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

What a month June turned out to be. Waking up the morning after the 23^rd, the results of the UK referendum on EU membership were final. The words of Mark Twain: “Apparently there is nothing that cannot happen today”, might provide the most apt description of the mood felt at the time.[1] The Leave campaign’s narrow victory has brought along tremendous economic, political and legal uncertainties for both the UK and the (other) Member States. To give but one example, with regard to the implications of Brexit on Europe’s most profiting football league, we recommend an older blog by Daniel Geey and Jonny Madill.

Perhaps just as shocking as the UK’s wish for secession, was the Bundesgerichtshof decision in the infamous Pechstein case. On 7 June the highest German civil court ruled in favour of the validity of forced CAS arbitration and the independence of the CAS, leaving Claudia Pechstein to cough up roughly EUR 300 000 in legal expenses. For a critical analysis of the decision see Antoine Duval’s blog.

Operación Puerto, deemed “one of the most infamous and obscure doping sagas in history”, saw a new chapter being added on 14 June. A Spanish special criminal appeal chamber held that the more than 200 blood bags of professional athletes (which had been stored since their confiscation in 2006) can be delivered to the Spanish Anti-Doping Agency (AEPSAD), WADA, the UCI and the Italian Olympic Committee (CONI). Oskar van Maren examined the case in a blog.

Last but not least, in June we witnessed the IAAF upholding its decision not to reinstate the Russian Athletics Federation (RusAF) for IAAF Membership. This means that Russian athletes will still not be allowed to compete in International Competitions under IAAF Rules including the European Championships and the Rio 2016 Olympic Games. A few days later, the 21th of June, the IOC endorsed IAAF’s position. Though it also potentially opened the door for Russian athletes to demonstrate that they are clean. The IAAF’s decision was appealed collectively by 61 Russian athletes to the CAS, and the final decision is due before the start of the Olympic Games in Rio. 

Case law

On June 3rd a temporary injunction was granted by the Landgericht München in the case between the International Basketball Federation (FIBA) and FIBA Europe versus several basketball clubs. The court ruled that FIBA may not prevent these clubs from participating in the so-called Euroleague competitions. The alleged abuse of a dominant position is addressed in a blog by Marine Montejo. Yet the injunction was annulled in a subsequent decision of the LG München.

Famous tennis star Maria Sharapova was found to have violated anti-doping rules for the use of the controversial ‘meldonium’. A specially appointed independent tribunal imposed a two-year ban, disqualifying her from professional tennis from 26 January 2016 to 25 January 2018 (see also this piece by James Segan). In reply, she appealed the decision to the CAS, which is due to decide the case in September. This will prevent her from participating at the Olympic Games in Rio.

A key player in our Unpacking Doyen’s TPO deals blogs, football club FC Twente, found itself in a rollercoaster of conflicting decisions during the end of season 2015/2016. On 18 May the licensing committee of the Dutch football federation (KNVB) issued a decision in which it relegated the club to the second (and lowest) professional league. It did so by creating a new ad hoc license for the second league, which did not exist before. Subsequently on 10 June, in summary proceedings before the district court, FC Twente’s request for provisional measures got rejected, and the relegation approved. Yet only a week later, the KNVB’s appeal committee overturned the licensing committee’s initial ruling. As a result FC Twente will stay in the highest professional league.  

Official documents and Press releases

CAS – Statement on the decision made by the German Federal Tribunal in the case between Claudia Pechstein and the International Skating Union (ISU)

CAS – Maria Sharapova files an appeal at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, Tennis, Anti-doping

CAS – List upcoming hearings

CAS – KS Skenderbeu files an appeal at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, Football

CAS – The Appeal filed by Galatasaray SK is rejected by the Court of Arbitration for Sport

European Council - Council conclusions on enhancing integrity, transparency and good governance in major sport events

European Commission - Mapping and Analysis of the Specificity of Sport, A Final Report to the DG Education & Culture of the European Commission

FIBA - FIBA Europe welcomes Munich court decision to cancel temporary injunction

FIFA - Attorneys for FIFA provide update on internal investigation and details on compensation for former top officials

FIFA - Overview of Important Provisions contained in the Employment Contracts of Messrs. Blatter, Valcke and Kattner since 2007

FIFA - Circular no. 1542, Amendments to the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players

FIFA - Circular no. 1545, FIFA Forward Programme/2016 financial support - operational costs

IAAF – Ethics board statement 10 June 2016

IAAF - Response to Ethics Board statement

IAAF - Decision on Russia's participation in Rio Olympics

IAAF – IAAF Taskforce: Interim report to IAAF Council, 17 June 2016

IOC - Declaration of the Olympic Summit

ISU - Decision of the Bundesgerichtshof in the case of Ms. Claudia Pechstein

KNVB – Besluit licentiecommissie betaald voetbal 26 november 2015

WADA - International Standard for Laboratories (ISL)

WADA - WADA Update regarding Maria Sharapova Case

WADA - Acknowledges Madrid Court decision to provide access to "Operation Puerto" athlete blood bags

WADA - WADA Suspends the Accreditation of the Almaty Laboratory 

In the news

Athletics

Rebecca R. Ruiz, Juliet Macur and Ian Austen - Even With Confession of Cheating, World’s Doping Watchdog Did Nothing

Cycling

Stuart Clarke - Judge rules athletes implicated in Operation Puerto can be identified

Culture, Media and Sport Committee – Whistleblower Dan Stevens in front of the Committee

Football

Guardian - Football clubs in England’s top four tiers generated more than £4bn in 2014-15

Brian Homewood - No formal proceedings against FIFA chief Infantino says ethics committee

Mary Papenfuss - Auditor KPMG pulling out of Fifa because of 'lack of commitment' to reform

SBD - Barcelona Pleads Guilty To Fraud In Neymar Case, Agrees To Pay $6.2M Fine 

Olympics

Nick Butler - Exclusive: Clause at centre of European Championships contract row is "superseded"

James M. Dorsey - Kuwaiti Rulers Fight their Internal Battles on the Sports Field

Sam Morshead - 'It's like a badminton player playing tennis': Boxing comes under fire after voting for professionals to compete at Rio Olympics just 10 weeks before the Games

Dan Roan - Russia and Rio 2016: How the IOC is working up an Olympic compromise

SBS - Sailors take Olympic appeal bid to CAS

Pechstein case

Deutschlandfunk - "Sportler sollten Gerichtsbarkeit wählen können"

FAZ - Claudia Pechstein droht Schuldenberg

FIFPro - Despite decision, Pechstein must trigger reform

Johannes Herber - Urteil im Fall Pechstein, "Siegen oder sterben"

Swimming

Kor. Herald - Park Tae-hwan resumes arbitration proceedings against Olympic ban

David Leggat - Kane Radford, Charlotte Webby set to appeal Olympic snubs 

Academic materials

Dawn Aquilina and Angelo Chetcuti, The Aftermath of a Match-Fixing Case that Shook Two Nations: Insights into How Malta and Norway Are Seeking to Redeem Their Football

Bruce W. Bean, FIFA — The Reform Charade Continues

Richard Bunworth - Egg-shell skulls or institutional negligence? The liability of World Rugby for incidents of concussion suffered by professional players in England and Ireland

Antoine Duval, Getting to the games: the Olympic selection drama(s) at the court of arbitration for sport

Antoine Duval, Herman Ram, Marjolaine Viret, Emily Wisnosky, Howard L. Jacobs and Mike Morgan - The World Anti-Doping Code 2015: ASSER International Sports Law Blog symposium

Arnout Geeraert and Edith Drieskens, Theorising the EU and International Sport: The Principal-Agent Model and Beyond

Andrew C. Harmes, Forecheck, backcheck . . . paycheck? Employment status of the quasi-professional athlete: A case study of the CHL and the Major junior hockey player

Thomas Margoni, The Protection of Sports Events in the EU: Property, Intellectual Property, Unfair Competition and Special Forms of Protection

Despina Mavromati, The Legality of an Arbitration Agreement in Favour of CAS Under German Civil and Competition Law - The Pechstein Ruling of the German Federal Tribunal (BGH) of 7 June 2016

Karen Petry, The Beginnings and Development of European Sport Research at Universities: From Marginalisation to Fragmentation?

Ryan M. Rodenberg, Jeff Sackmann and Chris Groer - Tennis integrity: a sports law analytics review

Stephen Kirwan, Levelling the Playing Field? Remuneration Caps, EU Competition Law and Article 7(3) of the FIFA Regulations on Working With Intermediaries

Zachary Shapiro, Regulation, prohibition, and dantasy: The case of FanDuel, DraftKings, and Daily Fantasy Sports in New York and Massachusetts

Joshua D. Winneker, Philip Schultze and Sam C. Ehrlich, Lights, Camera, … Injury! The NBA Needs to Ban Courtside Cameramen 

Books

Michael Barry, James Skinner and Terry Engelberg, Research Handbook of Employment Relations in Sport

Antoine Duval, Ben Van Rompuy (Eds.), The Legacy of Bosman, Revisiting the Relationship Between EU Law and Sport

LawInSport and the British Association for Sport and Law, Sports Law Yearbook 2015/16 - UK, Ireland and EU eBook.

Götz Schulze, Aktuelle Rechtsfragen im Profifußball: Psychologische Faktoren und rechtliche Gestaltung Taschenbuch  

Blogs

Gregory Basnier, Joint selling of French Rugby’s tv rights: A review of the recent competition law cases

Carol Couse and Jake Cohen, The potential impact of Brexit on European football

Johanna Croon-Gestefeld, Der BGH und Pechstein: Transnationaler Konstitutionalismus sieht anders aus

Thomas Croxford and Nick De Marco, Fiduciary duties, football, and the fundamental importance of the contractual relationship

Juan de Dios and Crespo Pérez, Operación Puerto: A long and winding road in the fight against doping

Antoine Duval, The BGH’s Pechstein Decision: A Surrealist Ruling

Antoine Duval, The Pechstein case: Transnational constitutionalism in inaction at the Bundesgerichtshof

Antonia Foster, Advice for Athletes facing false allegations by the press – Practical and Legal Options

Ryan Lake, Signing new talent: How the entry draft system works in the National Hockey League

Daniel Lowen, Determining the level of compensations for out of contract football players: The PFCC Danny Ings Award

Jonny Madill and Jack Jones, Sharing sports clips in the digital age: 6 things you should know

Oskar van Maren, The EU State aid and Sport Saga: Hungary revisited? (Part 2)

Oskar van Maren, Operación Puerto Strikes Back!

Kester Mekenkamp, The Müller case: Revisiting the compatibility of fixed term contracts in football with EU Law

Lance Miller, Celeste Koravos and Nick Fitzpatrick, Sustainable procurement at Tokyo 2020 Olympics: Top 10 tips for a winning bid

Marine Montejo, FIBA/Euroleague: Basketball’s EU Competition Law Champions League- first leg in the Landgericht München

Kimberly Morris and Barry Lysaght, How FIFA TMS Investigations increase transparency and accountability in international football transfers

Tim Owen, Sport, corruption and the criminal law: the need for an expert investigative body

Fabian Reinholz, Das Pechstein urteil nimmt dem sport reformdruck

Jennifer E. Rothman and Eugene Volokh, Brief of 28 constitutional law and intellectual property law professors as Amici Curiae in support of petitioner in, No. 15-1388, In the Supreme Court of the United States, National Collegiate Athletic Association, petitioner, v. Edward C. O’Bannon et al., Respondents

James Segan, A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma: the Sharapova case

Andrew Smith, A review of the updates to FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players

The Swiss Rambler, Nottingham Forest - From The Ritz To The Rubble

The Swiss Rambler, Wolverhampton Wanderers - After The Gold Rush

WADC Commentary Team, Meldonium and Moral Fault: Five Lessons Learned from the Sharapova ITF Tribunal Decision

Mathias Wittinghofer and  Sylvia Schenk, A Never Ending Story: Claudia Pechstein’s Challenge to the CAS

John Wolohan, The integrity of education in college sport: does the NCAA model compromise athlete welfare? 

Upcoming events

14 July - Sports Corruption 2016 Conference, MBL Seminars London

19 – 21 July - Executive Programme in International Sports Law, Sports Law and Policy Centre, Ravello, Italy

2 & 3 September - International Sport Arbitration 6th Conference CAS & SAV, The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), the Swiss Bar Association (SAV / FSA) and the Swiss Arbitration Association (ASA), Lausanne Switzerland

16 September - The future of the ‘legal autonomy’ of sport, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK

26 September - Soccerex - Global Convention 2016, Manchester, UK 

[1] Mark Twain, American author (30 November 1835/21 April 1910)

The rise of Dutee Chand, India’s 100 and 200-meter champion in the under 18-category, was astonishing. Her achievements were more than promising: after only two years, she broke the 100m and 200m national junior records, competed in the 100m final at the World Youth Athletics Championships in Donetsk and collected two gold medals in the Asian Junior Championships in Chinese Taipei. But, in July 2014, this steady rise was abruptly halted. Following a request from the Athletics Federation of India (AFI), the Sports Authority of India (SAI) conducted blood tests on the Indian sprinters. Dutee was detected with female hyperandrogenism, i.e a condition where the female body produces high levels of testosterone. As a result, a few days before the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, the AFI declared Dutee ineligible to compete under the IAAF Regulations and prevented her from competing in future national and international events in the female category. Pursuant to the IAAF ‘Hyperandrogenism Policy’, the AFI would allow Dutee to return to competition only if she lowers her testosterone level beneath the male range by means of medical or surgical treatment.[1] On 25 September 2014, Dutee filed an appeal before the CAS, seeking to overturn the AFI’s decision and declare IAAF and IOC’s hyperandrogenism regulations null and void. She is defending her right to compete the way she actually is: a woman with high levels of testosterone. Interestingly enough, albeit a respondent, AFI supports her case.

IAAF and IOC rules set limits to female hyperandrogenism, which is deemed an unfair advantage that erodes female sports integrity. While these rules have been contested with regard to their scientific and ethical aspects, this is the first time that they will be debated in court. This appeal could have far-reaching ramifications for the sports world. It does not only seek to pave the way for a better ‘deal’ for female athletes with hyperandrogenism, who are coerced into hormonal treatment and even surgeries to ‘normalise’ themselves as women[2], but it rather brings the CAS, for the first time, before the thorny question:

How to strike a right balance between the core principle of ‘fair play’ and norms of non-discrimination, in cases where a determination of who qualifies as a ‘woman’ for the purposes of sport has to be made? 

‘Prove your gender!’

The separation between women and men in athletic competitions has been paradigmatic. Considering the sex-based physiological differences, which in case of a mixed competition would lead to virtually no women participation, the separation opened the door for women to compete at the highest levels. Nevertheless, the determination on the eligibility of women athletes to participate in the female category has become a source of controversies. So far, as decades of flawed IOC policies have demonstrated, it has not been clarified ‘who is woman’ for the purposes of sport.

The idea of ‘sex testing’ in sports dates back to 1960s and even preceded doping tests. The first gender test introduced by the IOC is nowadays laughable: nude parades of female competitors before a panel of judges in charge to verify the presence of female genitals and other sex characteristics.[3] Soon, this test was proven unworkable, since in intersex conditions, where people are born with both male and female genitalia, the outside did not match the inside.

The next test introduced was dubbed ‘chromosome testing’, which was based on the assumption that chromosomes are the key factor in determining sex, i.e. XY for male and XX for female. However, this test overlooked natural situations, where males have an extra X chromosome or females are missing one and was, therefore, soon abandoned. Thereafter, the SRY (i.e. the gene that triggers male sex determination) gene detection test was introduced, but the Olympics Games in Atlanta 1996 proved its deficiency:  eight women were tested positive for it and all were finally cleared for competition. Following this series of gender policies, which were deemed particularly discriminatory towards women with sexual development disorders, the IOC removed gender verification tests in June 1999.

It was not before 2009, in the wake of the Caster Semenya case, involving the South African 800m and 1500m runner and world champion, that an urgent need for reconsidering sex determination policies was brought into surface. Semenya’s masculine appearance, unusual muscle build and, foremost, her outstanding victory in the 2009 World Championships 800m race, fuelled a frenzy of suspicions on her gender. Following her victory, in an unprecedented breach of confidentiality and privacy rules, the IAAF leaked that Semenya had undergone tests to determine whether she had an unfair advantage as compared with other women. For three years, Semenya was not allowed to participate in events as her gender was still under investigation. In 2012, she was cleared by the gender testing committee and she began racing again. The story of Semenya, who suffered from humiliation and castigation by athletics officials and the media, unveiled IAAF’s incompetency in handling complex gender-related issues.

As a reply, in an attempt to establish an unambiguous, objective and scientifically based policy, IAAF and IOC, in 2011 and 2012 respectively, released new regulations. In that context, the focus shifted from sex testing to endogenous testosterone testing. The natural levels of testosterone have become the new golden rule: the purpose is not to determine ‘who is woman’, but rather ‘what makes a woman a woman’. Both policies are based on the assumption that testosterone is a key factor for men’s often superior strength and speed and, as a result, women with testosterone levels typical for males have an ‘unfair’ advantage. Therefore, according to the new regulations, if a female athlete has androgen levels higher than the normal male range, she is deemed ineligible to compete in women’s competition and will only be considered able to compete again if she lowers her testosterone level by means of medical or surgical treatment.

Despite IAAF’s protest to the contrary, this is the recent re-incarnation of ‘sex testing’.[4] The real import of these rules has been illustrated by the Dutee’s case. With Dutee’s appeal pending before the CAS, the legality of IAAF and IOC’s current gender policy needs to be scrutinized.

The unfair results of ‘fairness in sports’: The dark side of IAAF’s and IOC’s gender policy

Fair competition, which provides a fair opportunity to compete and prohibits athletes from competing with unfair advantages, has been widely accepted as a value integral to sports.[5] In this light, considering hyperandrogenism as an uncommon athletic capacity in relation to other female competitors, IAAF and IOC introduced the ineligibility of female athletes with hyperandrogenism in order to preserve the ‘sacrosanct’ competitive equality in the female category. However, it is our opinion that the current policy is on the borderline of what is fair for the following reasons: 

1. The ‘testosterone’ criterion as yardstick to determine eligibility?

According to the IAAF androgen policy, a general scientific consensus on naturally occurring testosterone as a relevant physical characteristic to separate athletes into different competition classes exists. The first problem is that this argument relies on the flawed assumption that a bright line between male and female can be drawn, not acknowledging situations of an ‘intersex’ status. As David Epstein, reporter and author of “The Sports Gene”, puts it clearly “neither body parts nor for the chromosome within them unequivocally differentiate male from female athletes”. Furthermore, while IAAF relies on a binary perception of biological sex in order to identify the gender of athletes, gender, in fact, is a social construction, which does not correspond to the complexities of biological sex. Secondly, it relies on the assumption that testosterone levels in the human body have limited variability within the sexes. Nevertheless, recent studies have found a complete overlap between testosterone levels in elite men and women, ripping apart testosterone levels as a reliable factor for separating between sexes.  The third problem is the lack of supporting scientific evidence that a competitive advantage can derive from high natural levels of testosterone.[6] Indeed, the scientific understanding of testosterone receptors is far from comprehensive. A recent research supported by the Swiss WADA laboratory added to the uncertainty: “Unfortunately, and to the best of our knowledge, there are neither available data on serum androgen levels nor reliable statistics on the so-called hyperandrogenism among a large and high-level female athletes’ population”.

IAAF policy, in overall, seems to create an absurd result: instead of introducing an objective criterion-if any- for separating between men and women, it rather suggests a classification of athletes between ‘high testosterone’ and ‘low testosterone’. However, ‘High-T’ and ‘Low-T’ categories of competition are not on the agenda.  

2. IAAF policy fosters discrimination

The current policy suggests a discriminatory treatment: it targets only women suspected for hyperandrogenism due to their physical appearance and high levels of performance. Women are asked to prove that they are female, while there is no such a requirement or restriction for men.

Furthermore, the fundament itself of the androgen policy is discriminatory against women who do not conform to traditional notions of femininity. Indeed, it lays on the physiological superiority of men in terms of endurance and strength as compared to women, perpetuating the long-established perception that an intrinsic link between manliness and sport exists, while femininity is associated with more gentle exercise.[7] In IAAF’s view, ‘too masculine women’ do not belong to the female category. It seems that under a scientifically based guise, IAAF seeks to impose a preference for certain social norms regarding what constitutes femininity in a woman’s appearance as criteria for participation.[8]

However, in order to perceive the level of discrimination, the most important question to be addressed is how you qualify an athlete. Hyperandrogenism is a rare biological characteristic and according to IAAF regulations and controversial scientific evidence, it gives female athletes a natural advantage that other female athletes do not have. Similarly, long limbs, broad wingspan for swimmers and height for basketball players are natural advantages.[9] Nevertheless, the later ones, but for hyperandrogenism, have never been considered as unfair. Indeed, the quintessence of elite sports lays on the participation of individuals with rare biological characteristics. In this light, the inevitable question arises: Why should female athletes like Dutee be obliged to reduce or eliminate an inherent advantage that they are born with? Why is then nobody asking a swimmer like Phelps to operate his double-jointed ankles? Or as SAI director-general Juji Thomson remarked: “ Just because Usain Bolt's height is to his advantage will the international authorities want his legs chopped off to ensure a level-playing field?” In other words, why hyperandrogenism has been viewed as different to other biological advantages broadly accepted in some elite athletes? The answer is simple: IAAF’s policy reflects the well-established public perception of femininity and female athletes who do not conform to this norm have to be excluded or ‘feminise’ themselves.

Thereby, IAAF and IOC policy exacerbate bullying and marginalization of women in sports putting their physical difference under unethical and humiliating scrutiny. Semenya had been intruded into the toilets by competitors seeking to check whether she really was a girl. While, after a race in Berlin, her competitor Mariya Savinova sneered “just look at her” when she was asked whether Semenya was a man. Similarly, the most talented female athletes, such as Serena Williams, Martina Navratilova, WNBA player Brittney Griner– and the catalogue is really long-, have been accused of not really being female. This play is up again with IAAF’s ‘are you woman enough to compete as female?’ policy seeking to confer legality to discrimination.

What should not be overlooked, finally, is the bitter truth that the current IAAF policy inevitably targets in priority women from developing countries. Athletes like Semenya or Dutee never perceived their difference, until they appeared on track field courts, where this difference has been flagged in the most humiliating way as abnormality. In sharp contrast to IOC’s declarations on eliminating any kind of discrimination in sports, IAAF and IOC gender policy achieves the most undesirable result: sex and social discrimination ‘all-in-one’. 

3. The disproportionate results of IAAF’s policy: To undergo treatment or not? This is not a question!

Female athletes with hyperandrogenism are faced with two choices: undergo medical treatment to fit the IAAF ‘Procrustean bed’ or abandon female competitions. The disproportionate and unfair consequences are evident.

As Katrina Karkazis, pioneer of Dutee’s motion against IAAF, remarks, the IAAF and IOC treat a physical difference as an illness, which requires a medical response. However, the necessity of such an invasive medical, or surgical, intervention is highly questionable. The suggested treatment does not stop at lowering female athletes’ testosterone level below IAAF’s limit of 10nmol/liter, but it rather aims to eliminate hyperandrogenism. In this sense, sharing IAAF’s assumption that testosterone is the key to performance, such treatment will render athletes like Dutee less competitive than other women who do not have hyperandrogenism or whose hyperandrogenism is below the cut-off. Thereby, IAAF policy, albeit mandating fairness in competition, puts a disproportionate burden on female athletes with hyperandrogenism.

Furthermore, concerns have been raised about the medical effects of the treatment suggested. In fact, it has been argued that long-term hormone therapy can have devastating results on female athletes’ health. Dutee’s denial to undergo this treatment is far from a ‘caprice’. A study published in 2013 revealed the cases of four female athletes identified as having hyperandrogenism, who were sent to a clinic in France. It was reported that those athletes also had medical procedures that had nothing to do with lowering their testosterone levels for sports: a reduction to the size of their clitorises, feminizing plastic surgery and oestrogen replacement therapy. It seems that the IAAF is pulling the trigger on female athletes’ head, who are ready to accept any treatment- even the most questionable ones- in order to keep competing.

On the other hand, the ineligibility sanction leads to a further disproportionate result: If Dutee is considered too masculine to compete in the female category, does she qualify for the male category? Can the mere presence of higher testosterone levels in a female athlete’s body presume that she can compete as a man? The answer has to be answered in negative, notwithstanding the ‘fair play’ issues that may arise. IAAF and IOC rules are cruelly disproportionate: athletes like Dutee who refuse to undergo this questionable treatment are effectively left without a forum to display their talent.

Do it like Pistorius

So far, the IAAF and IOC policy have been shown scientifically shaky, discriminatory and disproportionate. In parallel with these arguments, Dutee has also a very important precedent to rely upon: the CAS ruling in the Pistorius case.

In 2008, Oscar Pistorius, the South African double amputee runner, challenged IAAF rules that prohibited competitive running on ‘cheetah’ legs in international IAAF-sanctioned events alongside able-bodied athlete as being in breach of its commitment to non-discrimination. In that case, the fundamental rights of disabled athletes to be adequately accommodated and have genuinely equal opportunity to compete were at issue. Pistorius had to prove that he gained no advantage from using the prostheses. Reviewing scientific testing and analysis, the CAS concluded that ‘Cheetah’ legs did not give Pistorius an overall advantage.

Although the ‘tailor-made’ effect of the award could raise serious criticism[10], the Pistorius case has been landmark from a twofold point of view. Firstly, the CAS did not hesitate to challenge the indeterminacy of scientific analysis and developed the ‘net advantage’ approach, which stipulates that both the benefits and burdens have to be taken into consideration in determining whether a device provides an advantage to an athlete who uses it.[11] A similar approach has been adopted in the Veerpalu doping case, where the CAS questioned the scientific reliability of the limits applied for the WADA human growth hormone test (HGH).[12] Pistorius and Veerpalu cases have set an important threshold: international sports governing bodies, when it comes to enforce scientific- related sanctions, should rely on scientifically well-founded assessments.

Secondly, the CAS took an extraordinary step. It sent a clear message to international federations that they must address the eligibility criteria surrounding disabled athletes in a transparent and impartial manner.[13] There is no reason why the CAS in the Dutee case would do it differently. After all, sporting rules that seek to ensure fair competition and prevent a competitor from obtaining an unfair advantage have at least to be proportionate and non-discriminatory. 

Let Dutee Run?

The lines between male and female are blurring. As Fausto-Sterling has observed “the reason sports federations can’t get this right is because there is no right”.[14] Sports governing bodies may never be able to ensure fair competition without reaching absurd results.[15] In its daunting task to legally enforce controversial science related and ethical issues, CAS is facing a double challenge. It has the opportunity to set fair and accurate eligibility rules based on objective criteria, which will also preserve the essence of sports. Undoubtedly, sports governing bodies have the authority to establish their eligibility rules. However, self-regulation does not come without limits: sports federations’ rules have to comply with the non-discrimination clauses included in their statutes[16] and the IOC charter. The role of the CAS in monitoring the compliance of these regulations with non-discrimination norms is essential. Therefore, in some cases, CAS has to leave its ‘comfort-zone’: it has to deviate from its well-established practice to provide a significant degree of deference to sports governing bodies with regard to their authority to establish the eligibility rules and rather applies a ‘fairness’ requirement on a case-by-case basis, such as in the Pistorius case.

More importantly, CAS has the chance to finally flesh out the toothless IAAF and IOC commitments to gender equality. Dutee’s case is a fertile ground for an interpretation in the light and purpose of the recent UN resolution on sport and the proclaimed values underpinning the Olympic 2020 Agenda. After all, what is the point of trumpeting non-discrimination in sports, if, in 2014, a female athlete is deemed ‘not woman enough’ to compete with women?

Whatever the CAS decides, one thing remains certain: discrimination against women with sexual development specificities will not anymore be in the blind spot of the law. Dutee showed the way.

[1] IAAF Regulations Governing Eligibility of Females with Hyperandrogenism to Compete in Women’s Competition - In force as from 1st May 2011 ,  Article 6.8 <http://www.iaaf.org/about-iaaf/documents/medical >

[2] Dr Ben Koh, Daryl Adair and  Peter Sonksen OBE, ‘Testosterone, sex and gender differentiation in sport – where science and sports law meet’ (14 October 2014) <http://www.lawinsport.com/articles/item/testosterone-sex-and-gender-differentiation-in-sport-where-science-and-sports-law-meet>

[3]  J Ellison, ‘Caster Semenya And The IOC’s Olympics Gender Bender’ (26 July 2012) <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/26/caster-semenya-and-the-ioc-s-olympics-gender-bender.html>

[4] R Pielke, ‘Dutee Chand, science and the spirit of sport: why IAAF policy is deeply flawed’ (20 October 2014) <http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2014/10/20/dutee-chand-science-and-the-spirit-of-sport-why-iaaf-policy-is-deeply-flawed-201001/>

[5] P Zettler, ‘Is It Cheating to Use the Cheetahs? The Implications of Technologically Innovative Prostheses for Sports Values and Rules’ (2009) 27 Boston University International Law Journal, 389.

[6] M Naimark, ‘A New Study Supports Female Athletes Unfairly Excluded From Sport’ (12 September 2014) <http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/09/12/sex_verification_in_sports_a_new_study_supports_unfairly_excluded_female.html>

[7] Dr Ben Koh,Daryl Adair and  Peter Sonksen OBE (n 2)

[8] R Pielke (n 4)

[9] For a very interesting comparison of the physiques between athletes from a wide range of different sports and competitions, see Howard Schatz’s Athlete series.

[10] CAS 2008/A/1480 Pistorius v/ IAAF (16 May 2008), para 56.

[11] CAS 2008/A/1480 Pistorius v/ IAAF (16 May 2008), para 36.

[12] M Viret and E Wisnosky, ‘Sinkewitz v. Veerpalu: Struggling to fit anti-doping science into a legal framework’ (19 March 2014) < http://wadc-commentary.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/WADC_COMMENTARY_Sinkewitz-Blog.pdf>

[13] Cornelius, 236

[14] J Ellison (n 3).

[15] P Zettler (n 5), 394.

[16] For instance, IAAF Constitution 2011, Art 3: “The Objects of IAAF are (…) 4. To strive to ensure that no gender, race, religious, political or other kind of unfair discrimination exists, continues to exist, or is allowed to develop in Athletics in any form, and that all may participate in Athletics regardless of their gender, race, religious or political views or any other irrelevant factor.”

Last week, UEFA, presented its annual Club Licensing Benchmark Report, which analyses socio-economic trends in European club football. The report is relevant in regard to the FFP rules, as it has been hailed by UEFA as a vindication of the early (positive) impact of FFP. This blog post is a report on the report. We go back in time, analysing the last 5 UEFA Benchmarking Reports, to provide a dynamic account of the reports findings. Indeed, the 2012 Benchmarking Report, can be better grasped in this context and longer-lasting trends be identified.

For the footballing season 2013/14 seven clubs from five different countries had been excluded from European competition due to FFP (including Malaga, Rayo Vallecano and CSKA Sofia). Since 2004, 42 sanctions were handed out to 40 clubs (FC Irtysh from Kazakhstan and Bulgarian club CSKA Sofia have been sanctioned twice) spread over 21 different countries. Clubs from Kazakhstan have received most sanctions: seven in total.    

Over the last five years, €10.9 billion were spent on transfers by the European clubs. €8.4 billion were spend by clubs in the English, Italian, Spanish, German and Russian leagues.

The summer of 2013 saw a record of €3 billion being spend by European clubs on the transfers of players, 12% more than the previous record which was set in the summer of 2011.

In the last five years 166 players were transferred for €15 million or more, 63 were transferred to English clubs. Number two, Italy, bought 26, less than half.

The revenue for top division clubs was €14.1 billion in 2012, which is an increase of €800 million compared to 2011.

Total revenue has gone up for all six top divisions over the last five years. England had a total revenue of €2.44 billion in 2008 and a total revenue of €2.78 billion in 2012, an increase of 12.23%.

The biggest change is witnessed in Russia where revenue increased from €350 million in 2008 to €890 million in 2012. An increase of about 150%!

Compared to 2011, the domestic broadcasting revenue increased by 8% and the commercial & sponsor revenues increased by a combined 7% and is expected to continue. Nonetheless, gate receipts fell by 2%.

Player wages amounted to €9.2 billion in in 2012, an increase of €600 million compared to 2011, and €2.1 billion compared to 2008.

The last five years have seen a significant increase of wages namely 59% over the whole of Europe. In the top divisions a wage increase of 49% can be witnessed. The wage to revenue ratio is stabilised at 65%, the same percentage as in previous years, but differs from country to country

Out of the 50 clubs with the highest wage bills 15 were English, 8 German, 8 Italian, 6 Spanish, 6 Russian and 5 French.

Interestingly, in 56% of the time, the club with the highest wage bill in that particular division won the league. (In the 20 wealthiest leagues this percentage is 60%). The main exception is AC Milan, who has the highest wage bill in Italy, but has only won the league once in the last decade (2010/11). In 21% of the time, the club with the second highest wage bill in that particular division won the league.

The total top division club losses was found to be €1.1 billion in 2012, which is equivalent to an 8% loss margin. Even though the clubs still made losses, the final number is €600 million less compared to the €1.7 billion in 2011. 57% of all clubs reported losses, however, 58% of the clubs produced better numbers (higher profits or lower losses) than in 2011.

Do note that the net profit/loss after tax is not the same as the break-even result assessed for FFP purposes. For example, youth costs may be excluded for the break-even assessment but not for the net profit/loss assessment.

Only six of the 20 highest income leagues reported profits in 2012, namely the German, Dutch, Belgian, Austrian, Norwegian and Kazakh leagues. In total 38 out of 53 European leagues reported losses.