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 eagerly awaited FIFA Presidential elections of 26 February provided for a “new face” at the pinnacle of international football for the first time since 1998. One could argue whether Infantino is the man capable of bringing about the reform FIFA so desperately needs or whether he is simply a younger version of his predecessor Blatter. Both men are of course Swiss[1], and both were general secretaries of an international football governing body (UEFA and FIFA respectively) before becoming FIFA President. Only time will tell whether Infantino manages to cleanse FIFA from all the corruption and demonstrate that he is the right man for the job. In this regard, Infantino’s portrait by Sam Borden is definitely worth a read.

Though no FIFA official was lifted from his hotel bed by the police in the days before this FIFA Extraordinary Congress, the build-up was not entirely flawless. Two of the four Presidential Candidates, Prince Ali and Jérôme Champagne, turned to CAS prior to the elections with the aim of “incorporating transparent voting booths as well as independent scrutineers, in order to safeguard the integrity of the voting process and to ensure that the vote is conducted in secret. In addition, Prince Ali also asked for the FIFA Presidential Election to be postponed in the event the CAS could not rule on the request for provisional measures before the election.”[2] Unfortunately for the two candidates, on 24 February CAS rejected their requests (press releases are accessible here and here), promising that the “full order with grounds will be communicated in a few days”. Yet, the CAS website remained mute since then.

At that same Extraordinary FIFA Congress of 26 February, several reforms were also approved. The reforms include term limits for the FIFA President, FIFA Council members and members of the Audit and Compliance Committee and of the judicial bodies of max. 12 years, and the disclosure of individual compensation on an annual basis of the FIFA President, all FIFA Council members, the Secretary General and relevant chairpersons of independent standing and judicial committees. A summary of these reforms can be read here.

Another headline involving FIFA was the FIFA’s Appeal Committee’s decision to uphold the sanctions imposed on the Belgian club FC Seraing for infringing the rules on Third Party Ownership (TPO). The sanctions include a fine of CHF 150.000 and a complete transfer ban for four consecutive transfer windows starting in the summer of 2016. TPO (or FIFA’s decision to ban the practice) was once again making headlines in February, in large part thanks to the website of footballleaks (for more on the people behind this website, I recommend this interview published by Der Spiegel). On 1 February footballleaks published the Economic Rights Participation Agreement (ERPA) between Doyen Sport and the Spanish club Sevilla FC regarding the economic rights of the French football player Geoffrey Kondogbia. Another ERPA that was made accessible for the general public also involved Doyen and a Spanish club, namely Sporting de Gijón.

In addition to new agreement releases by footballleaks, the consequences of earlier releases were slowly being felt in February. For example, the release of the Gareth Bale transfer agreement between Tottenham Hotspur and Real Madrid on 20 January caused quite a few raised eyebrows throughout Europe. Most interestingly, three Members of the European Parliament officially asked the European Commission whether it is planning to “take action under its competition law and state aid responsibilities”, since one of the banks involved in the transfer agreement (Bankia) was previously saved by the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) with public money. The Commission’s answer to this question can be expected shortly.

As regards other issues involving EU law and sport, February was a relatively quiet month. The most interesting new development took place on 22 February with the Euroleague Basketball stating that it submitted a competition complaint before the European Commission against FIBA and FIBA Europe. In a nutshell, Euroleague Basketball is attacking the “unacceptable and illegal threats and pressures that FIBA and its member federations are making against clubs, players and referees to force them to abandon the Euroleague and the Eurocup and only participate in FIBA competitions”. The point of view of FIBA on this issue can be read here. It remains open whether the Commission decides to investigate the matter formally.

This same question can be asked about FIFPro’s complaint against the transfer system. FIFPro has decided to launch #GameChangers campaign to support the complaint and pressure the European Commission into opening an investigation. For an in-depth analysis of the issue, I recommend this piece by Nick de Marco and Alex Mills. 

A report listing the sportslaw headlines would be incomplete these days without references to all the doping related news. It is worth remembering that the two reports by the WADA Independent Commission into doping in international athletics[3] lead to the IAAF banning for life three of its senior officials.[4] This IAAF decision was appealed by the three officials in front of CAS on 1 February. The outcome of this appeal is currently still pending. The Russian Government, meanwhile, heavily criticised the two reports, holding that there is no evidence that it was involved in State-supported doping.  

Case law

The German Appeal Court in Rheinland-Pfalz reached a decision in the Müller case on 17 February.  Contrary to what the Labour Court of Mainz held in March 2015[5], the Appeal Court argued that football players are employed under a fixed-term contract. The judgment has not been made public (yet), so we do not know the full extent of the Appeal Court’s legal argumentation. Further appeal options were available to Müller, but it is unclear whether he exercised them.

On 4 February, another German Appeal Court (the OLG Frankfurt) rendered its decision in the Rogon case (we commented the first ruling on provisory measure in June) involving the German implementation of the new FIFA Regulations on Working with Intermediaries. Here again, the full text of the ruling is still missing and we can only elaborate on press reports (here and here). Yet, it seems that the Court has decided to partially uphold the new Regulations (especially the no-fee for minors provision), while it also stroke down some aspects of the new rules (especially the intermediary’s duty to register with the DFB). 

Official Documents and Press Releases

• CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber renders Galatasaray FFP decision

  Full Decision

WADA Statement on Kenyan Athletes Doping Bribery Allegations

FIFA Congress approves landmark reforms

FIFA Appeal Committee dismisses appeals from investigatory chamber, Joseph S. Blatter and Michel Platini; grants a reduction on sentences

FIFA rejects appeal of Belgian club sanctioned under third-party influence and third-party ownership rules

Euroleague Basketball presents a complaint before the European Commission against FIBA and FIBA Europe

In the news

Athletics

• The Telegraph - Nestle terminate sponsorship programme with IAAF over doping and corruption scandals

Ben Bloom - Athletics world records blow as Wang Junxia 'admits' being part of Chinese state-sponsored doping regime

Australian Football

• Michelangelo Rucci - Some Essendon players to appeal two-year WADA in Swiss courts

Baseball

• UPI.com - New York Mets' Meija receives 162-game suspension after third failed doping test

Cycling

• Stuart Clarke - Spain ordered to pay Roberto Heras €720,000 over reversed doping ban

Football

• Paul Hayward - FIFA presidential election is beyond a joke - abolition is the only solution to their game of thrones

Sam Borden - A Guide to This Week’s Extraordinary FIFA Congress

Speed skating – Pechstein

• Amanda Coletta - Speedskater Is Poised to Upend Rule of Sports’ Highest Court

Tennis

• BBC - Tennis match-fixing claims: MPs to question authorities

Sean Ingle - Revealed: tennis umpires secretly banned over gambling scam

Other

• Transparency International - Global Corruption Report: Sport[6]

Academic materials

• Ben Van Rompuy and Oskar van Maren – ‘EU Control of State Aid to Professional Sport: Why Now?’

Arnout Geeraert - 'The EU in international sports governance'

Drs Raffaele Poli, Loïc Ravenel and Roger Besson - Foreign players in football teams

Geoff Pearson - Review of Pijetlovic 'EU Sports Law and Breakaway leagues in football' 2016 Common Market Law Review

Schwell, A., Buchowski, M., Kowalska, M., Szogs – ‘New Ethnographies of Football in Europe’

Mark Giancaspro - 'Buy-out clauses in professional football player contracts: questions of legality and integrity'

[1] In fact, Infantino grew up in the town of Brig, less than 10 km from Visp, Blatter’s home town.

[2] Media Release by the Court of Arbitration for Sport of 24 February 2016, “CAS rejects HRH Prince Ali Al Hussein’s request for urgent provisional measures”, http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release_4459_decision.pdf accessed 23 March 2016.

[3] The Independent Commission Report #1 of 9 November 2015, https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/wada_independent_commission_report_1_en.pdf accessed 24 March 2016; and The Independent Commission Report #2 of 14 January 2016, https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/wada_independent_commission_report_2_2016_en_rev.pdf accessed 24 March 2016.

[4] I.e. Papa Massata Diack, Valentin Balakhnichev and Alexei Melnikov.

[5] For more information on the Müller case in first instance, read the blogs by Piotr Drabik: “Compatibility of Fixed-Term Contracts in Football with Directive 1999/70/EC. Part.1: The General Framework”, http://www.asser.nl/SportsLaw/Blog/post/part-1-compatibility-of-fixed-term-contracts-in-football-with-directive-1999-70-ec-the-general-framework-by-piotrek-drabik accessed 24 March 2016; and “Compatibility of fixed-term contracts in football with Directive 1999/70/EC. Part 2: The Heinz Müller case”, http://www.asser.nl/SportsLaw/Blog/post/compatibility-of-fixed-term-contracts-in-football-with-directive-1999-70-ec-part-2-the-heinz-muller-case-by-piotr-drabik accessed 24 March 2016.

[6] Prof. Ben Van Rompuy of the Asser Institute contributed tot his report with his piece “The role of the betting industry”, pages 236-241.

Editor’s note
Wil is working as a lawyer since 1980. He started his legal career at Rechtshulp Rotterdam. Later on he worked for the Dutch national trade union FNV and law firm Varrolaan Advocaten. Currently he is participating in the Labour Law Section of lawfirm MHZ-advocaten in Schiedam in the Netherlands. He is also a member of a joint committee advising the government in labour issues.

Since 1991 he is dealing with the labour issues of the trade union for professional football players VVCS and cyclists’ union VVBW. Since 2002, he works for FIFPro, the worldwide union for professional football players based in Hoofddorp in the Netherlands. He is involved in many international football cases and provides legal support for FIFPro members all over the world. Wil was also involved in the FIFPro Black Book campaign on match fixing and corruption in Eastern Europe.

On the 2001 agreement between FIFA, UEFA and the European Commission:

What was FIFPro’s role in the negotiations leading to the 2001 agreement with the EU Commission on which the current FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfers of Players (RSTP) are based?

First the negotiations started between the Commission and FIFA/UEFA. Later on FIFPro joined as the Commission found it necessary to involve the players. From then on FIFPro was at the table and able to have influence. It proved not to be the level of influence we hoped to have.

To what extent was FIFPro (dis)satisfied with the agreement at that time?

The outcome of the negotiations was a compromise but to a certain extent acceptable for FIFPro as it was to improve in principle the situation of players. At that time, it seemed that free movement was accessible for them. Yet, the fact that the Commission did not subsequently evaluate the system - as agreed in 2001 - was disappointing.

On the current complaint: 

Why is FIFPro challenging the FIFA RSTP under EU Competition law? What has changed?

After a short while since 2001 we concluded that the way the informal agreement with the Commission was formulated in the RSTP was not consistent with what had been agreed. The clearest example is the repetition of the protected period after a contract was extended.

The parties agreed on a single protected period after a player signed his first contract with a club in order to preserve the stability of club squads and to allow them to amortize the investments made on acquiring these players. After this period the relation between a club and a player was intended to be a regular labour relation.

On several occasions the Commission confirmed that after the protected period the compensation to be paid in case of premature termination would be calculated based on the residual value of the contract. As the protected period re-starts in case of contract renewal, players never reach this situation. Players who refuse to sign a new contract are regularly side-lined by their clubs in order to force them to sign a prolongation. This is limiting the freedom of movement of players significantly and has substantial anti-competitive effects.

More precisely, are you challenging specific articles of the FIFA RSTP? If so, why do you deem those provisions in particular to have an anti-competitive effect or object?

When evaluating the RSTP internally, FIFPro identified twenty-three key issues on which the transfer system was failing the players. As we decided to lodge a complaint on an EU competition law basis, we picked out the strongest arguments for the purpose of substantiating our complaint. The repetition in the protected period is an example[1].

Could these alleged anti-competitive effects not be justified along the lines of the Wouters test[2] as being inherent to the achievement of legitimate objectives such as competitive balance or contractual stability?

It is important to notice that there is no transfer system in other sports and they seem to work fine. This means that a transfer system is not a necessity as such. The abuses we witness nowadays, especially non-payment of players is a direct consequence of the way the system works. We strongly believe that the restrictive effects are not inherent in the pursuit of any objectives. They certainly are not proportionate to them. FIFPro is convinced that the restrictive aspects of the system do not pass the Wouters test.

What is the rationale for going to the EU Commission and not, for example, to the national courts (or national competition authorities for that matter)?

First of all it was the Commission that initiated the process towards the new regulations in 2001. Now that we see the system failing it seems logical to approach the Commission first. As we are looking at a pan-European problem this forum would be more effective than national proceedings. But in case the complaint does not provide an appropriate result the way to national courts and national competition authorities is still open.

Did you envisage some non-confrontational strategies to change the FIFA RSTP through negotiations? What about using the European social dialogue committee for example?

The initial Social Dialogue meetings started eleven years ago. Although we concluded an autonomous agreement in 2012 we must conclude that the most serious problems for our players have not been solved through this mechanism nor have they been successfully tackled through our participation in the working groups and committees of FIFA and UEFA.

The problem of overdue payables is more serious than ever before. FIFPro feels that more pressure is needed to move things forward. The fact that we lodged the complaint does not mean that we stop negotiating. On the contrary, if our counterparts in the social dialogue are willing to solve the issues we put on the table we would prefer this over a long-lasting legal struggle.

Finally, don’t you think that this complaint could lead to a form of European imperialism? In other words, European institutions, clubs and players dictating the transfer system applied worldwide? Should (and could) FIFA (or UEFA) aim for a different European transfer system instead?

Although we are a global organization we cannot deny the fact that the center of gravity of professional football is in Europe. Moreover, after the Bosman ruling it was obvious that the new FIFA regulations had to be in full compliance with EU-law principles. As these rules apply worldwide this means that EU-principles must be respected around the world. As EU law provides generally more protection to workers than a lot of other legal systems in the world the players benefit from this extraterritorial application. FIFPro does not consider this as imperialism. In fact, we believe that a single system is preferable because of the global character of professional football.

[1] Editor’s note: For more examples see FIFPro’s Executive Summary of the complaint.

[2] Editor’s note: The Wouters test is used for the assessment of the alleged anti-competitive nature of a measure, agreement or concerted practice under Article 101(1) TFEU. According to this test, account must be taken of the overall context of the FIFA RSTP and how it produces its effects. More particularly, account must be taken of its potential legitimate objectives. One must then evaluate whether the restrictive effects on competition are inherent in the pursuit of those objectives and proportionate.

The European Commission’s competition decisions in the area of sport, which set out broad principles regarding the interface between sports-related activities and EU competition law, are widely publicized. As a result of the decentralization of EU competition law enforcement, however, enforcement activity has largely shifted to the national level. Since 2004, national competition authorities (NCAs) and national courts are empowered to fully apply the EU competition rules on anti-competitive agreements (Article 101 TFEU) and abuse of a dominant position (Article 102 TFEU).

Even though NCAs have addressed a series of interesting competition cases (notably dealing with the regulatory aspects of sport) during the last ten years, the academic literature has largely overlooked these developments. This is unfortunate since all stakeholders (sports organisations, clubs, practitioners, etc.) increasingly need to learn from pressing issues arising in national cases and enforcement decisions. In a series of blog posts we will explore these unknown territories of the application of EU competition law to sport.

We kick-start the series with a recent investigation of the Swedish National Competition Authority (NCA) into a so-called duty of loyalty clause applied by the Swedish Bodybuilding and Fitness Federation (Svenska Kroppskulturförbundet, SKKF).[1]

Source: http://www.scmp.com/photos/recent/all/1046780

The facts

The SKKF is the only national member of the International Bodybuilding Federation (IFBB) and organises various championships in the sport of bodybuilding and fitness in Sweden. It is essential for Swedish clubs, individual athletes, and officials to be a member of the SKKF as this is prerequisite for participation in IFBB international competitions.

The IFBB’s rules and regulations form an integral part of the SKKF’s Statutes. According to the SKKF’s rules, members who compete or otherwise participate in contests that are not approved or authorised by the SKFF or IFBB can be fined or suspended (i.e. the duty of loyalty clause). Athletes who have taken part in an unsanctioned event must also test for doping, at their own expenses, before they are allowed to compete at SKKF or IFBB events again.

In October 2013, BMR Sport Nutrition AB, a manufacturer of nutritional and bodybuilding supplements that also occasionally organises unsanctioned bodybuilding and fitness events in Sweden, filed a complaint before the NCA alleging that this rule violates Article 101 TFEU and Chapter 2, Article 1 of the Swedish Competition Act as it prevents event organisers from effectively competing with the SKKF (i.e. they are deprived from the chance to gather the human resources necessary for a successful event). The complainant submitted evidence that the threat of a fine and/or the withdrawal of their license by the SKKF effectively deterred athletes from participating in non-sanctioned events.

The context

The Swedish bodybuilding case follows a 2011 decision of the NCA, which ordered the Swedish Automobile Sports Federation (Svenska Bilsportförbundet, SBF) to abolish its rules preventing members from participating in motorsport events not authorized by the KKF.[2] On appeal by SBF, the Swedish Market Court upheld the decision in its entirety.[3]

This “precedent” case dealt with two duty of loyalty clauses in the SBF’s Common Rules prohibiting officials and contestants, licensed by the SBF, to officiate or participate in motor sport events other than those organised by the SBF or its member clubs. A violation of these provisions could result in a fine and/or withdrawal of the licence to officiate or compete in SBF events.

The NCA and the Market Court established that the contested rules constituted a decision by an association of undertakings. While the NCA had only applied national competition law, the Market Court, having defined the organisation of motorsport competitions in Sweden as the relevant product market, found that trade between the Member States was affected and therefore also applied Article 101 TFEU. According to the Court, the mere existence of the rules considerably distorted competition because they led to an absolute ban for SBF members to participate in non-sanctioned events. It concluded that, even if the rules would be regarded as serving a legitimate objective, the total ban could not be considered proportional to achieving such an objective. Moreover, the Court concluded that the restriction of competition could not benefit from an exemption under Article 101(3) TFEU or Chapter 2, Article 1 of the Swedish Competition Act.

While the Market Court’s judgment is far from innovative and carefully followed the proportionality test adopted by the Court of Justice in Meca-Medina, the case drew much media attention and raised concerns and criticism from the Swedish sports movement. Having demonstrated the remedial potential of EU competition law to challenge organisational sporting rules, it was only a matter of time before further national enforcement action would result from this case. 

The outcome

In a statement responding to the filing of the complaint by BMR Sport Nutrition AB, the chairman of the SKKF contested the apparent analogy with the SBF (motorsport) case. He essentially put forward three reasons. First, the SKKF is a non-profit organisation that pursues an aim in the general interest (i.e. the promotion of sport) and reinvests all its income, which is insufficient to cover its costs, in its sports activities, e.g. to fund education and training activities, doping tests, and travel expenses of the national team. This precludes the assumption that it pursues an economic activity. It follows that the SKKF cannot be regarded as an undertaking for the purposes of competition law (contrary to commercially successful sports associations). Second, the SKKF does not act independently of the will of its members. Similar to trade unions, member athletes voluntarily submit themselves to the applicable regulations when they join a member club. They can move to change certain rules if they find, in a true democratic spirit, a majority for such change. Alternatively, member athletes can choose to leave their club and join another association. Third, the right of freedom of association excludes the rule-making powers of the SKKF from the ambit of the competition rules.

Nevertheless, following several meetings between the NCA and the SKKF, the latter committed no longer to suspend or fine athletes, coaches, officials or judges that participate in non-sanctioned events.[4] The requirement that they must test for doping, at their own expense, was not abolished. According to the SKFF, this requirement was necessary to comply with the IFBB anti-doping rules, which conform to the provisions of the World Anti-Doping Code.

Given the commitment of the SKKF to no longer apply the duty of loyalty clause, the NCA decided to close the investigation without concluding whether competition law had been infringed.

Commentary

Those familiar with sports-related competition law cases will surely recognize the arguments of the chairman of the SKKF to assert immunity from the application of the competition rules. While they have been tried and tested many times, also before the Union courts, these arguments keep popping up. So let’s take a closer at why they are not accepted.

Regarding the claim that the SKKF is a non-profit organisation that exclusively aims to promote the development of the sport, it must be recalled that – if there still was any doubt - in Meca-Medina the Court of Justice made clear that the qualification of a rule as “purely sporting” was insufficient to remove the body adopting that rule (or the person engaging in the activity covered by it) from the scope of the Treaty. It thus must be examined, irrespective of the nature of the rule, whether the specific requirements of the various provisions of the Treaty are met. For the purpose of the competition rules, the notion of “undertaking” is a core jurisdictional element. According to established case law, this concept covers “any entity engaged in an economic activity regardless of the legal status of the entity or the way in which it is financed”.[5]

In an attempt to escape the bite of the competition rules, various other sports associations have time and again asserted that they cannot be regarded as “undertakings” because their objective is not the pursuit of economic interests. Even when only considering their regulatory functions, this reasoning finds no support in the case law. The Court of Justice has consistently held that the concept of undertaking does not presuppose a profit-making intention. The fact that entities are non-profit making has no effect on their classification as undertakings.[6] Similarly, the fact that entities pursue cultural or social activities does not in itself prevent these activities from being regarded as economic.[7]

In the case at hand, it is clear that in addition to the SKKF, even assuming that it organises bodybuilding and fitness events without seeking to make profit, other entities like BMR Sport Nutrition AB are also engaged in that activity (and do seek to make a profit). The SKKF offers goods or services on a market in competition with others. The success or economic survival of the SKKF ultimately depends on it being able to impose its services to the detriment of those offered by other event organisers. Consequently, the SKKF must be considered as an undertaking engaged in the markets for the organisation and marketing of bodybuilding and fitness events.

Regarding the somewhat chucklesome claim that the SKKF should be qualified as a trade union (or other professional association) that cannot act independently of the will of its members, it is sufficient to stress that Article 101 TFEU also applies to “associations of undertakings”. A federation like the SKKF, the beacon of democracy it may be, is not an association of employees but (also) of member clubs that engage in economic activities. Hence, the result of the delimitation between the federation acting “in its own right” or “merely as an executive organ of an agreement between its members” is irrelevant: Article 101 TFEU still applies to its regulations.

Regarding the claim based on the principle of freedom of association, indeed protected in the Swedish constitution as well as in the EU legal order, it is difficult to see how the duty of loyalty clause could be considered an inevitable result thereof. In any event, the Court of Justice has made clear that this right cannot be so absolute as to afford sports federations’ complete immunity from EU law.[8] In other words, the need to guarantee sports’ right of self-regulation cannot be a blank check to avoid scrutiny of measures that may conceal the pursuit of economic interest. Provided that its rules are proportional to a legitimate objective, SKKF should have nothing to fear from the competition rules.

So contrary to what the chairman of the SKKF contented, the analogy between its rule and the contested rule in the SBF (motorsport) case was accurate. A confrontation with this inconvenient truth was sufficient to convince the SKKF to commit itself to no longer suspend or fine athletes, coaches, officials or judges for participating in non-sanctioned competitions. That the requirement of a doping test (for those having participated in competing events) could remain clearly illustrates that competition law will leave unscratched restrictive sporting rules that are deemed inherent and proportionate to the organisation and proper conduct of sport. It almost makes you wonder what all the fuss is about when competition law confronts the world of sport.

One final note: the contested “SKKF” rule is the national equivalent of the clause contained in the IFBB Constitution (which forms an integral part of the SKKF’s statutes). Article 19.4.7 stipulates that:

“Any athlete or official who participates in a competition or event not approved or sanctioned by the IFBB, may be fined, suspended or expelled. The amount of the fine as well as the suspension period will be decided by the IFBB Disciplinary Commission … Once the suspension has been completed and before participating in an IFBB competition or event, the athlete must be drug tested at his or her own expenses”

Participation in an event or competition includes (but is not limited to!) competing, guest posing, giving a seminar, lecture or similar presentation, judging, officiating, allowing the use of one’s name and/or likeness for promotional purposes, and/or taking part in a non-IFBB sanctioned competition or event in any other way, shape or form.

To the IFBB and all other European member federations, who have to the author’s knowledge not decided to no longer enforce or abolish this rule: beware!

[1] Swedish Competition Authority (Konkurrensverket), 28 May 2014, Bodybuilding and Fitness Competitions, Decision dnr. 590/2013, http://www.kkv.se/upload/Filer/Konkurrens/2014/13-0590.pdf

[2] Swedish Competition Authority (Konkurrensverket) 13 May 2011, Swedish Automobile Sports Federation, Decision dnr. 709/2009, available at http://www.kkv.se/upload/Filer/Konkurrens/2011/Beslut/09-0709.pdf

[3] Swedish Market Court's ruling 2012:16 in Case A 5/11, Svenska Bilsportförbundet v Konkurrensverket (December 20, 2012), http://www.kkv.se/t/NewsArchive.aspx?id=529

[4] The SKKF notified its member athletes and clubs of the changes via its newsletter and website.

[5] Case C-41/90 Höfner and Elser [1991] ECR I-1979, para. 21.

[6] See e.g. Case C-222/04 Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze v Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze SpA and others [2006] ECR I-289; Case C-475/99 Firma Ambulanz Glöckner v Landkreis Südwestpfalz [2001] ECR I-8089; Joined Cases 209/78 to 215/78 and 218/78 Van Landewyck v Commission [1980] ECR 3125; C-244/94 Fédération Française des Sociétés d’Assurances and others v Ministère de l'Agriculture [1995] ECR I-4013; Joined Cases C-115/97 to C-117/07 Brentjens’ Handelsonderneming BV v Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds voor de Handel in Bouwmaterialen [1999] ECR I-6025.

[7] See e.g. Joined case C-180/98 to C-184/98 Pavel Pavlov and Others v Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten [2000] ECR I-6451; Case C‑218/00 Cisal [2002] ECR I‑691.

[8] Case C-415/93 Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association and others v Bosman and others [1995] ECR I-4921, paras. 79-80

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