Join us for a round table co-organized by GLawNet
and the Asser Institute at the Campus Brussels of the Maastricht University (Avenue de Tervueren 153, 1150 Brussels) just one day after the publication of the Opinion of
Advocate General Rantos in the European Super League (ESL) case. The discussion between academics and stakeholders will focus on the role played by the
EU, as well as the role it
ought to play, in determining
the way football is organised and governed.
In 2021, the
announcement of the creation of a breakaway European Super League
(ESL), as well as the drama of its early demise, stunned the world.
Since then, the company behind the ESL and UEFA (as well as FIFA) are
locked into a legal battle that will soon come to an end at the Court of
Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Following the preliminary
questions raised by a Spanish court, the CJEU will weigh in on whether
UEFA and FIFA breached EU competition law with their attempts to thwart
the emergence of the ESL. It will not be the first time that the
governing bodies of football, both Swiss associations, face scrutiny
before the EU courts - many will remember the 1995 Bosman ruling.
However, this time around various stakeholders and observers are calling
for the EU to not only referee this particular dispute, but to as well
start playing a stronger governance role by regulating European
football.
Programme:
15:00 – 15:05 Opening: Mariolina Eliantonio (Maastricht University)
15:05 – 16:30 - Roundtable: Governing European Football: What role for the European Union?
Moderator: Carlo Colombo (Maastricht University)
16:30 Reception
This is an In-Person event only and will take place at the Campus Brussels of the Maastricht University (Avenue de Tervueren 153, 1150 Brussels). If you wish to attend, please register HERE.
Supported by 
Editor's note: Rhys was an intern at the T.M.C. Asser Institute. He now advises on investments and Notre acquisitions in sport (mainly football) via Lovelle Street Advisory. Following a career as a professional athlete, Rhys has spent much of his professional life as an international sports agent, predominantly operating in football. Rhys has a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B) and a Bachelor of Philosophy (B.Phil.) from the University of Dame, Sydney, Australia. He is currently completing an LL.M at the University of Zurich in International Business Law / International Sports Law.
Having looked at the different types of
investors in football in part one of this two-part blog series, “A
non-exhaustive Typology”, it is fitting to now consider the regulations
that apply to investors who seek to build a portfolio of football clubs.
One way to measure the momentum of a
particular practice and how serious it ought to be taken, might be when that
practice earns its own initialism. Multi-club ownership or MCO as it is
increasingly known today, is the name given to those entities that have an
ownership stake in multiple clubs. Within the little research and writing that
has been undertaken on the topic, some authors submit that investors with
minority stakes in multiple clubs ought not to be captured by the MCO
definition. This position appears
problematic given some of the regulations draw the line at influence rather
than stake.
There
are now approximately 50 MCO’s across the football world that own approximately
150 clubs.[1]
Given the way MCO is trending, one might consider it important that the
regulations keep up with the developing MCO practice, so as to ensure the
integrity of football competitions, and to regulate any other potentially
questionable benefit an MCO might derive that would be contrary to football’s
best interests.
In this blog, I focus on the variety of
ways (and levels at which) this practice is being regulated. I will move through the football pyramid from
member associations (MA’s) to FIFA, laying the foundations to support a proposition
that FIFA and only FIFA is positioned to regulate MCO. More...
Editor’s note: Stephen Weatherill is the Jacques Delors
Professor of European Law at Oxford University. He also serves as Deputy
Director for European Law in the Institute of European and Comparative
Law, and is a Fellow of Somerville College. This blog appeared first on
eulawanalysis.blogspot.com and is reproduced here with the agreement of
the author.
The crumbling of the ‘SuperLeague’ is a source of joy to many football
fans, but the very fact that such an idea could be advanced reveals
something troublingly weak about the internal governance of football in
Europe – UEFA’s most of all – and about the inadequacies of legal
regulation practised by the EU and/ or by states. This note explains why
a SuperLeague is difficult to stop under the current pattern of legal
regulation and why accordingly reform is required in order to defend the
European model of sport with more muscularity. More...
Editor's
note: This report compiles the most relevant
legal news, events and materials on International and European Sports Law based
on the daily coverage provided on our twitter feed @Sportslaw_asser.
The Headlines
CAS Decision on Manchester City FC Case
After the UEFA’s
Adjudicatory Chamber of the Club Financial Control’s (CFCB) decision
earlier this year to ban Manchester City FC for two seasons, observers waited
impatiently to see the outcome of this high profile dispute. The CFCB’s
decision had found that Manchester City FC overstated sponsorship revenues and
in its break-even information given to UEFA. While some feared this showdown could
lead to the demise of UEFA’s Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations, the now
publicized CAS
panel’s decision is more nuanced. The panel’s decision turned on (see analysis
here
and here)
(a) whether the ‘Leaked Emails’ were authentic and could be admissible
evidence, (b) whether the ‘CFCB breached its obligations of due process’, (c)
whether the conclusions of the 2014 Settlement Agreement prevents the CFCB from
charging Manchester City FC, (d) whether the charges are time-barred, (e) the
applicable standard of proof, (f) whether Manchester City FC masked equity
funding as sponsorship contributions, and (g) whether Manchester City FC failed
to cooperate with CFCB. In the end, among other findings, the Panel held that
some of the alleged breaches were time-barred but maintained that Manchester
City FC had failed to cooperate with CFCB’s investigation. In light of this, the
Panel significantly reduced the sanction placed on Manchester City FC by
removing the two-season suspension and reducing the sanction from 30 million
euros to 10 million euros.
Qatar Labour Law Reforms Effectively Abolishes the Kafala System
Just a few days after Human
Rights Watch released a lengthy report on abusive practices suffered by
migrant workers in Qatar, Qatar
adopted a series of laws that effectively gets rid of the Kafala system by
no longer requiring migrant workers to obtain a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from
their employer in order to start another job. The International Labour
Organization declared
that this development along with the elimination of the ‘exit permit
requirements’ from earlier this year means that the kafala system has been effectively
abolished. In addition to these changes, Qatar has also adopted a minimum wage that
covers all workers and requires that employers who do not provide food or
housing at least give a minimum allowance for both of these living costs. Lastly,
the new laws better define the procedure for the termination of employment
contracts.
In reaction to these changes, Amnesty
International welcomed the reforms and called for them to be ‘swiftly and
properly implemented’. Indeed, while these amendments to Qatar’s labour laws
are a step in the right direction, Amnesty International also cautions that the
minimum wage may still be too low, and in order to be effective, these new laws
will have to be followed with ‘strong inspection and complaint mechanisms’.
CAS Decision Concerning Keramuddin Karim Abuse Case
In June of last year, Keramuddin Karim, former president of
Afghanistan’s soccer federation, was banned
by FIFA for life (see the
decision of the adjudicatory Chamber of the FIFA Ethics Committee) after reports
of sexual and physical abuse that emerged in late 2018. Following a
lengthy and tumultuous investigation in Afghanistan, Afghan officials came forward
with an arrest
warrant for Mr. Karim. Nevertheless, despite attempts to apprehend Mr. Karim,
Mr. Karim has still avoided arrest over a year later. Most recently in August, Afghan
Special Operation officers attempted to apprehend him but he was not at the
residence when they arrived.
Meanwhile, Mr. Karim had appealed FIFA’s lifetime ban to the CAS and
the CAS
Panel’s decision has recently been released. In its decision, the Panel
upheld both the lifetime ban and the 1,000,000 CHF fine, finding that due to
the particular egregious nature of Karim’s acts, ‘they warrant the most severe
sanction possible available under the FCE’. Since both Karim and his witnesses
were unable to be heard, the case raises questions connected to the respect of
fundamental procedural rights at the CAS. More...
Season 2 of #FootballLeaks is now underway
since more than a week and already a significant number of episodes (all the articles published can be found on the European Investigative Collaborations’ website) covering various aspect of the (lack of)
transnational regulation of football have been released (a short German documentary sums up pretty much the state of play). For
me, as a legal scholar, this new series of revelations is an exciting
opportunity to discuss in much more detail than usual various questions related
to the operation of the transnational private regulations of football imposed by
FIFA and UEFA (as we already did during the initial football leaks with our series of blogs on TPO in 2015/2016). Much of what
has been unveiled was known or suspected by many, but the scope and precision
of the documents published makes a difference. At last, the general public, as
well as academics, can have certainty about the nature of various shady practices
in the world of football. One key characteristic that explains the lack of
information usually available is that football, like many international sports,
is actually governed by private administrations (formally Swiss associations),
which are not subject to the similar obligations in terms of transparency than
public ones (e.g. access to document rules, systematic publication of decisions,
etc.). In other words, it’s a total black box! The football leaks are offering
a rare sneak peak into that box.
Based on what I have read so far
(this blog was written on Friday 9 November), there are three main aspects I
find worthy of discussion:
- The (lack of) enforcement of UEFA’s
Financial Fair Play (FFP) Regulations
- The European Super League project and
EU competition law
- The
(lack of) separation of powers inside FIFA and UEFA More...
Editor’s note: Stefano
Bastianon is Associate Professor in EU Law and EU sports law at the University
of Bergamo and lawyer admitted to the Busto Arsizio bar. He is also member of
the IVth Division of the High Court of Sport Justice (Collegio di
Garanzia dello sport) at the National Olympic Committee.
1. On the
20th July 2018, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (hereinafter
referred to as “CAS”) issued its decision in the arbitration procedure between AC Milan
and UEFA. The subject matter of this arbitration procedure was
the appeal filed by AC Milan against the decision of the
Adjudicatory Chamber of the UEFA Financial Control Body
dated 19th June 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “the contested
decision”). As many likely know, the CAS has acknowledged that, although AC
Milan was in breach of the break-even requirement, the related exclusion of the
club from the UEFA Europe League was not proportionate. To date, it is the
first time the CAS clearly ruled that the sanction of exclusion from UEFA club
competitions for a breach of the break-even requirement was not proportionate.
For this reason the CAS award represents a good opportunity to reflect on the
proportionality test under Art. 101 TFEU and the relationship between the
landmark ruling of the European Court of Justice (hereinafter referred to as
“ECJ”) in the Meca Medina and Majcen affair and the very recent case-law of the CAS. More...
Editor's note: This report compiles all relevant news, events and
materials on International and European Sports Law based on the daily coverage
provided on our twitter feed @Sportslaw_asser. You
are invited to complete this survey via the comments section below, feel free
to add links to important cases, documents and articles we might have
overlooked.
The Headlines
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. More...
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. More...
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.More...
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.More...