent for the issuance of an enforceability certificate is the Tribunal cantonal,in Lausanne.

Once this certificate was obtained, we filed it together with a copy of the award to the competent national association, the UAEFA, urging the latter in writing to request from the club that it complied with the CAS award, or else the club would be sanctioned. Both the competent standing committees of the FIFA and of the AFC received a copy of that letter.

From this moment onwards, the machinery of the indirect enforcement mechanism was switched on and we knew that leverage existed at every level, up until FIFA, to ensure that each stakeholder, be it the UAEFA or the AFC, pressures its affiliated bodies, and, ultimately, the club, into complying with the CAS award.

In the case at hand, this method proved to be successful. Indeed, as a result of the aforementioned steps, the AFC promptly contacted the UAEFA, requesting this matter to be solved and the football agent received the awarded compensation from the club within a few weeks after the UAEFA, the AFC and the FIFA were notified as described above.

This case shows how operating outside the New York Convention can prove both cost- and time-effective. When used properly, the indirect sanction mechanism put in place by football organizations proves to be a proper alternative to classic enforcement proceedings and shall in any event be considered as a viable option under similar circumstances.

[1] Flannery/Merkin, Arbitration Act 1996, 5th Ed., Oxon, 2014, p. 356.

[2] V.V. Veeder, Is There a Need to Revise the New York Convention - Key note speech, in: ‘The Review of International Arbitration Awards – IAI Forum’, International Arbitration Institute, 2008, p. 183 et sqq., p. 186.

[3] V.V. Veeder, p. 191.

[4] Gaillard, ‘The Urgency of Not Revising the New York Convention’, in: The New York Convention at 50, 2008, p. 689 et seqq., p. 690.

[5] Nafziger/Ross, Handbook on International Sports Law, Edward Elgar 2011, p. 40; Rubno-Sammartano, International Arbitration Law and Practice, 3^rd Ed., JurisNet, 2014, p.1709; Nolon, Arbitration and the Olympic Athlete, in: McCann, ‘The Oxford Handbook of American Sports Law’, OUP 2017, p. 444.

[6]Art. 15 para. 1 let. f of the FIFA statutes reads as follows: “Member associations’ statutes must comply with the principles of good governance, and shall in particular contain, at a minimum, provisions relating to the following matters: […] all relevant stakeholders must agree to recognise the jurisdiction and authority of CAS and give priority to arbitration as a means of dispute resolution […].

[7] Art. 23 para. 1 let. f of the FIFA statutes reads as follows: “The confederations’ statutes must comply with the principles of good

governance, and shall in particular contain, at a minimum, provisions relating to the following matters

[8] Art. 61 para 1 of the Asian Football Confederation Statutes reads as follows: “The AFC recognises the independent Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) with headquarters in Lausanne (Switzerland) to resolve disputes between the AFC and the other Confederations, Member Associations, Leagues, Clubs, Players, Officials, Intermediaries and licensed match agents.”

[9] Art 19 para 4 of the UAEFA Statutes reads as follows (tentative translation): “Each applicant should provide the following documents: […] A declaration that it will to accept and implement the resolutions and decisions issued by the Court of Arbitration for sport in Lausanne (CAS).”

[10] Art. 64  para 1 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code  reads as follows (emphasis added): “Anyone who fails to pay another person (such as a player, a coach or a club) or FIFA a sum of money in full or part, even though instructed to do so by a body, a committee or an instance of FIFA or a subsequent CAS appeal decision (financial decision), or anyone who fails to comply with another decision (nonfinancial decision) passed by a body, a committee or an instance of FIFA, or by CAS (subsequent appeal decision): […].”