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

The Diarra ruling of the Tribunal of Charleroi

On 19 January 2017, the Hainaut Commercial Tribunal – Charleroi rendered its decision on the lawsuit filed by the football player Lassana Diarra against FIFA and the Belgian FA (URBSFA) for damages caused by not being able to exercise the status of a professional football player during the entire 2014/2015 season. The lawsuit is linked to the decision, rendered by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) on April 2015, to support Lokomotiv’s decision to terminate the player’s contract and to order Diarra to pay Lokomotiv the amount of EUR 10,500,000 for having breached his contract. According to the plaintiff, Diarra’s opportunity to be recruited by Sporting Charleroi was denied due to the club being potentially considered jointly liable for Diarra’s compensation pursuant to Article 17 (2) RSTP. The Belgian court held strongly that “when the contract is terminated by the club, the player must have the possibility to sign a new contract with a new employer, without restrictions to his free movement”. This case highlighted, once again, the need to read the RSTP in the light of EU law. Moreover, the decision is laying further ground for broader challenges to the RSTP on the basis of EU law (for a deeper insight into the Diarra ruling, see the recent blog written by our senior researcher Antoine Duval)

The IAAF Decision on three of its employees in corruption linked to the Russian doping scandal

On 31 January 2017, IAAF Ethic Board released its decision on allegations of corruption linked to the Russian doping scandal involving three of its employees, Nick Davies, Jane Boulter-Davies and Pierre-Yves Garnier,. The decision of the Panel stems from an email released by the media, which was sent by Nick Davies, then IAAF’s Deputy General Secretary and Director of Communications, to Papa Massata Diack, marketing consultant to the IAAF and son of the IAAF’s then President Lamine Diack, on 19 July 2013, shortly before the commencing of the IAAF World Championships in Moscow. In the email Nick Davies outlined a plan to minimise the damage provoked by the news related to the positive doping tests of a number of Russian athletes, in light of the imminent IAAF World Championships. During the investigation commissioned by the Ethic Board, it emerged that Nick Davies received sums of money for corrupt purposes in relation to the aforementioned plan and that he subsequently concealed the remuneration; that his wife, Jane Boulter-Davies, misled the investigation carried out on behalf of the Ethic Board; and that Pierre-Yves Garnier, Medical and Scientific Senior Manager, received sums of money to the same end. The Panel, therefore, banned Mr Davies from his position at the IAAF, and suspended Mrs Boulter-Davies and Mr. Garnier from their IAAF positions for a period of 6 months.  

CAS award on UEFA Membership of Football Federation of Kosovo

In the dispute between the Football Association of Serbia (FAS) and UEFA over the admission of the Football Federation of Kosovo (FFK) as the 55^th member association of UEFA, the CAS sided with UEFA and dismissed the appeal filed by the FAS. The CAS award confirms the FFK’s admission as a member association of UEFA. The CAS Panel analysed Article 5(1) UEFA Statues, which requires the recognition by the United Nations (UN) as an independent state in order for a football associations situated in the continent of Europe to obtain the membership of UEFA. It held that the provision has to be interpreted as requiring that the territory in which the football federation is located be recognised by the majority of the UN member states as an “independent state”. Given that this prerequisite was fulfilled with respect to FFK, FAS’ appeal was dismissed.

Ruling of the Commercial Court of Zurich on FIFA's responsibility for human rights violations in Qatar

Finally, on 3 January 2017, the Commercial Court of the Canton of Zurich dismissed the lawsuit filed against FIFA by the Dutch trade union FNV, the Bangladeshi Free Trade Union Congress, the Bangladesh Building and Wood Workers Federation and the Bangladeshi citizen Nadim Shariful Alam for alleged human rights violations in connection with the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar. The plaintiffs asserted that FIFA's legal responsibility for those violations arose out of FIFA's inaction to remedy them. First, when it selected Qatar as host of the 2022 FIFA World Cup without simultaneously demanding minimum human rights and labour rights for World Cup-related migrant workers. Second, when it failed and still is failing to take responsibility for the fate of migrant workers by not demanding Qatar to reform its labour system.

Sports Law Related Decisions

• CMA (Competition and Markets Authority) - Anticipated acquisition by Liberty Media Corporation of Formula 1 Group - Decision on relevant merger situation and substantial lessening of competition
• IAAF – IAAF Ethics Board Decision Numbers: 06, 07 and 08/2017
• IOC - IOC sanctions eight athletes for failing anti-doping tests at Beijing 2008 and London 2012
• UEFA - CFCB adjudicatory decision regarding FK Partizan
• UEFA – CAS 2016/A/4650 Klubi Sportiv Skenderbeu v. UEFA

Official Documents and Press Releases 

• CAS - ICAS appoints additional mediators and arbitrators
• CAS - CAS upholds the decision of the UEFA congress to admit Kosovo as a member
• CAS - CAS Bulletin 2016/2
• CDES - Study on Economic Impact of Euro2016
• CJEU - FC Barcelona pleas against EU Commission's State aid decision
• FIFA - Amendments to the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players' Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber
• FIFA - Swiss court rejects labour unions’ claim against FIFA concerning Qatar 2022
• FIFA - FIFA Disciplinary Committee passes decisions relating to third-party influence on clubs
• FIFA - FIFA TMS Global Transfer Market 2017: record international transfers in 2016
• IAAF - IAAF submits guidelines to Russian Athletics Federation for applications to compete as neutral athletes in international competitions in 2017
• USADA - USADA Fully Endorses Reform Proposals Following Special NADO Summit in Copenhagen
• WADA - WADA accepts additional contribution of EUR 150,000 from the Government of France

In the news

Doping

• Nick Butler Olympic figure skating champion among athletes under investigation following McLaren Report, it is claimed
• Nick Butler Howman claims Russians are "worse than Lance Armstrong" and calls for Pyeongchang 2018 ban unless they admit wrongdoing
• Nick Butler National Anti-Doping Organisations call for complete Russian expulsion from international sport
• Nick Butler Athletes' letter sent to IBU calls for resolute action on doping
• Nick Butler Russia skiers' appeal against doping suspension rejected by FIS panel
• Mark Daly Russian doping scandal: Emails confirm Lord Coe 'aware' of claims
• Raf Diallo Renee Anne Shirley sheds light on current Jamaican anti-doping situation
• Dan Palmer Isinbayeva attacks whistleblowers as IAAF Taskforce visit concludes
• Reuters Doping-Germany wants Russian Olympics ban in case of state doping
• Rebecca R. Ruiz National Antidoping Groups, Citing Doping, Want Russian Athletes Barred
• Sportschau New whistleblower levels serious charges against Russian athletics
• TASS Future of Russian athlete Lebedeva’s work in IAAF to be decided by global sports court
• Howard Walker Jamaica eyes appeal

Football

• Causa Sport News Trade unionism before the Zurich Commercial Court in FIFA
• ENCA Players' union calls for reform after Diarra ruling
• Jack Kerr East Timor Is Expelled From Asian Cup for Fielding Ineligible Brazilians
• Nick Harris and Roger Pielke FIFA president Gianni Infantino asked Russian deputy PM Vitaly Mutko to step away from his football administration roles
• Liam Morgan Čeferin says there is no reason to move 2018 World Cup from Russia
• Leander Schaerlaeckens Chinese FA puts an apparent end to flood of high-priced players to Super League
• Rory Smith Valencia, an Often Unsteady Club, Teeters Toward Disaster

Other

• Andrew Benson Bernie Ecclestone removed as Liberty Media completes $8bn takeover
• Ian Herbert The IOC's silence on Trump is contemptible, Los Angeles cannot now host the 2024 Olympics
• Laurent Maduit Tennis: the sinking of a federation, the negligence of a minister
• Dan Palmer International Canoe Federation ban on Belarus thrown out by CAS
• Chris Vedelago and Cameron Houston Tennis Australia under investigation over legality of $200m TV deal with Seven

Books

• Michele Colucci (ed.) The FIFA Regulations on Working with Intermediaries (II edition): an updated appraisal
• Leanne O’Leary Employment and Labour Relations Law in the Premier League, NBA and International Rugby Union

Academic Materials

• Travis L. Marmara Free Kick: FIFA’s Unintended Role in Illuminating Jurisdictional Gaps of International Criminal Courts

Blogs

Asser International Sports Law Blog

• Antoine Duval The Russian Doping Scandal at the Court of Arbitration for Sport: The IAAF’s Rio Ineligibility of Russian Athletes
• Antoine Duval The Russian Doping Scandal at the Court of Arbitration for Sport: The IPC’s Rio Ineligibility of Russian Paralympic Athletes
• Antoine Duval The Diarra Ruling of the Tribunal of Charleroi: The New Pechstein, Bosman or Mutu?
• Emilio Garcia UEFA’s betting fraud detection system: How does the CAS regard this monitoring tool?
• Kester Mekenkamp FIFA’s provision on the protection of minors - Part 3: The compatibility of Article 19 with EU law
• Saverio Spera Time for Transparency at the Court of Arbitration for Sport

Law in Sport

• Braham Dabscheck Forming teams of their own: The dramatic emergence of player associations across the globe
• James Hill Cross-code transfers in Rugby – Will the Denny Solomona case set a new precedent?
• Charles Maurice Negotiating new kit sponsorship deals: Nike & Chelsea “Just Do It”
• Mads Quist Boesen A guide to Denmark’s internal sports dispute resolution system
• Roberto de Palma Barracco An overview of “PROFUT” – Brazil’s new sports law
• Richard Spafford, Carolyn Pepper and Casey Ryan Best practice for handling child abuse investigations in sport
• Joe Tompkins Key commercial issues when negotiating a new official kit supplier agreement

Others

• Gideon Barth and Richard Booth Blanket doping bans and human rights. Does a blanket ban on Russian athletes competing at Rio 2016 contravene human rights law?
• Nick Butler Olympic Movement's real reaction to Russian doping crisis still remains unclear heading into 2017
• Nick Butler What is likely to happen next in the struggle against Russian doping?
• Bruno Guandalini and Caio de Faro Nunes The CAS List of Arbitrators: Lessons from the Pechstein case for Tokyo 2020
• Antonio Rigozzi, Sébastien Besson and William McAuliffe International Sports Arbitration

Upcoming Events

• 8 March - Discrimination Against Women in Sport Conference: How to continue narrowing the discrimination gap, Preston, UK
• 6 April – Sportaccord Convention 2017 (“Lawaccord”) - Joint Session with the Court of Arbitration for Sport, Aarhus, Denmark
• 28-29 April - 2017 Macolin Anti-Doping Summit: A Fresh Look at the Science, Legal, and Policy Aspects of Anti-Doping, Swiss National Sports Centre, Macolin (Magglingen) Switzerland
• 29-30 June – Sport & EU 12^th Annual Conference, Molde University College, Molde, Norway 

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

The end of governance reforms at FIFA?

The main sports governance story that surfaced in the press (see here and here) during the last month is related to significant personal changes made by the FIFA Council within the organization’s institutional structure. In particular, the FIFA Council dismissed the heads of the investigatory (Mr Cornel Borbély) and adjudicatory (Mr Hans-Joachim Eckert) chambers of the Independent Ethics Committee, as well as the Head (Mr Miguel Maduro) of the Governance and Review Committee. The decision to remove Mr Maduro was taken arguably in response to his active role in barring Mr Vitaly Mutko, a Deputy Prime Minister of Russia, from sitting on the FIFA Council due to an imminent conflict of interests. These events constitute a major setback to governance reforms initiated by the football’s world governing body in 2015. For a more detailed insight into the governance reforms at FIFA, we invite you to read the recent blog written by our senior researcher Mr Antoine Duval.

The CAS award in Real Madrid CF v. FIFA

At the end of the month, the CAS finally published its award delivered in the arbitration procedure between the Spanish club Real Madrid CF and FIFA regarding the transfer of minor football players. Mr Michele Bernasconi, sitting as a Sole Arbitrator, partially upheld the appeal filed by Real Madrid CF against the decision rendered by the FIFA Appeal Committee on 8 April 2016. The Sole Arbitrator reduced the ban (registering new players both on a national and international level) imposed on the Spanish club by the FIFA Appeal Committee from two to one entire transfer period. Moreover, Real Madrid CF is now obliged to pay CHF 240,000 instead of the original fine amounting to CHF 360,000. 

UEFA incorporates human rights and anti-corruption criteria into bidding requirements

UEFA has recently made available the Bid Dossier Template for the 2024 European Championship that will be held either in Germany or Turkey. Amongst other things, the two remaining candidates shall describe in their bid dossiers a global strategy for integrating the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in order to protect, respect and fulfil universal human rights, including child rights and the rights of workers. On this occasion, UEFA President Mr Aleksander Čeferin stated that ‘it was imperative […] to introduce specific articles on the respect and protection of human rights in the bidding requirements for all our competitions.’ By incorporating human rights criteria into bidding requirements, UEFA joins the International Olympic Committee and FIFA in their efforts to tackle human rights abuses associated with mega sporting events.

The return of Claudia Pechstein: Bundesverfassungsgericht edition

Claudia Pechstein is back! For those who have already forgotten the case, this is a dispute involving a German Speed Skater and Olympic gold medallist challenging the validity of a CAS award imposing a doping ban (for greater detail see our previous blogs here and here, and the article by Antoine Duval and Ben van Rompuy). Nothing less than the survival of the CAS, at least as we know it, is at stake. While Claudia Pechstein lost in front of the Bundesgerichtshof, the decision was harshly criticized (here and here) and she decided to challenge the ruling in front of the German Bundesverfassungsgericht (constitutional court). Since last month, we know that the Bundesverfassungsgericht will hear and decide the claim, this as such is already a sign that the judges deem the case worthy of consideration and should be cause for concern for those wishing to keep the CAS as it currently is. The silver lining for CAS might be in the Bundesverfassungsgericht’s Solange jurisprudence, which could find a new expression in this peculiar context (as suggested here), it would preserve the CAS’s existence while forcing it to change.

Sports Law Related Decisions

• CAS – Award delivered in the arbitration between Arijan Ademi and UEFA
• CAS – Award delivered in the arbitration between IAAF and All Russia Athletics Federation & Vladimir Mokhnev
• CAS – Award delivered in the arbitration between Real Madrid and FIFA
• Supreme Court of Spain – Decision concerning the Spanish cyclist Roberto Heras

Official Documents and Press Releases

• CAS – CAS maintains the temporary bans imposed on six Russian athletes until 31 October 2017, at the latest
• CAS – CAS reduces the sanctions of football players Enrique Luis Triverio and Pablo Cesar Aguilar Benitez
• European Commission – State Aid: Commission approves Slovak support of EUR 36 million for the construction of the national football stadium in Bratislava
• European Commission – The Council approves the new work plan for sport
• Federal Constitutional Court of Germany – Pechstein's constitutional complaint to be heard in 2017
• FIBA – FIBA’s mid-term congress ratifies new headgear rule
• FIFA – Circular no. 1583: Amendment to Article 78 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code
• FIFA – FIFA welcomes outcome of NCP mediation process on workers’ welfare in Qatar
•  FIFA – Member associations release reports on intermediaries
• FIFA – Outcome of second meeting of Governance Committee
• FIFA – Suspension of the Malian FA lifted
•  IOC – Joint statement following the meeting of IOC President, Professor Richard McLaren and WADA President
• Tennis Integrity Unit – Junn Mitsuhashi banned for life for match-fixing offences
• UEFA – Bid Dossier Template for EURO 2024
• WADA – WADA Foundation Board takes decisive action on the Way Forward for the Agency and for Clean Sport

In the news

Doping

• Andy Brown Russia’s National Anti-Doping Plan denies institutional doping
• Andy Brown Spanish police dismantle new sports doping ring
• Michael Pavitt Russia in danger of missing Pyeongchang 2018 as International Paralympic Committee maintain suspension
• Michael Pavitt Russian race walker Trofimov handed four-year ban
  

Football

• Murad Ahmed FIFA ousts governance chief in ‘night of long knives’
• The Associated Press FIFA says blackface in Sochi parade was ‘inappropriate’
• BBC Sport Gothenburg v AIK: ‘Match-fixing attempt’ leads to Swedish fixture postponement
• Simon Bradley FIFA chief Infantino seeks ‘absolute power’ after ousting ethics heads
• Children Win UEFA incorporates human rights and anti-corruption criteria into bidding requirements
• Simon Evans FIFA’s chief ethics investigator and ethics judge replaced
• Graham Dunbar Two more members leave FIFA governance panel
• Nizaar Kinsella The laws of the transfer market could be rewritten with landmark court case in Italy
• James Lynch FIFA’s chance to show they put people ahead of money is now
•  Francine McKenna Will PwC throw the red card on its Swiss firm over FIFA
• Liam Morgan Palestine threaten to take FIFA to CAS after ‘illegal’ postponement of vote by Infantino
• Tariq Panja and Gaspard Sebag Soccer star homes raided in money-laundering investigation

Other

• Amnesty International Qatar: Abuse of migrant workers remains widespread as World Cup stadium hosts first match
• Graham Dunbar Swim body monitoring VP’s alleged role in FIFA bribery case
• Daniel Etchells American tennis player Kryvonos given 10-year ban for match-fixing
• Richard Martin Cycling: Authorities ordered to pay Heras compensation after appeal fails
• Dave Zirin and Jules Boykoff Los Angeles residents start to organize against the Olympic bid

Academic Materials

• Mark James Sports Law 3^rd edition
• Nancy Leong Against Women’s Sports

Blogs

Asser International Sports Law Blog

• Antoine Duval The Reform of FIFA: Plus ça change, moins ça change?
• Serhat Yilmaz and Antoine Duval What Pogba’s transfer tells us about the (de)regulation of intermediaries in football
• Branislav Hock Nudging, not crushing, private orders: Private ordering in sports and the role of States
• Saverio Spera Exploring the Validity of Unilateral Extension Options in Football – Part 2: The view of the DRC and the CAS

Law in Sport

• Phil Bonner Are England’s current home grown player requirements sufficient to produce an elite national team?
• William Clerk The rebalancing of power: The need for greater transparency in sports tribunals
• Daniel Geey What a hard ‘red, white and blue’ Brexit may mean for domestic football
• Philip Hutchinson and Tiran Gunawardena Betting in football: Was the FA’s decision on Joey Barton a fair one?
• Stephen Ridgway The 4 key issues facing sports media rights lawyers in 2017: From Head Counsel, Sky Sports
• Lucien Valloni and Stéphanie Oneyser Player contracts: How contractual stability can override a liquidated damages clause
  

Others

• Andy Brown Pressure builds to secure fair athlete rights and representation
• Matt Hart ‘This does not sound legal’: Inside Nike’s Oregon project
• Bonita Mersiades The past is not another country for FIFA
• Léonard Stoyanov Switzerland to become more attractive for international arbitration

Upcoming Events

• 29-30 June – Sport & EU 12^th Annual Conference, Molde University College, Molde, Norway
• 31 August-1 September – EU Sports Law and Policy Summer School, Business and Law Building, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, the United Kingdom
• 26-27 October – ISLJ Annual Conference on International Sports Law, T.M.C. Asser Institute, The Hague, the Netherlands (Registration is now open here!)
• 26-30 November – Play the Game 2017: Riding Waves of Change, Eindhoven, the Netherlands

The European Commission has published the “Study on Sports Organisers’ Rights in the EU”, which was carried out by the ASSER International Sports Law Centre (T.M.C. Asser Institute) and the Institute for Information Law (University of Amsterdam). 

The study critically examines the legal protection of rights to sports events (sports organisers’ rights) and various issues regarding their commercial exploitation in the field of media and sports betting, both from a national and EU law perspective.  

In a number of posts, we will highlight some of the key findings of the study. 

“It was Hyde, after all, and Hyde alone, that was guilty.” 

In recent years, numerous national and European sports organisers have called for the adoption of a specific right to consent to the organisation of bets (“right to consent to bets”), by virtue of which no betting operator could offer bets on a sports event without first entering into a contractual agreement with the organiser. 

A sports organisers’ right to consent to bets was first introduced in Victoria (Australia) in 2007. Yet it was the recognition of a similar right in France that created the true momentum for sports organisers to advocate its adoption at the EU or EU-wide national level. The argument is twofold. First, a right to consent to bets would entitle sports organisers to demand a “fair financial return” for the commercial exploitation of theirs sports events by betting operators. Second, it would establish a statutory obligation for betting operators to work in partnership with sports organisers to preserve the integrity of sports events. According to the contractual provisions agreed upon by the involved parties, mutual obligations (for e.g. fraud detection) and conditions of information exchange can be identified. 

A restriction to the freedom to provide services? 

From an EU internal market law perspective, it is important to note that the conditions implementing a right to consent to bets are capable of constituting a restriction of the free movement of services within the Union (within the meaning of Article 56 TFEU). Indeed, the requirement for betting operators to obtain consent for the organisation of sports bets could impede or render less attractive the free provision of gambling services.[1] 

The Court of Justice (CJ) has consistently held that restrictions on gambling activities are acceptable only if justified by an imperative requirement in the general interest and compliant with the principle of proportionality. The CJ has accepted the prevention of fraud as a legitimate objective justification. The financing of public interest activities through proceeds from gambling services, on the other hand, can only be accepted as a beneficial consequence that is incidental to the restrictive policy adopted.[2]  

It follows that a strict regulatory framework that genuinely reflects a concern to prevent the manipulation of sports events must accompany the introduction of a right to consent to bets. 

The origins of the French betting right 

With the enactment of a new gambling law in 2010, the French legislator, following case law precedent recognizing sports bets as a form of commercial exploitation of sports events, introduced a right to consent to bets in the French Sports Code. 

Interestingly, the concept of the right to consent to bets evolved considerably during the course of the legislative process.  

When the draft law opening up online gambling and betting to competition and regulation was introduced in the French parliament, the rationale of the right to consent to bets was solely expressed in terms of generating a “fair financial return” to sport. Under Chapter IX (“Provisions concerning the exploitation of sports events”) of the original draft law, the following addition to Article L.334-1 of the Sports Code was proposed: 

“The use, for commercial purposes, of any characteristic element of sporting events or competitions, notably names, calendars, data or results, requires the consent of the owners of the exploitation rights under conditions, in particular of a financial nature, defined by contract, subject to the provisions of articles L. 333-6 to L.333-9”.^[3]

On 5 March 2009, the French authorities notified the draft law to the European Commission, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 98/34/EC of 22 June 1988.[4] In its detailed opinion, the Commission stressed that several provisions of the draft law would infringe Article 56 TFEU if they were to be adopted without due consideration of the Commission’s objections. Amongst other things, the Commission rightly observed that the financing of sport through gambling revenues could not justify an obstacle to free movement, in this case the requirement to obtain consent from the sports organiser. The Commission further noted that the characteristic elements that are already in the possession of sports organisers, such as calendars, data or results, could not qualify for sui generis database right protection.  

It was only during the subsequent first reading of the draft law in the French National Assembly that the statutory recognition of the right to consent to bets was presented as a means of preserving sports integrity. On 21 July 2009, the French Minister for the Budget declared: 

“in reality, the interest of this right for sport is not financial but ethical, by requiring commercial agreements between gambling operators and the organisers of sports competitions, this right finally will give professional sport the means to make the operators share their concerns in matters of competition ethics”.^[5]

 Accordingly, the relevant provision was substantially amended to address the concerns about its compliance with the EU internal market rules. First, it no longer mentioned that the consent to the organisation of bets was related to the use of fixtures and schedules. Second, the title of Chapter IX was changed to “Provisions concerning the exploitation of sports events and the fight against fraud and cheating in the context of these events” (emphasis added). Third, multiple paragraphs were added, so as to stipulate that (1) the betting right contracts should impose obligations on betting operators concerning fraud detection and prevention and (2) the financial contribution is intended to compensate for costs incurred by sports organisers for anti-fraud mechanisms.^[6]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating  

On the basis of an in-depth assessment of the exploitation of the French right to consent to bets, the study concludes that the rationale of safeguarding the integrity of sports events did not really override its economic rationale. 

Decree No. 2010-614 requires the betting right marketing contracts to specify information and transparency obligations imposed on operators to detect fraud and prevent the risk of harm to the integrity of sports events.^[7] Contrary to the relatively strong language about the stipulation of “information and transparency obligations” imposed on the operators, Decree No. 2010-614 merely requires the holder of the right to consent to bets to specify in the contracts the measures it “intends” to introduce for preventing the risk for the integrity of the events in question. However, the law does not mandate the effective implementation of these integrity measures. Furthermore, although the compensation paid for the right to organise bets must take account “in particular the costs incurred in detecting and preventing fraud”, there is no guarantee that the income is allocated to fraud prevention and detection. 

If Member States would consider introducing a right to consent to bets, it appears critical from an EU law perspective that it is genuinely designed to protect a non-economic public interest objective in a proportional manner. The Victorian (Australia) regulatory regime is recommended as a best practice model. Here, the financial return is truly a compensation for the integrity assurances given by the sports bodies. Before a sports body is legally entitled to exercise the right to consent to bets, it must first invest time and resources into developing adequate integrity mechanisms. Furthermore, in case the sports body fails to fulfil its contractual obligations, the gambling regulator may revoke its ability to exercise the right to consent to bets. Indeed, the rights and obligations in the betting right agreements must work both ways: sports betting operators are also entitled to expect that the sports organisers truly implement the integrity policies.  

For a detailed exploration of the virtues of a right to consent to bets and the challenges of adopting such a mechanism from a legal, institutional, and practical perspective, check out the full study available at http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/2014/study-on-sport-organisers-rights_en.htm.

[1] All measures that prohibit, impede or render less attractive the exercise of the fundamental freedoms must be regarded as restrictions, see e.g. C-439/99 Commission v Italy [2002] ECR I-305, para. 22; Case C-205/99 Analir and Others v Administratión General del Estado [2001] ECR I-271, para. 21.

[2] See e.g. Joined Cases C 316/07, C 358/07 to C 360/07, C 409/07 and C 410/07 Markus Stoß and Others v Wetteraukreis and Others [2010] ECR I-8069, para. 104; C-67/98 Questore di Verona v Diego Zenatti [1999] ECR I-7289, para. 36; Judgment of the EFTA Court in Case 3/06 (Ladbrokes) para. 63.

[3] Unofficial translation by the research team (“L’utilisation, à des fins commerciales, de tout élément caractéristique des manifestations ou compétitions sportives, notamment leur dénomination, leur calendrier, leurs données ou leurs résultats, ne peut être effectuée sans le consentement des propriétaires des droits d’exploitation, dans des conditions, notamment financières, définies par contact, sous réserve des dispositions des articles L. 333-6 à L. 333-9”).

[4] Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (1998) OJ L 204/37. This “Transparency Directive” requires Member States to notify their rules on information society services in draft form, and generally observe a standstill period of at least three months before formal adoption, in order to allow other Member States and the European Commission to raise concern about potential trade barriers within the EU.

[5] Assemblée Nationale, Audition de M. Éric Woerth, ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l'État au cours de la réunion du 21 Juillet 2009.

[6] In the context of the second reading of the draft law in the French Senate, the rapporteur of the Finance Committee welcomed this solution to accommodate the European Commission’s concerns regarding Article 52. Sénate, Rapport n° 209 (2009-2010) de M. François Trucy, fait au nom de la commission des finances, déposé le 19 janvier 2010.

[7] Décret no. 2010-614 du 7 Juin 2010 relatif aux conditions de commercialisation de droits portant sur l’organisation de paris en relation avec une manifestation ou compétition sportives, Article 2.

 After Tuesday’s dismissal of Michael Garcia’s complaint against the now infamous Eckert statement synthetizing (misleadingly in his eyes) his Report on the bidding process for the World Cup 2018 and 2022, Garcia finally decided to resign from his position as FIFA Ethics Committee member. On his way out, he noted: “No independent governance committee, investigator, or arbitration panel can change the culture of an organization”. It took Garcia a while to understand this, although others faced similar disappointments before. One needs only to remember the forgotten reform proposals of the Independent Governance Committee led by Prof. Dr. Mark Pieth.

FIFA is the world’s government of football. It decides who should get to organize the World Cup every four years, but it also imposes the rules applying to international transfers of football players and redistributes a massive amount of money to the various layers of the football pyramid. Those are no mundane tasks. But, despite its relentless display of an entrenched culture of bad governance and corruption, the timidity of public authorities in confronting FIFA is striking. In fact, opacity and a dramatic lack of accountability characterize FIFA’s decision-making processes.

FIFA’s Opacity Culture

Transparency is one of the key requirements of “good governance”. Transparency implies that the public sphere can scrutinize the acts of government and criticize them in full knowledge of their contents. To the contrary, FIFA’s daily governmental work is marred in opacity. Disciplinary decisions, as the one handed out on Tuesday, are never released in full. Thus, it disables any critical checks on the way justice is rendered by FIFA’s disciplinary bodies. The two Garcia reports, the first on the ISL Corruption scandal and the second on the World Cup 2018 and 2022 bids were not publically released (Michael Garcia did not complain over the non-publication of his first report). In an ironical twist, FIFA regulations bar FIFA from releasing these reports supposed to restore credibility of FIFA in the eyes of the world. Hence, FIFA publically trumpets investigations into the most controversial and sensitive issues, while knowing that the findings will be buried forever. But beyond the Garcia reports, opacity is a pervasive feature of FIFA’s governance. For example, the two academic studies ordered by FIFA on the legality and desirability of third-party ownership were similarly kept in a drawer, despite the fact that they are to serve as a basis for upcoming legislation on the matter. In this way, FIFA is able to keep the public debate at bay. Maintaining the public uninformed on the substance of legislative or judicial decisions is the surest way to avoid any controversies and to distance the world government of football from its “citizens”. 

FIFA’s Accountability Deficit

Accountability is another keyword for anybody interested in Good Governance standards. In short, it implies that a decision-maker can be held responsible in front of a forum (legal or political) for the decisions she (or most likely he in the case of FIFA) is taking. FIFA has a huge accountability deficit for two reasons: internally no strong accountability mechanisms have been put in place; externally no societal accountability is imposed. Internally FIFA has been at pain to paint the emergence of its “independent” Ethics Committee as a revolution. However, the Garcia Report saga was prompt to display it as a farce. The Ethics Committee’s investigation as such seems to have been fundamentally flawed, suffice here to recall that the Russian Federation got away with a simple “computers destroyed”. If the Ethics Committee is incapable of inquiring seriously into those matters, it should simply be discarded as an instance of whitewashing. Moreover, despite Blatter being a finalist for this year’s edition of the world’s most hated human being, he will most likely be re-elected by FIFA’s member (the leaders of the national associations) at the upcoming congress in May 2015. Indeed, FIFA’s members are accountable to nobody as FIFA shields them from any national legal or political challenges on the pretext of protecting the autonomy of football.

As pointed out by Garcia, FIFA is incapable of reforming itself and until now it has been immune to the pressure of public outrage. All the expertise of the world would be incapable of changing this state of affairs, unless it is matched with hard legal constraints. This pressure has to come from the states, the first among those being the Swiss state. The Swiss public authorities have the duty to use all legal tools available (especially criminal law) to clean up this Swiss association seated in Zurich, they should collaborate with Europol, Interpol and the FBI in doing so (the new anti-corruption laws are a first step in that direction). In the end, the Swiss state is the sole capable of putting an end to FIFA’s corrupt politics. Would this be an inadmissible intrusion in the autonomy of sport? Even the IOC acknowledged, in the background paper to the Agenda 2020 recommendation, “autonomy has to be earned” and must be exercised “responsibly and in accordance with the basic standards of good governance”. There is no way FIFA can be seen as complying to any good governance standards. The time to clean-up FIFA has come.

 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 

The CAS award in Hakan Çalhanoglu v. Trabzonspor FC

The dispute between the Turkish football player Hakan Çalhanoğlu and the Turkish club Trabzonspor FC dates back to April 2013, when the latter lodged a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber ('FIFA DRC') alleging that, by signing a contract with the German club Karlsruher SC, Hakan Çalhanoğlu breached the terms of his employment contract (with Trabzonspor FC) without just cause. In January 2016, the FIFA DRC upheld the claims advanced by Trabzonspor FC and imposed a four-month period of ineligibility on the Turkish international. Both the player and the club decided to appeal the FIFA DRC decision before the CAS. In its press release dated 2 February 2017, the CAS reports that it has delivered its award which confirms the four-month ban imposed on Hakan Çalhanoglu by the FIFA DRC (provisionally suspended by the CAS upon the request made by Hakan Çalhanoglu) and orders the Turkish international to pay Trabzonspor FC the sum of EUR 100,000.

The CAS award concerning Russian athlete Mariya Savinova-Farnosova

On 10 February 2017, the CAS rendered its award in the ordinary arbitration procedure between the International Association of Athletics Federations ('IAAF'), the Russian Athletics Federation and Russian 800 metres runner Mariya Savinova-Farnosova. The CAS held that, during the period between 26 July 2010 and 19 August 2013, Ms. Savinova-Farnosova was engaged in using doping, and thus violated Rule 32 (2) (b) of the IAAF Competition Rules. Consequently, the CAS imposed a four-year period of ineligibility on Ms. Savinova-Farnosova, starting from 24 August 2015. In addition, all results achieved by her in the respective period were annulled and she must now return her gold medals from the London 2012 Summer Olympics and the Daegu 2011 IAAF World Championships.

The CAS rejected the urgent requests for provisional measures filed by five Russian cross country skiers 

On 21 February 2017, the CAS refused to order provisional measures requested by five Russian cross country skiers, namely Evgeniy Belov, Alexander Legkov, Alexey Petukhov, Evgenia Shapovalova and Maxim Vylegzhanin, in the appeal arbitration procedure against the International Ski Federation ('FIS'). The athletes requested the CAS to stay the execution of the decisions adopted by the FIS Doping Panel on 25 January 2017 (Evgeniy Belov and Alexander Legkov) and on 6 February 2017 (Alexey Petukhov, Evgenia Shapovalova and Maxim Vylegzhanin) respectively. It is worth recalling that the FIS Doping Panel provisionally suspended the athletes in question on account of the evidence presented in Part II of the McLaren Independent Investigation Report, which unveiled that doping samples of several Russian medallists at the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics may have been manipulated.

The International Olympic Committee modified the Host City Contract 2024 

In its press release dated 28 February 2017, the International Olympic Committee ('IOC') communicated that, as part of the implementation of Olympic Agenda 2020, it is making specific changes to the Host City Contract 2024 with regard to human rights, anti-corruption and sustainable development. The IOC President Thomas Bach stated that ''this latest step is another reflection of the IOC's commitment to embedding the fundamental values of Olympism in all aspects of the Olympic Games.'' Although the Host City of the 2024 Summer Olympics is scheduled to be announced only in September this year, it is now clear that, be it either Los Angeles or Paris (as Budapest has recently withdrawn its bid), the it will have to abide by additional range of human rights obligations.

Sports Law Related Decisions

• CAS – Award delivered in the arbitration between Belarus Canoe Association and Belarusian Senior Men's Canoe and Kayak team members
• CAS – Award delivered in the arbitration between the Football Association of Serbia and UEFA
• CAS – CAS imposes four-year period of ineligibility on Russian athlete Mariya Savinova-Farnosova
• CAS – CAS rejects the request for provisional measures filed by Jeonbuk Hyundai Motors
• CAS – CAS rejects the urgent requests for provisional measures filed by five Russian athletes
• CAS – CAS upholds the FIFA decision to impose a 4-month ban on Hakan Çalhanoglu; grants EUR 100,000 to Trabzonspor FC as compensation for breach of contract

Official Documents and Press Releases

• CAS – Alexander Legkov and Evgeniy Belov file appeals at the CAS
• CAS – CAS procedure between Jeonbuk Hyundai Motors and the Asian Football Confederation has concluded
• CAS – Jerome Valcke files an appeal at the CAS
• CAS – Nesta Carter files an appeal at the CAS
• FIFA – CAS decision in the case involving Gordon Derrick
• FIFA – FIFA extends ban of Timor-Leste FA General Secretary
• FIFPro – Belgian ruling on minor violates human rights
• IOC – IOC strengthens its stance in favour of human rights and against corruption in new Host City Contract
• UEFA – UEFA Executive Committee endorses reforms
• WADA – Laos ratifies UNESCO Anti-Doping Convention
• WADA – WADA meets with Anti-Doping Organizations to discuss McLaren Investigation Report Part I
• WADA – WADA removes Azerbaijan and Indonesia from the World Anti-Doping Code's non-compliant list
• WADA – WADA suspends accreditation of the Bogota laboratory

In the news 

Doping

• Andy Brown Russia to miss London 2017 IAAF World Championships
• Nick Butler WADA warn against jailing doping cheats as Ethiopian faces three-year sentence
• Cycling News WADA struggling over legality of naming Operacion Puerto athletes
• Daniel Etchells Detained Kazakh biathletes all return negative doping results
• Daniel Etchells IAAF receive 16 more requests for Russians to compete as neutrals
• Bonnie D. Ford With one year until 2018 Winter Games, Russia's status murky
• Liam Morgan Savinova stripped of Olympic gold medal and given four-year doping ban by CAS
• Reuters Sample re-tests from Sochi Olympics to run to 2022: IOC
• Dan Roan WADA has 'full confidence' in McLaren Report despite 'discrepancies'
• Rebecca R. Ruiz Austrian police raid Kazakh biathletes' hotel, confiscating drugs and phones
• Rebecca R. Ruiz Clashing agendas: Anti-doping officials vs. U.S. Olympic leaders
• Rebecca R. Ruiz House panel sets hearing to scrutinize doping in international sports
• Rebecca R. Ruiz Russians implicated in doping still compete, angering other athletes
• Sputnik International IOC's negative reaction proves McLaren Report politicized – Russian Senator
• TASS Russian cross country skiers set to appeal temporary suspension with CAS

Football 

• Boxscore News Bobby Barnes leads new FIFPro talks with UEFA
• CIES Football Observatory Big-5 league clubs break transfer expenditure record
• Gerald Imray and Enock Muchinjo Beautiful game? Not for exploited soccer players in Africa
• Tariq Panja FIFA's internal investigation said to uncover more crimes
• Tariq Panja Sponsors shy away from FIFA as Russia World Cup draws near
• Tim Pryor Jersey FA get date before Court of Arbitration for sport in UEFA dispute
• Rory Smith U.S. travel restrictions would damage 2026 World Cup bid, UEFA President says
• Swissinfo.ch FIFA under scrutiny from anti-corruption body
• TASS Russia increases spending on 2018 FIFA World Cup preparations
• The Guardian Qatar spending $ 500 million a week on World Cup projects
• The Times of India FIFA seeks life ban against ex-Guatemala, Costa Rica chiefs
• The Times of India Portugal suspends bets over match-fixing fears
• Andrew Warshaw Cypriot FA rejects Karmiotissa and AEZ denials and issues EUR 50,000 match-fixing fines                                                     

Other

• Belarusian Telegraph Agency Belarus' National Olympic Committee prepares suit against International Canoe Federation
• Nick Butler Swiss Canton votes against 2026 Winter Olympic bid in referendum
• Alastair Himmer Tokyo governor warns of spiralling 2020 Olympics costs
• Reuters Kenya accepts scrapping of order to disband Olympic committee
• Reuters Kuwait minister resigns ahead of planned no-confidence vote over IOC ban
• Reuters Olympics – Hungary to withdraw 2024 summer Olympic bid – government spokesman
• Reuters Olympics: Rights groups praise IOC's revisited Games contract
•  The Guardian Rio's Olympic venues, six months on – in pictures

Books 

• Cécile Chaussard and Thierry Chiron La Lutte Contre le Dopage – L'Essentiel du Droit
• Leanne O'Leary Employment and Labour Relations Law in the Premier League, NBA and International Rugby Union

Academic Articles

• Antoine Duval Not in My Name! Claudia Pechstein and the Post-Consensual Foundations of the Court of Arbitration for Sport
• Suren Gomtsian et al. Between the Green Pitch and the Red Tape: The Private Legal Order of FIFA
• Special Issue of the Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law – 20 Years After Bosman: The New Frontiers of EU Law and Sport (Freely downloadable for the next month!)
• Antoine Duval The Court of Arbitration for Sport and EU Law: Chronicle of an Encounter
• Ben Van Rompuy The Role of EU Competition Law in Tackling Abuse of Regulatory Power by Sports Associations

Blogs

Asser International Sports Law Blog

• Emre Bilginoglu Introducing the New Legal Challenges of E-sports
• Antoine Duval Doyen vs. Sporting I: Doyen's Pyrrhic Victory at the CAS
• Tomáš Grell FIFA's Responsibility for Human Rights Abuses in Qatar – Part I: The Claims Against FIFA
• Oskar Van Maren UEFA's Financial Fair Play Regulations and the Rise of Football's 1 %
• Shervine Nafissi Doyen vs. Sporting II: The Bitter End of Sporting's Fight at the Swiss Federal Supreme Court

Law in Sport 

• Jamie Singer Ross Brown Can suspicious betting alerts prove match fixing? The case of KS Skënderbeu v UEFA
• Jake Cohen Carol Cause Case review: US Soccer Federation v. National Players Association (use of player likenesses)
• John Elphick How to structure image rights companies for international athletes working in the U.K.
• Jasser Kassab How FIFA's TMS's global player exchange is changing how football clubs conduct international transfers
• Ryan Lake NHL expansion: The formation of the Vegas Golden Knights
• Andrea Sartori KPMG analysis of football clubs and the stock exchange in 2016
• Andrew Smith Can football players unilaterally retire from international duty? The Joël Matip and & Allan Nyom cases
• Lloyd Thomas Termination of football employment contracts without just cause: A review of Hakan Çalhanoglu v Trabzonspor FC

Others

• Nick Butler: Stalling IOC are still missing the point about McLaren Report evidence
• Doug VanDerwerken, Jacek Rothert and Brice Nguelifack The impact of suspension rules on fouls in football: Case study from the Premier League
• Anna Jean Kaiser Legacy of Rio Olympics so far is series of unkept promises
• Steve Silver How Donald Trump's SCOTUS pick, Neil Gorsuch, could shape the future of sports

Upcoming Events

• 6 April – Sportaccord Convention 2017 (''Lawaccord'') – Joint Session with the Court of Arbitration for Sport, Aarhus, Denmark
• 28-29 April – 2017 Macolin Anti-Doping Summit: A Fresh Look at the Science, Legal, and Policy Aspects of Anti-Doping, Swiss National Sports Centre, Macolin (Magglingen) Switzerland
• 29-30 June – Sport & EU 12^th Annual Conference, Molde University College, Molde, Norway

The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), the monitoring body of track and field athletics, regularly submitted South African middle distance runner and Olympic gold medalist Mokgadi Caster Semenya to sex verification tests when it began questioning her sexual characteristics and speculating whether her body belonged on the Disorder of Sex Development (DSD) spectrum. DSD Syndrome is often defined as an “intersex condition” which affects the clear development of either/or genitalia, gonads and chromosomes into one distinctive sex or another. The spectrum of the intersex condition is particularly wide, and the disorder can sometimes be minimal - some cases of female infertility can actually be explained by an intersex condition.

The IAAF deemed the controversial sex verification tests necessary on the grounds that it was required to prove Semenya did not have a “medical condition” which could give her an “unfair advantage”. It was eventually found that, because of an intersex trait, Semenya did have abnormally high levels of testosterone for a woman, which, in the IAAF’s opinion, justified a need for regulatory hormonal adjustments in order for her to keep competing in the women’s category. The IAAF also funded research to determine how ‘hyperandrogenism’ affects athletic performance. In 2018, it issued Eligibility Regulations on Female Classification (“Athlete with Differences of Sexual Development”) for events from 400m to the mile, including 400m, hurdles races, 800m and 1’500m. The IAAF rules indicated that in case of an existing high level of testosterone, suppression or regulation by chemotherapy, hormonal castration, and/or iatrogenic irradiation was mandatory in order to take part in these events.

Semenya and her lawyers challenged the IAAF Regulations in front of the CAS, who, in a very controversial decision, deemed the Regulations a necessary, reasonable and proportionate mean “of achieving the aim of what is described as the integrity of female athletics and for the upholding of the ‘protected class’ of female athletes in certain events” (§626).

The CAS Ruling

Semenya and her attorneys claimed that forcing her to get unwanted medication represented a violation of human rights. On the 1^st May 2019, the Swiss-based Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS) ruled in favor of the restrictions placed on female athletes with high levels of testosterone by the IAAF. The direct consequence of this decision for Semenya was the obligation for her to take testosterone suppressants in order to continue competing in her category of IAAF events.

In March 2019, the United Nations Human Rights Council issued a resolution indicating the IAAF Regulations were “not compatible with international human rights norms and standards, including the rights of women with differences of sex development” and that there was “no clear relationship of proportionality between the aim of the regulations and the proposed measures and their impact.”

Because the Regulations established conditions and restrictions which were targeted at the female (or intersex) athlete population exclusively and did not impose any equivalent conditions or restrictions on male athletes, the CAS Panel considered that the Regulations were, prima facie discriminatory on grounds of legal sex. After reminding that “it is common ground that a rule that imposes differential treatment on the basis of a particular protected characteristic is valid and lawful if it is a necessary, reasonable and a proportionate means of attaining a legitimate objective” (§548), the Panel considered that its sole responsibility was to determine whether the DSD Regulations were necessary, reasonable and proportionate. As such, the Panel said it was “not required to (…) appraise the adequacy of the IAAF’s policy-making process”.

The Swiss Federal Tribunal and ordre public

A decision from the CAS can only be challenged at the Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT) on a limited number of grounds, enclosed in art. 190 al. 2 of the Federal Act on Private International Law (PILA), which include claiming that the principle of equal treatment of the parties or their right to be heard in an adversarial procedure has not been observed (lit. d) and that the award is incompatible with public policy (lit. e). At the beginning of June 2019, after an ex parte request, the SFT, Switzerland’s highest court, granted Semenya a temporary suspension of the IAAF rules on testosterone limits. She was able to compete over distances of 400 to 1’500m without medication, until the SFT issued a ruling.

Because it was considered that the discrimination was necessary, reasonable and proportionate in comparison with the vast majority of non-DSD women, the only outcome for Semenya’s lawyers was to argue on the violation of the principle of public order. The 30^th July 2019, the SFT reversed the ruling that temporarily lifted the application of the IAAF’s regulations, thus impeding her to defend her 800m title at the World Championships in Doha in September 2019. The SFT concluded that “neither the allegation of an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, nor the alleged violation of ordre public due to an infringement of their personality and human dignity appeared with high probability to be well founded”. Welcoming the decision, the IAAF stated that, in certain particular cases, “biology trumps identity”.

The elements of comparison

Body Policing

Admitting that “the imperfect alignment between nature, law and identity is what gives rise to the conundrum at the heart of this case” (§559), the CAS stated that:

“On true analysis, (…) the purpose of the male-female divide in competitive athletics is not to protect athletes with a female legal sex from having to compete against athletes with a male legal sex. Nor is it to protect athletes with a female gender identity from having to compete against athletes with a male gender identity. Rather, it is to protect individuals whose bodies have developed in a certain way following puberty from having to compete against individuals who, by virtue of their bodies having developed in a different way following puberty, possess certain physical traits that create such a significant performance advantage that fair competition between the two groups is not possible.”

The public opinion could not help but point the finger at the underlying hypocrisy of the decision, in comparison with similar cases, both inside and outside of the sports world. Firstly, the same type of policy and legal arguments are often held for controlling certain types of bodies exclusively, whilst leaving others out of the line of sight. In the sports world, it is certainly the case: think of the impressive decoration of Olympian swimmer Michael Phelps aligned with the god-like praises he received for his physical strength and capacity; for instance. On the contrary, leaving “abnormally” tall basket-ball players on the bench so as to give naturally shorter players a chance to win, or testing male athletes with poor athletic results in suspicion they might have low levels of testosterone seems absurd. In fact, the latter are only tested as to make sure they do not take anything effectively modifying their capacities in competing. Semenya and her lawyers did point to the fact that “it is illogical and unnecessary to regulate one genetic trait while celebrating all the others” (CAS decision, §53).

Out of the sports world, indications of “naturalness” in pro-life arguments or governments’ refusal to medically cover the suppression of hormones in transgender reassignment cases are also examples of body policing. The case therefore raises the central question of how stereotypes, especially gender ones, give a social meaning to a fact and how legal regulation can confirm it, thus perpetuating it.

The social  meaning of women and gender

Taking a step away from Semenya’s cause célèbre, it must be stressed that, for long, women were not accepted to compete in the Olympics and that their progressive integration was only made possible when a redefinition of the norms of femininity and masculinity, as they relate to sports and competition, occurred. This means that medical tests were carried out and, as a backlash to noticing the instability and fluidity of sex categories, those very categories were reinforced and redefined according to stereotypes. In other words, the sports world went very far to ensure there was a biological difference so that the natural and social order as it was could not be disrupted.

If we try to move away from the (in my opinion, sterile) debate on biological differences (remembering that the latter has also been explained by anthropologists as being a consequence of our gendered social order[1]), we should ask ourselves who has the power to define the norms of femininity and masculinity. “Woman” and “man” have very particular social meanings. Furthermore, commentators often qualify the sex verification tests as being racially flawed. In this sense, the discussion is also of epistemological importance: the bonus corpus is never the female body, and is always the white male one, with “naturally” good athletic abilities. True, scientific results are usually dependent on a certain political order[2], as are any other empirical social-situated findings. The CAS Panel said that an assessment of the likely impact of the DSD Regulations on wider society would require “an analysis of multifaceted sociological issues which are not amenable to judicial resolution by an arbitral tribunal (…)” (§518). And, as such, it is certainly not for an arbitration court to have the power to (re)define gender categories, which are intrinsically political and historical, and are not limited to the sports world.

Appealing to the ECtHR

If she does not prevail before the SFT, Semenya could still appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, alleging a breach of Article 14 and/or Article 8[3]. It may give the Strasbourg Court an interesting opportunity to comment on gender opposition and binarity, as well as on the social limitations put on gendered bodies. The gender stereotypes discussion is not a new one; regional and international courts have had the opportunity, on many occasions, to comment on the need to combat harmful gender stereotypes[4]. However, they usually do so in relation to human rights law and to the principles of equality and non-discrimination. Even if, of course, not every unjustified discrimination is rooted in stereotypes[5], they seldom point at the wrong of gender stereotypes per se. Hopefully this may lead the ECtHR to further reflect on the harmfulness of gender stereotypes, beyond the well-established categories in need of protection against unjustified discrimination.

The CAS practically said that it was bound by biology. If anything, the results of the sex verification tests should have proven that Semenya’s body has incredible athletic abilities, with no requirements of medically modifying it whatsoever.

Conclusion

In a letter to the IAAF about their regulations, United Nations experts on health, torture, and women’s rights wrote:

“The assessment for ‘exclusion or treatment’ based on the IAAF regulations relies on suspicion and speculation, based on stereotypes about femininity. This effectively legitimizes widespread surveillance of all women athletes by requesting national federations as well as doctors, doping officials, and other official personnel to scrutinize women athletes’ perceived femininity, which can include appearance, gender expression, and sexuality. Women who are understood to be “suspicious” about their natural physical traits are tied to subjective and cultural expectations regarding which bodies and modes of gender expression are “appropriate,” or even valorised by adherence to traditional or normative aesthetics of femininity. Gender and sex-based stereotyping and stigma have a long history, not only of causing psychological harm to women and gender minorities, but also of increasing the possibility of violence against them.”

The social norms of gender act as a blur on reality, based on the stereotype that “a real woman” should not be that good of an athlete. It provides us with an overview of how public policy decisions are justified by scientific findings, operating in a gender-normative environment. The discrimination was considered “necessary, reasonable and proportionate” in comparison with the vast majority of non-DSD women, but it somehow appears to be a debate on the equality between women and men and on reaffirming the importance of the “fixed duality of sexual difference”[6]. The CAS Panel said that it was “faced with conflicting rights concerning the rights of female athletes who do, and do not, have DSD” (§554).

Interestingly enough, the more women are compared to each other, on the grounds of fairness, the stronger the female gender category is reinforced.

[1] Priscilla Touraille, Hommes grands, femmes petites : une évolution coûteuse. Les régimes de genre comme force sélective de l’évolution biologique, Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme: Paris 2008.

[2] Thomas Laqueur, La Fabrique du Sexe: Essai sur le corps et le genre en Occident, Gallimard: Paris 1992.

[3] The ECtHR had considered an application brought following an unsuccessful appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal in the October 2018 decision ECtHR, Mutu and Pechstein v Switzerland, applications no. 40575/10 and no. 67474/10, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:1002JUD004057510, alleging breaches of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

[4] The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has broadly defined the notion of “harmful gender stereotypes”, as sexist beliefs, which include representing women in roles considered traditional; as mothers and household heads, as subordinates of men or as sexual objects. In 2013, the OHCHR prepared a report on sex and gender stereotypes, which outlines the practice of treaty bodies and their reference to gender stereotypes. The obligations of States with regard to stereotypes are those set out in Article 5 lit. a CEDAW, reinforced by Article 2 lit. f. which provides that States must “take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices which constitute discrimination against women”. At European level, judgments of the ECtHR have concerned stereotypes related in particular to sexuality (Kalucza v. Hungary), reproduction (A. B. C. v. Ireland; R. R. v. Poland) or domestic violence (Valiuliené v. Lithuania; Opuz v. Turkey). See also Konstantin Markin v. Russia; Carvalho Pinto de Sousa Morais v. Portugal; Khamtokhu and Aksenchick v. Russia.

[5] Sophia Moreau, ‘Equality Rights and Stereotypes’ in Dyzenhaus, D./ Thorburn, M. (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Constitutional Law, Oxford University Press : Oxford 2019.

[6] Hilary Charlesworth, ‘Foreword’, in Harris Rimmer S./Ogg K., Feminist Engagement with International Law, Edward Elgar: Cheltenham 2019.

On 6 October 2014, the CAS upheld the appeal filed by the former General Secretary of the World Karate Federation (WKF), George Yerolimpos, against the 6 February 2014 decision of the WKF Appeal Tribunal. With the award, the CAS confirmed a six-months membership suspension imposed upon the Appellant by the WKF Disciplinary Tribunal.[1] At a first glance, the case at issue seems to be an ordinary challenge of a disciplinary sanction imposed by a sports governing body. Nevertheless, this appeal lies at the heart of a highly acrimonious political fight for the leadership of the WKF, featuring two former ‘comrades’:  Mr Yerolimpos and Mr Espinos (current president of WKF). As the CAS puts it very lucidly, "this is a story about a power struggle within an international sporting body"[2], a story reminding the Saturn devouring his son myth.

This case, therefore, brings the dirty laundry of sports politics to the fore. Interestingly enough, this time the CAS does not hesitate to grapple with the political dimension of the case.

Background and Facts of the Case: ‘The K on its way’ to leadership battles 

The third successive failure of the WKF to have Karate included in the Programme of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics -after the failed campaigns for inclusion in the 2012 London and 2016 Rio Olympics, respectively- spared disappointment in the ranks of the WKF and gave rise to a political war, led by the former ‘crony’ Mr Yerolimpos who used these failures to challenge WKF president Espinos. 

In the wake of concerns raised by some members of national Karate federations, in June and July 2013, the Appellant emailed the WKF Treasurer twice, questioning the lack of transparency on financial matters and challenging the leadership of the current president. The second email where the Appellant directly accused  Espinos of serious mismanagements was copied to all Executive Committee (EC) members and to the presidents of all Karate NF‘s. Following this “dirty manifesto” - in the words of WKF Treasurer[3], Espinos considered that the Appellant’s behavior amounted to a serious breach of the necessary relationship of confidence with the president. As a result, by application of Article 14.7 of the WKF Statutes, he revoked by email the Appellant from his position as Secretary General of WKF. The email battle continued with the Appellant accusing Espinos of manipulating the democratic processes. However, on 14 August 2013, the Appellant’s revocation was ratified by the EC members through an electronic vote, pursuant to Article 13.20 of the WKF Statutes. 

Then, on a request by the WKF Executive Bureau, the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) of the WKF Disciplinary Legal Commission (TDC) opened disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant in order to examine whether the Appellant’s emails resulted in infringement of Article 9 of the WKF Statutes[4], i.e. his duty to act in a manner commensurate with his role at the WKF. On 30 October 2013, the DT decided to suspend the Appellant from membership of the WKF and EC for six months. It found that the Appellant’s conduct was in breach of his duties entrenched in Articles 9 and 13.2.5 of the WKF Statutes, since his criticism against the WKF president relied on subjective, unproven and unsubstantiated considerations.  More importantly, his criticism was directly circulated to the Karate NFs, without having previously debated them within the WFK Executive Bureau. The DT decision was appealed before the WKF Appeal Tribunal (AT), which on 6 February 2014 confirmed the first instance decision, finding that the content of the Appellants’ emails was prejudicial, defamatory, amounting to a serious violation of Article 9.2 and 13.25 (3) of the WKF Statutes. 

Lastly, the Appellant’s appeal before CAS dating from 26 February 2014, was set aside on 6 October 2014.       

Two main axes in the CAS reasoning 

In his appeal, the Appellant submitted a set of contentions. Specifically, he alleged: (1) the improper initiation of the disciplinary proceedings; (2) the non-identification of relevant offence in Articles 9 and 13.25.3 of the WKF Statutes; (3) the non-violation of these articles by the Appellant; (4) the violation of the principle ne bis in idem in double sanctioning the Appellant; (5) the violation of due process by the DT and AT Panels and finally; (6) the violation of the principle of proportionality in the sanctions imposed by the DT and AT Panels. 

The main focal point of the dispute lies on whether the Appellant’s defamatory emails constitute a serious misconduct and breach the relevant disciplinary provisions of the WKF Statutes. Therefore, this commentary will focus on how the CAS dealt with the interpretation of the disciplinary provisions laid down in Articles 9 and 13.25.3 of the WKF Statutes. Particularly, the commentary will map the CAS reasoning on the following issues: (a) the nature of the misconduct proscribed by the disciplinary provisions of the WKF Statutes and (b) the assessment of the duties bearing on the General Secretary of WKF in the political context of this case.

(a)The violation of Articles 9 and 13.25.3 WKF Statutes.

It is well established that a sports governing body may impose disciplinary sanctions upon its members if they are found guilty of a disciplinary offence, which has to be enshrined in the applicable rules and regulations. In the case at hand, before examining whether the Appellant by sending the above mentioned emails acted in violation of Articles 9and 13.25.3[5] WKF Statutes, the CAS has to examine what type of conduct is covered by these disciplinary provisions. In other words, how do the Articles 9 and 13.25.3 define the offence committed by the Appellant, i.e. the violation of his duty to act in the best interests of the WKF?

Firstly, the CAS takes into account that, in principle, the disciplinary provisions of sports governing bodies statutes are broadly drafted and, therefore, the principle of criminal law nulla poena sine lege does not apply in the case at issue. However, the question remains whether the broadly drafted Articles 9 and 13.25.3 encompass the allegedly offensive behavior of the Appellant. According to the Panel, it is not sufficient that the drafters of the WKF disciplinary provisions intended to entail “the multifarious forms of behavior considered unacceptable” [6] in karate, but whether they actually achieved it. Concretely, as far as Article 9.2 is concerned, the CAS proceeds by identifying two separate obligations for the members: the first entails compliance with the rules of the sport and the second refers to the maintenance of an appropriate conduct in any activity performed. Following an interpretation of the wording of Article 9.2 and particularly of the word "maintaining" which lies between the two obligations (as juxtaposed to the meaning of the word "gardant" in the French version of Article 9.2) the CAS concludes that there is an inextricable link between these obligations.[7] As a result, Article 9.2 sets two prerequisites for the fulfillment of the duty imposed: the members should comply with the rules of sport and additionally should adopt the appropriate demeanour. In practice, this means that at first, a rule has to be breached. While in the case at hand the CAS accepts that the rules of sport can be interpreted in a broad manner and refer not only to the rules of karate itself, the CAS notes that neither the Respondent nor the Panel have identified a rule proscribing the alleged offensive behavior of the Appellant. Thus, the inappropriate conduct of the Appellant cannot amount to a violation of the duty enshrined in Article 9.2.

With regard to the interpretation of the General Secretary’s duties laid down in Article 13.25.3, the CAS remarks that its scope does not overlap with Article 9.2. However, even if Article 13.25.3 is examined in isolation of the requirements of the other disciplinary provisions, the CAS notes that the Appellant’s conduct cannot be considered as amounting to an inappropriate demeanour in fulfilling his duties of maintaining relations with international federations. Indeed, the Appellant’s emails entailed a criticism against the president, involving national federations as well, but according to the CAS this criticism does not constitute a breach of the duty envisaged in Article 13.25.3.

Therefore, having concluded that the alleged conduct of the Appellant does not constitute the subject matter of any offence provided in the relevant regulations, the question whether the Appellant acted in breach of any rule has been rendered moot.

(b) The freedom of speech of the General Secretary of WKF

As mentioned above, the CAS had not identified a violation of the existing disciplinary provisions of the WKF. Nevertheless, it felt the remarkable urge to complement this reasoning with a broader reflection on the freedom of speech in sports governing bodies. To this end, the panel engaged in a very interesting dictum: "The Panel, however, because of first the importance of the issues; secondly out of respect for the excellent way in which the submissions were presented, thirdly against the contingency of an appeal on the Panels conclusion on the absence of any relevant offence in the WKF code, will deal with them succinctly".[8]

Herewith, the CAS underlines the right of the Appellant, and more generally of the members of sports governing bodies, to freedom of speech. This materializes more precisely in a fundamental right to criticize, in good faith, the acts and decisions of the governing authority, even if the criticism includes errors of facts. While the CAS acknowledges the political motives of the criticism, it underlines the valuable contribution of this criticism in exposing acts of mismanagement. These considerations on the democratic principle of the right to criticize those in positions of authority, are reinforced by the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECHR) jurisprudence and the principle enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[9] In this sense, the panel takes two important steps. Firstly, it recognizes the controversial[10] applicability of rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights to disciplinary proceedings of sports governing bodies, which are purely private entities, by indicating that the jurisprudence of ECHR is compulsive in jurisdictions to which it applies, and in any case is at least indicative. Secondly, the panel does not hesitate to take a clear position –from a sports politics point of view- establishing that the members of the sports governing bodies have a fundamental right to exercise their freedom of speech to criticize political authorities. It seems, therefore, that this CAS panel feels at ease with its role as a Supreme Court of Sports protecting the fundamental rights of the ‘citizens of world sports’.

In the second limb of its reasoning, the CAS suggests the rules of conduct that members of sports governing bodies should follow when exercising their established right to criticism.[11]Indeed, according to the CAS, the exercise of the right of freedom to speech is subject to two restrictions: the criticism which targets the authority of the sports’ governing body must be lawful and members must demonstrate self-restraint in the exercise of their right. In this light, the CAS finds that the Appellant did not act unlawfully or in bad faith, but he rather exceeded the limits by ignoring the internal procedures available to him. In other words, the Appellant erred in the way he chose to ventilate his criticisms against the current president. Thus, damaging the WKF’s image worldwide. This interpretation elaborated by the CAS seems to be inspired by the so called ‘balancing exercise’ between Articles 8 and 10 European Convention on Human Rights[12]: an interference in the internal affairs of a sports governing body can be justified when it is in accordance with the law and is necessary in the interests of the world sports community. 

Conclusion

In our previous blogpost, we described the CAS hands-off approach in a political conflict internal to a sports governing body. We suggested, instead, that a modicum of interventionism in sports politics would be compatible with the CAS role. In this light, the WKF case is a good illustration of a CAS panel delving into sports politics to uphold certain fundamental political rights. From the preamble to the conclusion of this award, the CAS did not hesitate to interpret the political motives of the parties and their subsequent acts. More importantly, taking into account the law making role of CAS panels in promoting consistency in international sports law, this CAS panel adds to the so-called lex sportiva a democratic resonance, preserving also the freedom of speech of members of sports governing bodies.

[1] CAS 2014/A/3516, George Yerolimpos v. World Karate Federation

[2] Ibid, para 1.

[3] Ibid, para 25.

[4] 9.1 National Federations and individual persons affiliated to the WKF shall undertake to comply with statutory norms, rules and regulations and all provisions issued by the Executive Committee.

9.2 Members shall undertake work in complete compliance with the rules governing the sport, maintaining a demeanour commensurate with the activity performed.

9.3 Any member in breach of the conditions as per points 9.1 and 9.2 above shall be liable to disciplinary action as set forth herein.

[5] The duties of a General Secretary shall be: (a) Execute the decisions taken by the Executive Committee;

(b)To maintain relationships with the continental federations, with the affiliated National Federations and with outside parties; (c) Draw up and take care of the minutes of the Executive Committee and of the Congress Meetings.

[6] CAS 2014/A/3516 (n1), para 105.

[7] Ibid, para 107.

[8] Ibid, para 115.

[9] European Convention on Human Rights, Article 10

Freedom of expression: 1. everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

[10]C Favre-Bulle and others, L’arbitrage et la Convention Européenne des Droits de l’Homme (2001), 73.

[11] CAS 2014/A/3516 (n1), para 117.

[12] ECHR 227 Axel Springer AG v Germany 39954/08 [2012] paras  84-95 & ECHR 228 Von Hannover v Germany (n2) 40660/08[2012] para 100 .