This is the first part of a blog series involving the Real Madrid State aid case.

Apart from being favoured by many of Spain’s most important politicians, there have always been suspicions surrounding the world’s richest football club regarding possible financial aid by the Madrid City Council. Indeed, in the late 90’s a terrain qualification change by the Madrid City Council proved to be tremendously favourable to the king’s club. The change allowed Real Madrid to sell its old training grounds for a huge sum. Though the exact price for the grounds remains unknown, Real Madrid was suddenly capable of buying players like Figo and Zidane for record fees. However, the European Commission, even though agreeing that an advantage was conferred to the club, simply stated that the new qualification of the terrain in question does not appear to involve any transfer of resources by the State and could therefore not be regarded as State aid within the meaning of article 107 TFEU.

Agreements between the club and the Council have been a regularity for the last 25 years.  A more recent example concerns an agreement signed on 29 July 2011 (Convenio29-07-2011.pdf (8MB). The agreement regularizes two earlier agreements between the Council and Real Madrid dating from 1991 and 1998 respectively. The commitments deriving from those earlier agreements were not followed by the relevant parties and therefore had to give way to a new agreement. A closer look at the 29 July 2011 Agreement exposes a bizarre chain of events. It turned out that in 1998 Real Madrid transmitted an undivided half of their old training grounds to the municipality. Apart from a large sum of money, the club was to receive a number of terrains spread out over the municipality, including a terrain located in the area called Las Tablas valued at €595.194 in 1998. However, due to its qualification for sporting usage, the Council concluded in 2011 that the parcel could not be transferred to the club due to the fact that Madrid’s urbanity laws only permit a transfer of urban or urbanizable terrains. For that reason, the Council agreed to compensate the football club not for the original value of €595.194 but for a staggering €22.693.054,44! Real Madrid was not compensated in the form of a sum, but rather it was presented with a packet of terrains including four terrains of a total area of 12.435 m/2 in the street Mercedes Arteaga in the Carabanchel district of Madrid.

The year 2011 also saw a second agreement between the Council of Madrid and the football club, this time concerning construction works on the Real Madrid stadium Santiago Bernabéu. This agreement, dating from November 2011, is known as operation Bernabeú-Opañel and includes the following plans. The Council is to transfer to the club a terrain constituting a 12.250 m/2 buildable surface which borders the west-side of the Bernabéu stadium. This acquirement permits Real Madrid to cover the stadium with a roof, to build a shopping centre and a hotel on the façade situated on the Paseo de la Castellana (one of Madrid’s most important streets). In return, the club firstly agreed to transfer to the Council the shopping centre Esquina del Bernabéu, which is situated at the South-East-side of the stadium with a buildable surface of 6.858 m/2. The Council would then demolish the shopping centre and convert it into a public park. Secondly, the club is to transfer back to the Council part of the four terrains located in the street Mercedes Arteaga that it received as part of the 29 July 2011 Agreement.  In addition to the transfers of the old shopping centre and the terrains located in the street Mercedes Arteaga, Real Madrid is also to pay €6.6 million to the Council. The Council, however, encountered an obstacle in its own urban laws. The Plan General de Ordenación Urbana de Madrid de 1997 (PGOU) did not permit private parties, like Real Madrid, to construct on public terrains owned by the Council. Therefore, on 16 November 2012, the Government of the autonomous region of Madrid announced that the PGOU is to be modified ad hoc for the operation Bernabeú-Opañel.

By means of the operation Bernabeú-Opañel, Real Madrid expressed that it hopes to “convert the Club in a sporting institution of reference in the world. The aim is for the stadium to have a maximum level of comfort and services superior to the most modern and advanced sporting stadiums in the world” (PropuestaRealMadrid.pdf (914.2KB)). According to the Council, the operation will not only improve sporting and leisure facilities in the city, it will also create up to 9.546 m/2 of “green zones”. Moreover, the investment for the construction works will be borne only by Real Madrid and it is expected that the construction works will give employment to more than 2 000 people and the exploitation to 600 people.

In 2012, the ecological movement Ecologistas en Acción found several legal irregularities with regard to the 29 July Agreement operation Bernabeú-Opañel and (unsurprisingly) concluded that the agreements appeared to be very beneficial for Real Madrid. It therefore started legal proceedings in front of the Spanish administrative Court claiming that the ad hoc modification of the PGOU was illegal. It would later on launch on appeal in front of the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid, or Madrid High Court (TSJM-Order-31-07-2014.pdf (112.3KB)). Simultaneously, it informed the European Commission of potential unlawful State aid granted by the Council of Madrid to Real Madrid. To Spain’s outrage, on 18 December 2013, the Commission declared that it had enough reasons to believe that the incriminated transactions might involve State aid and launched a formal investigation in accordance with Article 108(2) TFEU. Concretely, the Commission expressed the following concerns:

1) The Commission doubts whether it was impossible for the Council of Madrid to transfer the Las Tablas property to Real Madrid;

2) The Commission doubts that a market value of the Las Tablas plot of land has been sought;

3) The Commission doubts the market conformity of the value of the properties which were transferred to Real Madrid by the 2011 Agreement and at the occasion of the subsequent further exchange of land around the Bernabéu Stadium, and;

4) The Commission doubts that there is an objective of common interest, which could justify selective support to a very strong actor in a highly competitive economic sector. 

The Commission’s doubts seem, in light of the facts at hand, reasonable. To decide whether or not the land transactions qualifies as unlawful State aid, however, the four cumulative criteria of Article 107(1) TFEU need to be fulfilled. (1) The aid must confer an economic advantage on Real Madrid; (2) it must be granted by a Member State or through State resources; (3) the advantage must be selective and distorts or threatens to distort competition; and (4) it must affect trade between Member States.

Advantage to Real Madrid over its competitors

As the Commission pointed out in paragraph 21 of its notice initiating the infringement procedure against Spain, “Real Madrid appears to enjoy an economic advantage from the fact that a plot of land, which at the time of its acquisition was valued at €595,194, appears 13 years later, in an operation to offset mutual debts, with a value of more than €22 million”. Furthermore, there are also doubts regarding the market conformity of the lands transferred in the operation Bernabéu-Opañel. In situations where the public authorities wish to sell public property to private investors, it should make sure that the revenue obtained from the sale is comparable to market level. This criterion is also known as the “market economy vendor principle”. In accordance with the Land sale Communication, should the public authorities wish to avoid any advantage to the recipient over its competitors during a land sale transaction, it should apply one of the two following procedures: (1) an unconditional bidding procedure or (2) a procedure where the land is valued by one or more independent asset valuers prior to the sale negotiations. The Court of Justice has ruled that other methods may also achieve the same result, but in order to comply with EU State aid rules, the national provisions establishing rules for calculating the market value of land must in all cases lead to a price as close as possible to the market value.[2] Special obligations for the buyer, such as urban planning requirements, do play a role when determining whether or not the land was sold at market value. Furthermore, land transfer deals, which often consist of more than just one land transaction, have to be scrutinized in their entirety.[3] Therefore, to determine whether an advantage was conferred to Real Madrid, both agreements between the club and the Council have to be take into account with a special focus on the valuation methods used.

In 1998, the valuation for the terrain in Las Tablas (€595,194) was done by the administration of Madrid, on the basis of legislation which offers a technique to determine the value of urban real property. The calculated value for the same terrain in Las Tablas in 2011 amounted to €22.693.054,44. According to a valuation report released by the Municipal Valuation Department, the value was calculated in accordance the same application rules. Yet it has to be borne in mind that the Municipal Valuation Department forms part of the Área de Gobierno de Urbanismo y Vivienda del Ayuntamiento de Madrid. Not only is the Área de Gobierno de Urbanismo y Vivienda the main public authority regarding urban planning in Madrid, it is together with Real Madrid the main party in the 2011 Agreement itself.

Real Madrid was not compensated in the form of a payment, but rather it was presented with another packet of terrains valued at €19,972,348.96. In the valuation report released by the Municipal Valuation Department, a list is included with average terrain values per district calculated by the independent appraiser Tasamadrid. In continuation, the Municipal Valuation Department applied a formula based on its own legislation to determine the final value of the terrains. This packet of terrains included land in the street Mercedes Arteaga, valued at €4,360,862 which were transferred back to the municipality in the operation Bernabéu-Opañel.

The operation Bernabéu-Opañel also included the club transferring the old shopping centre Esquina del Bernabéu and added a payment of €6,6 million. A second valuation report indicates that the value of the Esquina del Bernabéu is €3,861 per square meters passed on the average values of terrains found in adjacent streets. Furthermore, the Council “requalified” the terrain between the Bernabéu stadium and the street Paseo de la Castellana by ad hoc modifying the local urban laws (PGOU) before transferring it to Real Madrid. The value of this terrain is also calculated in the second report and ads up to €1,208 per square meter. Even though two of the terrains in question can be found in the same area, the value per square meter of the Esquina Bernabéu is much higher (€3,861) as compared to the value of the land between the Bernabéu stadium and the street Paseo de la Castellana (€1,208). True, the terrain with the Esquina del Bernabéu has already been built on, thereby increasing the value, but one should keep in mind that the operation Bernabéu-Opañel consists of demolishing the Esquina del Bernabéu and turning it into a green zone. On the other, the other terrain will be used for the construction of a hotel and a new shopping centre. Secondly, a quick glance at other real estate transfers in the same area of Madrid shows that the value of the terrains is in fact much higher. In 2012, the Picasso tower was purchased by a private firm for €400 million, or €5000 m/2. Today, the building Torre Titania can be bought for €11,000 m/2 and the building Castellana 200 is for sale for €150 million.

With all the above in mind, one could legitimately get the feeling that the actual aim of the Agreement of 29 July 2011 was to pave the way for the operation “Bernabéu-Opañel”, as some media suggested. Unlike in the Konsum Nord case, where the General Court held that the presence of a link between different transactions could mean that the measure in question does not constitute State aid, the link between the agreements in the Real Madrid case only increases suspicions regarding unlawful State aid. Furthermore, the Council of Madrid has also been inconstant regarding its valuation methods. The value of the terrain in Las Tablas was calculated without an independent appraiser and the value of the Esquina del Bernabéu was calculated using the average value of terrains found in adjacent streets. In short, there are good reasons to believe that the transactions were made in order to provide a financial advantage to Real Madrid.

The remaining three criteria of Article 107(1) TFEU and possible justifications will be discussed in an upcoming blog post.

[1] Notes are omitted. A comprehensive article can be accessed at Oskar van Maren, "The Real Madrid case: A State aid case (un)like any other?".

[2] Case C-239/09 Seydaland Vereinigte Agrarbetriebe [2010] ECR I-13083, §33-35

[3] Case T-244/08 Konsum Nord ekonomisk förening v Commission [2011] ECR II-0000, §58

Dear readers,

If you missed it (or wish to re-watch it), the video of our third Zoom In webinar from 25 February on the CAS award in the World Anti-Doping Agency v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency case is available on the YouTube channel of the Asser Institute:

Stay tuned and watch this space, the announcement for the next Zoom In webinar, which will take place on 31 March, is coming soon!

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

WADA Conference and the Adoption of 2021 WADA Code Amid Calls for Reform

On November 5-7, WADA held its Fifth World Conference on Doping in Sport where it faced a busy schedule, including the adoption of the revised 2021 World Anti-Doping Code and the election of a new WADA President and Vice-President by the Foundation Board. Concerning the latter, Witold Bańka, Poland’s Minister of Sport and Tourism, was elected as WADA President and Yang Yang, a former Chinese speed skater, elected as Vice-President, replacing Sir Craig Reedie and Linda Helleland respectively.  As Helleland leaves her position, she has expressed some strong views on the state of sport governance, particularly that ‘there is an absence of good governance, openness and independence in the highest levels of international sports’. Helleland was not the only one to recently voice governance concerns, as Rob Koehler, Director General of Global Athlete, also called for a ‘wholesale structural change at WADA’, which includes giving ‘independent’ athletes a vote in WADA’s Foundation Board, ensuring a greater ‘separation of powers’ and ensuring greater protection of athletes’ rights.

In the midst of the calls for reform, the amended 2021 WADA Code and the amended International Standards were also adopted after a two year, three stage code review process. Furthermore, a major milestone in athletes’ rights was achieved with the adoption of the Athletes’ Anti-Doping Rights Acts (separate from the WADA Code), which enumerates certain basic rights to help ‘ensure that Athlete rights within anti-doping are clearly set out, accessible, and universally applicable’. On the other hand, the Act ‘is not a legal document’, which clearly circumscribes some of the potential effects the Act may have. Nonetheless, athlete representative groups have ‘cautiously welcomed’ some of the changes brought by the 2021 WADA Code, such as the ‘modified sanctions for substances of abuse violations’.

Sung Yang’s Historical Public Hearing at the CAS

After much anticipation, the second public hearing in CAS history occurred on November 15 in Montreux, Switzerland in the Sun Yang case (details of this case were discussed in August and September’s monthly report), which was livestreamed and can be seen in its totality in four different parts (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4). This was an extremely unique opportunity, which hopefully will become a more common occurrence, to see just how CAS hearings are conducted and perhaps get a taste of some of the logistical issues that can emerge during live oral hearings. One of these problems, accurate translations, rapidly became apparent as soon as Sun Yang sat in the witness chair to give his opening statements. The translators in the box seemed to struggle to provide an intelligible English interpretation of Sun Yang and other witnesses’ statements, while Sun Yang also seemingly had trouble understanding the translated questions being posed to him. The situation degenerated to such an extent that ultimately one of WADA’s officials was called to replace the translators. However, the translation drama did not end there, since during Sun Yang’s closing statements an almost seemingly random person from the public appeared next to Sun Yang who claimed to have been requested from Sun Yang’s team to ‘facilitate’ the translation. Franco Frattini, president of the panel, questioned the identity of the ‘facilitator’ and explained that one could not just simply appear before the court without notice. Interestingly, Sun Yang’s legal team also rapidly intervened claiming that it had not been made of aware of the inclusion of the supporting translator, further complicating the matter. In the end, Sun Yang concluded his statements with the translation from the WADA official.

While it was Sun Yang’s legal team that had provided the original translators in the box, it still raises the question as to how translation at CAS could be improved to ensure a certain standard of translators. After all, quality translation is critical to the parties’ right to be heard under Article 6 (e) ECHR. Regardless, in the end, neither parties made an objection that their right to be heard was violated.

Russian Doping Saga Continues: WADA Compliance Review Committee Recommends Strong Sanctions

As was already discussed in August and September’s monthly report, WADA uncovered numerous inconsistencies concerning data taken from the Moscow Laboratory. After further investigation, WADA’s Compliance Review Committee has recommended that the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) be found non-compliant with the WADA Code. Accompanying the recommendation, the Compliance Review Committee also suggested several sanctions, which include prohibiting Russian athletes from participating in major events like the Olympic Games and ‘any World Championships organized or sanctioned by any Signatory’ for the next four years unless they may ‘dmonstrate that they are not implicated in any way by the non-compliance’. It would also see an embargo on events hosted in Russia during the same period. However, these sanctions did not go far enough for some, like Travis Tygart, chief executive of USADA, who wishes to prevent a repeat of Rio 2016 and PyeongChang 2018 ‘in which a secretly-managed process permitting Russians to compete – did not work’. On the other hand, the IOC has advocated for a softer, individual based approach that pursues ‘the rules of natural justice and respect human rights’. In the midst of these developments, the Athletics Integrity Unit also decided to charge several members of the Russian Athletics Federation (RusAF), including its President Dmitry Shlyakhtin, after a 15 month investigation for ‘tampering and complicity’ concerning a Russian athlete’s whereabouts violations.

Following many calls for strong consequences, the WADA Executive Committee met on December 9^th and adopted the recommendations of the Compliance Review Committee. Athlete representatives have expressed their disappointment with the sanctions, calling the decision ‘spineless’ since it did not pursue a complete ban on Russian participation at events such as Euro 2020 and the 2020 Olympics. At this point, RUSADA has sent notice to WADA that it will be disputing the decision of WADA’s Executive Committee’s decision at the CAS.

Major International Sports Law Decisions

Court of Arbitration for Sport – Sun Yang Public Hearing Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

Court of Arbitration for Sport – CAS 2019/A/6110 Liam Cameron v. UK Anti-Doping Limited (UKAD)

Court of Arbitration for Sport – CAS 2018/A/5989 IAAF v. Qatar Athletics Federation & Musaeb Abdulrahman Balla

Official Documents and Press Releases

CAS

• CAS – Manchester City FC v. UEFA: CAS rules that Manchester City’s appeal is inadmissible
• CAS - CAS Public Hearing – WADA v. Sun Yang & FINA - Further Information
• CAS - CAS registers the appeals filed by Dr. Jeffrey Brown and Mr Alberto Salazar
• CAS - CAS confirms the suspension imposed on the Egyptian Weightlifting Federation
• CAS - FC Nantes / Cardiff City FC / Emiliano Sala - Cardiff City Football Club files an appeal at the CAS
• CAS - Chelsea FC v. FIFA: Sanctions reduced by half
• CAS – Procedure WADA v. Sun Yang & FINA: Post-Hearing Update
•  CAS – Bulletin 2019/2

FIFA

• FIFA - FIFA and ASEAN countries sign landmark collaboration agreement
• FIFA - FIFA announces latest disciplinary sanctions for incidents during FIFA World Cup™ qualifying
• FIFA - FIFA to hold second Football Law Annual Review in Buenos Aires
• FIFA - Global spend on intermediary commissions rises to new record high of USD 653 million
• FIFA - FIFA explores commercial options for new club world cup tournament
• FIFA - FIFA welcomes Brussels Court of Appeal ruling on FIFA’s TPO and TPI rules
•  FIFA - FIFA files claims against Joseph Blatter and Michel Platini
• FIFA - Adjudicatory chamber of the independent Ethics Committee sanctions Ariel Alvarado
• FIFA Ethics Committee – Decision concerning Jamal Malinzi
• FIFA - Players’ Status Committee – Decision concerning Emiliano Raul Sala

IOC

• IOC – Statement from the IOC on WADA Recommendations
• IOC - IOC President Announces USD 10 Million “Action Plan” and Calls for Tougher Sanctions Against “Entourage” Members to Strengthen Protection of Clean Athletes
• IOC – IOC EB Announces a USD 5 Million Budget for Long-term Storage of Pre-games Testing Samples
• IOC – IOC Sanctions One Athlete for Failing Anti-doping Tests at London 2012
• IOC - IOC President Stresses Importance of Unity and Solidarity as UN General Assembly Adopts Olympic Truce for Tokyo 2020 by Consensus
• IOC - Statement From the IOC on WADA Recommendations
• IOC - Declaration of the 8th Olympic Summit

WADA

• WADA - WADA Executive Committee takes a number of decisions ahead of fifth World Conference on Doping in Sport
• WADA - WADA update regarding RUSADA Code Compliance
• WADA - WADA suspends accreditation of Bangkok Laboratory
• WADA - WADA’s Compliance Review Committee recommends non-compliance for RUSADA
• WADA - WADA Compliance Review Committee recommends series of strong consequences for RUSADA non-compliance
• WADA - WADA publishes approved 2021 World Anti-Doping Code and International Standards
• WADA - WADA publishes revised International Standard for Testing and Investigations
• WADA - WADA clarifies next steps of the RUSADA Compliance Process
• WADA - WADA launches Stakeholder consultation phase for the 2021 International Standard for Laboratories, version 11.0
• WADA - WADA Executive Committee unanimously endorses four-year period of non-compliance for the Russian Anti-Doping Agency
• WADA - WADA publishes 2021 Model Rules for Code Signatories
• WADA - WADA publishes Anti-Doping Rule Violations report for 2017
• WADA - WADA publishes conclusions of annual audit of Intelligence and Investigations Department
• WADA - WADA publishes 2018 Testing Figures Report
• WADA - WADA receives notice of RUSADA’s dispute of Agency’s Executive Committee decision

Other

• Athletics Integrity Unit - Athletics Integrity Unit Charges Russian Athletics Federation With Obstructing an Investigation and Provisionally Suspends Several Senior Federation Officials for Tampering and Complicity
• Athletics Integrity Unit - Decision of the Athletics Integrity Unit In the Case of Ms Angela Ndungwa Munguti
• Athletics Integrity Unit – Cyrus Rutto Decision
• Athletics Integrity Unit – Abraham Kiptum Decision
• Athletics Integrity Unit – Decision of the Athletics Integrity Unit in the Case of Mr Philip Sanga Kimutai
• Athletics Integrity Unit - Decision of the Athletics Integrity Unit in the Case of Mr Hassan Laqouahi
• Athletics Integrity Unit - Decision of the Athletics Integrity Unit in the Case of Mr Sammy Kitwara
• Athletics Integrity Unit - Decision of the Athletics Integrity Unit in the Case of Mr Belal Ahmed
• Conseil d’État - Le principe d’un plafonnement de la rémunération des sportifs ne pose pas de difficulté au regard de la Constitution
• Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) – FEI Tribunal issues Final Decisions
• Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) - Prohibited substance cases under FEI anti-doping rules
• Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique (FIG) - Chinese Taipei coach sanctioned by the Disciplinary Commission
• Fédération Internationale de Ski (FIS) - Mainau Environment Forum 2019 outcomes
• Fédération Internationale de Ski (FIS) - IOC and FIS join forces in sports group to protect mountains
• Fédération Internationale de Ski (FIS) – FIS Statement on WADA Executive Committee decision on RUSADA
• FIBA – Basketball Arbitral Tribunal (BAT) : Arbitration Rules (1 December 2019 Version)
• FIFPRO - FIFA and FIFPRO Develop Standards on Management of Personal Player Performance Data
•  Global Athlete - Global Athlete Calls for Wholesale Structural Change at World Anti-Doping Agency
•  Global Athlete - WADA’s Failure to Recommend a Full Russian Ban for Tokyo 2020 Falls Short of What Athletes and the Public Expect
• Human Rights Watch - China: FIFA Broke Own Rules for Club World Cup
• Human Rights Watch - Correspondence with FIFA on China Club World Cup
• Human Rights Watch - Saudi Arabia’s Strategy to ‘Sportswash’ Abuses
• International Biathlon Union - IBU progresses on implementation of Target 26 and governance reforms
• International Canoe Federation - Lipkin banned after positive test 1
• International Skating Union - Decision of ISU Disciplinary Commission - Mr. Salnikov
• International Skating Union - Full Decision of the Disciplinary Commission - Mr. Salnikov
• International Skating Union - Statement - 4 year period of non-compliance for the Russian Anti-Doping Agency
• International Tennis Federation – ITF and Tennis Integrity Supervisory Board Agree Integrity Investment
• International Weightlifting Federation - Open Letter to Weightlifters
• International Weightlifting Federation - CAS decision upholds IMFSP sanction against Egypt
• Tennis Integrity Unit - Albina Khabibulina Provisionally Suspended by Independent Anti-Corruption Hearing Officer
• Tennis Integrity Unit - Ksenia Palkina Provisionally Suspended by Independent Anti-Corruption Hearing Officer
• Tennis Integrity Unit - Tennis Integrity Supervisory Board and International Tennis Federation Agree Plans for Removal of Live Data and Major Integrity Investment in World Tennis Tour
• UEFA – Financial fair play and licensing review
• UEFA – Three clubs sanctioned for breach of FFP regulations
• UEFA - UEFA welcomes Brussels Court of Appeal ruling on third-party player ownership
• UKAD – UKAD v Ryan Martin
• UKAD - UK Anti-Doping work supports case which sees pharma boss who ran “world’s biggest” anabolic steroid distribution network jailed for five years and four months
• UKAD – UKAD Athlete Commission statement calls for strongest sanctions on Russia ahead of WADA ExCo meeting
• UNI Global Union - Time for WADA to study the true human cost of the global anti-doping system
• United World Wrestling - Purevdorj Suspended After Anti-Doping Violation at Asian Games
• USADA - Statement from USADA CEO Travis Tygart on the WADA CRC’s Latest Russia Recommendations
• USADA - AAA Arbitrator Imposes Four-Year Sanction on U.S. Weightlifting Athlete Kiara Akuna for Doping Violation
• USADA - Statement from USADA CEO Travis T. Tygart on the WADA Executive Committee’s Decision on Russia
• World Athletics - International federations discuss consensus on establishing rules for transgender athletes
• World Athletics - IAAF v Sarah Chepchirchir
• World Rugby - RWCL v SRU Disputes Committe Decision - full written decision

In the News

Football

• Andrew Das - U.S. Women’s Soccer Team Granted Class Status in Equal Pay Lawsuit
• Duncan Mackay - Former FIFA secretary general appeals to European Court of Human Rights to have 10-year ban overturned
• James Ellingworth - Ceferin meets Putin as Russia confirmed to host Euro games
• Tariq Panja - Tucked in WADA Rules, a Ticking Bomb for European Soccer
• Tariq Panja - Manchester City Appeal Rejected at CAS
• Tariq Panja - Did FIFA Accidentally Confirm a World Cup Bribery Scandal?
• Tariq Panja - Real Madrid’s President Plots a Way for Richest Clubs to Get Richer
• Tariq Panja - In Offer to Investors, FIFA Angles for Bigger Role in Club Soccer
• Graham Dunbar - Swiss prosecutors quiz PSG president in FIFA bribery case
• Andrew Dampf - Napoli fines contested by world players’ union FIFPro
• Murad Ahmed - CVC in talks to fund new global football tournaments
• David Conn - Liverpool back calls for investigations into migrant worker deaths in Qatar
• Rory Smith - Soccer Is Politics, Whether It Likes It or Not
• Rory Smith - In Premier League, V.A.R. Exposes the Limits of the Laws

Doping

• Richard W. Pound - Here’s to 20 years of fighting doping in sports – and to as many more as we need
• Tariq Panja - WADA Committee Recommends Russia Face New Olympic Ban
• Tariq Panja - Inside Russia’s Failed Doping Cover-Up
• Tariq Panja - Russian Doping Blurs Innocence and Guilt, With Olympics Caught in Middle
• Akaash Maharaj - Will WADA live up to the ideals of sport and ban Russia from the Olympics?
• Graham Dunbar - Russia faces next wave of punishment in endless doping saga
• Steve Scott - 'World Anti-Doping Agency is a Russian lapdog,' says one of its former investigators
• Sean Ingle - Athletes condemn ‘spineless’ Wada as Putin considers appeal

Other

• Tariq Panja - A Star Swimmer’s Doping Hearing Gets Lost in Translation
• Dan Roan - Some of Britain's top athletes threaten legal action over sponsorship regulations
• Tom Wigmore - Major sports bodies guilty of 'shocking' lack of women's representation at board level
• Phil Lutton - John Coates says Sun Yang has little to complain about in CAS hearing
• Stephen Wade - IOC’s Bach asked to intervene in Tokyo Olympic labor dispute
• Graham Dunbar - Human rights experts debate risks and gains for FIFA, IOC
• Sean Ingle - Too many heads remain in the sand when it comes to hosting of sport
• Craig Lord - European Commission competition authority Says Olympic Charter Must Change To Grant All European Athletes Their Rights
• David Wharton - 2020 Tokyo Olympics could cost Japan more than $26 billion

Academic Materials

International Sports Law Journal

• Margareta Baddeley - The extraordinary autonomy of sports bodies under Swiss law: lessons to be drawn

• Johan Lindholm - Who tweets about sports law?
• Florian Kirschner - Breakthrough or much ado about nothing? FIFA’s new bidding process in the light of best practice examples of human rights assessments under UNGP Framework
• Gregory Ioannidis - Football intermediaries and self-regulation: the need for greater transparency through disciplinary law, sanctioning and qualifying criteria
• Antonio Di Marco - The internal governance of sporting organisations: international convergences on an idea of democracy
• Lloyd Freeburn - The fiction of democracy in FIFA’s governance of football and the case of Football Federation Australia
• Alexander Brown and Roger Baines - The potential exploitation of non-English-speaking players in UK professional football contracts
• Aynur Nuriev - Non-intentional anti-doping rule violations: Does a new trend in evidence provision suffice?
• Marlaina Lemmon - Evening the playing field: women’s sport as a vehicle for human rights
• James Brown - Genetic doping: WADA we do about the future of ‘cheating’ in sport?  

Other

• Marcelo Moriconi and César de Cima - To report, or not to report? From code of silence suppositions within sport to public secrecy realities
• Kirstin Hallmann and others - Match-fixing and legal systems: An analysis of selected legal systems in Europe and worldwide with special emphasis on disciplinary and criminal consequences for corruption in sport and match-fixing
• Carolynne Mason - Rights, Risks and Responsibilities in the Recruitment of Children within the Global Football Industry
• Jonas Visschers, Letizia Paoli & Abhishek Deshpande - Match-fixing: Football referees’ attitudes and experiences
• John T. Holden, Thomas Baker and Marc Edelman - The #E-Too Movement: Fighting Back Against Sexual Harassment in Electronic Sports
• Sahiba Gill, Edouard Adelus and Francisco de Abreu Duarte - Whose Game? FIFA, Corruption and the Challenge of Global Governance
• David Shilbury and Lesley Ferkins - Routledge Handbook of Sport Governance

Blog

Asser International Sports Law Blog

• Thomas Terraz - Is UCI the new ISU? Analysing Velon’s Competition Law Complaint to the European Commission

Law in Sport

• Jack Anderson  - A detailed analysis of the legal arguments in WADA v Sun Yang & FINA - a very public hearing
• Tomás Nolan - What it takes to sponsor Liverpool Football Club (why New Balance failed to match Nike’s offer)
• Toni Roca and Xai Fernández - Why FIFA should reform football's training compensation regulations
• Tom Bruce and Jack Verdan - Bury Beware: lessons on the importance of good governance from Bury F.C.’s football league expulsion
• Ariel Reck - Argentine Football Association and Player´s Union reach agreement on pregnancy rights for players
• Tom Rudkin - WADA v Sun Yang & FINA - The benefits (or otherwise) of a public hearing
• Braham Dabscheck - A second bite of the cherry: reviewing the 2019-2022 wage deal for the Australian Football League Women
• Victoria Brown - The importance of giving clear reasons in sports disciplinary decisions: lessons from the Gerwyn Price decision
• Joseph M. Hanna - NCAA offers a lifeline: college athletes allowed to benefit from name, image and likeness
• Daniel Lust - (Anti)-trust the process: is the NCAA legally permitted to ban schools?
• Carlo Rombola - A short review of the Italian Association of Sport Attorneys' 'Sport and Women' conference in Rome
• Justin Humphries - Brexit means Brexit, but what does it mean for the Premier League and its players?
• Philipp Wehler and Matthias Greulich - Would FIFA’s newly proposed agents’ regulations comply with German & EU law?
• Peter Crowther, Lisa Hatfield and Jake White - Are the British Olympic Association’s new Rule 40 Guidelines still too restrictive?

Play the Game

• Matthias Fett - More – not less – democracy is often better for organising a World Cup

Sports Integrity Initiative

• Steven V. Selthoffer - Sun Yang vs. WADA: What’s really at stake?
• Andy Brown - Tentative RusAF reforms as WADA recommends severe action
• Andy Brown - Sport intervened to make changes to Athletes Anti-Doping Rights Act

SportLegis

• Despina Mavromati - FC A. v. B & Algerian Football Federation – Football contract & jurisdiction of the CAS
• Despina Mavromati - A v. International Athletics Federation (doping) – Interpretation of Art. 38.3 IAAF Rules
• Despina Mavromati - FIFA v. WADA – Lack of a “personal” legal interest to appeal against a CAS Award

Other

• Alex Kelham - Rule 40 – Team GB under fire from Olympians wanting faster pace of change

Podcasts

• The Ticket Podcast  - WADA v Sun Yang
• The Lead - Dope. Cheat. Repeat.
• Law in Sport - Jonathan Taylor QC explains WADA's decision to sanction Russia

Upcoming Events

• 17-18 March 2020 – WADA Annual Symposium, SwissTech Convention Center, Lausanne, Switzerland
• 26-27 March 2020 – 14^th Conference of the PSA Sport & Politics Group, Etihad Stadium, Manchester, UK
• 18-19 June 2020 – Sport & EU 2020 Annual Conference, Rijeka and Opatija, Croatia