Editor's note: Saverio P. Spera is an Italian qualified attorney-at-law. He has practiced civil and employment law in Italy and briefly worked at the Asser International Sports Law Centre before joining FIFA in 2017. Until May 2024, he has worked within the FIFA legal division - Litigation Department, and lectured in several FIFA sports law programmes. In the spring of 2024 he has co-founded SP.IN Law, a Zurich based international sports law firm.

On 21 December 2023 a judicial hat-trick stormed the scene of EU sports law. That day, the European Court of Justice (the “ECJ”) issued three decisions: (i) European Superleague Company, SL v FIFA and UEFA (Case C-333/21); (ii) UL and SA Royal Antwerp Football Club v Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL (Case C-680/21)and (iii) International Skating Union (ISU) v. European Commission – Case C-124/21.

These judgments were much scrutinised (see here, here and here) in the past 6 months. For the reader’s relief, this paper will not venture into adding another opinion on whether this was a fatal blow to the foundation of EU sports law or if, after all, the substantive change is minimal (as persuasively argued here). It will analyse, instead, UEFA’s recent amendments of its Statutes and Authorisation Rules governing International Club Competitions (the “Authorisation Rules”) and whether these amendments, clearly responding to the concerns raised in the ISU judgment with respect to the sports arbitration system,[1] might pave the way for other Sports Governing Bodies (SGBs) to follow suit and what the implications for CAS arbitration might be.

The ISU judgement in a nutshell

On 23 June 2014, two professional speed skaters belonging to the Royal Netherlands Skating Federation (KNSB), Mr Tuitert and Mr Kerstholt, filed a complaint to the European Commission (the “Commission”) against the ISU (of which, the KNSB is a member) for an alleged violation of Article 101 and 102 TFEU by the ISU Prior Authorisation and Eligibility Rules. Three years later, on 8 December 2017, the Commission issued its decision, considering the compatibility with EU competition law of (i) the ISU Eligibility Rules (i.e., the provisions determining the conditions in which athletes could take part in skating competitions); (ii) the ISU Prior Authorisation Rules (i.e., the provisions setting out the procedure to follow in order to obtain from the ISU the authorisation to organise international skating competitions) and (iii) the ISU Arbitration Rules (i.e., the provisions establishing that, in case of disputes, the relevant ISU decision would have had to be appealed at the CAS).[2] In essence, the Commission found that the Eligibility and Prior Authorisation Rules did not satisfy the conditions required by Article 101(3) TFEU in order to benefit from an exemption and, importantly, that the Arbitration Rules had to be revised because they were reinforcing the restriction of commercial freedom already determined by the substantive rules under scrutiny. 

The ISU appealed the EC’s Decision to the General Court (the “GC”), seeking its annulment. On 16 December 2020, the GC issued its decision (the “Appealed Decision”) rejecting most of the appeal. However, the judges annulled the part of the EC’s Decision dedicated to the ISU Arbitration Rules. In essence, the GC considered that conferring exclusive jurisdiction to the CAS, a specialised arbitral tribunal capable of quickly resolving these disputes, was justified by legitimate interests linked to the specific nature of the sport.[3]

On 26 February 2021, the ISU filed an appeal to the ECJ against the ruling of the GC, while the speed skaters (supported by the Commission) filed a cross-appeal requesting to set aside the Appealed Ruling in so far as it annulled the part of the EC Decision that concerned the Arbitration Rules.  

Regarding these, the ECJ was not convinced by the GC’s conclusion that legitimate interests linked to the specific nature of sport can justify arbitration rules when they confer exclusive jurisdiction to the CAS to review decisions capable of touching upon public policy provisions of the EU (such as matters of EU competition law). Instead, it stressed that the contested Arbitration Rules concerned disputes that could arise in the context of economic activities linked to the organisation and marketing of international speed skating events. Hence, any disputes subjected to these Arbitration Rules come under EU competition law, and the relevant decision must comply with it.[4] The ECJ demanded that the court having jurisdiction to review the award perform an effective judicial review to guarantee that substantive rights – part of EU public policy – are safeguarded.[5] In this context, the ECJ also underlined that it is not sufficient to provide ex postremedies allowing parties to seek damages for violations of competition law condoned through the arbitration process.[6]

A standstill between two systems which inevitably cross paths

According to the ECJ, any provision or decision of an association of undertakings crossing the boundaries of “questions of interest solely to sport […] extraneous to any economic activity”[7] and potentially restrictive of competition must be scrutinised through the lens of EU competition law.

A problem of coexistence between two legal regimes that inevitably interact seems to be evident. On the one hand, the international sports arbitration system, with the CAS as specialised dispute resolution method and the SFT as judicial apex, and on the other EU law and the EU institutions.  

i.               The problem does not lie with the CAS in itself…

Notoriously, CAS panels do apply EU law when required.[8] The legislative basis upon which they do so is Article R58 CAS Code,[9] Article 19 of the Swiss Federal Act on Private International Law (PILA)[10]  and – depending on the circumstances – Article 187(1) PILA.[11] Over the years, CAS panels have regularly assessed the compatibility of regulations of UEFA and FIFA with EU Competition law. 

In CAS 2007/A/1287 Danubio FC v. FIFA & FC Internazionale Milano S.p.A., the panel analysed the compatibility of the FIFA solidarity mechanism with EU competition law. On that occasion, it recognised that “it is not only allowed, but also obliged to deal with the issues involving the application of EC law in the present matter”. The same conclusion was reached by other panels on several occasions over the years (see, inter alia, CAS 2009/A/1788 UMMC Ekaterinburg v. FIBA Europe e. V., In CAS 2012/A/2852 S.C.S Fotbal Club CFR 1907 Cluj S.A. & Manuel Ferreira de Sousa Ricardo & Mario Jorge Quintas Felgueiras v. FRF, CAS 2014/A/3561 & 3614 IAAF & WADA).

A recent CAS award entirely revolved around the compatibility of the newly adopted FIFA Football Agents Regulations (FFAR) with EU law.[12]

The ECJ’s demands for an effective scrutiny through the lens of EU Competition law of certain types of regulations of associations of undertakings is thus met by the arbitral body having (almost invariably) exclusive jurisdiction to review them.

ii.              …but with the court which reviews its awards

However, while a CAS award can be challenged before the Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT) on the ground of – inter alia – incompatibility with public policy,[13] Swiss public policy and EU public policy (which covers EU competition law[14]) are two very distinct concepts and the SFT (i) only takes the former into account and (ii) certainly does not refer questions to the ECJ for preliminary rulings. 

Hence, the failure to apply (or the wrong application of) EU law does not necessarily result in the setting aside of the relevant CAS award since it does not violate Swiss public policy.[15]

On a few occasions, the SFT has considered whether EU competition law is part and parcel of Swiss public policy.[16] In a judgment of 8 March 2006, the SFT rejected a request to set aside an arbitral award on the basis of a claimed incompatibility with substantive public policy due to an alleged violation of EU (and Italian) competition law. On that occasion, the SFT – once having formulated a definition of Swiss public policy[17] – determined that EU competition law does not meet the test.[18]

Thus, even if EU law is considered to be a mandatory foreign substantive law by the relevant arbitral panel, this does not make it part of the Swiss public order. The SFT seems to be content with the conclusion that the public policy weighing on the Court is different from the one weighing upon the arbitrator.[19]

Ultimately, the problem is not really the CAS per se, but the fact that it is seated in Switzerland.

Is UEFA paving a way forward to diffuse the potential conflict between CAS arbitration and EU competition law?

It is not the first time that the EU judges draw the SGBs’ attention to the fact that their rules and decisions are not adopted in a social and economic vacuum and that their (a priori legitimate) governing authority needs to account for its effects on the EU’s internal market. As illustrated in the ISU case, this extends to dispute resolution processes that are provided for in the SGBs’ rulebooks. 

UEFA has recently attempted to address these concerns by amending its Authorisation Rules and its Statutes. Article 16 of the Authorisation Rules, concerning ‘Dispute resolution’, was amended through the addition of paragraph 3 and 4 reading as follows:

3. CAS shall primarily apply the UEFA Statutes, rules and regulations and subsidiarily Swiss law. The party filing the statement of appeal and/or a request for provisional measures, whichever is filed first with CAS, shall indicate in its first written submission to CAS whether the party accepts Lausanne, Switzerland, as seat of the arbitration or if the seat of the arbitration shall be in Dublin, Ireland, in derogation of Article R28 of the CAS Code. In the latter case, UEFA is bound by the choice of Dublin, Ireland, as seat of the arbitration and UEFA shall confirm its agreement to such seat in its first written reply to CAS. In case no seat is indicated in the first written submission to CAS, Article R28 of the CAS Code shall apply. 

4. The decision of CAS shall be deemed to be made at the seat of the arbitration determined as per paragraph (3) above. The CAS award shall mention the seat of the arbitration. The decision of CAS shall be final and binding to the exclusion of jurisdiction of any ordinary court or any other court of arbitration. This is without prejudice to the right of appeal of any party in accordance with the applicable law of the seat of the arbitration as well as the right to challenge the enforcement or recognition of a CAS award on grounds of public policy (which may include European Union public policy laws) in accordance with any applicable national or European Union procedural laws. 

Article 63 of Statutes, in turn, was modified in its paragraph 2 (now reading “CAS shall primarily apply the UEFA Statutes, rules and regulations and, subsidiarily, Swiss law. In addition, any party before CAS shall be entitled to raise mandatory provisions of foreign law in accordance with Article 19 of the Swiss Private International Law Act, which may include European Union public policy laws”) and an entirely new third paragraph was added to it:

3. CAS awards shall be final and binding to the exclusion of jurisdiction of any ordinary court or any other court of arbitration. This is without prejudice to the right to file an appeal against a CAS award before the Swiss Federal Tribunal in accordance with Swiss law and the right to challenge the enforcement or recognition of a CAS award on grounds of public policy (which may include European Union public policy laws) in accordance with any applicable national or European Union procedural laws or the right to file a case before a competent competition authority.

While laudable, the clarification in the Statutes does not add much to the picture. As seen, CAS panels were already applying foreign mandatory law. The new paragraph 3 does not seem to change the general balance of the UEFA arbitration rules either, since the possibility to challenge the enforcement or recognition of a CAS award existed already.

The changes to the Authorisation Rules are much more significant with regard to the CAS arbitration procedure. They concern disputes related to UEFA’s decisions not to authorise the organisation of International Club Competitions.[20]According to the Authorisation Rules, a potential organiser needs to meet administrative and financial criteria,[21]sporting and technical criteria,[22] ethical criteria,[23] sporting merit criteria,[24] and submit to UEFA a request for authorisation containing all the relevant information and supporting documents concerning the mentioned prerequisites in order to obtain authorisation to organise an International Club Competition.[25] Any dispute related to these rules has to be brought to the CAS. Yet, the appellant can derogate to Article R28 of the CAS Code and choose to have the CAS seated in Dublin rather than in Lausanne and if it does so: (A) UEFA is bound by that choice; (B) the relevant award will be subjected to setting aside proceedings before the Irish High Court (on the limited grounds of Article 34(2) of the Model Law, which include public policy, as explained here).

The amendment is significant. Is it revolutionary? Probably not, but it certainly shows UEFA’s willingness to appease Luxembourg and Brussels’ concerns. The Authorisation Rules are a textbook example of the type of rules whose compatibility with EU competition law might be challenged and for which access to the preliminary reference procedure ought to be available. 

Does the reform address the ECJ’s concerns as expressed in the ISU ruling? In part, undoubtedly. In the future, in cases involving the Authorisation Rules, the appellants will be able to choose to bind UEFA to an arbitral process subjected to the review of the national court of a Member State which can refer to the ECJ a preliminary reference. However, there are many more UEFA rules that can potentially infringe EU competition law which are currently outside of the scope of this new procedure.[26]

Is this a model for other SGBs to follow? Possibly. It preserves the CAS as a specialised international arbitral tribunal sitting in Switzerland (which is dear to many stakeholders for a variety of reasons) yet guaranteeing that – when it comes to some rules typically touching upon issues of EU competition law – potentially affected parties can opt to have an effective EU law review by choosing a seat of the arbitration within the EU, while at the same time being reassured about the enforceability of the award (as Ireland is signatory of the New York Convention).

This compromise appears to offer a feasible and potentially fruitful path to appease the concerns of the ECJ, while preserving the specific relationship between sports governance and the CAS. In the end, the CAS might have to be ‘EUropeanised’, but it seems high time to ensure a greater embeddedness of sports arbitration in the EU legal order in order to protect the lex sportiva from a head-on conflict with EU law and the EU institutions.

[1] As argued by Antoine Duval: “one of the least visible and yet potentially most consequential findings in the trio of decisions”.

[2] In parallel, Article 25 of the ISU Statutes provided for the possibility for athletes who wished to challenge a decision imposing a penalty of ‘loss of eligibility’ or ‘ineligibility’ on them to lodge an appeal against that decision before the CAS.

[3] Appealed Decision, para. 156.

[4] ISU judgment, para. 189.

[5] Ibid, paras. 198 – 199.

[6] Ibid, paras. 200 – 204. 

[7] It is interesting to note that the revival of the concept of ‘purely sporting rule’ by the Court has been authoritatively criticised (see here and here).

[8] For a complete overview of the interaction between EU law and the CAS, see Duval A (2015) The Court of Arbitration for Sport and EU law: chronicle of an encounter. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative law, 22(2) 224-255.

[9] Article R58 CAS Code (law applicable to the merits): “The Panel shall decide the dispute according to the applicable regulations and, subsidiarily, to the rules of law chosen by the parties or, in the absence of such a choice, according to the law of the country in which the federation, association or sports-related body which has issued the challenged decision is domiciled or according to the rules of law the Panel deems appropriate. In the latter case, the Panel shall give reasons for its decision” (emphasis added)

[10] Article 19 PILA: “1. If interests that are legitimate and clearly preponderant according to the Swiss conception of law so require, a mandatory provision of a law other than the one referred to by this Act may be taken into consideration, provided the situation dealt with has a close connection with that other law. 2. In deciding whether such a provision is to be taken into consideration, consideration shall be given to its purpose and the consequences of its application, in order to reach a decision that is appropriate having regard to the Swiss conception of law”.

[11] Article 187(1) PILA: “The arbitral tribunal shall decide the dispute according to the rules of law chosen by the parties or, in the absence of such a choice, according to the rules of law with which the case has the closest connection”.

[12] The panel indeed assessed whether Article 15(2) FFAR: (i) pursued legitimate objectives recognised by the EU legal order (paras. 283 – 288); (ii) was appropriate to pursue those objectives (paras. 289 - 297) and (iii) was proportionate (paras. 298 – 310) and concluded in the affirmative with respect to each of them.

[13] See Article 190(2) lit. e) PILA.

[14] See, for instance, Case C-126/97 – Eco Swiss China Time Ltd. v Benetton International NV, [1999] ECR I-3055.

[15] See Sandra de Vito Bieri – the application of EU law by arbitral tribunal seated in Switzerland in ASA Bulletin 1/2017 (Volume 35, pages 55 – 66), who points out that the only chance for such an action to be successful would be in the improbable case in which the CAS were to find EU law applicable to the dispute but were to deny jurisdiction to decide on matter of EU law.

[16] ATF 128 III 234, consid. 4c at 242; Judgment 4P.119/1998 of 13 November 1998, consid. 1b/bb, published in ASA Bulletin 1999 at pp 529 et seq.

[17] Judgment of 8 March 2006, 4P.278/2005, consid. 2.2.3: “[…] an award is incompatible with public policy if it disregards essential and widely recognised values which, in accordance with conceptions prevalent in Switzerland, must constitute the foundation of any legal order”.

[18] In essence, the SFT did not consider competition law to be a fundamental principle of law applicable in any legal order given the different extents to which this is accepted in the various legal systems. In particular, with respect to EU competition law, the SFT observed that the values that it protects are confined to the EU because drafted in the attempt to guarantee the functioning of the European internal market, and – as such – they cannot be considered part of a more universal principle that can be shared by all countries, including Switzerland

[19] Ibid, consid. 3.3. See Landolt P. “Judgment of the Swiss Supreme Court of 8 March 2006 – A Commentary”.

[20] See Article 2 of the Rules for more details on their scope of application.

[21] Article 4 of the Rules.

[22] Article 5 of the Rules.

[23] Article 6 of the Rules.

[24] Article 7 of the Rules.

[25] Articles 8 to 12 of the Rules.

[26] There are rules admittedly escaping EU law scrutiny, however – as poignantly argued by Prof. Weatherill here – those entirely extraneous to economic activity are not many and possibly the focus should not be on their purely sporting nature but rather on the effect of their practice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A restriction to the freedom to provide services? 

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

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

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

The origins of the French betting right 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The proof of the pudding is in the eating  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The editorial board of the International Sports Law Journal (ISLJ) is very pleased to invite you to submit abstracts for its first Annual Conference on International Sports Law. The ISLJ, published by Springer in collaboration with ASSER Press, is the leading publication in the field of international sports law. Its readership includes both academics and many practitioners active in the field. On 26-27 October 2017, the International Sports Law Centre of the T.M.C. Asser Instituut and the editorial board of the International Sports Law Journal will host in The Hague the first ever ISLJ Annual Conference on International Sports Law. The conference will feature panels on the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the world anti-doping system, the global governance of sports, the FIFA transfer regulations, comparative sports law, and much more.

Abstracts could, for example, tackle questions linked to the following international sports law subjects:

• The interaction between EU law and Sport 
• International sports arbitration (CAS, BAT, etc.)
  
• The functioning of the world anti-doping system (WADA, WADC, etc.)
  
• The global governance of sport
  
• The regulation of mega sporting events (Olympics, FIFA World Cup)
  
• The international regulation of football (FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and UEFA Financial Fair play Regulations)
  
• The global fight against corruption in sport
  
• Comparative sports law

Your abstract (no more than 300 words) and your CV should be sent no later than 15 May 2017 to Antoine Duval. Selected speakers will be informed by 30 May.

The ASSER Institute will offer one night accommodation for the speakers and will provide a limited amount of travel grants. If you wish to be considered for a grant please provide an explanation in your submission.

ISLJ Awards: The three best papers of the conference will receive an ISLJ award and their authors will be given the opportunity to publish them in the ISLJ.

Three weeks ago, I gave a talk for a group of visiting researchers at Harvard Law School on the accountability of the IOC for human rights abuses caused by hosting Olympic Games. On the day of that talk, Human Rights Watch announced that the International Olympic Committee (“IOC”) would insert new language into the Host City Contract presumably for the 2022 Olympic Games onwards. The new language apparently requires the parties to the contract to:

“take all necessary measures to ensure that development projects necessary for the organization of the Games comply with local, regional, and national legislation, and international agreements and protocols, applicable in the host country with regard to planning, construction, protection of the environment, health, safety, and labour laws.”

This language would apply to the National Olympic Committee, the Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games, and the host city.

This language has been hailed by Human Rights Watch as a strong first step, and for good reason. It seems that the IOC is listening to complaints about the construction of the Olympic Games. The IOC has said before that it would address the violations of labour rights associated with the Olympic Games, in the XIII Olympic Congress, and its Recommendations, made in 2009:

The IOC will intervene at the OCOG level in the event of serious abuse, such as:

·       Mistreatment of people displaced due to Olympic venue construction sites;

·       Abuse of migrant workers at Olympic venue construction sites;

·       Child labour;

·       Improper restrictions on the media’s freedom to cover the Games, including cultural aspects.

The IOC will establish a system for correctly identifying and dealing with “legitimate complaints” from official sources.

The IOC will not intervene in non-sport human rights issues.

The leverage that the IOC has towards the Organising Commitres for the Olympic Games (OCOGs) should be determined. This might lead to amendments to the Host City Contract and Documentation for Bid Cities.

However, the experience of Sochi with its displacement of persons, and abuse of migrant workers at Olympic venue construction sites appears to have put lie to that promise. Therefore, it would seem that the prospective contractual language would be a strong first step. But, looking closer at the language, there are some causes for concern.

Old Wine in New Bottles?

First, it should be noted that this language is not novel. The IOC has similar language in its Candidature Procedure, under “Environment”:

Provide (a) guarantee(s) from the competent authorities stating that all construction work necessary for the organisation of the Olympic Games will comply with:

·       Local, regional and national environmental regulations and acts

·       International agreements and protocols regarding planning, construction and protection of the environment (2020 Candidature Procedure, Q 5.4)

That the new language in the host city contract is under the heading of “Sustainable Human and Environmental Development” should therefore not be surprising. However, the environmental requirements presented above were in the host selection process. This new language is contractual language, and should be evaluated as such (one could make the same argument re the host selection process documents – but, just like the IOC…small steps).

A “Toothless” Paper Tiger

Overall, however, the clause in the Host City Contract appears to fall short in four key ways:

1)    Weak standard: The standard used in the contract is compliance with national laws and international agreements/protocols. This standard has been problematic, as it can be a moving target. National laws can be changed. Consider the next two states hosting the FIFA World Cup. Russia has passed Law 108-FZ in advance of the 2018 FIFA World Cup. The law affects the rights of migrant workers brought in to work on the World Cup facilities. Migrant workers no longer need to be registered with local authorities. Restrictions on the length of the working day are removed, and overtime pay is replaced with time off in lieu. Law 108-FZ is a national law, and presumably the parties would comply with it. Although a question arises if the national law conflicts with international agreements…which prevails? The same can be said for another FIFA World Cup host – Qatar – that has also bid to host the 2016 and 2020 Summer Olympic Games. Qatar’s kafala system is certainly national legislation. But compliance with said legislation would not improve human rights.

2)    Vagueness: Vagueness in a contract will lead to conflict. In this case, what is “compliance”, or more to the point, what is “non-compliance”? Who determines non-compliance? Is non-compliance simply a complaint? Or an adverse court ruling? Who makes the determination of non-compliance? Is it in the IOC’s sole discretion? Or an agreement of the parties? Presuming this is meant to be an enforceable contract, a lack of precise terminology is problematic. Also, given the language of “take all necessary measures”, does this require a host to take all measures, regardless of the cost? Or to the point of undue hardship? This seems to be a rather high bar, but is it a reasonable one?

3)    Remedies/Enforcement: While in an ideal world, everyone will adhere to an agreement, breaches do occur. In the 2014 Host City Contract, the one particular remedy for breach is that the IOC can withdraw the right to host the Games. However, given the complexity of removing the Games to another city (which to my knowledge was only done in 1976 – with a move from Denver to Innsbruck), this is likely to remain a “nuclear option”. What other remedies might there be to make a sanction a reasonable deterrent? In addition, if there are disputes over whether or not there is a breach of this clause, the Court of Arbitration for Sport has jurisdiction. It may deny jurisdiction, and if it does so, then the proceedings move to the Swiss courts. Would CAS or the Swiss courts be interested in adjudicating what is essentially human rights litigation in another state? Would a Swiss court truly say, for instance, “Russia has not complied with international human rights standards”? It does not seem likely.

4)    Absence of Dialogue: The problem with inserting such language into a contract is that it creates a “take-it-or-leave-it” environment, without specifying what the “take-it-or-leave-it” is. Using the host selection process to tease out human rights concerns enables the IOC to ask questions of the potential hosts about best practices, concerns, or processes that could be put into place to address future problems. The answers in the host selection process would then create a more robust standard to hold a host to, giving the language in the contract more weight. Absent this, the language becomes window-dressing. Also, in the event of a host breaching this provision, will there be dialogue? Will that dialogue be public?

Given the above, the contractual language falls far short, if it is to be taken as an actual contract. However, it is a strong signal that the IOC seems willing to address human rights issues caused by the Olympic Games. If this is so, then the language is a meaningful first step. Other steps, however, are required. For instance (and here is the shameless plug), my PhD research examines the use of the host selection process to tackle human rights issues in the host countries, amongst other proposals. For now, those expecting to use the contract as a legal mechanism to ensure that future hosts respect human rights, it might be best not to hold your breath.

Editor's note (13 July 2015): We (Ben Van Rompuy and I) have just published on SSRN an article on the Pechstein ruling of the OLG. It is available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2621983. Feel free to download it and to share any feedback with us!

On 15 January 2015, the earth must have been shaking under the offices of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne when the Oberlandesgericht München announced its decision in the Pechstein case. If not entirely unpredictable, the decision went very far (further than the first instance) in eroding the legal foundations on which sports arbitration rests. It is improbable (though not impossible) that the highest German civil court, the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), which will most likely be called to pronounce itself in the matter, will entirely dismiss the reasoning of the Oberlandesgericht. This blogpost is a first examination of the legal arguments used (Disclaimer: it is based only on the official press release, the full text of the ruling will be published in the coming months).

The Pechstein Saga

Few are able to remember the start of Claudia Pechstein’s legal crusade through all available jurisdictions in the northern hemisphere[1]. Thus, a concise summary of the previous episodes is in order. Claudia Pechstein is a German Speed-Skater, multiple Olympic Gold Medallist and World Champion. In 2009, she was one of the first athletes caught for doping on the basis of the blood profiling system introduced by the International Skating Union (ISU)[2]. Henceforth, the ISU banned her from all competitions for two years. This triggered a long and embroiled legal saga. She appealed the ban in front of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), based on an arbitration agreement included in her license with the national and international federations. The CAS dismissed (CAS 2009/A/1912 & 1913 and CAS OG 10/04) her claims and confirmed the two-year ban. Subsequently, she contested (twice!) the award in front of the Swiss Federal Tribunal (Case 4A_612/2009, 10 February 2010 and Case 4A_144/2010, 28 September 2010), but was both times unsuccessful. Her case is also pending before the European Court of Human Rights. Meanwhile, she started an action for damages (around € 4 Million) in front of the local Court of Munich (Landesgericht München). This Court released its judgment on 26 February 2014, despite recognizing the invalidity of the arbitration clause, it considered that the award’s res judicata effect was to be recognized because Pechstein did not contest the competence of CAS when she appealed the ISU’s decision to it. Pechstein decided to appeal the judgment to the Oberlandesgericht München, which in its decision from 15 January 2015 embraced her claims.

The Decision of the Oberlandesgericht München

The overall position of the Oberlandesgericht concerning the CAS award is straightforward. The court considers the arbitration clause between the ISU and Claudia Pechstein as contrary to German (and maybe European) antitrust law, which is part of German public policy, and, therefore, refuses on the basis of Article V (2) (b) New York Convention of 1958 to recognize the validity in Germany of the CAS awards rendered in the Pechstein case. But, why is it so?

First of all, the judges point out a typical (but often overlooked) fact about International Sports Governing bodies: they are monopolists. In other words, they control the market(s) for international sports competitions and nowadays (at least in speed-skating) no professional athlete can afford, if he is to live from his sport, to miss those competitions. Yet, German antitrust law bans an undertaking placed in a dominant position from imposing contractual conditions that differ from what they would be in a normal competitive environment. Hence, the Court held that the ISU was unlawfully imposing onto Claudia Pechstein the signing of a CAS arbitration clause. But, is a forced arbitration clause per se constitutive of an antitrust violation? The Court is subtler. In fact, it acknowledges that an arbitration clause imposed by a Sports Governing Body does not constitute per se an antitrust violation. To the contrary, the Court clearly states that there are good reasons (for example the uniform application of anti-doping regulations) to subject the resolution of sporting disputes between athletes and Sports Governing Bodies to a unique world court for sport. What is the problem then?  

In the eyes of the German court, the problem lies with CAS and its institutional set-up. First of all, the Sports Governing Bodies (International federations, NOCs and IOC) have a decisive influence on who is potentially called to be an arbitrator in CAS arbitration. Here, without clearly alluding to it in the press release, the Court has the closed list of CAS arbitrators in mind. In short, only a predefined number of people can act as arbitrators before CAS. Those arbitrators are appointed on the CAS list by ICAS, the CAS code in force at the time of the case foresaw that 3/5 of the arbitrators were appointed upon proposals made by the Sports Governing Bodies[3]. This has changed. As from the 1 January 2014 the ICAS is free to appoint whomever it deems appropriate on the list[4]. Nevertheless, the Court finds that, at least for the time Pechstein was facing the CAS, the Sports Governing Bodies were in a structurally favourable position regarding the composition of the arbitral panel. In practice, athletes were forced to ratify this disequilibrium due to the monopoly of Sports Governing Bodies on the access to international sporting competitions.

Furthermore, the German judges consider that this imbalance plagues also the nomination process of a president of an arbitral panel. Indeed, under article R54 of the CAS Code, the president of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division is responsible to nominate the presidents of the panels[5]. However, the president of the CAS appeals division is himself nominated by the ICAS[6], which consists mainly of representatives of the Sports governing bodies[7], and is often a personality close to them[8]. Currently, the ICAS has 20 members, of which 14 have (or had) direct ties with Sports Governing bodies and none is connected to the existing athlete’s unions. This institutional bias entrenches the structural imbalance in favour of the Sports Governing Bodies already identified by the Court apropos the closed list of arbitrators. Thus, the independence of the panel cannot be guaranteed and the fairness of the arbitral process safeguarded. Therefore, in light of the monopolistic position of the ISU and the lack of independence of CAS panels, the imposition of an arbitration clause depriving the athlete of her constitutional right to a judge constitutes a breach of German antitrust law.

Consequently, and contrary to the first instance Landesgericht[9], the Oberlandesgericht refuses to recognize, on the basis of Article 5 par. 2  b) of the 1958 New York Convention, the validity of the CAS awards invoked by ISU to oppose the damage claims raised by Pechstein. The Court leaves open the question of the damage claims, the partial ruling on the jurisdiction being susceptible to an appeal to the highest German civil Court, the BGH.

Towards a Gundel 2.0 for CAS: Reform or die!

The Pechstein Saga is not finished yet; an appeal to the BGH by ISU is to be expected. However, one should not underestimate the symbolic value of the Oberlandesgericht’s ruling and the threat it constitutes to the work of CAS. Indeed, if the ruling were to be confirmed by the BGH it would basically imply that CAS awards are unenforceable in German courts and that athletes may therefore (successfully or not) claim damages against the Sports Governing Bodies imposing sanctions on the basis of these awards. From the press release it remains unclear whether the decision is based solely on German antitrust law or also on EU antitrust law. Nonetheless, this decision might also be constructed as an abuse of a dominant position in the sense of article 102 TFEU and could gain validity in the EU as a whole. This would be a dramatic setback for sports arbitration, nothing short than the death of CAS.

But, it need not come to such extremity. As recognized by the Oberlandesgericht, the CAS fulfils an important function in the sporting world. It is a necessary institution to provide a level legal playing field when issues of doping or transfers are leading to acrimonious transnational disputes. Additionally, it also has advantages for the athletes, as it is usually perceived as cheaper and faster than state justice[10]. All of this is duly acknowledged in the decision. In short, what the German Court is asking for is an institutional reform of CAS. This restructuring would entail a fundamental reshuffling of the internal functioning of the CAS. Indeed, the German judges have identified the two main weak points of CAS, the forced arbitration coupled with its lack of independence[11]. The forced arbitration can be accepted if, and only if, the structural independence of CAS from the Sports Governing Bodies is warranted[12]. The challenge to CAS can be formulated as follows: cut the ties that bind you to the Sports Governing Bodies or we will not accept the validity of the arbitration clause underpinning your competence.

In fact, the CAS was at a fairly similar (less dramatic) crossroad after the Gundel case of the Swiss Federal Tribunal in 1993[13]. In the Gundel case, the SFT recognized the independence of CAS but also clearly indicated that it would not do so if the IOC were a party to a dispute in front of CAS. This led to what is known as the Paris agreement, an in depth structural reform of CAS[14]. Mainly, the ICAS was created to separate the management of CAS from the IOC. The SFT expressed its satisfaction with the reforms in its famous Lazutina case and blessed the CAS with the full recognition of its independence[15]. This, however, did not mean that the recognition of the independence of CAS was legally a given beyond Switzerland. To the contrary, it was (and is) still hotly debated in the literature[16]. Now, the German court basically says the Paris agreement is not enough, we need a new one, ensuring that athletes (and other stakeholders like clubs or supporters) get a true say in the ICAS. It is time for the CAS’s institutional structure to better reflect the diversity of actors affected by its decisions. If not, CAS awards will not be recognized in Germany and, by extension, the entire territory of the EU, thus leading the sports justice into a profound crisis.

[1] All the relevant legal documents are available on her website at http://www.claudia-pechstein.de/gerichtsunterlagen.php

[2] On the dispute see D. McArdle, ‘Longitudinal Profiling, Sports Arbitration and The Woman Who Had Nothing to Lose. Some Thoughts on Pechstein v International Skating Union”, available at https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/3356/1/Pechstein%20final.pdf

[3] Article S14 CAS Code, edition 2004

[4] The new article S14 CAS Code reads as follows:

« In establishing the list of CAS arbitrators, ICAS shall call upon personalities with appropriate legal training, recognized competence with regard to sports law and/or international arbitration, a good knowledge of sport in general and a good command of at least one CAS working language, whose names and qualifications are brought to the attention of ICAS, including by the IOC, the IFs and the NOCs. ICAS may identify the arbitrators with a specific expertise to deal with certain types of disputes. »

[5] Article R54 CAS Code 2004 (and 2014) reads as follows: “If three arbitrators are to be appointed, the President of the Division shall appoint the President of the Panel upon appointment of the arbitrator by the Respondent and after having consulted the arbitrators.”

[6] Article S6 par.2 CAS Code 2004 (and 2014)

[7] Article S4 CAS Code 2014 foresees that:
« ICAS is composed of twenty members, experienced jurists appointed in the following manner :

1.     four members are appointed by the International Federations (IFs), viz. three by the Association of Summer Olympic IFs (ASOIF) and one by the Association of the Winter Olympic IFs (AIOWF), chosen from within or outside their membership;

2.     four members are appointed by the Association of the National Olympic Committees (ANOC), chosen from within or outside its membership;

3.     four members are appointed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), chosen from within or outside its membership;

4.     four members are appointed by the twelve members of ICAS listed above, after appropriate consultation with a view to safeguarding the interests of the athletes;

5.     four members are appointed by the sixteen members of ICAS listed above, chosen from among personalities independent of the bodies designating the other members of the ICAS. »

[8] The current president, Corinne Schmidhauser, is a member of the Legal Committee of the Fédération Internationale de Ski (International Ski Federation). It is surely telling that Thomas Bach, the current IOC president, was her predecessor at that post.

[9] The first instance Court (Landesgericht München) considered that due to Pechstein’s appeal and lack of contestation of the CAS’s competence, the award had gained res judicata effect. See paragraphs  IV.2) of the judgment.

[10] A point made by D. Yi, ‘Turning medals into metal:  Evaluating the Court of Arbitration for Sport as an International tribunal’, available at http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=student_papers

[11] Antonio Rigozzi has highlighted these weaknesses in his Phd thesis, see A. Rigozzi L’arbitrage international en matière de sport, Bruylant, 2005, pp.273-349 and 421-426. See also, M. Maisonneuve, L’arbitrage des litiges sportifs, L.G.D.J, 2011, pp. 141-221 and pp. 267-313.

[12] In principle the Swiss Federal Tribunal has a similar view outlined in the Cañas case (4P.172/2006), but it considers that the CAS already offers « sufficient guarantees of independence and impartiality » (par. 4.3.2.3.). Thus, its assessment of the CAS’s independence is diametrically opposed to the one conducted by the Oberlandesgericht.

[13] Decision 4P.217/1992 of 15 March 1993 (Gundel v FEI), ATF 119 II 271, translated in CAS Digest I,.p. 545

[14] For an introduction on the Paris agreement see, http://www.tas-cas.org/en/general-information/history-of-the-cas.html#c74

[15] Decision 4P.267–270/2002 du 27 mai 2003, Lazutina c. CIO, ATF 129 III 445, Bull. ASA 2003, p. 601

[16] For a recent contribution to this debate see A. Vaitiekunas, The Court of Arbitration for Sport : Law-making and the question of independence, Stämpfli Publishers, 2014 

Editor's note: Marine Montejo is a graduate from the College of Europe in Bruges and is currently an intern at the ASSER International Sports Law Centre.

On 3 June 2015, Sepp Blatter resigned as President of FIFA after another corruption scandal inside the world’s football governing body was brought to light by the American authorities supported by the Swiss prosecutor office. Two months after Michel Platini announced he would be a candidate for the next FIFA Presidential election, on 25 September 2015, the Swiss prosecutor opened an investigation against S. Blatter on an alleged disloyal payment he authorised to M. Platini. On 8 October 2015, the FIFA Ethics Committee announced both of them were provisionally suspended upon their hearings, a suspension that was later confirmed by CAS. In the end, M. Platini was sanctioned with an eight years ban from all football activities, later reduced to a six years ban by FIFA Appeal Commission on 24 February 2016. In the meantime, he withdrew his candidacy to become the next FIFA President. On 9 May 2016, after M. Platini appealed this sanction, the CAS confirmed the suspension but reduced it to four years, leading to his resignation from the UEFA presidency and the announcement of his intention to challenge the CAS award in front of the Swiss Federal Tribunal.

On 19 September, the CAS finally published the full text of the award in the dispute between M. Platini and FIFA. The award is in French as M. Platini requested that the procedure be conducted in that language. You will find below a summary of the ‘highlights’ of the 63-page decision. 

Facts of the case

The detailed analysis of the facts of the case by CAS is well worth reading as it contains a precise description of the developments giving rise to the dispute. It also describes the alleged work done by M. Platini for FIFA and the related payments received from the organisation that are also investigated by Swiss authorities.

The first meeting between M. Platini (the France 1998 World Cup organising committee co-President at that time) and S. Blatter (the contemporaneous FIFA Secretary General) was held in January 1998 where the latter asked M. Platini to be the next candidate for FIFA’s Presidential election. M. Platini refused the offer. They both met a few months later (no precise date was given in the award – simply “spring 1998”) and agreed that M. Platini would support S. Blatter’s candidature for the FIFA Presidency, forming a “ticket”. In the case of a successful outcome, M. Platini would become either one of FIFA’s directors or sports advisers. During this meeting, they allegedly also discussed the remuneration for M. Platini’s future work for FIFA. The former UEFA President said that he proposed 1 million per year, leaving the choice of currency to S. Blatter. During the CAS procedure, M. Platini and S. Blatter stated they had agreed (“oral agreement”) on remuneration of CHF 1 million for M. Platini’s sports or technical advisory services, which is roughly €900,000. Jacques Lambert (the former France 1998 World Cup organising committee chief executive) said before the CAS Panel that M. Platini had told him about that oral agreement, but also acknowledged that no other person was physically present during the meeting to confirm it. 

In the award, it is noted that M. Platini participated in the campaign in an informal manner and that M. Blatter, shortly after his election, publicly announced that he would be his “Foreign Affairs Minister”. As such, the exact position of M. Platini remained uncertain at that time. With regard to these findings, the award relied on former UEFA Secretary General Gerhard Aigner’s testimony during FIFA’s internal procedure. An internal note written by Mr. Aigner, dated 19 September 1998, questioned M. Platini’s future role at FIFA and the rumours circulating about his desire to be based in Paris; it also speculated that this seemed inappropriate for the position of FIFA sports director. He likewise questioned the CHF 1 million salary. This note was given to the members of the UEFA Executive Committee Board (meeting on 12 November 1998) but no official document was received by UEFA confirming M. Platini’s salary. More importantly, the note was added to a set of documents collected for a meeting between the UEFA President (and Secretary General) and individuals from FIFA’s Executive Committee. This meeting aimed to prepare for FIFA’s Executive Committee meeting (3 and 4 December 1998), but there is no certainty that the document was actually discussed during the meeting of 3 December. Amongst these documents, another, dated 29 November 1998 and addressed only to the European members of FIFA Executive Committee, reported once again the rumours surrounding M. Platini’s future job, this time referring to his role as “the head of a development programme” or as a “personal political advisor”. In a nutshell, by the end of 1998 there was no official announcement by FIFA on M. Platini’s position and remuneration except rumours.

M. Platini’s official functions for FIFA started on 1 January 1999 but, in reality, he had commenced work for FIFA in the second part of 1998. In August 1999, M. Platini asked S. Blatter to formalise their contract (“written contract”). This was signed by M. Platini and S. Blatter (as a representative of FIFA) on 25 August 1999. This contract is the first official document where M. Platini’s role is defined as the FIFA Presidential advisor on international football issues (“la [FIFA] conseiller et l’assister, en particulier son Président, pour toutes les questions relatives au football au niveau international”). A salary of CHF 300,000 is written by hand in the document and, in the annex, daily allowances in and outside Europe are also mentioned. S. Blatter and M. Platini said that they were aware of FIFA’s financial difficulties at that time and had agreed, without formally stating the amounts and conditions for payment, that the remaining money would be paid later. M. Platini worked from his office in Paris with two other persons, and all of their expenses paid by FIFA. With S. Blatter’s authorisation, M. Platini also saw the rights from his so-called benefit plan extended. The plan was set up in 2005 for members of FIFA’s Executive Committee and remained operational for more than eight years after they left. M. Platini’s rights were exceptionally extended to the years he was the FIFA Presidential advisor; thus, it also covered 1998 to 2002 when he resigned and became a full member of FIFA’s Executive Committee.

In 2010, M. Platini sought the payment of the full amount he was due in conformity with the oral agreement. He explained that FIFA was financially stable and, notably, that its executives’ salaries had been raised substantially. An invoice was sent to FIFA that requested payment of the balance for the four years, amounting to CHF 2,000,000. The CAS Panel raised an important query at that point surrounding the amount claimed – namely, for a salary of CHF 1,000,000 per year over a period of 4 years, the Panel suggested that the amount claimed ought to have been CHF 2,800,000. M. Platini waved away the divergence by saying that he thought he received CHF 500,000 p.a. from FIFA and not only CHF 300,000. However, he had previously stated that he mentioned to S. Blatter at the time the written contract was signed that the salary was less than the one they had previously agreed to, so he should have known how much he was paid. S. Blatter explained that he did not check the accuracy of the invoice and authorised the payment. The payment was included in FIFA’s 2010 account which was approved during FIFA’s Finance Commission meeting of 2 March 2011, to which M. Platini attended as the UEFA representative. During the Swiss investigation, M. Angel Villar Llona, UEFA’s Vice-President, stated that M. Julio Grondona, President of the FIFA Finance Commission at the time, told him about the payment owed to M. Platini because the full amount could not be written down for political reasons. The payment was made on 19 November 2012.

The CAS award then discussed the presidential atmosphere around FIFA and the opening of the Swiss investigation as well as the procedure before FIFA against M. Platini. As a reminder, let’s recall that the former UEFA President was first sentenced to an eight year ban by the Adjudicatory Chamber of the FIFA Ethics Committee for several breaches of the FIFA Code of Ethics (“CEF”). This sanction was later reduced to a six year suspension by the FIFA Appeal Committee.

Substance of the case

The CAS Panel first rejected the alleged procedural wrongs raised by M. Platini’s defence after the disciplinary proceedings before FIFA. The arbitrators recalled that the Panel shall have the full power to review the facts and the law.[1] As such the appeal cures any procedural breaches that might have occurred earlier. The arbitrators also spent some time on the legal debate around the notion of proof. This discussion concerned whether FIFA needed to prove that M. Platini violated the CEF as the payment he received was without any basis and that M. Platini bears the burden to prove that such grounds existed.

- Concerning the violation of article 20 CEF (“Offering and accepting gifts and other benefits”), the FIFA Appeal Committee decision concluded that M. Platini received a CHF 2,000,000 payment in 2011 that could not be based on a contractual agreement. Consequently, this payment was said to be undue and constituted an infringement of article 20 CEF. The CAS Panel likewise came to the conclusion that there wasn’t sufficient proof to establish the existence of an oral agreement. As a consequence, the amount was paid pursuant to a non-existent legal obligation, which constituted a breach of article 20 CEF. The CAS Panel even went a step further and found that the extension of the benefit plan was also a breach of that same provision.

First, with regard to the oral agreement, the CAS award highlights that there is no direct or contemporaneous proof that such an agreement was made.[2] The only and closest element of proof the CAS Panel could find is the written contract of August 1999, which establishes the CHF 300,000 salary for M. Platini as FIFA advisor. The arbitrators also stated that this contract constitutes unambiguous proof that there was not, unless otherwise proven, another contract that stipulated a CHF 1,000,000 salary.[3] As such, the CAS Panel ruled out M. Lambert’s testimony as it is indirect and cannot constitute proof that such an agreement was legally concluded. Moreover, the Panel noted that he had first mentioned this agreement in 2015. It also did the same with the two notes coming from UEFA and M. Villar Llona’s testimony, finding that they were only proof that negotiations were ongoing at the time for M. Platini to become an advisor at FIFA; they could not constitute an actual official confirmation of the alleged remuneration. Furthermore, the CAS Panel[4] put forward that M. Blatter, during his audition before CAS, said that the oral contract was a “gentlemen’s agreement” and, as such, not legally binding. Additionally, he stated that he was not sure he had the sole competence at the time, as FIFA’s Secretary General, to negotiate such an agreement. The CAS Panel then drew the conclusion that at no point was a clear commitment given by M. Blatter regarding the alleged remuneration. The Panel also considered that the fact that FIFA paid M. Platini is not a proof that the oral agreement existed. It highlights Blatter’s “centralised and old fashioned” [5] management and concluded that the other executives at FIFA did not have any option other than to execute the orders, namely the payment of M. Platini’s bill.

Subsequently, the CAS moved to apply Swiss national law (article 55 of the Swiss Civil Code). M. Platini said that M. Blatter acted on behalf of FIFA. The Panel firmly disagreed with him: firstly, by saying that M. Platini had not acted in good faith as he knew the written contract did not disclose the full amount he supposedly was due after the oral agreement; and, secondly, the Panel discussed the possible abuse of power by M. Blatter as he supposedly gave authorisation for remuneration that was even higher than his own and the Secretary General’s, concluding that he probably diverged from the normal course of business[6] and, as such, could not have represented FIFA’s will. As a consequence, the only valid agreement was the written contract of August 1999. Furthermore, the arbitrators could not find any proof of the alleged deferment of the final amount payable in that oral agreement and held that the only remuneration M. Platini was due was the one in the written contract. The CAS Panel was even more severe with M. Platini, of whom it found was not an “athlete without experience” but an “experienced manager in football” who should have known the importance of such a contract; this tended to demonstrate that there wasn’t any oral agreement.[7] The CAS Panel insisted that M. Platini’s claim that he waited until 2010 to ask for the full payment because of FIFA’s bad financial situation was contradicted by the facts. Moreover, M. Platini’s claims that FIFA’s executives received bonuses without justification meant that he did not act in the interest of FIFA but only in his own.[8] Finally, concerning the fact that M. Platini allegedly miscalculated the rest of his salary (CHF 500,000 per year instead of CHF 700,000) the Panel was, to say the least, not convinced by his explanation and concluded that both incoherencies on the amount and on the date of the invoice contradict M. Platini’s position.

Finally, regarding the extension of the benefit plan, the CAS Panel was straightforward by finding that M. Platini was not entitled to it during his years as FIFA’s Presidential advisor because this plan is only for members of the Executive Committee. This extension only occurred due to S. Blatter’s decision.[9] Even though no payment has been made yet as a result of this plan, the extension was also held to be a breach of article 20 CEF. 

- With regard to the violation of article 19 CEF (“Conflicts of interest”), the FIFA Appeal Committee decision concluded that M. Platini was in a situation of conflict of interest when he signed M. Blatter’s statement of support in May 2011 after he received the contested payment. He also participated in a meeting of FIFA’s Finance Commission without notifying the organisers that he was personally affected by the payment inserted into the agenda of the meeting.

On the topic of M. Blatter’s statement of support, the CAS Panel outlined that the declaration was signed by M. Platini as UEFA President and not as a FIFA official. As a consequence, article 19 CEF cannot apply in that case. However, the CAS Panel was, once again, severe with M. Platini by stating that, even though article 19 CEF cannot apply in these circumstances, there was nonetheless a conflict of interest in this case, albeit to UEFA’s disadvantage in this instance.[10]

To support his participation at FIFA’s Finance Commission in March 2011, M. Platini argued he had to replace the UEFA executive that fell sick (M. Marios Lefkaritis, UEFA treasurer). The CAS Panel concluded that M. Platini was in a situation of conflict of interest when he took part in the meeting that approved the 2010 annual report containing the CHF 2,000,000 payment he was not entitled to received. Even though the payment did not appear individually on the document, M. Platini should have disclosed during the meeting that he was personally affected. Hence, the CAS Panel stated that M. Platini could not act with integrity, independence and determination as a member of FIFA’s Finance Commission, because he had a personal interest in obfuscating that payment and making sure that FIFA’s 2010 account were adopted .[11] 

- With regard to the violation of articles 13 CEF (“General rules of conduct”) and 15 CEF (“Loyalty”), the CAS Panel did not follow the FIFA Appeal Committee decision. The arbitrators used the lex specialis derogat generali principle through which, if a behaviour falls under a general and a specific rule, only the latter rule will apply. Both provisions were applied because the acts in breach of articles 19 and 20 (specific provisions) and were not separate facts falling under articles 13 and 15 (general provisions). As a consequence, the CAS Panel concluded that there were no breaches of articles 13 and 15, but it did not spare M. Platini – it specifically stated that the Panel didn’t condone M. Platini’s behaviour nor were the former UEFA President’s actions ethical or loyal (§328 and §335). 

- Concerning the sanction. The Panel reduced the sanction to a three year suspension for the breach of article 20 CEF because of a number of mitigating circumstances. These include the added value M. Platini has given over the years to football, his cooperation in the procedure before the Panel and the fact that he is at the end of his career. The CAS Panel also took into account the fact that FIFA already knew about the undue payment in 2011 but did not start an investigation until 2015.[12]

By contrast, the CAS Panel found that the high level positions M. Platini occupied in football constituted an aggravating factor for the sanction. Likewise, the fact that he did not express any regret was also counted against him.[13] He was also sanctioned by a one year suspension for the breach of article 19 CEF which brings the total suspended period to four years (as from 8 October 2015) and a CHF 60,000 fine.

Conclusion

The arbitral award is very detailed and the justifications given by M. Platini, S. Blatter and their lawyers were examined at great length by the arbitrators. The description of the facts and the discussion of the grounds of the decision are precise and meticulous. It is striking how M. Platini’s defence appears to be the one of someone who was not very well informed about his own financial affairs. He extensively said that he was not a man of means and his arguments portrayed him as careless, negligent or even indifferent, which does not sit well with a former UEFA President. The arbitrators are not buying any of it and are severe, to say the least, in their appreciation. In particular, regarding the breach of article 20 CEF for which they highlighted that it was the most serious offense of M. Platini. However, the arbitrators, at the sanctioning stage, found mitigating factors to reduce the sanction that are surprising. Finally, after a third examination of its case, M. Platini’s sanction seems to keep on reducing whereas the offenses identified remained more or less the same.

[1] §223. « … la Formation rappelle qu’en vertu de l’article R57 du Code, le TAS jouit d’un plein pouvoir d’examen en fait et en droit… » §224. « Ainsi, la procédure devant le TAS guérit toutes les violations procédurales qui auraient pu être commises par les instances précédentes. »

[2] §234. « …qu’il n’existe aucune preuve directe et contemporaine de la conclusion dudit accord. »

[3] §235. « … Devant cet élément indiscutable, la Formation examinera ci-dessous si des éléments de preuve supplémentaires pourraient venir appuyer les explications de M. Platini et pourraient renverser la preuve résultant du texte univoque de la Convention écrite. »

[4] §253. « … au vu du style de management centralisateur et à l’ancienne de M. Blatter, les autres intervenants au sein de la FIFA n’avaient que peu de marge de manœuvre face à une instruction de ce dernier… ».

[5] §238 and 239

[6] §257. « … un contrat du type de celui de l’Accord oral dépasserait le cadre des affaires que peut conclure un représentant diligent d’une personne morale ».

[7] §274. « … puisqu’au moment des faits… [M. Platini] n’était pas un jeune athlète sans expérience, mais un ancien footballeur de très haut niveau, ancien sélectionneur de l’Equipe de France et ancien co-Président du comité d’organisation de la Coupe du Monde FIFA en France, c’est-à-dire un dirigeant expérimenté dans le domaine du football, qui devait savoir qu’un contrat de l’importance de celui qu’il prétend avoir conclu devait être couché sur papier… Ceci démontre encore l’invraisemblance de l’Accord oral. »

[8] §276. « … En faisant cette déclaration, M. Platini semble sous-entendre que constatant que d’autres dirigeants avaient obtenu des paiements sans justification particulière, il avait lui aussi tenté de le faire. Ce faisant, il ne démontre pas avoir agi dans l’intérêt de la FIFA, dont il était membre du Comité exécutif, mais uniquement dans son intérêt personnel. »

[9] §293. « … Les courriers de M. Valcke et M. Kattner de 2009 font clairement apparaître que l’inclusion des années 1998 à mi-2002 était inhabituelle et résultait de la seule décision de M. Blatter. »

[10]§304. « … le conflit d’intérêt (qui existait bien, de l’avis de la Formation) … ».

[11] §311. « Il est ainsi évident que M. Platini ne pouvait agir avec intégrité, indépendance et détermination en tant que membre de la Commission des finances, puisqu’il avait un intérêt personnel à cacher l’existence du paiement de CHF 2'000 000 dont il avait bénéficié, afin que les comptes 2010 soient adoptés sans que ce paiement soit évoqué. »

[12] §358. « … Enfin, la Formation prend également en compte le fait que la FIFA n’a débuté l’investigation contre M. Platini qu’en 2015, et de surcroît uniquement après que l’enquête du MPC a débuté, alors qu’elle avait connaissance du paiement concerné en 2011 (même si elle ignorait à ce moment-là le véritable motif du paiement). »

[13] §359. « En revanche, la Formation considère comme facteurs aggravants le fait que M. Platini a exercé des fonctions très élevées tant à la FIFA qu’à l’UEFA et qu’il avait donc un devoir accru de respecter les règles internes de ces organisations. De surcroît, il n’a manifesté aucun repentir.

This is the first part of a blog series involving the Real Madrid State aid case.

Apart from being favoured by many of Spain’s most important politicians, there have always been suspicions surrounding the world’s richest football club regarding possible financial aid by the Madrid City Council. Indeed, in the late 90’s a terrain qualification change by the Madrid City Council proved to be tremendously favourable to the king’s club. The change allowed Real Madrid to sell its old training grounds for a huge sum. Though the exact price for the grounds remains unknown, Real Madrid was suddenly capable of buying players like Figo and Zidane for record fees. However, the European Commission, even though agreeing that an advantage was conferred to the club, simply stated that the new qualification of the terrain in question does not appear to involve any transfer of resources by the State and could therefore not be regarded as State aid within the meaning of article 107 TFEU.

Agreements between the club and the Council have been a regularity for the last 25 years.  A more recent example concerns an agreement signed on 29 July 2011 (Convenio29-07-2011.pdf (8MB). The agreement regularizes two earlier agreements between the Council and Real Madrid dating from 1991 and 1998 respectively. The commitments deriving from those earlier agreements were not followed by the relevant parties and therefore had to give way to a new agreement. A closer look at the 29 July 2011 Agreement exposes a bizarre chain of events. It turned out that in 1998 Real Madrid transmitted an undivided half of their old training grounds to the municipality. Apart from a large sum of money, the club was to receive a number of terrains spread out over the municipality, including a terrain located in the area called Las Tablas valued at €595.194 in 1998. However, due to its qualification for sporting usage, the Council concluded in 2011 that the parcel could not be transferred to the club due to the fact that Madrid’s urbanity laws only permit a transfer of urban or urbanizable terrains. For that reason, the Council agreed to compensate the football club not for the original value of €595.194 but for a staggering €22.693.054,44! Real Madrid was not compensated in the form of a sum, but rather it was presented with a packet of terrains including four terrains of a total area of 12.435 m/2 in the street Mercedes Arteaga in the Carabanchel district of Madrid.

The year 2011 also saw a second agreement between the Council of Madrid and the football club, this time concerning construction works on the Real Madrid stadium Santiago Bernabéu. This agreement, dating from November 2011, is known as operation Bernabeú-Opañel and includes the following plans. The Council is to transfer to the club a terrain constituting a 12.250 m/2 buildable surface which borders the west-side of the Bernabéu stadium. This acquirement permits Real Madrid to cover the stadium with a roof, to build a shopping centre and a hotel on the façade situated on the Paseo de la Castellana (one of Madrid’s most important streets). In return, the club firstly agreed to transfer to the Council the shopping centre Esquina del Bernabéu, which is situated at the South-East-side of the stadium with a buildable surface of 6.858 m/2. The Council would then demolish the shopping centre and convert it into a public park. Secondly, the club is to transfer back to the Council part of the four terrains located in the street Mercedes Arteaga that it received as part of the 29 July 2011 Agreement.  In addition to the transfers of the old shopping centre and the terrains located in the street Mercedes Arteaga, Real Madrid is also to pay €6.6 million to the Council. The Council, however, encountered an obstacle in its own urban laws. The Plan General de Ordenación Urbana de Madrid de 1997 (PGOU) did not permit private parties, like Real Madrid, to construct on public terrains owned by the Council. Therefore, on 16 November 2012, the Government of the autonomous region of Madrid announced that the PGOU is to be modified ad hoc for the operation Bernabeú-Opañel.

By means of the operation Bernabeú-Opañel, Real Madrid expressed that it hopes to “convert the Club in a sporting institution of reference in the world. The aim is for the stadium to have a maximum level of comfort and services superior to the most modern and advanced sporting stadiums in the world” (PropuestaRealMadrid.pdf (914.2KB)). According to the Council, the operation will not only improve sporting and leisure facilities in the city, it will also create up to 9.546 m/2 of “green zones”. Moreover, the investment for the construction works will be borne only by Real Madrid and it is expected that the construction works will give employment to more than 2 000 people and the exploitation to 600 people.

In 2012, the ecological movement Ecologistas en Acción found several legal irregularities with regard to the 29 July Agreement operation Bernabeú-Opañel and (unsurprisingly) concluded that the agreements appeared to be very beneficial for Real Madrid. It therefore started legal proceedings in front of the Spanish administrative Court claiming that the ad hoc modification of the PGOU was illegal. It would later on launch on appeal in front of the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid, or Madrid High Court (TSJM-Order-31-07-2014.pdf (112.3KB)). Simultaneously, it informed the European Commission of potential unlawful State aid granted by the Council of Madrid to Real Madrid. To Spain’s outrage, on 18 December 2013, the Commission declared that it had enough reasons to believe that the incriminated transactions might involve State aid and launched a formal investigation in accordance with Article 108(2) TFEU. Concretely, the Commission expressed the following concerns:

1) The Commission doubts whether it was impossible for the Council of Madrid to transfer the Las Tablas property to Real Madrid;

2) The Commission doubts that a market value of the Las Tablas plot of land has been sought;

3) The Commission doubts the market conformity of the value of the properties which were transferred to Real Madrid by the 2011 Agreement and at the occasion of the subsequent further exchange of land around the Bernabéu Stadium, and;

4) The Commission doubts that there is an objective of common interest, which could justify selective support to a very strong actor in a highly competitive economic sector. 

The Commission’s doubts seem, in light of the facts at hand, reasonable. To decide whether or not the land transactions qualifies as unlawful State aid, however, the four cumulative criteria of Article 107(1) TFEU need to be fulfilled. (1) The aid must confer an economic advantage on Real Madrid; (2) it must be granted by a Member State or through State resources; (3) the advantage must be selective and distorts or threatens to distort competition; and (4) it must affect trade between Member States.

Advantage to Real Madrid over its competitors

As the Commission pointed out in paragraph 21 of its notice initiating the infringement procedure against Spain, “Real Madrid appears to enjoy an economic advantage from the fact that a plot of land, which at the time of its acquisition was valued at €595,194, appears 13 years later, in an operation to offset mutual debts, with a value of more than €22 million”. Furthermore, there are also doubts regarding the market conformity of the lands transferred in the operation Bernabéu-Opañel. In situations where the public authorities wish to sell public property to private investors, it should make sure that the revenue obtained from the sale is comparable to market level. This criterion is also known as the “market economy vendor principle”. In accordance with the Land sale Communication, should the public authorities wish to avoid any advantage to the recipient over its competitors during a land sale transaction, it should apply one of the two following procedures: (1) an unconditional bidding procedure or (2) a procedure where the land is valued by one or more independent asset valuers prior to the sale negotiations. The Court of Justice has ruled that other methods may also achieve the same result, but in order to comply with EU State aid rules, the national provisions establishing rules for calculating the market value of land must in all cases lead to a price as close as possible to the market value.[2] Special obligations for the buyer, such as urban planning requirements, do play a role when determining whether or not the land was sold at market value. Furthermore, land transfer deals, which often consist of more than just one land transaction, have to be scrutinized in their entirety.[3] Therefore, to determine whether an advantage was conferred to Real Madrid, both agreements between the club and the Council have to be take into account with a special focus on the valuation methods used.

In 1998, the valuation for the terrain in Las Tablas (€595,194) was done by the administration of Madrid, on the basis of legislation which offers a technique to determine the value of urban real property. The calculated value for the same terrain in Las Tablas in 2011 amounted to €22.693.054,44. According to a valuation report released by the Municipal Valuation Department, the value was calculated in accordance the same application rules. Yet it has to be borne in mind that the Municipal Valuation Department forms part of the Área de Gobierno de Urbanismo y Vivienda del Ayuntamiento de Madrid. Not only is the Área de Gobierno de Urbanismo y Vivienda the main public authority regarding urban planning in Madrid, it is together with Real Madrid the main party in the 2011 Agreement itself.

Real Madrid was not compensated in the form of a payment, but rather it was presented with another packet of terrains valued at €19,972,348.96. In the valuation report released by the Municipal Valuation Department, a list is included with average terrain values per district calculated by the independent appraiser Tasamadrid. In continuation, the Municipal Valuation Department applied a formula based on its own legislation to determine the final value of the terrains. This packet of terrains included land in the street Mercedes Arteaga, valued at €4,360,862 which were transferred back to the municipality in the operation Bernabéu-Opañel.

The operation Bernabéu-Opañel also included the club transferring the old shopping centre Esquina del Bernabéu and added a payment of €6,6 million. A second valuation report indicates that the value of the Esquina del Bernabéu is €3,861 per square meters passed on the average values of terrains found in adjacent streets. Furthermore, the Council “requalified” the terrain between the Bernabéu stadium and the street Paseo de la Castellana by ad hoc modifying the local urban laws (PGOU) before transferring it to Real Madrid. The value of this terrain is also calculated in the second report and ads up to €1,208 per square meter. Even though two of the terrains in question can be found in the same area, the value per square meter of the Esquina Bernabéu is much higher (€3,861) as compared to the value of the land between the Bernabéu stadium and the street Paseo de la Castellana (€1,208). True, the terrain with the Esquina del Bernabéu has already been built on, thereby increasing the value, but one should keep in mind that the operation Bernabéu-Opañel consists of demolishing the Esquina del Bernabéu and turning it into a green zone. On the other, the other terrain will be used for the construction of a hotel and a new shopping centre. Secondly, a quick glance at other real estate transfers in the same area of Madrid shows that the value of the terrains is in fact much higher. In 2012, the Picasso tower was purchased by a private firm for €400 million, or €5000 m/2. Today, the building Torre Titania can be bought for €11,000 m/2 and the building Castellana 200 is for sale for €150 million.

With all the above in mind, one could legitimately get the feeling that the actual aim of the Agreement of 29 July 2011 was to pave the way for the operation “Bernabéu-Opañel”, as some media suggested. Unlike in the Konsum Nord case, where the General Court held that the presence of a link between different transactions could mean that the measure in question does not constitute State aid, the link between the agreements in the Real Madrid case only increases suspicions regarding unlawful State aid. Furthermore, the Council of Madrid has also been inconstant regarding its valuation methods. The value of the terrain in Las Tablas was calculated without an independent appraiser and the value of the Esquina del Bernabéu was calculated using the average value of terrains found in adjacent streets. In short, there are good reasons to believe that the transactions were made in order to provide a financial advantage to Real Madrid.

The remaining three criteria of Article 107(1) TFEU and possible justifications will be discussed in an upcoming blog post.

[1] Notes are omitted. A comprehensive article can be accessed at Oskar van Maren, "The Real Madrid case: A State aid case (un)like any other?".

[2] Case C-239/09 Seydaland Vereinigte Agrarbetriebe [2010] ECR I-13083, §33-35

[3] Case T-244/08 Konsum Nord ekonomisk förening v Commission [2011] ECR II-0000, §58