How the GDPR could impact the handling of sports disputes
Published Friday, 11 May 2018.
“Sandpapergate” - Is the ICC doing enough to combat ball tampering in cricket?
Published Tuesday, 08 May 2018.
UK Athletics’ creation of a (long overdue) Athletes’ Commission
The rise of women’s football in Mexico – The creation of LIGA MX Femenil
Published Friday, 27 April 2018.
A review of key Financial Fair Play cases through the lens of the CAS
Published Thursday, 12 April 2018.
The admission of transgender athletes to competition: The case of Hannah Mouncey
Published Tuesday, 27 March 2018.
Sport’s human rights requirements: an opportunity and challenge for sports lawyers as well as sports governing bodies
eLearning and anti-doping - Tony Cunningham, WADA - Episode 63
A summary of CAS Ad Hoc & Anti-Doping Division decisions at the 2018 Winter Olympic Games
Published Friday, 02 March 2018.
An interview with Ricardo Oliveras Salva - Head of Sports Law at ECIJA - Episode 60
A guide to the World Players Association’s Universal Declaration of Player Rights
Published Friday, 16 February 2018.
How the International Cricket Council's Dispute Resolution Committee works
Published Monday, 29 January 2018.
Key information on the General Data Protection Regulation for the sports industry
Published Thursday, 25 January 2018.
Results of Sport Sector GDPR Readiness Survey - Data Protection Report
Key sports law cases and developments to watch in 2018 - UK & Ireland
Key sports law cases and developments to watch in 2018 - USA
Key sports law cases of 2017 - Europe, Middle East, Africa, Asia and Australia
Key sports law cases of 2017 – Central & South America
The evolution of athlete rights with Brendan Schwab of the World Players Association - Episode 59
Panathinaikos (overdue payables), Decision of 12 December 2017, UEFA Decision
Circumstances of the case
On 8 November 2017, the Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) Chief Investigator referred the case of the club Panathinaikos to the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber due to the presence of overdue payables as at 30 September 2017. The club accepted the findings of the CFCB Chief Investigator, admitting the breach of Articles 65(1) and 66(1) of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations (CL&FFP Regulations). The club states that the aim of the club is to survive, comply with its obligations towards its creditors and asking for leniency considering its critical situation without harming the objectives of the UEFA’s Financial Fair Play System. The CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber determined that Panathinaikos has breached Articles 65(1) and 66(1) of the CL&FFP Regulations because it had overdue payables towards other football clubs and in respect to its employees as at 30 September 2017. The CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber deemed that an exclusion from the next UEFA club competition for which the Club would otherwise qualify in the next three (3) seasons and a fine of €200,000 are appropriate penalties. However, considering the circumstances and particularities of the case, the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber decided that the exclusion as well as half of the fine, i.e. €100,000, will be lifted if the club is able to prove having paid the amounts or concluded an agreement with the creditors with regard to the amounts identified as overdue payables.
Decision
The Adjudicatory Chamber of the Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) decided to exclude Panathinaikos from participating in the next UEFA club competition for which it would otherwise qualify in the next three (3) seasons (i.e. 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 seasons), unless the club is able to prove by 1 March 2018 that it has paid the amounts or concluded an agreement with the creditors with regard to the amounts that were identified as overdue payables as at 30 September 2017.
The club was also fined €200,000, from which €100,000 is suspended and will only fall due in case the club is not able to prove by 1 March 2018 that it has paid the amounts or concluded an agreement with the creditors with regard to the amounts that were identified as overdue payables as at 30 September 2017.
Chairman: José Narciso da Cunha Rodrigues (Portugal)
Vice-Chairmen:
Christiann Timmermans (Netherlands)
Louis Peila (Switzerland)
Members:
Charles Flint (England)
Adam Giersz (Poland)
on Tuesday, 12 December 2017. Posted in Sports, Football, Cases, Articles, Regulation & Governance
Hapoel Beer Sheva – Shir Tzedek (Doping), Decision of 7th December 2017, UEFA Decision
Circumstances of the case
On 22 August 2017, the Hapoel Beer Sheva player, Mr Shir Tzedek (the “Player”) underwent a doping control test after the UEFA Champions League match between Hapoel Sheva and NK Maribor. The analysis of the Player’s A sample revealed the presence of a substance called “octopamine”. In conformity with the WADA Prohibited List 2017, the above substance is prohibited in-competition under the category S6.b Specified Stimulants. On 22 September 2017, UEFA notified the player of this finding and of the fact that this may result in a possible antidoping rule violation. On 2 October 2017, disciplinary proceedings were instigated by UEFA against the player for Doping Offences (Art.13 DR). On 19 October 2017, UEFA confirmed to the player that the CEDB accepted the player’s voluntary provisional suspension.
Legal framework Article 2 (1) (a) of the UEFA Anti-Doping Regulations
Decision
The CEDB recognized that the player committed some mistakes with regard to the use of supplements, however due to his own limitation he had to rely on the experts of his club which seemed reasonable in this case. The CEDB considered that the starting suspension in this case should be 12 months suspension due to a normal degree of fault from an objective perspective. The CEDB then examined the jurisprudence and the mitigating subjective factors in this case to determine if a lower suspension was justified. The supplement concerned sold in Israel were not supposed to contain octopamine, however the company responsible for manufacturing and packing the product in question recognized that it is was possible that some bottles were mislabelled and contained octopamine. It was also recognized that the club expert failed in its obligation to check the product and the player had reason to believe he was safe using the product because he did not test positive at a prior test. In view of the above, the CEDB decided to suspend Mr Tzedek Shir for a period of eight (8) months from 19 October 2016, commencement date of his voluntary provisional suspension.
Ad-hoc Chairman: Hansen Jim Stjerne (DEN)
Vice-Chairman: Berzi Sándor (HUN)
Member: Antenen Jacques (SUI)
on Thursday, 07 December 2017. Posted in Sports, Football, Cases, Articles, Regulation & Governance
A review of the current inquiries & investigations into abuse in UK football
Published Thursday, 07 December 2017.
How UK Sports Governing Bodies can prepare for the new General Data Protection Regulation
Published Tuesday, 05 December 2017.
Decoding the Indian Premier League Media Rights Sale – Part 2
Published Friday, 01 December 2017.
Three key legal issues currently facing the Esports industry: A perspective from Asia
Published Wednesday, 16 May 2018.
Tapping-up in football: Complying with domestic and international transfers rules
Published Friday, 11 May 2018.
The laws on ambush marketing for FIFA World Cup 2018
Published Tuesday, 08 May 2018.
FIFA’s April 2018 amendments to its Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP)
Published Tuesday, 01 May 2018.
From corruption & scandal to reform: How the Brazilian Olympic Committee overhauled its governance model
The FA’s strict stance on political messages: A review of Pep Guardiola’s yellow ribbon case
Published Wednesday, 11 April 2018.
Why are athletes held to a higher standard than medical professionals in anti-doping? Contrasting the Gil Roberts case and Team Sky scandal
Published Wednesday, 21 March 2018.
Understand the Rules of the Game™ - Future of Sport Law Report 2017/18
Investing in the next generation: An overview of the new UK corporation tax relief for grassroots sport
Published Friday, 09 March 2018.
An overview of the dispute between FIBA & EuroLeague – Is there an end in sight?
Published Wednesday, 28 February 2018.
FIFA’s evolving stance on commemorative symbols: The poppy appeal case
Published Wednesday, 21 February 2018.
A comparison of sports regulations on the use of wearable technology & data collection
Published Wednesday, 24 January 2018.
The major global challenges in managing data to protect sporting integrity
Published Friday, 26 January 2018.
Will The FA score with its adoption of the Rooney Rule?
Published Wednesday, 17 January 2018.
An introduction to the Criminal Finances Act 2017 and how it affects the UK sports industry
Published Friday, 12 January 2018.
Key sports law cases and developments to watch in 2018 - Europe, Middle East, Africa, Asia and Australia
Key sports law cases and developments to watch in 2018 – Central & South America
Key sports law cases of 2017 - USA
Key sports law cases of 2017 - UK & Ireland
Why sports federations are under increasing scrutiny from competition authorities
Published Tuesday, 19 December 2017.
Football's greatest threat: Why technology & stakeholder collaboration are key to combating global match-fixing
Published Friday, 08 December 2017.
Football Club Zenit (Setting off of fireworks; racist/discriminatory behaviour), Decision of 7 December 2017, UEFA Decision
Circumstances of the case
Supporters of FC Zenit displayed from 75th to 87th minute a banner saying "Ratko Mladic - Hero of Serbia". In the 23rd minute, there was smoke on south tribune of the home-team supporters. In the 43rd minute, a firecracker was set off on the south tribune. In the 85th and 92 nd minutes, another massive firecracker were set off in the south tribune. None of these fireworks Impact on the game. The club explains the historical connection between Serbs and Russians, before further stating that the banner under scrutiny is not of a discriminatory, but of a political nature as it merely criticizes the decision of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). The club further makes reference to related CAS jurisprudence, stating that from the perspective of a “reasonable observer”, such interpretation was obvious. Finally, the club states that the banner was displayed for 12 minutes.
Legal framework Articles 14 and 16 (2) UEFA Disciplinary Regulations.
Decision
The CEDB had no reason not to believe the connection between Serbs and Russians, but could not make any assumption that the incident was rather political than discriminatory or racist. CEDB first emphasized that it is not bound by the interpretation or the comment made by the UEFA match delegate who had referred to the potential “political dimension” of the banner. Obviously, discriminatory banners can have an additional political dimension, which does not necessarily mean that such would make such banners only political. The CEDB acknowledged that one day before the match, the ICTY made its verdict in the proceedings against Ratko Mladic finding the latter guilty of 10 of the 11 charges, inter alia for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. In view of such judgement, taking into account the crimes Ratko Mladic was found guilty of and which were particularly directed against the Muslim part of the relevant communities, the display of a banner which glorifies Ratko Mladic as a hero of Serbia, is obviously discriminatory with regard to the victims of the crimes committed by Ratko Mladic. Finally, the CEDB considered that the closure of the entire sector should be considered the appropriate and adequate sanction for the discriminatory banner. Regarding the setting off of fireworks, the CEDB decided that a fine of €10’000 was the appropriate sanction.
Chairman: Partl Thomas (AUT)
Vice-Chairmen:
Berzi Sándor (HUN)
Hansen Jim Stjerne (DEN)
Members:
Antenen Jacques (SUI)
Gea Tomás (AND)
Leal João (POR)
Lorenz Hans (GER)
Řepka Rudolf (CZE)
Wolff Joël (LUX)
on Thursday, 07 December 2017. Posted in Sports, Football, Cases, Articles, Regulation & Governance
Sports Betting in the United States: Supreme Court begins hearing Christie v. NCAA
Published Tuesday, 05 December 2017.
Decoding the Indian Premier League Media Rights Sale – Part 1
Published Friday, 01 December 2017.
Arka Gdynia (throwing of objects; setting off of fireworks; stairways blocked; insufficient organization), Decision of 22 November 2017, UEFA Decision
Circumstances of the case
According to the official reports of the UEFA Europa League 2017/2018 match between Arka Gydnia and FC Midtjylland on 27 July 2017, Arka Gdynia’s supporters ignited an extremely large number of fireworks and a cap of flare was thrown on the pitch from the South Stand by the home supporter. The UEFA delegate also reported that away fans standing blocked the stairways the whole match in lower sector. The Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body (CEDB) considered that the large number of fireworks during the match shows that the body searching was unsatisfactory. The CEDB decided on 17 August 2017 that a fine of €60’000 was the adequate disciplinary measure to be imposed on the club. Arka Gdynia appealed the decision stating that there are sufficient mitigating circumstances to impose a maximum sanction amounting to €30’000 or any other lower fine than €60’000.
Legal framework Article 16 (1) of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations. Article 16 (2) (b) and (c) of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations. Article 38 UEFA Safety and Security Regulations.
Decision
On 17 August 2017, the CEDB decided to fine Arka Gdynia €60,000. The Appeals Body decided to partially admit the appeal lodged by Arka Gydnia and thus, the CEDB’s decision of 17 August 2017 is amended and Arka Gydnia was imposed a fine of € 50,000 for the setting of fireworks, the throwing of objects and the blocking of stairways. The Appeals Body decided that the club must not be held responsible for an inadequate body searching during the match and dropped the charges for the insufficient body searching. The Appeals Body considered although is true that the high amount of fireworks ignited during the match speaks for a negligent attitude in this regard, the burden of proof that there was an inappropriate body searching lies on UEFA and the delegate didn´t mention that the body search was badly implemented. The Appeals Body considered that there might be other reasons allowing the entrance of fireworks inside the stadium.
Chairman: Pedro Tomás (Spain)
Members:
Michael Maessen (Netherlands)
Björn Ahlberg (Sweden)
on Wednesday, 22 November 2017. Posted in Sports, Football, Cases, Articles, Regulation & Governance