Why sports tribunals should embrace public hearings

As a barrister acting in sports disputes for over 20 years, I have long argued for greater transparency, fairness and therefore publicity. Over those years we have seen great strides towards fairer and more transparent decision making. I remember when I started out, going to a sports hearing and being told by the secretary of the tribunal what was going to be decided in the various cases I was about to present, before the evidence had even been heard. There are times today when I wonder whether some of those bad habits still persist - but the overall direction of travel has been towards greater independence, fairness and professionalism in the determination of sports disputes - from the independent selection of tribunals to publication of decisions.

Publicity, from the publication of tribunal decisions to the ‘gold standard’ of public hearings, has always been, in my view, the most effective way to achieve fairness and probity. We have seen sports bodies gradually agreeing, over the years, to publish decisions of their tribunals (though there is still reluctance in some quarters) and in the landmark Pechstein Human Rights case (I wrote about here), and the English cricket disciplinary case considering allegations of racism brought by Azeem Rafiq (discussed here), we have finally seen some public hearings in sport.

Speaking to other sports lawyers recently about when we might finally find out the decisions in the Manchester City/Premier League disputes (or even who sits on the tribunals), and the impact of public judicial review challenges to decisions of the Independent Football Regulator, if and when it comes in, I sense a growing consent among lawyers who regularly act in sports cases that we should, and we shall, move further towards public hearings in sport in the next few years.

Here are six reasons why I argue for greater publicity.