Asser International Sports Law Blog

Our International Sports Law Diary
The Asser International Sports Law Centre is part of the T.M.C. Asser Instituut

New Event! Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter and the Right to Free Speech of Athletes - Zoom In Webinar - 14 July - 16:00 (CET)

On Wednesday 14 July 2021 from 16.00-17.30 CET, the Asser International Sports Law Centre, in collaboration with Dr Marjolaine Viret, is organizing a Zoom In webinar on Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter and the right to free speech of athletes.

As the Tokyo Olympics are drawing closer, the International Olympic Committee just released new Guidelines on the implementation of Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter. The latter Rule provides that ‘no kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas’. The latest IOC Guidelines did open up some space for athletes to express their political views, but at the same time continue to ban any manifestation from the Olympic Village or the Podium. In effect, Rule 50 imposes private restrictions on the freedom of expression of athletes in the name of the political neutrality of international sport. This limitation on the rights of athletes is far from uncontroversial and raises intricate questions regarding its legitimacy, proportionality and ultimately compatibility with human rights standards (such as with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights).

This webinar aims at critically engaging with Rule 50 and its compatibility with the fundamental rights of athletes. We will discuss the content of the latest IOC Guidelines regarding Rule 50, the potential justifications for such a Rule, and the alternatives to its restrictions. To do so, we will be joined by three speakers, Professor Mark James from Manchester Metropolitan University, who has widely published on the Olympic Games and transnational law; Chui Ling Goh, a Doctoral Researcher at Melbourne Law School, who has recently released an (open access) draft of an article on Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter; and David Grevemberg, Chief Innovation and Partnerships Officer at the Centre for Sport and Human Rights, and former Chief Executive of the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF). 

Guest speakers:

  • Prof. Mark James (Metropolitan Manchester University)
  • Chui Ling Goh (PhD candidate, University of Melbourne)
  • David Grevemberg (Centre for Sport and Human Rights)

Moderators:


Free Registration HERE

Investment in Football as a Means to a Particular End – Part 1: A non-exhaustive Typology - By Rhys Lenarduzzi

Editor's note: Rhys is currently making research and writing contributions under Dr Antoine Duval at the T.M.C. Asser Institute with a focus on Transnational Sports Law. Additionally, Rhys is the ‘Head of Advisory’ of Athlon CIF, a global fund and capital advisory firm specialising in the investment in global sports organisations and sports assets.

Rhys has a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B) and Bachelor of Philosophy (B.Phil.) from the University of Notre Dame, Sydney, Australia. Rhys is an LL.M candidate at the University of Zurich, in International Sports Law. 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 is also the host of the podcast “Sportonomic”.


Introduction

In the following two-part blog series, I will start by outlining a short typology of investors in football in recent years, in order to show the emergence of different varieties of investors who seek to use football as a means to a particular end. I will then in a second blog, explore the regulatory landscape across different countries, with a particular focus on the regulatory approach to multi-club ownership. Before moving forward, I must offer a disclaimer of sorts.  In addition to my research and writing contributions with the Asser Institute, I am the ‘Head of Advisory’ for Athlon CIF, a global fund and capital advisory firm specialising in the investment in global sports organisations and sports assets. I appreciate and hence must flag that I will possess a bias when it comes to investment in football.

It might also be noteworthy to point out that this new wave of investment in sport, is not exclusive to football. I have recently written elsewhere about CVC Capital Partners’ US$300 million investment in Volleyball, and perhaps the message that lingers behind such a deal.  CVC has also shown an interest in rugby and recently acquired a 14.3 per cent stake in the ‘Six Nations Championship’, to the tune of £365 million.  New Zealand’s 26 provincial rugby unions recently voted unanimously in favour of a proposal to sell 12.5 per cent of NZ Rugby’s commercial rights to Silver Lake Partners for NZ$387.5 million.  Consider also the apparent partnership between star footballer’s investment group, Gerard Pique’s Kosmos, and the International Tennis Federation.  Kosmos is further backed by Hiroshi Mikitani’s ecommerce institution, Rakuten, and all involved claim to desire an overhaul of the Davis Cup that will apparently transform it into the ‘World Cup of Tennis’. Grassroots projects, prizemoney for tennis players and extra funding for member nations are other areas the partnership claims to be concerned with. As is the case with all investment plays of this flavour, one can be certain that a return on the capital injection is also of interest.

So, what are we to conclude from the trends of investment in sport and more specifically for this blog series, in football? A typology elucidates that a multiplicity of investors have in recent years identified football as a means to achieve different ends. This blog considers three particular objectives pursued; direct financial return, branding in the case of company investment, or the branding and soft power strategies of nations.More...



WISLaw Blog Symposium - Rule 40 of the Olympic Charter: the wind of changes or a new commercial race - By Rusa Agafonova

Editor's note: Rusa Agafonova is a PhD Candidate at the University of Zurich, Switzerland   

The Olympic Games are the cornerstone event of the Olympic Movement as a socio-cultural phenomenon as well as the engine of its economic model. Having worldwide exposure,[1] the Olympic Games guarantee the International Olympic Committee (IOC) exclusive nine-digit sponsorship deals. The revenue generated by the Games is later redistributed by the IOC down the sports pyramid to the International Federations (IFs), National Olympic Committees (NOCs) and other participants of the Olympic Movement through a so-called "solidarity mechanism". In other words, the Games constitute a vital source of financing for the Olympic Movement.

Because of the money involved, the IOC is protective when it comes to staging the Olympics. This is notably so with respect to ambush marketing which can have detrimental economic impact for sports governing bodies (SGBs) running mega-events. The IOC's definition of ambush marketing covers any intentional and non-intentional use of intellectual property associated with the Olympic Games as well as the misappropriation of images associated with them without authorisation from the IOC and the organising committee.[2] This definition is broad as are the IOC's anti-ambush rules.More...

WISLaw Blog Symposium - Why the existing athletes' Olympic entering system does not comply with the fundamental principles of Olympism enshrined in the Olympic Charter - By Anna Antseliovich

Editor's note: Anna Antseliovich heads the sports practice at the Moscow-based legal group Clever Consult. She also works as a senior researcher at the Federal Science Center for Physical Culture and Sport (Russia).


The Olympic Games have always been a source of genuine interest for spectators as Olympians have repeatedly demonstrated astounding capacity of the human body and mind in winning Olympic gold, or by achieving success despite all odds.

At the ancient and even the first modern Olympic Games, there was no concept of a national team; each Olympian represented only himself/herself. However, at the 1906 Intercalated Games[1] for the first time, athletes were nominated by the National Olympic Committees (‘NOCs’) and competed as members of national teams representing their respective countries. At the opening ceremony, the athletes walked under the flags of their countries. This was a major shift, which meant that not only the athletes themselves competed against each other, but so too did the nations in unofficial medal standings.  

The nomination and selection of athletes by their NOCs to compete under their national flag and represent their country is a matter of pride for the vast majority of athletes. However, to what extent does such a scheme correspond to the ideals which the Olympic Games were based on in ancient times? Is it possible to separate sport and politics in the modern world? More...


WISLaw Blog Symposium - Legal and other issues in Japan arising from the postponement of the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games due to COVID-19 - By Yuri Yagi

Editor's note: Yuri Yagi is a sports lawyer involved in Sports Federations and Japanese Sports Organizations including the Japan Equestrian Federation (JEF), the International Equestrian Federation (FEI), the Japanese Olympic Committee (JOC), the Japan Sports Council (JSC) and the All-Japan High School Equestrian Federation.


1. Introduction

Japan has held three Olympic Games since the inception of the modern Olympics;Tokyo Summer Olympic Games in 1964, Sapporo Winter Olympic Games in 1972, and Nagano Winter Olympic Games in 1998. Therefore, the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games (Tokyo 2020) are supposed to be the fourth to be held in Japan, the second for Tokyo. Tokyo 2020 were originally scheduled for 24 July 2020 to 9 August 2020. Interestingly, the word ‘postpone’ or ‘postponement’ does not appear in the Host City Contract (HCC).

However, the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG), the Japanese Olympic Committee (JOC), and the Tokyo Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (TOCOG) decided on 24 March 2020 that Tokyo 2020 would be postponed because of the pandemic of COVID-19. Later on, the exact dates were fixed ‘from 23 July 2021 (date of the Opening Ceremony) to 8 August 2021 (date of the Closing Ceremony).

The process of the decision is stipulated in the ‘ADDENDUM N° 4’ signed by IOC, TMG, JOC and TOCOG.

This paper provides an overview of the current situation, along with legal and other issues in Japan that have arisen due to the postponement of Tokyo 2020 due to COVID-19. The overview is offered from the perspective of a citizen of the host city and includes a consideration of national polls, the torch relay, vaccination, training camps, ever increasing costs, and the related provisions in the Candidature File and the Host City Contract. More...



WISLaw Blog Symposium - Freedom of Expression in Article 10 of the ECHR and Rule 50 of the IOC Charter: Are these polar opposites? - By Nuray Ekşi

Editor's note: Prof. Dr. Ekşi is a full-time lecturer and chair of Department of Private International Law at Özyeğin University Faculty of Law. Prof. Ekşi is the founder and also editor in chief of the Istanbul Journal of Sports Law which has been in publication since 2019.


While Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’) secures the right to freedom of expression, Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter of 17 July 2020 (‘Olympic Charter’) restricts this freedom. Following the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’) relating to sports, national and international sports federations have incorporated human rights-related provisions into their statutes and regulations. They also emphasized respect for human rights. For example, Article 3 of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (‘FIFA’) Statutes, September 2020 edition, provides that “FIFA is committed to respecting all internationally recognised human rights and shall strive to promote the protection of these rights”. Likewise, the Fundamental Principles of Olympism which are listed after the Preamble of the of the Olympic Charter 2020 also contains human rights related provisions. Paragraph 4 of Fundamental Principles of Olympism provides that the practice of sport is a human right. Paragraph 6 forbids discrimination of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. In addition, the International Olympic Committee (‘IOC’) inserted human rights obligations in the 2024 and 2028 Host City Contract.[1] The IOC Athletes’ Rights and Responsibilities Declaration even goes further and aspires to promote the ability and opportunity of athletes to practise sport and compete without being subject to discrimination. Fair and equal gender representation, privacy including protection of personal information, freedom of expression, due process including the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial panel, the right to request a public hearing and the right to an effective remedy are the other human rights and principles stated in the IOC Athletes’ Rights and Responsibilities Declaration. Despite sports federations’ clear commitment to the protection of human rights, it is arguable that their statutes and regulations contain restrictions on athletes and sports governing bodies exercising their human rights during competitions or in the field. In this regard, particular attention should be given to the right to freedom of expression on which certain restrictions are imposed by the federations even if it done with good intentions and with the aim of raising awareness. More...


WISLaw Blog Symposium - Stick to Sports: The Impact of Rule 50 on American Athletes at the Olympic Games - By Lindsay Brandon

Editor's note: Lindsay Brandon is Associate Attorney at Law Offices of Howard L. Jacobs


“Tell the white people of America and all over the world that if they don’t seem to care for the things black people do, they should not go to see black people perform.” – American sprinter and Olympic Medalist John Carlos

On 21 April 2021, the Athletes’ Commission (AC) of the International Olympic Committee (“IOC”) received the “full support of the IOC Executive Board for a set of recommendations in regard to the Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter and Athlete Expression at the Olympic Games.” This came over a year after the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games were postponed due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and almost a year after the IOC and AC embarked on an “extensive qualitative and quantitative” consultation process to reform Rule 50 involving over 3,500 athletes from around the globe.

Since its introduction of the new guidelines in January 2020, Rule 50 has been touted by the IOC as a means to protect the neutrality of sport and the Olympic Games, stating that “No kind of demonstration or political, religious or radical propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues, or other areas.”  In other words, the Olympics are a time to celebrate sport, and any political act or demonstration might ruin their “moment of glory”.

In fact, the Rule 50 Guidelines say that a fundamental principle of sport is that it is neutral, and “must be separate from political, religious or any other type of interference.” But this separation is not necessarily rooted in totality in modern sports culture[1], particularly in the United States (“U.S.”).  This is evidenced by the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee (“USOPC”) committing to not sanctioning Team USA athletes for protesting at the Olympics. The USOPC Athletes stated “Prohibiting athletes to freely express their views during the Games, particularly those from historically underrepresented and minoritized groups, contributes to the dehumanization of athletes that is at odds with key Olympic and Paralympic values.” More...



WISLaw Blog Symposium - 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games - Introduction

Women In Sports Law (WISLaw) is an international, non-profit association based in Switzerland and aimed at promoting women in the sports law sector, through scientific and networking events, annual meetings and annual reports. WISLaw’s objectives are to raise awareness of the presence, role and contribution of women in the sports law sector, enhance their cooperation, and empower its global membership through various initiatives.

This year, WISLaw has partnered with the Asser International Sports Law Blog to organise a special blog symposium featuring WISLaw members. The  symposium will entail both the publication of a series of blog posts authored by WISLaw members, and a virtual webinar (accessible at https://lnkd.in/dgWsy6q with the Passcode 211433) to promote discussion on the selected topics. Article contributions were invited on the topic of legal issues surrounding the Tokyo 2020 Olympics. In the midst of a pandemic and the rise of social justice movements around the world, the Games and their organisation gave rise to a number of interesting legal issues and challenges, which will be explored through a variety of lenses. 

We hope that you enjoy and participate in the discussion.

New Event! The Court of Arbitration for Sport at the European Court of Human Rights - Prof. Helen Keller - 26 May - 16:00

On Wednesday 26 May 2021 from 16.00-17.00 CET, the Asser International Sports Law Centre, in collaboration with Dr Marjolaine Viret (University of Lausanne), is organising its fifth Zoom In webinar on the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) from the perspective of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

We have the pleasure to be joined by Prof. Helen Keller, former Judge at the ECtHR and a prominent dissenter to the majority’s ruling in the Mutu and Pechstein case.

The ECtHR decision in the Mutu and Pechstein case rendered on 2 October 2018 is widely seen as one of the most important European sports law rulings. It was also the first decision of the Strasbourg court dealing with a case in which the CAS had issued an award. The applicants, Adrian Mutu and Claudia Pechstein, were both challenging the compatibility of CAS proceedings with the procedural rights enshrined in Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The court famously declined to conclude that the CAS lacked independence or impartiality, but did find that, insofar as Claudia Pechstein was concerned, she was forced to undergo CAS arbitration and, therefore, that CAS proceedings had to fully comply with the procedural rights guaranteed in the ECHR. In particular, the court held that the refusal by CAS to hold a public hearing, in spite of Claudia Pechstein’s express request, was contrary to Article 6(1) ECHR. Beyond this case, as highlighted by the recent decision of Caster Semenya to submit an application to the ECtHR, the decision opens the way for a more systematic intervention of the Strasbourg court in assessing the human rights compatibility of CAS awards and more broadly of the transnational sports regulations imposed by international sports governing bodies.

Prof. Helen Keller will discuss with us the implications of the ECtHR’s Mutu and Pechstein decision and the potential for future interventions by the court in the realm of the lex sportiva.

The webinar will take the form of an interview followed by a short Q&A open to the digital public. 

Please note the discussion will NOT be recorded and posted on our Youtube channel. 

Register HERE!


Asser International Sports Law Blog | International and European Sports Law – Monthly Report – October 2016. By Kester Mekenkamp.

Asser International Sports Law Blog

Our International Sports Law Diary
The Asser International Sports Law Centre is part of the T.M.C. Asser Instituut

International and European Sports Law – Monthly Report – October 2016. By Kester Mekenkamp.

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
We are looking for an International Sports Law Intern (with a particular interest in the CAS)! More information can be found here.


The (terrible) State of the World Anti-Doping System

The fight against doping is still on top of the agenda after the Russian doping scandal. The national anti-doping organizations (NADOs) have reiterated their call for an in depth reform of the World Anti-Doping Agency at a special summit in Bonn, Germany. These reforms are deemed urgent and necessary to “restore confidence of clean athletes and those who value the integrity of sport” and secure “the public’s desire for a fair and level playing field”. The NADOs propose, amongst others things, to separate the investigatory, testing and results management functions from sports organizations, and to remove sports administrators from crucial anti-doping executive functions. They insist that “no decision maker within an anti-doping organization should hold a board, officer, or other policy-making position within a sport or event organizer”. WADA welcomed the reform proposals and pledged to discuss them at the upcoming meeting of the foundation board. The necessity of such a reform, or at least of improving the effectiveness of the anti-doping system, has been highlighted (again!) by the release of WADA’s Report of the Independent Observers concerning the 2016 Rio Olympic Games. The reports point out that “the logistical arrangements made by Rio 2016 to support the sample collection process at official venues during the Games suffered from a number of serious failings”. These “foreseeable and entirely avoidable” logistical issues resulted in a strained sample collection process. On the way forward to reform WADA you can read some ASSER proposals in a recent policy brief by our Senior Researcher Antoine Duval. 


The Sharapova CAS award

Everything related to Maria Sharapova is necessarily making a lot of noise. Unsurprisingly, the CAS award on her positive doping test to Meldonium has attracted a lot of media attention. The decision in the dispute between Maria Sharapova and the International Tennis Federation (ITF) reduced the period of her suspension by nine months. The Russian tennis star had, during the Australian Open in January 2016, tested positive for the presence of Meldonium. A substance which had, for the first time, been put on WADA’s prohibited list in 2016. Subsequently, Sharapova announced she had been taking Mildronate tablets that had been prescribed by her doctor for many years. As her medical team “had failed to notice” that Meldonium was included on the list of prohibited substances, Sharapova claimed to be unaware that she committed a violation of an anti-doping rule. The CAS Panel shortened the period of ineligibility from the initial period of two years (imposed by the ITF’s judicial body) to fifteen months. It emphasized that the case turned on “the degree of fault that can be imputed to the player for her failure to make sure that the substance contained in a product that she had been taking over a long period remained in compliance with the anti-doping rules”. Given that her ban started on 26 January 2016, Sharapova will already be back in action late spring 2017. This ASSER International Sports Law blog by Marjolaine Viret, triggered by the Sharapova case, tackles the specific questions of the athletes (ir)responsibilities when taking medication. To what extent should they consult experts before taking a medication and to what extent can we assume that they are sufficiently qualified to assess the doping consequences of a specific product. .


The Bundesgerichtshof’s ruling in the SV Wilhelmshaven case

The ruling by Germany’s Highest Civil Court in the SV Wilhelmshaven case challenging FIFA’s training compensation system has been released. The BGH sided with the club but declined to pronounce itself on the compatibility of the FIFA regulations with EU law and on the validity of the original CAS award. The Asser International Sports Law Centre together with the Dutch Federation of Professional Football Clubs (FBO) organized a high-level conference on the case. You can read the conference report here.


New developments regarding State aid in sport

Real Madrid claim to have returned the State aid of €20.3 million it illegally received from the municipality of Madrid through various land transactions. However, the Spanish giants have also underlined that it is seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision at the Court of Justice of the EU, meaning that the saga continues despite the repayment.

The “Real Madrid appeal” has not yet been registered officially with the CJEU, contrary to the appeals launched by Athletic Club de Bilbao and Valencia CF respectively. Bilbao’s appeal concerns the Commission’s conclusion that Spain’s corporate tax system was selectively favourable for the clubs Athletic Club Bilbao, Osasuna, FC Barcelona and Real Madrid CF in comparison to the other clubs in Spain. At this moment it is still unknown whether the other clubs will join the appeal. More information on this State aid decision can be found in the blog written by Oskar van Maren.

In addition to its action for annulment, Valencia CF also launched proceedings for interim measures which aim to suspend the repayment of the aid until the General Court decides in the main proceedings. In parallel, the Spanish public authority responsible for ordering the return of the State aid from Valencia CF, i.e. the government of the autonomous region of Valencia, has asked the Commission to prolong the deadline for the return of the aid. These two requests need to be read in light of Valencia CF’s current financial situation. Its obligation to repay more than €23 million could well mean the bankruptcy of the Champions League finalist of 2000 and 2001.

Our in-house State aid and sport expert, Oskar van Maren, will dissect all the decisions of this year in a special lecture (State aid in Football: The year of the European Commission) on 24 November. 


Just Published! The Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration

Senior Researcher and head of ASSER International Sports Law Centre, Antoine Duval, has just published with CAS expert (and lawyer) Antonio Rigozzi a new Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration (the 2015 edition is available here). This is the first ever academic publication aiming to offer comprehensive coverage, on a yearly basis, of the most recent and salient developments regarding international sports arbitration, through a combination of general articles and case notes.


Case law

CAS

CAS 2016/A/4643 Maria Sharapova v. International Tennis Federation

CAS 2016/O/4684 The Russian Olympic Committee (“ROC”), [Russian Athletes] v. The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF)


EU

EU Commission State Aid SA.44439 (2016/N) – Sporting Arena Cork – Ireland


IOC

IOC Disciplinary Commission decision regarding Anna Chicherova

IOC Disciplinary Commission decision regarding Tatyana Lysenko


Wilhelmshaven ruling

Bundesgerichtshof Urteil vom 20. September 2016 - II ZR 25/15 - OLG Bremen LG Bremen


Other

Doyen’s Appeal to FIFA’s TPO ban before Paris court 


Official documents and Press releases

CAS list of hearing November and December

CAS The Court of Arbitration for Sport Reduces the ban of Maria Sharapova to fifteen months

CAS Essendon Case: The appeal filed by 34 players is not entertained by the Swiss Federal Tribunal

CAS The Court of Arbitration for Sport issues decisions in the case of five Russian racewalkers

CAS IAAF appeal upheld – Rita Jeptoo suspended for four years by the Court of Arbitration for Sport

CIES Football Observatory Monthly Report n°18 - October 2016, “Recruitment strategies throughout Europe”

Commentary by the Spanish anti-doping agency AEPSAD on the whereabouts High Court decision (in Spanish)

European Parliament Committee on Culture and Education on an integrated approach to Sport Policy: good governance, accessibility and integrity (2016/2143(INI))

FIFA Several football associations sanctioned after discriminatory and unsporting conduct of fans

FIFA President Infantino provides update on steps taken to improve governance and compliance as well as football development efforts

Spanish FA sanctioned for international transfers of minors

IAAF Ethics Board Statement on preliminary investigations into ‘brown envelope’ rumours surrounding bid for 2017 World Championships

IOC Declaration of the 5th Olympic Summit Protecting clean athletes is an absolute priority for the entire Olympic Movement

NADA-Statement zum 5. Olympic Summit

UK Parliament Culture, Media and Sport Committee, The Governance of Football inquiry

WADA Statement regarding Maria Sharapova CAS decision

WADA statement regarding Olympic Summit

WADA Compliance Review Committee Update

WADA Statement by Richard H. McLaren, Independent Person, Concerning Release of his Investigation Report, Part II

WADA Report of the Independent Observers, Games of the XXXI Olympiad, Rio de Janeiro 2016

WADA statement regarding renewed NADO anti-doping reform proposals 


In the news

Doping

AP, New WADA director general Olivier Niggli anticipates more state-sponsored doping

Nick Butler, Exclusive: IOC Medical Commission chair calls for more Government funding for WADA

Nick Butler, WADA report is microcosm of everything wrong with Rio 2016 and IOC

Causa Sport, „Fall Scharapowa“: Unachtsamkeit schützt vor (Doping-)Strafe

George Georgakopoulos, Greece lags in doping tests and would need assistance

David Millar, How to Get Away With Doping

Michael Pavitt, New testing authority within WADA proposed at Olympic Summit

Sport Leaks and Doping Leaks

Luis Torres Montero, Claves de la reducción de la sanción a Sharapova: análisis del reciente laudo del TAS

Jonathan Sachse and Daniel Drepper, Wie VfB Stuttgart und SC Freiburg Doping organisierten

Thorhild Widvey, WADA Must Be Reinforced and Publicly Supported 


Football

Vivek Chaudhary, FIFA's Gianni Infantino may face Ethics Committee investigation

Willem Feenstra, FIFA charged with complicity in human rights violations Qatar

Keir Radnedge, Infantino talks a good game about Fifa reform, but can he deliver?

Mike Ticher, Human error is part of football and video refereeing will solve nothing  


Ice Skating

Ernst Bouwes, De internationale sportweek van S&S: EU geeft schaatsers gelijk in 'Ice-derby'-zaak

Causa Sport, Kartellverfahren gegen den internationalen Eislaufverband ISU: Das „Ein-Platz-Prinzip“ vor dem Aus? 


Other

Brittany Bronson, Politicians Place a Bet on a Stadium, and Vegas Pays for It

Juliet Macur, Long Before Kaepernick, There Was Navratilova

Rebecca Ruiz, Russia Sports Minister Promoted to Deputy Prime Minister 


Academic materials

Antoine Duval, Tackling Doping Seriously - Reforming the World Anti-Doping System after the Russian Scandal

Despina Mavromati, Application of the 2015 WADA Code through the Example of a recent CAS Award (Sharapova v. ITF)

Despina Mavromati, The Role of the Swiss Federal Tribunal and Its Impact on the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)

Mordehai Mironi, The promise of mediation in sport-related disputes

Michal Radvan and Jan Neckář, Taxation of Professional Team Sport Athletes in the Czech Republic


Books

Antoine Duval and Antonio Rigozzi, Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration 2015 


Blogs

Richard Bush, Best practice for Sports Governing Bodies when dealing with individual complainants: Part 1 - Internal procedure and Part 2 - Guidelines for legal teams

Sean Cottrell and Mark Hovell, Life as a CAS arbitrator at the Rio Olympic Games

Sean Cottrell, Protecting the integrity of the Rugby World Cup - Ben Rutherford, Senior Legal Counsel and Integrity Unit Manager at World Rugby

Sean Cottrell, Nick De Marco, Nick Tsatsas and Richard Berry, How does the transfer market influence the integrity of football?

Nick De Marco, “Football for Sale” - What is the problem, and what are the solutions?

Antoine Duval and Kester Mekenkamp, De- or Re-regulating the middlemen? The DFB’s regulation of intermediaries under EU law scrutiny at the OLG Frankfurt

Jon Elphick, How athletes will be affected by the UK’s changes to “non-dom” tax rules

Alex Haffner and Krish Mistry, The law on banning athletes from competing in rival sports leagues

Philip Hutchinson, Who shoulders the blame? An analysis of vicarious liability in the sports industry

Interpol Integrity in Sport Bi-Weekly Bulletin - 3-16 October 2016 and 17-31 October 2016

Christian Keidel and Alexander Engelhard, How the Bundesliga’s new “no single buyer” rule has increased the broadcasting revenue for German football

Saurabh Mishra, Important lessons for athletes on doping sabotage: A review of WADA v. Narsingh Yadav

Laura McCallum, An overview of key case law relating to negligent liability for sports injuries (Part 1) and (Part 2)

Alice McDonald, Footballers facing tax fines: who is responsible for inaccurate tax returns?

Marine Montejo, Case note: TAS 2016/A/4474 Michel Platini c. Fédération Internationale de Football Association

Michael Rueda, What is next for NCAA student-athletes? From O'Bannon onto Jenkins

Ralph Russo, Although NCAA loses its appeal, future still hazy

Luke Sayer, Possible ways the Therapeutic Use Exemptions system can be improved to prevent abuse

Zane Shihab and Nick Bitel, What effects have FIFA’s Intermediaries Regulations had on player representation and commission levels?

The Swiss Ramble, Arsenal - New Sensation

The Swiss Ramble, Borussia Dortmund - The Sound Of The Crowd

The Swiss Ramble, Manchester City - My Aim Is True

The Swiss Ramble, Stoke City - But I'm Different Now

Oskar van Maren, Case note: State aid Decision on the preferential corporate tax treatment of Real Madrid, Athletic Bilbao, Osasuna and FC Barcelona

Ben Van Rompuy, What can EU competition law do for speed skaters?

Marjolaine Viret , Taking the Blue Pill or the Red Pill: Should Athletes Really Check their Medications against the Prohibited List Personally? 


Upcoming events

18 November - Football Law Conference and Sportspersons’ Dinner, St John’s Buildings Barristers’ Chambers and the Centre for Sports Law Research at Edge Hill University, Stretford, UK

24 November – Sports Law Lecture “State aid in Football: The year of the European Commission”, T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague, the Netherlands

8 December - Actualiteitencursus Internationaal Sportrecht, De Kempenaer Advocaten, Arnhem, the Netherlands


 


Comments are closed