English Premier League football club, Liverpool FC, has apologised to a group of fans after sending their personal details – including passport numbers, addresses and bank details – to another person, reports the BBC.

The club had optimistically asked fans to apply for tickets to the UEFA Champions League final, to be held in Moscow on 21 May, in advance of yesterday’s semi-final, second leg decider against Chelsea. Garreth Cummins and friends filled in an application for tickets, which was then sent to another supporter who informed Cummins of the error, reported the BBC.

A spokesperson for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) said that it was “looking into” the issue, however had yet to decide whether it would be launching a formal investigation. Liverpool FC was unable to confirm the BBC’s report, as its media team were taking their time in travelling back from London, no doubt recovering from the team’s loss to Chelsea.

If only Liverpool had attended ‘Sport & Data Protection’, a World Sports Law Report event kindly hosted by Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP on 8 April, they would have received some guidance on how to adequately protect fan data.

Perhaps one of the most interesting talks of the day was given by Tarique Ghaffur, Assistant Commissioner, Central Operations for The Metropolitan Police, after London’s Olympic Torch Relay ahead of Beijing 2008 was hijacked by human rights protestors on 6 April.

To read more about why the Police’s administration of the Torch Relay was a success, read Bill Wilson’s report, covering Ghaffur’s presentation, on the BBC website.

This excellent event was also Kamaljit Jaswal's swansong. Jit, as she preferred to be known, was Sales & Marketing Manager for World Sports Law Report and organised a number of excellent events. She will be difficult to replace. Everyone at World Sports Law Report wishes her all the best for the future!

Andy Brown

 

A press release from FIFA and the Premier League confirmed that the Premier League has decided that 'further internal studies' may be prudent before presenting its plan for a 39th game to world football's governing body.

When it announced the plans, the Premier League was insistent that it would be meeting FIFA as soon as possible. However the FA last week judged the plans unsustainable in their current form, while FIFA President Joseph Blatter was more dismissive. FIFA will only accept a proposal from the national association – i.e. the FA.

It appears that the FA’s refusal to support the plans in their current form may have sent them back to the drawing board.

Andy Brown

 

A ruling by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), on 30 January, in which Andrew Webster and Wigan Athletic were found jointly liable for compensating Heart of Midlothian for the wages left on his contract (£150,000), has clarified compensation due for a unilateral breach of a young football player’s contract under Article 17 of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players.

It remains to be seen whether the CAS’ ruling will have the impact that newspaper headlines have predicted. It is understood that the ruling applies only to football contracts outside of the ‘protected period’, which is three seasons/years following entry into force of the contract where it is concluded prior to a player’s 28th birthday, and only when a player contract is unspecific with regards to compensation for unilateral termination by the player.

It would appear that the ruling does not give all players the right to walk out of their contracts without compensating their former club, however it may lead to clubs taking more care when drafting contracts with players under the age of 28, in order to ensure that compensation for unilateral termination by the player is covered.

Webster, whose contract ran until June 2007, terminated his contract with Hearts on 26 May 2006, shortly before joining Wigan Athletic. Webster claimed that he was entitled to breach his contract without just cause under Article 17 of the FIFA Regulations, since his termination occurred outside of the protected period. The case was brought before the CAS after all three parties filed separate appeals against a decision from FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber to award Hearts £625,000 in compensation. Hearts’ claim included a £4 million transfer fee which it alleged it was due for playing a role in improving the player from ages 19 to 24.

A full analysis of the decision will appear in the March edition of World Sports Law Report.

 

Richard Scudamore, Chief Executive of the FA Premier League, will not be a popular man at the Football Association today, as his plans for an ‘International Round’ of Premier League games could endanger England’s bid to host the 2018 FIFA World Cup.

The FA Premier League announced that its 20 clubs had agreed to further discuss a proposal to stage an ‘International Round’ in January 2011 before informing FIFA  - a bad political move.

“When it comes to a decision of the [FIFA] Executive Committee concerning the matter of the 39th round of the Premier League, the Executive Committee, definitely, I am sure, will be against that, then this will not have a positive impact on the bid from England for the World Cup 2018”, said FIFA President Joseph Blatter, when questioned by the BBC.

The 25-man FIFA Executive Committee, of which Blatter is President, has the final vote over who will be awarded the 2018 tournament. It also includes Michel Platini, who has dismissed the plans as a “joke”. The Asian Football Confederation has also told the BBC that it will not support the plan. Its President, Mohammed Bin Hammam, has been openly critical of European club tours, which he feels takes supporters away from the Asian club game.

Is it just me that gets a sense of déjà vu over all of this? Back in 1997, blinded by the revenue generated by Euro 1996, the Football Association went back on a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ to support a German bid to host the 2006 FIFA World Cup by bidding directly against the Deutscher Fußball-Bund. Everyone knows who won that argument, and it appears that the FA could lose this one as well.

Blatter’s comments also revealed a dissolution between the aims of the Football Association in promoting the national game and the FA Premier League, in maximising revenue, that many fans will recognise. “This will never happen, at least as long as I am the President of FIFA”, said Blatter. “This is abuse. The rich Premier League is trying to get richer and wants to expand the importance of that league”.

This badly-judged proposal could end up costing Scudamore his job.

 Andy Brown

One of the most interesting snippets of news to come out of Integrity In Sport: Contractual Risk Management, World Sports Law Report’s latest briefing hosted by Charles Russell LLP, was that the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has developed a draft International Standard for the Protection of Privacy.

The timescale is interesting: the nine-page draft document, containing minimum privacy and data protection standards that all parties that collect and use personal data to tackle anti-doping in sport must adhere to, is out for consultation until 18 February and will come into effect in May this year.

The draft aims to set minimum standards of privacy protection for personal information collected and used by organisations when conducting anti-doping programmes. It is not intended to override national or international legislation, except when the standards set by that legislation fall below those set out in the International Standard.

‘All Anti-Doping Organizations are expected to comply, even when the requirements of this International Standard exceed those arising under local law’, reads the Standard. ‘Compliance with this International Standard does not exempt Anti-Doping Organizations from complying with any locally applicable data protection laws and regulations’.

Anti-doping authorities need to collect personal data from athletes in order to effectively combat doping, however athlete consent for collection of their data could prove a contentious issue. Article 4.4 of the International Standard requires athlete consent, unless such collection is ‘expressly permitted by law’, however article 4.4(b) states: ‘Anti-Doping Organizations shall inform individuals that their refusal to subject themselves to doping controls, including Testing, could prevent their continued participation in organized sport and invalidate their competition results’.

Data protection and privacy in sport, especially around doping, is increasingly becoming a contentious issue. The UCI’s plans for a ‘Biological Passport’ have led some riders to express concerns about privacy, whereas other athletes would like more intrusive systems - such as chips implanted under the skin - to be introduced to combat doping. This is an emerging tightrope that Peter Leaver QC, the newly appointed President of the UK’s National Anti-Doping Panel, will have to walk carefully.

Andy Brown

 

Sporting organisations have been holding high-level meetings about the risks that doping - and especially new forms of betting – present to sport. The Executive Board of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) last week initiated a series of discussions with other sporting organisations in order to ascertain what action they are taking in this area. USA Today reports that tennis’ governing bodies are expected to soon name an independent panel designed to analyse the risk of match-fixing. Former Senator George Mitchell released a report this week accusing several Major League Baseball players of using steroids and human growth hormones. UK Sport has announced plans for an independent National Anti-Doping Authority (NADO), which will manage doping tests for UK sporting organisations. Meanwhile, The Guardian reports that Dame Elizabeth Neville, former Chief Constable of Wiltshire, will lead a review of sport governing bodies’ ‘integrity processes’.

As you would expect, sporting organisations are keen to protect their sport from being tarnished by association with doping or betting, however there is also a commercial angle to addressing these issues. Sporting organisations are concerned with protecting their revenue, raised largely through television and sponsorship agreements, and need to know how to structure contracts to ensure that broadcasters and sponsors will not instantly withdraw that support, should an allegation of doping be made.

It can happen. At this year’s Tour de France, television channels ARD and ZDF pulled out of covering the race, after a German rider was accused of doping. Several cycling teams that competed in 2007 may no longer be able to do so, after sponsors withdrew their financial support.

Likewise, TV broadcasters and sponsors need to ensure that should an athlete or event be associated with doping or match-fixing, they can exit their contract quietly and amicably, without being tarred with the same brush.

These issues will be discussed at Integrity In Sport: Doping, Betting & Contractual Risk Management, a World Sports Law Report full-day briefing, hosted at the London offices of Charles Russell LLP on 21 January.

Speakers include:
• Howard Stupp, Legal Director, International Olympic Committee
• Anne Gripper, Anti-Doping Services, Union Cycliste Internationale
• Paolo Lombardi, Head of Disciplinary & Governance, FIFA
• David O'Reilly, General Counsel, Betfair
• Guy Le Grew, Senior Legal Advisor, Sky Sports
• Oliver Codrington, The British Horseracing Authority
• Phil Hall, Phil Hall Associates
• Michele Verroken, Sporting Integrity

For more information, including the full day’s programme, click here.

Andy Brown

The development of young players was identified as the most pressing problem in English football at the moment, at a conference in London entitled ‘Future of Football: The Conference 2007’. Howard Wilkinson, Chairman of the League Manager’s Association, hit the nail on the head when he told delegates: “The players that we are developing are not good enough to compete with those coming in [to the Premier League]”.

Think about this comment for a minute. There has been much talk about the number of foreign players that compete in the Premier League. FIFA President Joseph S. Blatter has said that he wants a ‘quota’ system to limit the number of foreign players in squads, and UEFA President Michel Platini, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Reading Manager Steve Coppell and Liverpool Captain Steven Gerrard have all agreed that this appears a good idea. It was pointed out today that 55% of Premier League players are foreign. Leaving aside the legal difficulties with imposing such a quota, limiting the undeniable input of foreign players into the English game is not the answer, for reasons explained below.

Any football supporter, when pressed, will be able to name a handful of French, Italian and Spanish players that compete in the Premier League. However, ask that same fan to name a handful of English players that play in France, Italy or Spain and they will struggle. Our young players are simply not good enough to make the grade, either in our own league, or abroad, as Wilkinson pointed out in his comment above. The former England Manager outlined that there are perhaps just 70 players that Steve McClaren has to choose from when forming an England squad and, when you add injuries and suspensions, that number is substantially reduced. A panel of Managers consisting of Sir Alex Ferguson (Manchester United), Sam Allardyce (Newcastle United), Alan Curbishley (West Ham United) and Lawrie Sanchez (Fulham) agreed that not enough young English players are coming through the youth player development system.

Clearly, something needs to be done about this problem to halt the decline of the England national team. A delegate from Tottenham Hotspur pointed out that French and Portuguese children of between 12 and 16 train eight times a week, compared to between three to six times a week for English children of the same age. “This is not a football problem [in terms of responsibility], however this is where it has got to”, said Allardyce, who complained about the decline of sport in schools, expressing hope that London’s hosting of the 2012 London Olympics might spur some investment into the development of youth sport.

‘Future of Football: The Conference 2007’, organised by Circa Group, provided an excellent environment in which to identify and discuss some of the main issues affecting football today. The issue of foreign player quotas was perhaps the most pressing ‘legal’ issue, however if you would like some more information on other issues raised, please get in touch.

Andy Brown

Christian Salomon of Infront, the provider of host broadcast services for FIFA’s World Cup, revealed that Empire of Sports, a virtual world in which players compete through their ‘avatars’ to win sporting competitions, will be launched tomorrow. Salomon, who is Head of Marketing and Sales for Empire of Sports, said at the International Sports Media Summit, hosted in Arsenal’s Emirates Stadium, that Infront was using its network of rights agreements with international federations, national associations and clubs to get sporting organisations involved in the project.

Infront will announce that Empire of Sports will involve four virtual cities and seven sports, including football, basketball, tennis and skiing. Players will have to train, eat the right food and buy the right equipment, as well as practice to improve their performance, and Salomon said that a number of licensing agreements with ‘real world’ sporting brands had been concluded.

Salomon said that players not interested in becoming virtual sporting stars could sign up to become Chairman, Chief Executive or Manager of a sporting organisation. This opens up the whole question of sabotage even further than if just on-field players were involved. For example: what is to stop an Arsenal fan from encouraging his fellow supporters to sign up and sabotage either the Chelsea team or management, for example by training their avatar enough to get picked for the team, then performing badly?

“It will be interesting to see how this develops”, said Salomon, when I questioned him on this. “We are keen for the players to sort these type of developments out for themselves. We will not intervene unless we absolutely have to”.

Infront announced that it was developing Empire of Sports with F4, a European and Asian video game development company, in June this year.

 Andy Brown

International football confederations, clubs, leagues, player agents and lawyers from around the world descended on London’s Selfridge Hotel yesterday, for The Global Game: Ownership of Football Clubs & Players, a briefing organised by World Sports Law Report and Clintons, entertainment, sport and media lawyers.

The event was organised to examine if new investment into football is centred on profiting from the game at the expense of supporters, with wins on the pitch less important than the balance sheet and if so, what should be done about it. There has been concern, in English football in particular, that new investors in the game are taking this approach due to the amount of money newly available in football.

Arsenal’s financial results, released the day before the event, added gravitas, as did comments by Arsenal Chairman Peter Hill-Wood, reported by the Daily Telegraph: ‘I would like to think it's a stable business, run by civilised people who understand the values of the club. We are custodians of Arsenal FC’. Alisher Usmanov, a Russian Businessman, is building a stake in Arsenal through his investment vehicle, Red & White holdings. His Wikipedia entry suggests that he has spent time in jail.

It appears, however, that your perspective on investment in the game depends on where you are sitting. “Where opportunities exist, you will find opportunists”, said Nick Craig, the Football League’s solicitor, pointing out that the FA had stopped profits from football being reinvested in the game when it wiped away its rules preventing club directors from receiving salaries or on paying themselves dividends.

This view was supported by Neil Doncaster, Chief Executive of Norwich City, who agreed that “something must be done” to protect the game from unscrupulous investors, perhaps at government level.

However, the viewpoint from Latin America, represented by Miguel Remmer, Estudio Beccar Varela, Argentina; Jose Carlos Meirelles, Pinheiro Neto Advogados, Brazil; and Agustin Mayer, Ferrere Abogados, Uruguay, was that any investment in football is a good thing. On the subject of debt being used to finance football club purchases, it was mentioned that this is normal practice in business, and why should sport be any different? Michael Murphy, of Garlicke & Bousfield of South Africa, agreed with the Latin American view.

The Latin Americans also pointed out that ‘third party ownership’ of players is an incorrect statement about what occurs in Latin American transfers. The owner of player’s registration is the club, which sells the player to another club, however the economic rights to that player are passed over to a third party.

Hitesh Jain, a Partner with ALMT Legal in Mumbai, was concerned with protecting players from possible exploitation by agents. Hitesh made the point that many Indian sports stars come from a poor background and have no experience of managing contracts or wealth.

What became clear over the course of the day was that issues over unsuitable investors in both clubs and players are likely to continue because of the way the football market is now operating as a global game, as pointed out by the Annual Review of the European Football Players’ Labour Market.

Football needs investment, and as our Latin American and African speakers pointed out, it will accept this investment from wherever it can get it. Football is increasingly looking overseas for players, as it is often cheaper to buy a player from a far-flung corner of the globe than to develop a player through the youth system. Player agents and representatives facilitate the movement of players internationally – like it or not. The transfer market is split into two ‘windows’, which can result in clubs taking a gamble on a player they do not know much about if the end of the transfer ‘window’ is drawing near, elevating the player’s and agent’s power over the club.

Agents must navigate their way through a maze of rules and regulations imposed on them by international football confederations, national associations and leagues. It became clear from discussing these differing regulations that perhaps the reason that agents so often attract suspicion is because these regulations are so difficult to decipher. The only people that truly understand these rules are the people that deal with them on a daily basis – the agents themselves. I suggest that the global regulation of agents by FIFA could help to clarify things and remove the stigma that is attached to the word ‘agent’ in football.

Finally, a few statistics from yesterday’s event;
• UEFA’s Club Licensing System is now in place in all 53 member associations;
• Only 19 of the 20 Premier League clubs applied for a UEFA Club Licence, essential for European competition, last season (I did not ask which club had not applied);
• 29.8 million people watched Football League games last season, a 15% increase on the previous season;
• The Football Association of Ireland is to introduce a Salary Cost Protocol system for its Premier Division during the 2008 season.

Presentation packs from the event are available from the event. Please contact Jit Jaswal for more details.

 Andy Brown

The World Association of Newspapers (WAN) claims that the International Rugby Board has 'reversed itself' on press restrictions put in place for the Rugby World Cup 2007. Agence France Press, the Associated Press and Reuters suspended coverage of the event in protest at restrictions they viewed as excessive. To read the WAN's press release, which provides details of the compromise reached with the IRB, click here.

Andy Brown

 

News organisation Reuters has suspended coverage of the Rugby World Cup 2007 due to media restrictions imposed by the International Rugby Board (IRB), after issues over use of photographs online and audio-visual content failed to be resolved before the tournament’s 7 September kick-off.

‘Reuters is suspending coverage of all pre-tournament events and training sessions of the Rugby World Cup 2007, across text, pictures and TV’, read a statement from Monique Villa, Managing Director Media, Reuters. ‘Amid growing confusion and uncertainty over reporting terms, and the IRB’s unwillingness to engage with us to resolve the dispute over accreditation terms, Reuters is unable to continue the coverage as planned. Reuters would like to resume coverage…however, freedom of the press and our editorial integrity…must be respected’.

For further details, see the September edition of World Sports Law Report, soon to be published here.

 Andy Brown

Peter Ridsdale, former Leeds United Chairman, is in financially choppy waters again. Langston, the financial backers of Cardiff City, have instructed Hextalls to commence proceedings against the club (which Ridsdale now chairs) to recover funds which ‘amount to more than £30 million’, according to Hextalls.

A press release issued by Hextalls says that Langston is alleging that the Football League Championship club has failed to meet deadlines and has breached the terms of its loan agreement, in respect of the capital sum plus interest.

‘Our client has serious and increasing concerns about the club’s present administration and its ability to manage the club’s financial affairs’, reads the release. ‘In the event that the club cannot meet its liabilities to our client, then the alternative is for the current Board of Directors to resign and our client endorse the appointment of a new Board and new management. The club’s board has also been advised by us that its recently submitted accounts do not reflect its true financial position. Clubs are, of course, governed by the Football League concerning their solvency and (as has recently been seen in the case of Leeds United FC) circumstances can arise causing a 10-point deduction’.

The release accuses Ridsdale of ignoring communications regarding the seriousness of the financial situation, including a final warning giving ten days in which to respond, issued 2 August. Peter Ridsdale is currently completing his book, which is expected to reveal some of the excesses that led to the financial collapse of Leeds United. It had better sell well…

Andy Brown

What do Alexandre Vinokourov, Patrick Sinkewitz and Cristian Moreni have in common? Cycling fans would all answer that all three have been accused of doping offences in this year’s Tour De France, however all three have also signed the Union Cycliste Internationale’s (UCI) anti-doping declaration, which was designed to reassure the public that this year’s Tour is drug free.

The Astana cycling team withdrew from the Tour after Alexandre Vinokourov tested positive for a banned blood transfusion. The Cofidis team also withdrew after Cristian Moreni tested positive for a banned substance, understood from reports to be testosterone. Patrick Sinkewitz was suspended by the T-Mobile team after a positive A-test for testosterone.

The UCI needs to find a more effective method of asserting that the sport is free of drugs, as German broadcasters ARD and ZDF threatened legal action after pulling out of covering the race, team sponsors (Cofidis) have indicated that they requested their team to withdraw from the race and the World Anti-Doping Agency today offered to convene a summit on how to deal with the problem of doping in cycling.

The Tour has also lost its leader, after the Rabobank team removed Michael Rasmussen from the Tour for violating team rules by giving alleged incorrect information about his whereabouts to the team’s sports director after missing drugs tests on 8 May and 28 June. “We cannot say that Rasmussen cheated, but his flippancy and his lies on his whereabouts became unbearable”, Tour Director Christian Prudhomme told the Associated Press.

It is only the second time in the 104-year history of the Tour de France that the leader of the race has been expelled. The challenge will now be to keep the race going and to keep its corporate sponsors interested in funding an event that has continually involved doping cases.

Perhaps opening the tour to amateurs, such as Londoner Luke Bream, could restore some credibility to the race. Bream is attempting to complete the Tour de France one day ahead of the actual race, assisted by his mum and fuelled by jam butties and Coca-Cola…

Andy Brown

 

An excellent open debate was held yesterday evening by the British Association for Sport and Law, entitled ‘From registration to relegation…the twists and turns of the Premier League, West Ham, Sheffield United saga’. A number of interesting points were raised.

It was agreed that West Ham’s main offence was the breach of its ‘good faith’ requirement under FA Premier League rule B13, as it had not told the League the truth. It was suggested that West Ham’s arrangements to bring Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano to the club were not very different from loan agreements, which could be judged to be in breach of FA Premier League rule U18, which prevents clubs singing contracts which enable another party to ‘materially influence’ the policy or performance of teams.

It was pointed out that in loan agreements, it is often the case that clubs agree that a player should not take part in Cup games and that in the case of player transfers, it has been known that the selling club has agreed to pay a player’s wages for a period even after they have been sold. This could be judged to be materially influencing the performance of the team.

Another good point raised was that given that the Arbitration Panel judgment appeared to agree that Scott Duxbury and Paul Aldridge had acted improperly, why had action not been taken against them? In response, a possible reason was that this action may have had little chance of success due to a lack of reliable evidence.

One panellist raised a thorny issue, arguing that the case highlights that sport is not fit to govern itself, as we know little about the people involved in bringing star players to our clubs, or, indeed, buying them clubs. It was suggested that the Premier League should re-examine sports governance in the US. Thankfully, the European Commission’s attempt to set out sport’s ability to self-govern in its White Paper on Sport was not brought up, although cases such as this cannot help sport’s case for autonomy of governance.

 Andy Brown

Sir Alex Ferguson’s defence of Manchester United’s commercial right to tour Asia during the Asian Cup 2007 is likely to accelerate the Asian Football Confederation’s (AFC) discussions with UEFA about a ban on ban on European club tours during the next Asian Cup, in 2011. The Asian Football Confederation (AFC) certainly does not seem to agree with Ferguson’s statement ‘it’s not just about us taking – we also give’ (presumably, United gives tickets away to Asian fans, although United’s internet site states games have ‘sold out’) and is concerned that European club tours could pull fans away from its most lucrative tournament.

“Yes, it is feasible”, said AFC President Mohammed Bin Hammam, when questioned by Asian Football Business Review about the possibility of a total ban on European teams for 2011. “We will be in discussions, either (to ban tours) in the 16 countries participating in the finals or all of Asia. It will be discussed and settled by the end of this year. It is a priority issue to be discussed. I will seek understanding between the Asian Confederation and UEFA and all major leagues in Europe to protect the month of the Asian Cup in 2011. We have two windows to organise our competition. It is the calendar FIFA has drawn up. We cannot organise our competition unless it is in June or July or January, when many European leagues have a break”.

 Andy Brown

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) and FIFA, in a joint press statement released today, criticised the European Union’s White Paper on Sport, which was adopted by the European Commission today, as a ‘missed opportunity’. A similar statement has been released by the European team sports.

‘The White Paper is structured in full contradiction with the actual architecture of the Olympic movement, ignoring in particular the regulatory competences of the International Federations, the division of responsibilities between the latter and their European Confederations, the global nature of the issues and challenges currently affecting sport as well as the solutions which are today necessary’, read the IOC/FIFA statement. The White Paper was criticised for failing to recognise ‘both the autonomy and specificity of sport’ and for failing to give ‘concrete expression’ to the Nice Declaration of 2000. Sporting bodies feel that the Nice declaration recognised that sport has specific characteristics and should be allowed leeway under EU law, as compared to business, to draw up special rules essential for the integrity of sport.

At World Sports Law Report’s Autonomy of Sport Governance conference, hosted at the London offices of Charles Russell yesterday, Richard Caborn, the UK Prime Minister’s World Cup Ambassador and former Minister of State for Sport, expressed hope that the White Paper would provide “legal certainty”, following on from the Nice Declaration and José Luis Arnaud’s Independent European Sport Review – It looks like he could be disappointed.

Caborn said he hoped that the EU would “empower sport”, and highlighted homegrown player rules and the collective sale of TV rights as two areas that could be taken up by the European Commission on behalf of sport.

This could all still be possible, as the White Paper will be transmitted to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions and its findings will be presented to EU Sport Ministers. In October, the Commission will organise a conference to discuss the White Paper with sport stakeholders. Perhaps progress can still be made – as the IOC and FIFA put it, ‘much work remains to be done’.

 Andy Brown

…Then spare a thought for poor Castleford Tigers. Cas, as they are known by Rugby League aficionados, were relegated from the Super League at the end of last season, after Wigan Warriors made an amazing comeback to win nine of their last 11 games to finish three points above Cas.

This winning streak followed the remarkable signing of Great Britain prop Stuart Fielden, who like former Great Britain coach Brian Noble, decided to leave the relative safety of Bradford Bulls to join a club adrift at the bottom of the table (not counting Catalans Dragons, who as newbies, were exempt from relegation). Perhaps the move had something to do with the ‘much bigger salary’ that Fielden claimed he had been offered.

At the time, Wigan - in their own words - ‘responded angrily’ to suggestions from two other clubs that they might have breached Rugby League’s salary cap, which at the time stood at £1.7 million. A new system based on Australia’s NRL Premiership has since been implemented.

However Wigan’s anger will pale in comparison to Cas’ fury this morning, having learned that the Rugby Football League (RFL) has charged Wigan with breaching the salary cap for the second season running – they were docked two points for breaching the salary cap in 2005.

Cas were one of the clubs that Wigan ‘responded angrily’ to last season and following debate, the RFL increased the minimum and maximum points penalties for salary cap breaches to four and 12 points respectively. Bear in mind that Wigan were just three points ahead of Castleford last season.

Although the RFL announced changes to its salary cap rules in June to make points deductions ‘live’ - i.e. apply during the current season - this system was not in place for the 2006 season, so any points deductions are likely to apply this season, which will not do Cas any good at all. The club told The Guardian that legal action was not its ‘preferred choice’, and said that talks with the RFL would be sought.

The conspiracy arguments I have heard include: Wigan have played the system as they knew that the points deduction would not apply until next season; the RFL allowed the Fielden transfer to go ahead because they were terrified that one of their biggest clubs would go down; the RFL would not have allowed the transfer if Fielden had gone to a smaller club. All or none may be true.

Are we now entering a phase where every painful relegation in UK sport will be challenged through the courts? This is a real possibility, which worries sporting organisations, as previously reported by World Sports Law Report. Cases such as this, which appear blatantly unfair, do not help sport’s argument that it should be free to regulate its own affairs and illustrate why the European Commission is keen to define sport’s position within EU law, which it will do in a soon-to-be-announced White Paper on Sport.

Full marks to those who sensed a sales pitch coming. Guess what? World Sports Law Report is organising a conference to address all of these issues on Tuesday 10 July. For more information, click here.

Andy Brown

 

It’s amazing the stories that can creep through on a slow news day, as The Sun’s infamous headline from 1986 proves. World Sports Law Report was ready to commission an article after The Guardian suggested that the European Commission was ‘considering’ breaking up the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) collective sale of its TV rights to the Winter and Summer Olympics, so that individual sports would be sold separately.

‘It’s none of the EC’s bloody business and they should back off’, said an ‘influential figure’, reported The Guardian.

However, the European Commission has described the story as ‘completely false’, reports Sportcal.com. ‘The Commission is not looking at the way the IOC is selling its media rights’, spokesperson Jonathan Todd told the internet site. ‘By definition, the Commission is not therefore asking the IOC to unbundle its rights or anything else’.

Publicist Max Clifford, who was responsible for the ‘Hamster’ headline, later admitted that Starr had not eaten the Hamster in a television interview with Esther Rantzen. It is understood that The Guardian was reporting on ‘mood music’ from sources at the Commission regarding the next Olympics broadcasting deal.

Although the ‘Hamster’ article proves that you shouldn’t believe everything in the press, it is worth keeping one eye on the issues raised in The Guardian’s article, as the IOC has yet to make any official statements on broadcast tenders for 2014/2016.

 Andy Brown

The Law Society has instructed its solicitors to dispute the Football Association’s (FA) new Football Agents Regulations, it emerged at ‘Agents: What are they for?’, a breakfast seminar that illustrated growing disagreement between agents and the FA about whether the new Regulations are workable. The seminar was hosted this morning by Citi Private Bank on behalf of law firm Clintons’ Sports Law Group in London.

The new Regulations require lawyers, who were previously exempt from FA agent regulations because of their regulation by the Law Society, to register with the FA (as reported in World Sports Law Report, Volume 4, Issue 12, December 2006). This requirement has been disputed by lawyers who act as football agents, who argue that there is no need for them to register with the FA, as the set of ethics that the Law Society requires them to operate under are far more stringent than the FA’s Regulations. It was pointed out that FIFA still exempts lawyers from its Player Agents Regulations.

Not only is there disagreement between agents and the FA over whether the Regulations are workable, there is also dispute over whether agents were consulted at all during the drafting process. David Sheepshanks, Chairman of Ipswich Town and a non-executive Director of the Football Association, said that agents had been “well consulted”, while Mel Stein, a Consultant with Clintons and Chairman of the Association of Football Agents, a grouping of 90 leading football agents formed in response to the new Regulations, countered that agents had “not been consulted at all”. Jon Smith, Chief Executive Officer of First Artist Corporation, an athlete representation company, was careful not to get drawn into the ‘yes we did’, ‘no you didn’t’ pantomime argument.

“The role and image of agents has been tarnished and distorted by the actions of some of their number”, said Sheepshanks. “The FIFA Regulations are lax and have not been applied properly. Too many irresponsible agents have wrecked it for the responsible ones. The new FA Regulations are therefore vital”.

“Agents want to drive the ‘rotten apples’ out of the game”, said Stein, who said that the AFA had sought self-regulation negotiations with the FA Premier League. Stein singled out aspects of the “incomprehensible” Regulations for particularly stinging criticism. He dismissed as “unacceptable” provisions that would allow players to represent themselves in representation contracts, as well as provisions for players to pay agents in instalments rather than a lump sum, because of the danger that a player will simply terminate an agent’s employment and cease to pay them, after a transfer has taken place.

He also dismissed as “cloud cuckoo land” the provision that agents should not be able to act for players under the age of 16, arguing that alternative deals, such as buying a house for the player’s parents, will be done in secret. He used the examples of David Beckham and Wayne Rooney as two players whose talents had been realised long before they reached the age of 16.

Sheepshanks said that the FA would formally announce the new Regulations on 29 June, leaving little time for further consultation, however said that the FA would hold “familiarisation and counselling programmes” with all concerned parties.

However, consultation and co-ordination with FIFA also appears to be needed. A FIFA spokesperson told World Sports Law Report that new player agent regulations, to be introduced 1 January 2008, would “clarify the percentage of a fee that a player can pay to an agent, as well as the period of validity of agent licenses”. This, on the face of it, appears to suggest that FIFA regulations could scupper the FA’s plans to force players to pay their agents in instalments, rather than through a lump sum.

Andy Brown 

In the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games’ (LOCOG) candidature file, two of the key ‘Priorities and potential’ targets were ‘harnessing London’s passion for sport’ and ‘Regenerating east London communities and their environment’. It reads ‘The Olympic Park will become a hub for east London, bringing communities together and acting as catalyst for profound social and economic change. It will become a model of social inclusion, opening up opportunities for education, cultural and skills development and jobs for people across the UK and London, but especially in the Lea Valley and surrounding areas’.

There are increasing signs that LOCOG is veering from that laudable ‘social inclusion’ path. LOCOG could have involved the local schools and colleges in helping to design a logo that accurately reflected the aims and prospects that London 2012 is supposed to bring to an area close to the city in terms of distance, but miles away in terms of socio-economic development. Nothing in LOCOG’s press release suggests even an attempt at canvassing public opinion. Instead, LOCOG commissioned Wolff Ollins to design a London 2012 logo at a reported cost of £400,000.

Unlike LOCOG’s decision to concrete over part of Hackney Marshes, the spiritual home of football where David Beckham learned his trade, this could become a PR disaster that cannot be swept under the carpet.

A campaign entitled ‘Change the London 2012 logo’ had gained almost 20,000 signatures at time of press, just a day after LOGOC launched the logo to widespread criticism. Mine is one of the signatures. The massive costs and lack of consultation with Londoners is in grave danger of alienating the very people the Games are supposed to involve.

 Andy Brown