The book under review is the published version of a PhD thesis defended in 2013 by Andrew Vaitiekunas at Melbourne Law School. A PhD is often taking stock of legal developments rather than anticipating or triggering them. This was definitely not the case of this book. Its core subject of interest is the study of the independence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) – an issue that has risen to prominence with the recent Pechstein ruling of January 2015 of the Oberlandesgericht München. It is difficult to be timelier indeed.

The fundamental question underlying Vaitiekunas’ research is: “does CAS have sufficient independence to be a law-maker?”.[1] Indeed, as many in the field, Vaitiekunas considers the CAS as a key institution in the production of a lex sportiva or transnational sports law. Hence, he thinks that “the closer CAS’s standards of independence and impartiality are to those that apply to the judiciary, the stronger may be the claim that CAS’s lex sportiva constitutes law”.[2] Although I am myself sympathetic to the idea of the existence of a lex sportiva, I would be cautious in attributing it mainly to the CAS. Instead, I think that the notion of lex sportiva is rather reflecting the complex legal interaction between the rules (and raw political power) of international Sports Governing Bodies (SGBs) and the CAS’s jurisprudence.[3] Yet, this should not detract from the value of posing the question of CAS independence as a hallmark of its legitimacy.

The book is relatively slow in tackling this question. The author is keen on providing a comprehensive analysis of the general context of his work in Chapter 2 on the CAS and the lex sportiva[4], of his theoretical apparatus in Chapter 3 on the relevant theories of law[5] and of his analytical frame to assess the independence of the CAS in Chapter 4 on independence and impartiality.[6] Although these parts are certainly useful to comprehend the red thread guiding his research, they certainly could have been synthetized and shortened. Any reader interested mainly in the assessment of the independence of the CAS might be tempted to jump directly to Chapter 5 and 6 providing the core of the author's analysis and his most valuable contribution to legal scholarship.

Chapter 5 reviews in detail the well-known favourable assessment by the Swiss Federal Tribunal of the independence of the CAS.[7] Yet, the most important and interesting aspect of the chapter is that it already engages in a critical assessment of this jurisprudence. When discussing the impact of the post-Gundel Paris reform agreement, Vaitiekunas concludes that “a number of facets of the reform indicate continuing links, albeit indirect between the Olympic governing bodies and CAS, thus undermining the perception that CAS is truly an independent arbitral body”.[8] He notes that “[w]hether ICAS members are appointed from within or outside the membership of the top sports bodies, they ultimately owe their appointment to these bodies”.[9] He criticizes the CAS arbitrator list as it “does not indicate who nominated the individual arbitrators, leaving an athlete at risk of choosing an arbitrator nominated by the very IF [International Federation] against which they are taking CAS proceedings”.[10] In any case, “the appointment [as CAS arbitrator] can be seen as occurring under the control of the Olympic governing bodies through their members or delegates in ICAS”.[11] Interestingly, this reasoning is analogue to the one used by the Oberlandesgericht München in its Pechstein ruling.[12] Unsurprisingly, Vaitiekunas is also extremely critical of the SFT’s judgment in the Lazutina case endorsing the independence and the legitimacy of the CAS post-Gundel.[13] He argues that the SFT “appears almost as an apologist for CAS”[14] and criticizes its “non-objective approach to statements by people close to CAS”.[15] Moreover, he denounces a “formalistic approach in assessing CAS’s independence from the IOC”.[16] Indeed, by privileging formal factors, such as the ICAS formal legal independence, “the SFT implicitly chose not to lift ICAS’s veil to consider who has the real powers behind ICAS”.[17] Importantly in light of the Pechstein case, he attacks the fact that “the SFT limited its analysis concerning CAS’s institutional independence solely to CAS’s independence from the IOC and did not consider CAS’s independence from the Olympic governing bodies collectively”.[18] Finally, he reiterates his critique against the closed list system, arguing that “the very process for the nomination and selection of arbitrators to the list creates an appearance of bias in favour of the Olympic governing bodies”.[19] 

Henceforth, Chapter 6[20] vows to pitch CAS’s independence against judicial independence standards discussed in Chapter 4. Coming from Chapter 5, the suspense as to the outcome of the assessment is relatively limited, it is clear ex ante that the author is doubtful of the independence of CAS. He assesses first the individual independence of the arbitrators, referring to four main criteria: 

"The four main recognised safeguards of a judge’s personal independence under judicial independence norms are security of tenure in a judge’s appointment, restrictions on the removability of a judge, adequate and secure remuneration for judicial service and immunity from legal action in the exercise of judicial functions."[21]

Furthermore, he contends that an arbitrator must fulfil a yardstick of substantive independence implying “a judge to be free from any inappropriate connections or influences".[22] In this regard, he argues “all CAS arbitrators […] owe their presence on the closed list to the Olympic governing bodies, thereby creating the appearance of a lack of independence from them”.[23] Finally, regarding the institutional independence of the CAS, Vaitiekunas suggests three main focal points: the structural links, the administrative links and the financial links. The structural links of the CAS are perceived as the main hindrances to CAS’s independence. This is because, “[g]iven the mutual ties and links which the IOC, the IFs and the NOCs […] have under the Olympic Charter, these bodies may appear to have influence collectively on ICAS”.[24] His conclusions is sans appel: “The potential influence that the Olympic governing bodies may be perceived to exercise over ICAS and the CAS secretary general is inconsistent with judicial independence norms which require judicial matters to be exclusively within the responsibility of the judiciary”.[25]

This highly sceptical view regarding the independence of CAS, leads him to propose a set of potential reforms.[26] His first recommendation is to implement “a restructuring of ICAS to ensure that it is institutionally independent”.[27] This would imply that “appointments to ICAS should exclude members of the IOC, executive members of the IFs, NFs and NOCs and their employees and anyone recently in these roles”.[28] Moreover, “the CAS code should be amended to prohibit the appointment of Olympic governing body associates or athlete associates as CAS arbitrators”.[29] Regarding the funding of ICAS and CAS, he suggests “the imposition of a levy on the broadcasting rights to or sponsorships of major sports events”.[30] In order to secure CAS arbitrators individual independence, he is in favour of appointing them “on a tenured basis to a specified retirement aged”.[31] He also recommends, “that arbitrators be appointed randomly to cases or on a predetermined basis”.[32] Eventually, he advises “to provide arbitrators with greater security in remuneration by appointing them on a fixed salary, like judges, payable regardless of whether and how many cases they are appointed to arbitrate”.[33] Vaitiekunas is convinced that if his recommendations were implemented, “CAS would be a true sports court, rather than an arbitral tribunal”.[34] 

The final chapter 7 of the book dedicated to CAS’s independence from external judicial review is a bit of a mystery to the reviewer. Vaitiekunas offers a relatively succinct but rigorous comparative study of the various national (and European) judicial avenues where CAS awards can be reviewed. He concludes rightly that CAS awards can be subjected to the control of national courts and European Institutions. However, his assumption that “CAS awards must be independent from review or intervention by state courts, such that they operate as final authority in the resolution of sports disputes”[35] and especially the consequence he derives from it, denying to lex sportiva any status as a legal order seems to be flawed.[36] Indeed, in no legal context, national or otherwise, is a judicial decision absolutely final. National courts’ judgments are often contested when their recognition is asked in another country, this does not entail that national law is not law. Similarly, the subjection of the judgments of the highest national courts of the EU Member States to the preliminary reference mechanism in place under EU law should not lead us to deny any legal value to national law. We are living in a pluralist legal age ruled by complex transnational legal assemblages and lex sportiva fits very well into this picture. Nonetheless, on this point I share the view of the author of this book, the question of the legitimacy of both the rulemaking bodies of lex sportiva (read FIFA or the IOC) and its adjudicative bodies (read the CAS) is of great importance. In fact, their illegitimacy, and here I differ from Vaitiekunas’ argument, should not mainly imply their non-existence as law-making bodies, but the need for a reform (or even a revolution) in the way they operate.

This book is precious, because it highlights very well the challenges ahead in our transnationalizing legal world. Democratizing international (or transnational in this case) judicial bodies is key, if the ideal and democratic function of an independent justice for world citizens is to be sustained.[37]  We need to understand that transnational private bodies are in the business of exercising a kind of public authority and should live up to analogous accountability and legitimacy standards than the one that have been progressively developed in the framework of the nation-states for national courts. The CAS is one of those, and the pending Pechstein case is a necessary itch to reflexively trigger a much-needed reform of its internal structure and functioning. Which precise form this reform will take is not crucial. What is essential, however, is that it ensures that CAS arbitrators be seen as rendering sporting justice at a personal (if not geographical) distance from those who are adopting and enforcing the rules of the lex sportiva. This book is an important critical contribution in that direction.

[1] Vaitiekunas A (2014) The Court of Arbitration for Sport: Law-Making and the Question of Independence. Stämpfli Verlag, Berne, p 2.

[2] Ibid, p 3.

[3] Duval A (2013) Lex Sportiva: A Playground for Transnational Law. European Law Journal 19: 822-842.

[4] Ibid, pp 7-50.

[5] Ibid, pp 51-83.

[6] Ibid, pp 85-120.

[7] Ibid, pp 121-177.

[8] Ibid, p 142.

[9] Ibid, p 146.

[10] Ibid, p 150.

[11] Ibid, p 151.

[12] See supra n 1, Oberlandesgericht (OLG) München [2015], paras 3b, bb, 3aaa and bbb.

[13] Supra n 2, Vaitiekunas, pp 168-174.

[14] Ibid, p 169.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid, p 171.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid, p 174.

[20] Ibid, pp 179-200.

[21] Ibid, p 184.

[22] Ibid, p188.

[23] Ibid, p 189.

[24] Ibid, p 191.

[25] Ibid, p 193.

[26] Ibid, pp 197-199.

[27] Ibid, p 197.

[28] Ibid, p 198.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Ibid, p 199.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Ibid, p 265.

[36] Ibid, p 269 : ”CAS’s lack of final authority, in particular where state public policy or EU law are in question, derogates from CAS’s lex sportiva being an independent legal order“.

[37] For a similar idea applied to international courts, see Von Bogdandy A, Venzke I (2014) In Whose Name? A Public Law Theory of International Adjudication. Oxford University Press, New York.

The tax benefit scheme in the Hungarian sport sector decision of 9 November 2011 marked a turning point as regards the Commission’s decisional practice in the field of State aid and sport. Between this date and early 2014, the Commission reached a total of ten decisions on State aid to sport infrastructure and opened four formal investigations into alleged State aid to professional football clubs like Real Madrid and Valencia CF.[1] As a result of the experience gained from the decision making, it was decided to include a Section on State aid to sport infrastructure in the 2014 General Block Exemption Regulation. Moreover, many people, including myself, held that Commission scrutiny in this sector would serve to achieve better accountability and transparency in sport governance.[2]

Yet, a recent report by Transparency International (TI), published in October 2015, raises questions about the efficiency of State aid enforcement in the sport sector. The report analyzes the results and effects of the Hungarian tax benefit scheme and concludes that:

“(T)he sports financing system suffers from transparency issues and corruption risks. (…) The lack of transparency poses a serious risk of collusion between politics and business which leads to opaque lobbying. This might be a reason for the disproportionateness found in the distribution of the subsidies, which is most apparent in the case of (football) and (the football club) Felcsút.”[3]

In other words, according to TI, selective economic advantages from public resources are being granted to professional football clubs, irrespective of the tax benefit scheme greenlighted by the Commission or, in fact, because of the tax benefit scheme.

One would expect TI’s report to be a wake-up call for the Commission, triggering it, as “Guardian of the Treaties”, to re-investigate Hungary’s tax benefit scheme without delay. Further incentives to scrutinize the matter is provided by the Hungarian MEP Péter Niedermüller, who in November 2015 officially asked the Commission whether it intended to review its earlier decision to authorize the tax benefit scheme. The Commission’s answer, seen here below, indicates that immediate action is not to be expected.

Not satisfied with this answer, Niedermüller replied that even though the Commission had authorized the tax scheme in 2011, it does not absolve it “from the obligation to proceed with the appropriate care thereafter and to monitor whether the system is operating in accordance with the objectives originally set”.

The overall aim of this two-part blog is to analyze the rules and procedures surrounding the monitoring of previously authorized aid schemes in the sports sector by the Commission. It will use the tax benefit scheme in the Hungarian sport sector decision as a starting point, describing the objective and the functioning of the aid scheme, as well as the conditions and obligations for Hungary and the Commission attached to it. In continuation, basing myself on the findings and conclusions drawn in the report, I will try to determine whether the current practice in Hungary deviates from the original objectives and conditions of the aid scheme, and what the consequences of such a deviation could be. Do the State aid rules impose an obligation upon the Commission to act and, if so, in what way? Furthermore, could the Hungarian case make one reconsider the usefulness of State aid rules to achieve better accountability and transparency in sport in general? 

The tax benefit scheme in the Hungarian sport sector decision

A description of the scheme

In April 2011, the Hungarian authorities notified the Commission of their plans to introduce a tax benefit scheme with the aim of developing the country’s sport sector.[4] More specifically, via the scheme, they hoped to “increase the participation of the general public in sport activities, by inter alia, promoting mass sport events, training of the young generations as well ensuring adequate sport infrastructure and equipment for the general public”. Due to the existence of a market failure (i.e. a situation where individual market investors do not invest even though this would be efficient from a wider economic perspective), Hungary saw itself obligated to provide public money to the sport sector in order to achieve the aforementioned objectives.[5]

Under the scheme, which will run until 30 June 2017, corporations (operating in any sector that is subject to corporate tax) can choose to donate money to sport organizations, both amateur and professional. Sport organizations may use these resources to train the young generation, cover personnel expenses and to construct/renovate sport infrastructure. The donations would be deducted from the corporation’s taxable income and from their tax liability.[6] Hungary decided to focus the aid scheme on the five most popular team sports in the country, i.e. football, basketball, ice hockey, water polo and handball. The reasoning behind this choice is that the scheme would not only benefit the sport organizations themselves, but also the sportsmen and sportswomen using the facilities, as well as the general public interested in attending the sporting events.[7] Sport organizations wishing to receive donations have to elaborate a development programme (DP), in which they outline the planned use of the donations. The DPs are evaluated by the respective national sport governing bodies (SGBs), who decide whether the sport organization is eligible for the donations. Once the SGBs approve a DP, the sport organizations may approach corporations willing to donate money to them.[8]

In the specific case of donations used for the construction, renovation or maintenance of sport infrastructures, Hungary notified the Commission that it had introduced a monitoring system that serves to avoid any misuse of the donations or cross-subsidizations of other activities of sport organizations. The so-called Controlling Authority (a public entity falling directly under the Ministry of National Resources) monitors compliance of donators and beneficiaries with the central price benchmarking mechanism regarding rental and operation fees of the infrastructure, introduced to limit the distortion of competition arising from the tax benefit scheme.[9]  

The Commission’s decision

As stated above, the donations should be used to fund the development of sport infrastructure, train the youth teams and cover personnel expenses. The Commission agreed with Hungary that the training of youth teams falls outside the scope of EU State aid rules, in line with the 2001 Commission Decision Subventions publiques aux clubs sportifs professionels. Donations used to cover personnel costs could be falling under the General Block Exemption Regulation[10] or the de minimis aid Regulation.[11] Compliance with the two Regulations is a task for the Hungarian authorities.[12] Consequently, and taking into account that amateur sport clubs are generally not considered to be undertakings within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, the tax benefit scheme in the Hungarian sport sector decision only covers aid for the infrastructures used by the professional sport organizations.

Although the tax benefit scheme fulfilled the criteria of Article 107(1), and thus constituted State aid, the Commission declared the scheme compatible with EU law under Article 107(3)c) TFEU. Importantly, the Commission held that the scheme was introduced in a sufficiently transparent and proportionate manner, i.e. that the measure was well-designed to fulfil the objective of developing the country’s sport sector.[13] Moreover, the Commission acknowledged the special characteristics of sport and held that the objective of the scheme is in line with the overall objectives of sport as stipulated in Article 165 TFEU, namely that the EU “shall contribute to the promotion of European sporting issues”, because the sport sector “has enormous potential for bringing the citizens of Europe together, reaching out to all, regardless of age or social origin”.[14]

It is worth mentioning that the Commission took a very similar approach in its decisions on the other State aid measures granted for sport infrastructure. It considers a sport infrastructure as embodying a typical State responsibility for which the granting of State aid is a well-defined objective of common interest.[15]

Finally, to ensure that the monitoring and transparency obligations are carried out properly, the Commission requires Hungary to submit an annual report to the Commission, containing inter alia, information on the total aid amount allocated on the basis of this scheme, the sport infrastructure projects funded, their aid intensities, their beneficiaries, the parameters applied for benchmarking prices, the rents effectively paid by the professional sport organizations, as well as a description on the benefits provided to the general public and on the multifunctional usage of the infrastructures.[16] There is no requirement to publish this annual report. Therefore, assessing whether the information provided by Hungary to the Commission is in line with the actual practice in the country is currently extremely difficult. 

Transparency International report, “Corruption Risks in Hungarian Sports Financing”

The tax benefit scheme in the Hungarian sport sector decision looked like a blue print for the way in which public authorities could grant State aid to the sport sector: It was aimed at a wide scope of recipients and the general public would benefit as well, transparency was guaranteed, monitoring and compliance mechanisms were introduced and, last but not least, it was notified in advance to the European Commission. 

Lack of transparency

However, TI’s report shows that, four years after the scheme was launched, little remains of all those good intentions. To start with, TI claims that Hungary’s objective was not to increase the participation of the general public in sport activities, but simply to make Hungarian football clubs “excel at the European and international levels”.[17] TI’s primary finding is that there is a flagrant lack of transparency on every level regarding the scheme. Most of the data collected in the report was obtained by TI through freedom of information requests.[18]

The first flaw in the scheme is that under Hungarian national laws and regulations, there is no obligation to disclose the identity of the donating corporations. Consequently, even though the SGBs keep count of which clubs are entitled to receive donations and how much they actually received, many questions remain on how the money is distributed in practice.

TI also questions the integrity of the clubs’ eligibility process. The Hungarian SGBs, who are in charge of selecting the clubs worthy of receiving donations, are to a large extent run by people with close ties to the Hungarian Government.[19] Moreover, for the selection process, the SBGs do not need to provide a reasoning behind the decision to choose or not to choose a club worthy of donations. As TI states, the tax benefit scheme poses a serious threat to transparency and accountability, and can lead to illicit lobbying and backroom deals between politicians, businessmen and clubs. 

Disproportionate distribution of beneficiaries

The advantage of using a general tax scheme as a State aid measure is that it leads to many different beneficiaries and is therefore considered as one of the least distortive type of state intervention.[20] However, the functioning of this particular tax benefit scheme creates the exact opposite result a few clubs are clearly favored. According to the report, the subsidies from the tax scheme totaled €649 million in four years. An amount of €240 million was specifically designated for football clubs, 37% of the total amount. Of all the money donated to football, 28% (or €68 million) went specifically to 13 football clubs, who, perhaps unsurprisingly, all play in Hungary’s highest football league.[21] Of these 13 football clubs, Puskás Akadémia FC received by far the highest amount, no less than €30 million. Puskás Akadémia FC plays in Hungary’s top division, but also functions as the youth team of Videoton FC, one of Hungary’s biggest and most successful clubs. Interestingly enough, Puskás Akadémia FC was founded in 2007 by the current Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. 

Unnecessary construction of new sport infrastructure?

The Hungarian authorities expressed the need in 2011 for adequate sport infrastructure facilities. Due to a market failure, it was necessary for the State to step in and provide the necessary funds, albeit by means of a tax benefit scheme. The Commission agreed with Hungary that there is a lack of investments in sport infrastructure and that using public money to do so is an objective of common interest.[22] The TI report indicates that especially the Hungarian football stadiums have undergone significant upgrades since 2011, but at the same time questions the necessity to use public funds for these upgrades. Hungarian professional football has not been attracting more people to stadiums since 2011. The country’s highest division averaged only 4,897 spectators per game for the 2014/15 season, 624 less than in the previous year.[23] An example of potential unnecessary construction of sport infrastructure is the “Nagyerdei” stadium, opened in 2014,  in the city of Debrecen. The stadium, that can hold over 20,000 spectators, cost €40 million to construct. However, with a match average of 3,400,[24] one wonders whether the construction of this stadium was an objective of common interest, or whether there was another, hidden, agenda. Referring to the well-reported, including by the European Commission, close relationships between Hungary’s businesses and its political elite, TI points to the realistic possibility that the construction and renovation of (football) stadiums through public procurement procedures, was simply a way to for contractors to “finance the economic orbit of influential politicians in return for all manners of political and financial favours”.[25]  

Interim conclusion

TI’s report clearly shows that there is a huge discrepancy between Hungary’s intention to devise a tax benefit scheme benefitting to the entire sport sector, as notified to the Commission in 2011, and the actual operation of the scheme. The necessity for new and renovated football infrastructure appears superfluous and the tax benefit scheme itself proved to be more beneficial for some clubs, particularly Puskás Akadémia FC. Furthermore, the Commission decision declaring the tax benefit scheme compatible with EU law highlighted the transparency of the scheme and acclaimed its monitoring mechanisms. More than four years on, it can be concluded that the scheme is far from transparent and questions can be raised on the independence and functioning of the monitoring mechanisms. Assuming that the Commission receives annual reports by the Hungarian authorities on the tax benefit scheme, why has it not undertaken any action? Is it simply a matter of unwillingness or could the answer be found in EU State aid law and its procedural rules itself? The next part of this blog will analyze the rules and procedures surrounding the monitoring of previously authorized aid schemes by the Commission, and determine whether Commission action can be expected.

[1] An explanation on why the public financing of sports infrastructure and professional sports clubs only started to attract State aid scrutiny in recent years can be read in: Ben Van Rompuy and Oskar van Maren, “EU Control of State Aid to Professional Sport: Why Now?” Forthcoming in: “The Legacy of Bosman. Revisiting the relationship between EU law and sport”, T.M.C. Asser Press, 2016.

[2] See for example Oskar van Maren, “EU State Aid Law and Professional Football: A threat or a Blessing?”, European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 15 1/2016, pages 31-46.

[3] Transparency International, “Corruption Risks in Hungarian Sports Financing”, page 41.

[4] Commission Decision of 9 November 2011, SA.31722 – Hungary - Supporting the Hungarian sport sector via tax benefit scheme, paras 2-3.

[5] Ibid., paras 88-90.

[6] Ibid., paras 15-16.

[7] Ibid., paras 28-34.

[8] Transparency International report of 22 October 2015, “Corruption Risks in Hungarian Sports Financing”, page 31.

[9] Commission Decision SA.31722, paras 37-39.

[10] The GBER applicable at the time the decision was taken was Commission Regulation No800/2008 of 6 August 2008.

[11] Commission Decision SA.31722, para 10.

[12] Ibid., para 64.

[13] Ibid., paras 95-98.

[14] Ibid., paras 86-87.

[15] See for example Commission Decision of 20 March 2013, SA.35135 Multifunktionsarena der Stadt Erfurt, para 14.

[16] Commission Decision SA.31722, para 57.

[17] Transparency International report, page 29.

[18] Ibid., page 31.

[19] Ibid., page 32. TI points out that the chairman of the Hungarian FA is CEO of the country’s biggest commercial bank and close to the Government.

[20] Commission Decision SA.31722, para 20.

[21] The TI report actually mentions the clubs as well as their youth academia. The 13 clubs are: Puskás Akadémia FC (aka Felcsút FC, the youth team of Videoton FC); Ferencváros; Újpest FC; Vasas SC; Szolnoki MÁV FC; Debreceni VSC; Diósgyőri VTK; Zalaegerszegi TE; OVI-FOCI; Illés Sport Alapítvány; Budapest Honvéd FC; Balmazújvárosi FC and; Békéscsaba 1912 Előre.

[22] Commission Decision SA.31722, paras 91-93.

[23] Transparency International report, page 38.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid., page 42.