Sporting organisations are working together with international organisations to build an international framework to tackle corruption in sport, heard delegates at World Sports Law Report & DLA Piper’s Sport & Gambling 2012. However, to keep up the pressure on those intent on corrupting sport through betting, further integration is needed between the monitoring systems used by sport and gambling operators, and international regulations are needed to address disparities between national legislative regimes.

Who should pay for such innovations is also a contentious issue. Unless it receives what it considers an ‘adequate return’ from the gambling industry, some sports are unwilling to continually further invest in policing against corruption and argue that gambling operators should foot the bill. Gambling operators argue that they already continually invest larger sums in policing against corruption.

Pâquerette Girard-Zappelli, Secretary of the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) Ethics Commission, outlined how it is working with United Nations organisations to extend the reach of the Council of Europe’s recently-written Convention on match-fixing beyond Europe. She revealed that the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime is conducting a study on the application of its conventions to sports betting issues, and is negotiating with gambling regulators in Nevada, Victoria and Korea on an international framework for tackling match-fixing. She warned that policing against corruption is an ongoing issue. “We will not be able to just fix everything tomorrow morning”, she said.

It is hoped that such regulation will eradicate issues such as disparities between how different jurisdictions sanction and prosecute match-fixing, an issue raised by Caroline Larlus-Lefebvre, Head of the Sports Department at French online gambling regulator ARJEL. Paul Scotney, Integrity, Compliance and Licensing Director for the British Horseracing Authority, highlighted that whilst the BHA can obtain phone records to be used as evidence against match-fixers, the same is not true for all sports in all jurisdictions. “We make it a licensing condition that people must provide their phone records, if requested”, he said.

An international regulatory framework might also provide guidance into how sporting authorities can pursue parallel investigations in cases of corruption, whereby a sporting body has to conclude its own investigation in a short space of time (at the London 2012 Olympics, the IOC had 24 hours to make a case before the Court of Arbitration for Sport) without compromising a criminal investigation by the police. This issue was raised by Nick Tofiluk, Director of Regulation at Great Britain’s Gambling Commission, who also spoke about how a ‘risk-based’ approach to monitoring the potential of a sport to be corrupted had been used at the London 2012 Olympics.

Issues regarding the difficulty in gaining adequate evidence to prosecute match-fixers were continually raised. Girard-Zappelli and Tofiluk compared it to doping, where a sample is taken. “There is certainty in doping cases regarding evidence. There is no such certainty in match-fixing,” said Tofiluk.

Integrity as a Business

There are signs that policing integrity in sport is becoming big business. As well as FIFA’s Early Warning System (EWS) – which spoke at the conference – other players include International Sports Monitoring, the European Sports Security Agency, Global Sports Integrity and others. It was agreed that these need to find a way to share their information more freely, but it was pointed out that this might be difficult in a commercial marketplace.

Jacek Wojdyla, Head of International Affairs for FIFA’s EWS, highlighted that as well as monitoring FIFA events, it also has smaller agreements in place to monitor Major League Soccer in the US and Japan’s J.League. It is also offering smaller federations an ‘integrated service package’ and has a ten-year agreement with international police organisation Interpol to educate players.

The conference highlighted that while the most valuable type of bettor to operators is a so-called ‘high roller’, these will usually migrate to the black market at some stage, where they can get better odds. Larlus-Lefebvre revealed that ARJEL sends over 2,000 ‘cease and desist’ letters to operators per year. Through France’s licensing system, 1.8% of bets are returned to amateur sport, which equates to €20.9 million since the French regulated betting market opened in 2010.

Memorandums of Understanding

Andy Cunningham of Betfair outlined how its 55 memorandums of understanding (MoUs) with sporting organisations had allowed sport to quickly identify potential corruption. However, it was generally agreed that whilst MoUs are useful, sport had to move on from its reliance on them to a more integrated approach. It was pointed out that not all sports will sign them, due to issues over control of data.

Andrew Lyman, Head of Public Affairs at William Hill Plc., pointed out a potential failing of early warning systems is that the often fail to take into account betting volume. He also highlighted that some sports still don’t have adequate structures in place to police against corruption. He argued that funding and integrity should not be discussed together and although he welcomed the IOC’s moves towards combating corruption, argued that operators should have more representation. He said that one of the failings of the anti-corruption movement was that “we are not prepared to accept that each of us has expertise”.

Paul Scotney of the BHA highlighted that although illegal markets are an issue, a lot of cheating still goes on in regulated markets. Interestingly, he said that sports governing bodies have to deal with corruption issues, as the police and the Gambling Commission have other, more important, priorities. He said that was why the BHA had decided to charge nine individuals with breaching racing’s rules on 4 October. He said that the BHA had gone to the High Court to gain access to the phone records of one individual involved with the case.

Olympic Betting

The partnership between the IOC, Gambling Commission and the London Organising Committee (LOCOG) for the Olympic Games was held up as a model of best practice. Girard-Zappelli confirmed that the IOC had investigated badminton, boxing and basketball events during the London 2012 Olympics.

The turnover from betting was ten times higher than during Beijing 2008, but despite that, Olympic Games betting only made up 30% of the UK market during the Games. She highlighted that there had been ‘considerable’ micro betting during the Games. Fifty percent of bets were per-event, while 50% were ‘live’. However, overall, bets were placed ‘to win’. The most popular sports to bet on during the Olympics were football, basketball, tennis, handball, volleyball, athletics, swimming and cycling.

The Gambling Commission’s Tofiluk confirmed that 13 inquiries had been generated during London 2012 through the joint monitoring programme set up between the Gambling Commission, the IOC and LOCOG. He said that gambling operators had volunteered their involvement, often without being approached. If it had been found that an event was about to be fixed, the IOC said that the agreed procedure would have been to inform the relevant international federation as well as the IOC President and postponement of the event was a possibility. However, this may have been difficult because of TV schedules.

Overseas Markets

Tim Lowry of DLA Piper outlined the situation regarding New Jersey’s attempt to regulate sports betting. He said although it is unlikely that New Jersey will be successful this time around, the huge State budget deficits mean that a successful challenge will probably be seen in the coming years.

Albert Augustinoy of DLA Piper revealed that Spain is seeking to regulate exchange betting from early 2013. A widening of Spain’s closed list of sporting events on which betting is permitted is also being considered.

Giulio Coraggio of DLA Piper said that there has been a 90% fall in sports betting due to the launch of cash poker games. Italy’s gambling regulator, AAMS, has recently removed its list of permitted events, which is hoped will stimulate the market. The tax regime of 20% of global gaming revenue was also a problem for operators, and is due to change.

Patrick Schwarzbart of DLA Piper highlighted how the German State of Schleswig-Holstein is now joining Germany’s Interstate Treaty on Gambling, which places onerous restrictions on gambling operators. However, restrictions preventing gambling operators from appearing on perimeter advertising hoardings and on sports jerseys have been removed under the new version of the Treaty. However, gambling operators will not be allowed to advertise on television unless approved by a ‘relevant authority’. The final advertising guidelines are due by November 2012.

Player Education

The importance of educating not only athletes, but law enforcement authorities was also raised, as was the possibility of sporting federations taking more proactive action against those suspected of match-fixing. Simon Taylor, General Secretary of the Professional Players Federation (PPF) and Jane Purdon, Director of Governance at the FA Premier League highlighted the importance of educating players about the dangers of corruption.

Taylor said that education programmes need to be tailored to address the specific threat in any particular market, and that a ‘blanket approach’ is no longer adequate. He also highlighted that education needs to be ongoing, as football, cricket and rugby have a ‘churn’ of 25% new players each year. The PPF is funded by gambling operators and sport, and its funding agreement expires in the new year.

Purdon said that the Premier League had rewritten its rules on youth development this summer. A regulatory awareness programme is in place for all Premier League Academy scholars and staff, with modules relating to corruption in connection with gambling.

For more information on World Sports Law Report’s other conferences, contact david.longford@e-comlaw.com

Andy Brown

The events at Penn State University have certainly raised a new awareness as to the legal and moral obligations we have regarding the reporting of child abuse. Teams may wonder what laws and procedures come into play when an adult suspects or witnesses sexual abuse of a child or any other crime that takes place in or around a ballpark.

Because of many well-publicised cases over the last several years, we've learned that sexual abuse of minors occurs much more often than many of us were aware and often is not discovered until many years later.

This article reviews the obligations for reporting child abuse and the consequences that teams could face if they are not familiar with those obligations. More important, it offers steps you can take to prevent such dangers. We also will look at the possibility of the team's liability arising out of negligence toward a child who is involved in a ballpark activity such as a kids play zone.

Obligations for reporting

Generally, the law does not require a witness to report a crime. However, consider two important factors. First, there may be a fine line between witnessing a crime and becoming an accomplice by allowing a crime to take place. Second, in child abuse situations, State laws place a much greater burden to report a crime or suspicion of a crime on certain individuals who have professional or trust relationships with the victims.

On a day-to-day basis, employees of a ball team will normally not have such a professional duty because the team employees do not have a professional or trust relationship with the child. Persons typically required by State law to report child abuse (and abuse of developmentally disabled persons) include medical personnel, counsellors, day care workers, camp and school personnel, persons who work with developmentally disabled individuals, home care workers and others who deal with and have care and custody of kids or disabled individuals. Most States include a direct reporting requirement. In other words, an adult in any of these professions who witnesses or suspects abuse or neglect must directly report to the agency that employs him or her, or to law enforcement.

Statutes on reporting of crimes vary from State to State. As we saw in the Penn State case, confusion and possible wrongdoing regarding one's obligations can easily occur. Under the Pennsylvania Child Protective Services Law, the person in charge in a school has the legal obligation to make a report; lower-level employees are permitted, but not required, to make reports.

The Pennsylvania law and similar State laws might well prove subject to more than one interpretation, given civil lawsuits and the many turns the criminal cases seem to have taken. The reporting obligation may be fulfilled on some levels by making a superior aware of the incident, but eventually the crime must be reported to law enforcement authorities.

Another issue is the level of knowledge about the abuse. For instance in Ohio, the reporting requirement applies when, in an official or professional capacity, the person 'knows, or has reasonable cause to suspect based on facts that would cause a reasonable person in a similar position to suspect' that the child 'has suffered or faces the threat of suffering any physical or mental wound, injury, disability, or condition of a nature that reasonably indicates abuse or neglect'. This is a fairly low threshold, a reflection of the policy to err on the side of protecting the child.

The law imposes a penalty if the adult fails to report as required. The penalty for a criminal misdemeanor, using Ohio as an example, would be a jail sentence not to exceed six months and/or a fine not to exceed $1,000.

As long as the reporting person acts in good faith, the law will provide immunity from civil and criminal liability. This immunity will apply to any person making a report-whether mandatory or discretionary. The idea is to eliminate the fear that the reporting person may be sued for making the report. Making a false report, of course, would be an exception to the immunity.

In any case, it would be advisable to have a personnel policy, conforming with State law, about reporting not only child abuse but other criminal and anti-social behaviour on the premises. The team's security procedures should also be consistent with the policy and obligations under State law.

Duty of care

Here is an important question to consider, and you may want to discuss it with your liability insurance carrier. What duty of care does the team owe to a child within the ballpark?

Take, for example, a kids play zone. Does the team owe a duty of care to watch for and prohibit suspicious behaviour by an adult who appears near the children in the play zone area? Suppose the adult is taking inappropriate photos or attempting to approach a child. Does the team have a duty of care to the child to stop this activity?

The local State law of negligence would govern the team's liability. Typical State law would find that the team was negligent if it owed a duty of care to the child and its failure to fulfil that duty led to the child being injured. Whether that duty exists depends on the relationship between the parties. In Ohio, for example, because of the special relationship between a business and its customer, especially a customer who is a child, a business may be liable for harm caused to the child by a third person.

Although a business does not ensure the safety of its customers, it has a duty to protect a customer from the criminal act of a third person if it knew or should have known of a danger. The duty exists only if the incident that harms the customer was foreseeable, and whether an incident was foreseeable depends on the totality of the circumstances. Those circumstances would have to be overwhelmingly clear. Circumstances that would put the business on notice of potential dangers might include other recent crimes on the property or a history of high crime in the area.

In the end, the question of whether the team has a duty of care and has met that standard would likely be a question of law for a judge to decide. The question would greatly depend on the facts in the case. A negligence case in the situations above may carry a high burden of proof, but fact-oriented cases nevertheless often survive pre-trial summary judgment motions and go to trial.

Take responsibility

Operationally, there are a few things that you may want to keep in mind:

• First and foremost, of course, the safety of the children is paramount. We would recommend a consultation with a security official or police unit to review any holes in your safety measures. A professional sees things that you and I don't.
• If an incident develops, make a written report and file it with the police quickly. You never know how important that information may become.
• Make sure each child is accompanied by a parent or guardian or other responsible adult at all times. If not, the child should not be permitted in the play zone or to participate in any other activity.
• Consider assigning a responsible adult employee, and better yet a uniformed security or police officer, to watch for hazardous activity in areas that may give adult strangers some access to children. An 18-year-old intern may not be your best choice in these situations. The employee or officer should have the authority to take defensive action if need be.
• Check with your insurance carrier and make sure the team has adequate coverage. If the insurance carrier has a liability audit program, you may want to take advantage of it.

Hopefully no incidents will occur and your team will never have to face the question of whether it properly handled a dangerous situation involving a child.

Minor child waiver

A point we have raised a number of times in presentations at Baseball Winter Meetings and in articles is the importance of using minor child waiver forms before children participate in any team-supervised activity. This is not very practical for a play zone situation, but it should always apply for field stunts and certainly for group overnights at the ballpark. You can probably think of many more such circumstances.

The minor child waiver forms should include language that verifies the parent or guardian's own responsibility for the child while participating in the activity. If the parent or guardian is not personally with the child, he or she should sign an acknowledgement that names the adult who is responsible for the child. A team employee should have the job of making sure that each child has submitted a signed form. If not, no admittance. This practice protects the team from any number of potential liability situations.

The goal is to protect children from abuse, sexual and otherwise. This article is intended to give an overview and to make you aware of issues that you can discuss with a lawyer, including details about your specific legal obligations.

L. James Juliano, Jr., Attorney
Nicola, Gudbranson & Cooper, LLC, Cleveland Ohio
juliano@legallyspeakingonline.com

Benjamin J. Cooper, an associate at Nicola, Gudbranson & Cooper LLC, assisted with this article, which was originally published on www.legallyspeakingonline.com.

Sport can still protect the value of its broadcasting rights following the Karen Murphy ruling by carefully defining its public, concluded an Emergency Briefing organised in London yesterday. Whilst rights holders will no longer be able to partition the single market into Member States in order to sell those rights, this will not result in a huge drop in value as rights holders will be able to use other methods to partition their markets.

 

Licensing different language broadcasts of sport could offer one method of partitioning rights into different markets, explained Tom Moody-Stuart, a Barrister with 8 New Square Chambers. “Leaving to one side Sky and football for a minute, you are licensing a particular language version of a particular programme or film and you can license that within a particular territory – you have no control over where it goes afterwards”, he said. “That is something that you can evaluate, the size of the market and take fair remuneration for. It doesn’t matter where they are, you are defining your public, and that’s the answer to all of this.”

 

Barrister Marie Demetriou of Brick Court Chambers, who represented Southsea pub landlady Karen Murphy in her case at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), agreed. “You can’t partition the market, but I don’t think there would be much objection to licensing on the basis of language”, she said. “What happens at the moment is that Nova provides commentary in both English and Greek. That’s why it’s so attractive to people like Karen Murphy. I don’t think there would be a competition objection to removing that service.” It was explained that Murphy held a domestic licence with Greek broadcaster Nova as opposed to a commercial one, as commercial licences in the Greek market required an assessment of the premises in which the licence was to be used. This could not be carried out in Murphy’s case since her pub was in Southsea.

 

In its 4 October ruling, the CJEU ruled that a system of licensing which grants broadcasters territorial exclusivity on a Member State basis and which prohibits TV viewers from watching the broadcasts with a decoder card in other EU Member States is contrary to the EU principle of freedom to provide services. However, it also ruled that the screening of matches containing copyrighted works (such as the Premier League logo) in a pub requires the authorisation of the author of those works, as it constitutes a new ‘communication to the public’ as specified in Article 3 of the Copyright Directive.

 

“The pub subscription model is not really replicated across Europe”, said Raj Koria of sports rights and marketing agency Sportfive. “There is a view that this is an English problem”. Following the reasoning of the judgment, it was suggested that it might be acceptable for UK pubs to screen Premier League games using a commercial licence from another country, however the judgment provided no guidance as to whether this reasoning is correct. One solution suggested to this issue was for the Premier League to only sell one commercial licence, which all European commercial premises would have to purchase.

 

“It seems that the consensus amongst most commentators is that the Premier League is going to think about how it can lawfully re-tender its rights”, said Daniel Geey, an Associate with Field Fisher Waterhouse. “There may be some type of selling of live Premier League rights on a pan-European basis. Another solution may be for the Premier League to launch its own TV channel which it could license to other broadcasters and its own subscription internet channel.” It was suggested that this might be a wise move in the long term, as sport may currently be going through the process of widespread piracy that music went through before the launch of iTunes gave people a central shop from which to purchase content at a reasonable rate.

 

As the judgment suggested that rights holders cannot partition markets on a Member State basis, a potential issue raised was whether geo-blocking is now illegal, as it uses technology to prevent users from certain countries accessing internet content. Further clarity on this, on whether commercial licenses from other countries are acceptable and other questions is expected when the case returns to the High Court for a final judgement.

 

 

EDITORS NOTES

 

1. The ‘Emergency Briefing: CJEU Ruling on Sport, IP & Broadcasting Rights’ was organised by World Sports Law Report, World Online Gambling Law Report, E-Commerce Law & Policy and Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP. It took place at the London offices of Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP on 20 October.

 

2. For more information on future Cecile Park Conferences events, click here or contact David Longford on +44 (0) 20 7012 1384.

 

3. The two Karen Murphy judgments, cases C-403/08 and C-429/08 are available from the Court of Justice of the European Union internet site.

Sporting Organisations are cooperating closer than ever before in efforts to tackle corruption caused by illegal betting, it emerged at Sport & Gambling 2011, an annual conference organised by World Sports Law Report and World Online Gambling Law Report on 29 September. However, opinion was divided on whether an international body similar to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is needed to oversee integrity issues; whether minimum guidelines for sport and gambling operators are needed; or whether closer cooperation between all concerned parties is sufficient.

 

Huw Roberts, Legal Counsel for the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), revealed that the IAAF and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) are to develop an integrity enforcement programme within the next 12 months, ahead of the London 2012 Olympics. An IOC cross-sector international review group is also examining current international efforts to protect the integrity of sport, and will report its findings before the end of the year. The British Horseracing Authority (BHA) and the International Cricket Council (ICC) also agreed to share expertise in tackling corruption at Sport & Gambling 2011.

 

It was also revealed that international police organisation Interpol has been working with the International Cricket Council (ICC) and Great Britain’s Gambling Commission. “We have engaged with Interpol”, said Sir Ronnie Flanagan, Chairman of the ICC’s Anti-Corruption and Security Unit. “There is a possibility for a memorandum of understanding and other relationships”. Nick Tofiluk, Director of Regulation at Great Britain’s Gambling Commission, said it had been working with Interpol and European police organisations in an effort to take a more international approach to tackling corruption. “There is little to be gained by each national taking its own regulatory path”, he said. Interpol has recently been working with the IOC, FIFA and UEFA to investigate integrity issues. Rick Parry, former Head of the Sports Betting Integrity Unit, backed the idea of pan-sport integrity units, pointing out that smaller sports do not have the finances to police integrity effectively.

 

Stephen Ketteley, a Partner at DLA Piper – the conference’s Gold Sponsor – pointed out that these issues are likely to get more complex due to a new approach to licensing gambling operators in Europe. He pointed out that operators will now need a licence for every country they wish to operate in, now that Great Britain and Europe have rejected the previous approach which only required an operator to be licensed in one regulated jurisdiction to offer services in all regulated jurisdictions. This approach was criticised by Nick Tofiluk. “I don’t see much point in duplicating the work if another regulator has already carried out tasks such as due diligence”, he said.

 

The importance of player education in combating corruption was also raised. “The best defence is if the player says no”, said Simon Taylor, General Secretary of the Professional Players Federation, who also criticised the IOC and WADA for failing to engage with athletes. “The IOC has excelled itself in working with gambling companies, but has failed to engage with athletes”, he said. “However, to be fair, the IOC has not really been active in this market until very recently. Do we need another WADA? WADA has also failed to engage with athletes.”

 

Sir Ronnie Flanagan also pointed out a ‘catch 22’ that existed with regards to policing against corruption. “The ICC anti-corruption unit is independent, however our remit is international cricket”, he said. “The more we protect international cricket, the more likely we are to displace risk to other parts of the game. The ECB [England and Wales Cricket Board] has created its own integrity unit. In terms of the IPL [Indian Premier League], we’ve no remit, but we’ve covered it because the organisers wanted us to. We need to be alive to this threat of displacement.”

 

• A detailed programme for Sport & Gambling 2011 is available by clicking here. Copies of the presentations are available by contacting David Longford either by email, or by phoning +44 (0)20 7012 1382.

 

• World Sports Law Report and World Online Gambling Law Report also run a number of tailored events designed for their respective industries. For more information, click here.

Andy Cunningham is Head of Integrity at Betfair and will be speaking at Sport & Gambling 2011, a conference taking place on 29 September at The Law Society in London. Andy will give a joint presentation on identifying suspicious betting patterns with Paul Scotney, Director of Integrity Services and Licensing at the British Horseracing Authority.

 

The conference is organised by World Sports Law Report and World Online Gambling Law Report. It will bring together key organisations from world sport to identify what gambling operators and sporting organisations can do to protect themselves against the possibility of corruption. The event is supported by Gold Sponsor DLA Piper and speakers include organisations such as:

 

• the British Gambling Commission;

• The International Association of Athletics Federations;

• French gambling regulator ARJEL;

• the Professional Players Federation;

• the British Horseracing Authority;

• Football DataCo;

• the British Sports Betting Integrity Panel;

• DLA Piper.

 

For a full programme, please click here. For more information on Sport & Gambling 2011, visit the conference page by clicking here.

 

In this interview, Andy outlines his background before joining Betfair, gives his view on how the gambling industry’s relationship has changed in the seven years he has been at Betfair and discusses whether an organisation such as the World Anti-Doping Agency is needed to tackle corruption in sport.

 

WSLR: Tell us a bit about your background...

AC: I graduated from University and started in the financial accounting world, joining Betfair in 2003. I have been there ever since, joining the Integrity Team in late 2004. I have progressed to head that team, which I have been doing for the last year.

I have a team of seven people, whose remit is to monitor all of the transactions on Betfair’s site and to investigate any unusual or suspect betting patterns. We liaise with sports governing bodies, regulators and law enforcement agencies, as appropriate, to help them carry out betting related integrity investigations.

In 2010 I spent six months in the US working for TVG, which was purchased by Betfair at the start of 2009. The company is one of the largest legal online pari-mutuel horseracing betting operators in the US. Whilst working for them I spent time engaging with horseracing regulators and implementing betting integrity related systems and procedures for the US pari-mutuel horseracing industry.

 

WSLR: What are you hoping to get out of the event?

AC: Networking with regulators and sports, primarily. I am sure that people will be there from some of the sports with which we have MOUs [Memorandums of Understanding] and also some of the regulators that we liaise with. I am also looking forward to networking with some of the other interesting parties that will be there. It will also be interesting to find out people’s latest views on the issues within the presentations.

 

WSLR: What do you anticipate questions on?

AC: My presentation will focus on what my team does to determine whether a bet is suspicious and the process of investigation that follows from that. I will talk about our MOUs and how we liaise with sport, regulators and law enforcement agencies if required. It’s difficult to predict what I might get questions on.

 

WSLR: What have been the biggest changes in sport’s relationship with gambling that you have seen?

AC: There has been increased cooperation on integrity related issues since I joined Betfair. Our number of MOUs has increased since 2004 when I joined the team – we now have them with 48 sporting bodies worldwide. Sports recognise that if they sign an MOU it acts as a safeguard in the fight against corruption. Most of the time we never have to use a MOU, but it allows us to share information with the sport involved and carry out an effective investigation if there is a betting integrity related issue. There has also been increased understanding that when we are talking about corruption in betting and sport, there is a clear distinction between the legal market and the illegal market. Regulated online companies in the legal market - such as Betfair - go to great lengths to police integrity and liaise with sports. It is in our mutual interest with sport to do so.

A recent Sky Sports News match-fixing report interviewed 'fixing insiders' and any mention of betting was with reference to the illegal industry in Asia rather than from the legal industry, which is here to help. If somebody were to cheat with us, we will catch them.

There has also been increased cooperation on educational initiatives in sport. For example we work in partnership with the Professional Players Federation on educating players and Simon Taylor may well speak about our work in that area at Sport & Gambling. This is a very important topic.

 

WSLR: Do you think there will ever be an international ‘anti-corruption’ body regulating sport’s relationship with gambling, as WADA regulates sport’s relationship with drugs?

AC: To set up a WADA-type organisation to tackle corruption would be incredibly complex. Also, some sports have established effective integrity units which have excellent relationships with gambling operators. I do agree that an international mechanism to ease the cross-border sharing of information would help but there are legal challenges that need to be overcome in this respect.

 

WSLR: Can sport and gambling’s relationship be mutually beneficial?

AC: From an integrity perspective, I believe sport and gambling’s relationship is already mutually beneficial. As described above it is in our interest as a licensed betting operator to help keep sport free from corruption. Gambling and sport has always had a kind of symbiotic relationship and I think it will continue to do so.

 

Interview by: Andy Brown

 

Alex McLeish recently resigned as Manager of Birmingham City to join rival Aston Villa, citing constructive dismissal as his reason for terminating his contract prematurely. Meena Botros, an Associate with Norton Rose LLP, examines what constitutes constructive dismissal and previous case law involving football managers who have claimed that by its conduct, a club has breached its contract.

If you are a subscriber to World Sports Law Report, click here to access the article. Click here to sign up for a free trial to World Sports Law Report.

Transparency is key to effective policing of player contracts, highlighted major sports organisations at Player Contracts 2011, a World Sports Law Report conference that took place in London on 7 July. Sporting bodies present included FIFA, UEFA, the European Club Association (ECA), FIFPro, the International Cricket Council, the Irish Rugby Football Union and more. The main points raised were:

 

• FIFA’s Transfer Matching System (TMS) needs to make changes to ensure financial transparency within the TMS system;

• UEFA’s Financial Fair Play regulations are unlikely to be effective and will cement the position of the richest clubs;

• Clubs are declaring their players as amateurs in order to avoid scrutiny under the TMS;

• TMS to be extended to include international transfer of female professionals and futsal players;

• More needs to be done to protect young players from exploitation;

• Training compensation is hampering big clubs from selling players to smaller clubs;

• Regulations on third party investment in football need clarifying;

• More needs to be done to compensate clubs for injuries attained during international duty.

 

In its presentation on its Transfer Matching System, FIFA highlighted that 4,600 clubs now use the TMS, which became mandatory for international transfers in 2010.  However, it was agreed that more needs to be done to ensure financial transparency in the system. FIFA said that it was working on a system whereby clubs would specify ‘approved accounts’ for player transfers, so that clubs could be confident that money was being paid to legitimate bank accounts.

 

The European Club Association (ECA) said it had evidence that payments are being made to third parties. It said FIFA needs to do more than the TMS requirement for clubs to tick a box agreeing not to make payments to third parties. “A box is a box”, said Isabelle Solal, Head of Integrity & Compliance for FIFA Transfer Matching System GmbH. “It is something we can use as evidence that a club has lied. It is something that we plan to use going forward during investigations.”

 

FIFA and the ECA also revealed they have evidence that clubs are getting around prohibitions on the transfer of young players by arranging jobs for player parents. FIFA Regulations prevent the international transfer of a player under the age of 16, unless the parents of the player move to a new country. FIFA and the ECA said that jobs are being arranged for parents, who move to a new country only for a local club to sign their son shortly after his 16^th birthday. In its presentation on protecting youth players, the ECA cited the cases of Paraguayan Carlos Javier Acuna Caballero, whose mother was allegedly offered a job in Cadiz prior to the player’s 16^th birthday ahead of FC Cadiz’s contract with the player after his 16^th birthday. The ECA also revealed that the Dutch authorities are investigating the transfer of Nathan Ake from Feyenoord to Chelsea, who was allegedly pictured on a football agent’s internet site at Chelsea’s Stamford Bridge ground prior to his 16^th birthday.

 

Delegates from smaller clubs raised a peculiar problem caused by FIFA’s requirement for compensation to be paid for the training of a player. Young players trained by a big club can often find themselves stranded, as smaller clubs cannot afford to pay the compensation. The abandonment of young players abroad was also raised as a potential problem, especially as UEFA’s Financial Fair Play Regulations are leading clubs to pursue ever-younger players in order to save money.

 

Other sessions discussed the impact of the Bribery Act on player contracts; managing rival competitions and calculating compensation for contract breaches.

 

Andy Brown

The recent rise in social media has enabled players to get closer than ever to their fans, and vice-versa. Leslie Ross examines the dangers that holds, recent incidents involving social media and sport's policies on its use. She also examines sport's rules on social media use in the light of freedom of expression legislation and whether instant messaging can be regulated by sport, as it is a 'private' form of social media.

If you are a subscriber to World Sports Law Report, click here to access the full article, or click here to sign up for a free trial. 

The International Cricket Council recently delivered its verdict in the spot-fixing case against three Pakistan cricketers, imposing sanctions of varying severity. Amrut Joshi, an Advocate who heads the sports practice at MMB Legal, examines the charges brought against the players, the evidence against them and how sanctions were determined by considering both 'aggravating and mitigating factors', as required by the ICC's Anti-Corruption Code. Joshi also comments on steps that could be taken by the ICC to prevent such a situation from arising in the future.

If you are a subscriber to World Sports Law Report, click here to access the full article, or click here to sign up for a two-week free trial. 

We asked members of World Sports Law Report's editorial board to highlight what they think will be the main sports law issues during 2011. In this article, they set out their responses.

If you are a subscriber to World Sports Law Report, click here to access the full article, or click here to sign up for a two-week free trial. 

Issues such as the regulation of player agents, clenbuterol doping and compensation for players injured on international duty need urgent resolution, heard delegates at Player Issues: Regulations & Contracts 2010, a World Sports Law Report conference hosted by Hammonds LLP on 14 October.

 

The quality of speakers and information available was praised by delegates. “There are many journals and conferences around that cover sports law, however you will struggle to find one that goes into the level of detail analysed by World Sports Law Report”, said Omar Yabroudi, Crystal Palace FC. “This event was perfect for my needs.”

 

Paolo Lombardi highlighted that FIFA’s decision to regulate intermediaries used during player transfers constituted – contrary to media reports – a strengthening of regulations governing use of player agents, as only 30% of international transfers utilise licensed FIFA Agents under the present regime. “If FIFA is prepared to tear down the barriers to entry for player agents, then that indicates that it wants to focus attention on every single transaction instead”, said Lombardi, CEO of sports advisory business SportsTeam and former Head of Disciplinary & Governance at FIFA. “Is FIFA giving up on agents? Perhaps. Is it giving up on protecting football? No. Will this have a positive effect? Only time will tell.”

 

Roberto Branco Martins, General Manager of the European Association of Football Agents (EAFA), disputed this view, arguing the dangers of an unregulated “wild west” environment. He also pointed out that whilst it is laudable that FIFA prohibit fees for work with minors, they do not limit the length of a player representation contract, meaning that an agent can sign a ten year contract with a young player. He argued that FIFA should engage the EAFA in amending the regulations.

 

There was also controversy over regulations which state that 3% of a transfer fee may be paid to an agent. “If the intention is to create transparency, then the regulations must also be realistic”, said Martins. “Currently agent commission falls between 5% and 10% of the transfer fee. There are also issues to be resolved with agents retaining the economic rights to players in some countries.”

 

In a two-part doping session, Mike Morgan of Hammonds LLP pointed out the dangers of athletes accidentally ingesting clenbuterol – a banned substance illicitly used in segments of the farming industry to increase the growth rate of livestock and keep meat lean. Clenbuterol remans present in contaminated meat and can therefore result in a positive test for a Prohibited Substance under the World Anti-Doping Code. Three times Tour de France winner Alberto Contador recently tested positive for clenbuterol, but argues he ingested it through contaminated meat. Morgan also revealed to delegates that the US Olympic Committee had shipped 11,000kg of meat to Beijing for the 2008 Olympics because of concerns over Chinese meat and, amongst other things, the potential risk it posed to athletes subject to doping control tests. He contemplated whether anti-doping authorities might be able to develop an analytical test to distinguish clenbuterol administered directly from clenbuterol ingested inadvertently following the consumption of contaminated meat.

 

Speaking on compensation for player injuries, Peter Limbert of Hammonds LLP said that it is “only a matter of time” before clubs challenge the lack of compensation available for injuries to players whilst on international duty. He pointed out that Bayern Munich is considering legal action after Captain Mark van Bommel returned injured from international duty and that Arsenal are also keen to pursue compensation for an injury to Robin van Persie.

 

Compensation for breach of contract was also a hot topic. Adam Lewis QC, of Blackstone Chambers, suggested that Article 17 of FIFA’s Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players could be challenged as a breach of competition law. “Under FIFA rules, it is acceptable to have system to compensate actual loss for breach of contract without just cause [Article 17 of FIFA's 'Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players], as long as it tallies with national law”, he said. “Even now, CAS arbitrators would arrive at different conclusions as to what constitutes ‘actual loss’ due to different national regulations on how to calculate this. There is therefore an argument that an award under Article 17 that is deemed to go beyond actual loss could be challenged as a possible breach of competition law.”

 

 David Douglas, Chairman of the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA) Disciplinary Committee, also cleared up the confusion over the release of information to the respondents connected to its allegations that John Higgins had agreed to throw frames. “This was a purely practical consideration by the News of the World in order to keep control of the information while the case was ongoing”, said Douglas, a former investigating officer for the Metropolitan Police and hostage negotiator. Douglas provided delegates with a fascinating insider's account of the integrity tribunal, highly praising Sports Resolutions UK and tribunal chair, Ian Mill QC, who resolved the issue of disclosure of information that allowed the News of the World to hand over its information to the lawyers representing John Higgins and Pat Mooney.

 

Player Issues: Regulations & Contracts is an annual event organised by World Sports Law Report and hosted by Hammonds LLP.

 

World Sports Law Report offers free monthly sports law updates via email. Signing up takes seconds and can be done by clicking here.

 

For more information about World Sports Law Report and WSLR-organised events, please contact Ngaio Claris on +44(0) 207 012 1382.

The 'exclusive' broadcast model favoured by the English Premier League is currently facing a number of challenges from regulators, who are concerned about the restrictions it places on competition. In this second instalment of a two-part article, Tom Evens, Daniel Geey, Katrien Lefever and Ben Van Rompuy explain how court cases involving the use of decoders to view foreign broadcasts of English Premier League football could open the football broadcasting market to Europe-wide competition. They explain how this could ruin the territory-based sport broadcast sales model, and explain how the Dutch Eredivisie's approach could offer a viable alternative.

To read the full article, sign up for a two-week free trial to World Sports Law Report by clicking here.

Portsmouth's financial difficulties last season held some important lessons for football clubs entering a Corporate Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) with creditors in order to avoid insolvency. Trevor Watkins, Head of Sport at Clarke Willmott and recognised for his role in leading AFC Bournemouth out of receivership, analyses how the Portsmouth situation evolved, Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs (HMRC) opposition to the club's CVA and to the preferential treatment the 'football creditors' rule offers to creditors within football over ordinary creditors. He also explains why some CVAs are acceptable to HMRC while others are not, and explains why the Portsmouth saga may not yet be over.

To read the full article, sign up for a two-week free trial to World Sports Law Report by clicking here.

The 'exclusive' broadcast model favoured by the English Premier League is currently facing a number of challenges from regulators, who are concerned about the restrictions it places on competition. In this first instalment of a two-part article, Tom Evens, Daniel Geey, Katrien Lefever and Ben Van Rompuy explain the current challenges facing the Premier League and how the Dutch Eredivisie's decision to wholesale its own channel to could offer an alternative that placates regulators.

To access the full article, sign up for a free trial to World Sports Law Report by clicking here. World Sports Law Report is also organising Player Issues: Regulations & Contracts, a conference taking place at the London offices of Hammonds on 14 October. For more information, click here.

The 2010 FIFA World Cup highlighted the increasing trend of footballers choosing to play for countries other than those in which they were born. Ryan S. Hilbert and Ricardo Gentzsch compare the nationality rules of FIFA and UEFA with those of the IOC, in the light of Court of Arbitration for Sport rulings which state that the possibility of changing nationality must remain open to athletes. They also suggest possible changes to football's regulations that may assist it with its aim of preserving the strength of national teams.

To access the full article, sign up for a free trial to World Sports Law Report by clicking here. World Sports Law Report is also organising Player Issues: Regulations & Contracts, a conference taking place at the London offices of Hammonds on 14 October. For more information, click here.

The sports industry and bookmakers are cooperating more than ever before in their efforts to eradicate corruption and provide a fair return to sport, it emerged at Sport, Gambling & Sponsorship, a World Sports Law Report Briefing on 14 September. However, although united in this common aim, issues such as who should be responsible for convicting betting cheats and what constitutes a fair return to sport from gambling still need to be tackled.

 

Nick Tofiluk, Director of Regulation at the Gambling Commission, told delegates that although 108 cases of suspicious betting were reported to the Commission between 1 September 2007 and 31 March 2010, 60 have been closed due either adequate action being taken by a sports governing body or lack of evidence to secure a conviction. Just one conviction has been secured to date in relation to greyhound racing, and eight cases remain active, including two involving snooker. Tofiluk said that criminal investigations against sport are often discontinued because sports governing bodies can deal with the issue. “Criminal investigations are costly, lengthly and it is often difficult to predict the outcome”, he said. “In many cases, the standard of evidence does not reach the standard required to secure a criminal conviction”.

 

Nic Coward, Chief Executive of the British Horseracing Authority, underlined the importance of the levy in providing a financial return to horseracing from betting, and said that the concept should be extended to all sport. He expressed dismay that many of the major players in the industry – such as William Hill – had decided to locate their online operations offshore, depriving the horseracing industry of potential levy revenues. “We need to break out of this ludicrous and destructive cycle that we are in”, said Coward, referring to the situation whereby bookmakers located in Great Britain must contribute to the horseracing levy, while those receiving a licence through the ‘whitelist’ of approved foreign jurisdictions escape the levy. “Our focus is on securing a fair return for horseracing, but we would also like to see a fair return to all sports”. Under the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (as amended), the Horserace Levy Betting Board collects monetary contributions from bookmakers and the Tote via a levy, which it then distributes for the improvement of horseracing.

 

Coward pressed the point that a holistic approach is needed to any review of the current levy system encompassing all sports. He advocated “the creation of a modern market in which betting operators wanting to offer a bet must enter into enforceable contracts for the right to do so”. France’s Code du Sport, which allows sporting event organisers control over the ‘right to offer bets’, was held up as an example of how this can work. It even has European Commission approval, as confirmed by another speaker, Gianluca Monte, a Policy Advisor to the European Commission’s Sports Unit.

 

Many thanks to all of our speakers, delegates and to gambling regulatory experts Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP, who hosted today’s event in an amazingly equipped conference room at their London offices and were instrumental in securing speakers.

 

For the full programme and speaker list, click here. If you are interested in receiving a copy of the presentations, please email me.

 

Andy Brown

Since 1998, the National Collegiate Athletics Association has used the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) System to decide which ten teams will compete in a playoff system to determine the college football champion in the US. The BCS uses polls and computer selection methods to determine team rankings and to determine which 10 teams from each of the six BCS conferences and five other college football conferences will compete to become champion.

College football is very popular in the US – in 2008, the average attendance for NCAA Division I FBS football was 46,971, and ABC’s coverage of the Alabama’s 37-21 defeat of Texas in the BCS Championship Game attracted a TV rating of 17.2, or 19.7 million households. This illustrates that college football is very lucrative in the US and is vital to the funding of education.

However, the BCS system is not without its critics. In this article, Sports Management Degrees points out ten flaws with the BCS system as opposed to a regular playoff system.

 

Andy Brown

Four golfers have filed a lawsuit with the Singapore Supreme Court against the Asian Tour's ban on players taking part in other tournaments.

To access the full article, click here. If you are not a World Sports Law Report subscriber but would like to activate a two-week free trial, click here.

Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs (HMRC) will pursue its challenge to Football Association Premier League's rules requiring clubs to pay football creditors in full in the event of administration, despite losing a High Court case ([2010] EWHC 2013 (Ch)) against Portsmouth's Company Voluntary Agreement (CVA). The case is due to be heard in November.

To access the full article, click here. If you are not a World Sports Law Report subscriber but would like to activate a two-week free trial, click here.

A number of expert speakers will address delegates attending Sport, Gambling & Sponsorship 2010, a World Sports Law Report event that will be hosted at the London offices of Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP on 14 September.

To access the full article, click here. If you are not a World Sports Law Report subscriber but would like to activate a two-week free trial, click here.

On 6 July, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) signed a Joint Declaration of Cooperation in the Fight against Doping in Sport. This agreement aims to facilitate voluntary cooperation between WADA and IFPMA member companies, to identify medicinal compounds with doping potential, minimise misuse of medicines still in development, improve the flow of relevant information and facilitate development of detection methods in the context of the fight against doping in sport.

To access the full article, click here. If you are not a World Sports Law Report subscriber but would like to activate a two-week free trial, click here.

On Thursday and Friday last week, I attended an excellent conference entitled Law, Policy and the Olympic Movement at Ithaca College’s London Centre, which raised too many interesting issues about the regulation of Olympic sport to summarise in one blog posting. Here is a summary of some of them;

·         Lack of redress for Olympic athletes. It was suggested that as the Court of Arbitration for Sport is only an arbitration body, it can only assess whether the rules of a sporting body have been correctly applied. If an athlete has a real dispute with a sporting body (i.e. one not involving correct application of the rules but legal principles), then their only route is through the courts, yet the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) Charter reads ‘Any dispute arising on the occasion of, or in connection with, the Olympic Games shall be submitted exclusively to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, in accordance with the Code of Sports-Related Arbitration’.

 

·         That risk assessment costs in connection with hosting the Olympic Games might one day outstrip the benefit of hosting the Games. Local organising committees are increasingly transferring risk and costs to the private sector through agreement with corporations (e.g. LOCOG’s agreement with CLM). It was mentioned that although the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics was the first Games to use Enterprise Risk Management techniques, London 2012 will be the first Games to place managing risk at the centre of its strategic planning. Risk management is expected to become a serious issue for the Rio 2016 Olympics.

 

·         Gene doping is expected to become a serious issue. Kate Miller of Southern Illinois University presented research which revealed that Zinc-Finger Nucleases could be used to ‘knock out’ part of the human genome, allowing gene editing that would be almost impossible to detect. More information is available here.

 

·         Sport needs a separate body to protect its common ethics, as ethics commissions set up by international federations (such as FIFA) and international sport organisations (IOC) can only investigate ethics internally, said Hilary Findlay, Associate Professor at the Department of Sport Management, Centre for Sport and Law, Brock University. This theme was later picked up by Simon Boyes of Nottingham Trent University’s Law Department, who highlighted the need for a Global Sports Charter, which would define what makes sport specific from other areas of human activity. It was suggested that this document could then be used by sporting organisations to defend themselves in tort.

 

I was very impressed with the level and variety of debate at the conference, which marked a clear departure from the normal conference programme of ‘something on sponsorship, something on stadiums, something on TV rights, something on finance’ format of so many of today’s sport business conferences. I was also impressed by the friendly and relaxed atmosphere of Ithaca College and its staff, especially Bill Sheasgreen and John Wolohan – many thanks for inviting me along.

  

Andy Brown

Anti-doping experts from around the globe will address Tackling Doping in Sport, a unique event organised by World Sports Law Report and Hammonds, taking place on 24 February at Hammonds’ London offices. Key speakers include Pat McQuaid, President of the Union Cycliste Internationale; Travis Tygart, Chief Executive of the US Anti-Doping Agency; Andy Parkinson, Chief Executive of UK Anti-Doping; Françoise Dagouret, Manager of the Doping Free Sport Unit for SportAccord; Mike Earl, Doping Control Programme Manager for England’s Football Association; Simon Bowden, Anti-Doping Officer for England’s Rugby Football Union and more, listed here.

The conference is designed to address recent developments in the fight against doping, such as the use of athlete biological passports and whether blood profiling alone can be used to convict an athlete of doping, such as in the case of Claudia Pechstein. The conference will also discuss the use of intelligence in the fight against doping, such as the recent alliance between Canadian border police and the International Olympic Committee for the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics.

Doping and privacy will also be another major topic, especially the World Anti-Doping Agency’s regulations which equate three failures to report your whereabouts with a doping violation.

London’s 2012 anti-doping strategy will be debated, as will whether a distinction needs to be made within anti-doping regulations between performance-enhancing and recreational drugs. For a full programme, click here.

As might be expected, delegate spaces for such a detailed programme are selling out fast. For more information on attending, contact Erika Joyce on +44 (0)20 7012 1383.

 

The UK government's plan to require all overseas-based gambling operators to be licensed by the Gambling Commission could affect sports sponsorship and advertising, as it will require European gambling advertisers to obtain a licence and contribute towards regulatory costs.

To read the full article in the January edition of World Sports Law Report, click here.

Under World Anti-Doping Agency rules, failure to submit to sample collection for doping control purposes constitutes an anti-doping rule violation. Mike Morgan, a Solicitor with Hammonds, examines recent case law to explain that seemingly innocuous actions by athletes - such as taking a shower or attending a private team talk once in the presence of Doping Control Officers - can result in such an anti-doping rule violation.

The full article appears in the November edition of World Sports Law Report here.

 

Corporations pay millions to exclusively sponsor events such as the FIFA 2010 World Cup South Africa, however ambush marketing by non-sponsors keen to associate themselves with popular events threatens that revenue. In the final instalment of three articles, Michael Murphy, a Partner with Bowman Gilfillan, examines recent South African case law regarding ambush marketing by corporations keen to associate themselves with FIFA events.

The full article appears in the November edition of World Sports Law Report here.

Peter Limacher, UEFA’s Head of Disciplinary Services, revealed that UEFA is currently investigating 40 potential cases of match fixing at World Sports Law Report’s ‘Sport, Betting & Sponsorship’ Briefing on Friday. “We have identified 40 matches in the last four seasons that are regarded as suspicious”, Limacher told delegates. “We have 16 betting analysts working full time on this problem in London”.

 

Limacher outlined UEFA’s Fraud Detection System in a detailed presentation that received international coverage from media organisations such as the Press Association, the Associated Press, Agence France Press and a number of international newspapers.

 

Simon Barker, a Senior Executive of the Professional Footballers Association and a Director of the Professional Players Federation – which represents player associations in the UK – revealed that in his experience, footballers do not often understand the rules regarding acceptable and unacceptable betting. He said that in his opinion, this had been the case regarding the five Accrington Stanley footballers recently charged by the Football Association. Delegates highlighted education of athletes regarding sports betting rules to be of paramount importance.

As could have been predicted, betting operators did not support the idea of creating a new right for sporting organisations to be able to sell to betting operators keen to offer bets. Delegates also expected an appeal from Bwin against the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) judgment in Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional, Bwin International Ltd, formerly Baw International Ltd, v Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa. This appeal is regarded as important, as the ECJ’s ruling appears to suggest that gambling operators sponsoring sporting tournaments might wish to influence their outcome. ‘An operator which sponsors some of the sporting competitions on which it accepts bets and some of the teams taking part in those competitions may be in a position to influence their outcome directly or indirectly, and thus increase its profits’, reads the ruling.

Delegates were split on whether an organisation similar to the World Anti-Doping Agency should be set up to combat corruption in sport related to betting.

Andy Brown

 

 

In what is set to be an interesting session, Simon Barker, a Director of the Professional Players Federation, will speak alongside UEFA’s Head of Disciplinary Services, Peter Limacher, about how integrity panels can help police against suspicious betting. As the Professional Players Federation represents many of the largest player associations in the UK, Barker will provide the view of professional athletes on the use of integrity panels, in contrast to the sporting federation’s view, provided by Limacher.

 

Henry Burgess, Head of International Sport at the Department for Culture, Media & Sport will join a panel session considering whether an organisation similar to the World Anti-Doping Agency – which policies against illegal doping – should be set up to combat corruption due to betting.

 

To view the full programme for the day, click here, or contact Erika Joyce for more information. Hope to see you there!

 

Andy Brown

 

The Football Association Premier League (FAPL) has yet to decide whether it will pursue statutory damages, after it won the right to claim them from YouTube for broadcasting its live games. In a 7 July ruling, a US district court said that FAPL could claim statutory damages under the 'live broadcast exemption' of the Copyright Act. The exemption entitles FAPL to claim up to $150,000 per work infringed.
The full version of this article appears in the August edition of World Sports Law Report.

 

FIFA, the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the FA Premier League, FIFPro and more will address World Sports Law Report’s second Player Issues: Contracts & Regulations full-day briefing, which will be hosted at the London offices of Hammonds LLP on 1 July.

Mariana Jonsson, Group Leader and Legal Counsel for FIFA; Mike Forde, Performance Director at Chelsea FC; James MacDougall, European and International Officer with the Central Council for Physical Recreation (CCPR) and Stephen Sampson, Partner, Hammonds LLP will address the identification of young talent and measures tackling the international transfer of minors.

Stephan Netzle, an Arbitrator with the Court of Arbitration for Sport; Theo van Seggelen and Wil van Megen of FIFPro and Peter Limbert of Hammonds LLP will examine compensation in football – in particular, the Matuzalem and Webster rulings.

Jane Purdon, Company Secretary for the FA Premier League; Mariana Jonsson from FIFA and Rodrigo Garcia of Spanish sports law experts Cuatrecasas will examine third party ownership in sport.

Other speakers will include Professor Ulrich Battis, co-author of the controversial Institute for European Affairs report backing FIFA’s ‘6+5’ proposal, which limits the amount of overseas players that clubs can sign. The proposal has recently received the backing of FIFA’s Congress. Ian Smith, Legal Director for the Professional Cricketers’ Association will also explain the International Cricket Council’s difficulties in policing new unauthorised forms of cricket.

For a full programme, click here and for more information, contact Erika Joyce on +44 (0)20 7012 1383.

 

Foot Anstey Solicitors is organising a Sports Law Conference based at their offices in Plymouth, with proceeds dedicated to Childen's Hospice South West, who provide the only hospice care in the South West for children with life-limiting conditions. The programme will include:
• The World Anti-Doping Code: considering its implications;
• Securing and Managing Sponsorship in the Credit Crunch: protecting your name and brand;
• Dealing with On-Field and Off-Field Incidents;
• Child Protection Issues: a review of the current law;
• When Tax Gets Taxing: tips for the sporting sector.
World Sports Law Report is proud to count itself as a supporter of this conference. For more information on speakers and a full conference programme, click here.
 

 Jon Varney of Premier Rugby and Nick Cusack from the Professional Footballers’ Association will speak at The Credit Crunch: Implications for Sport, a World Sports Law Report full-day briefing to be held at the London offices of K&L Gates on 8 May.

The global recession has hit financial institutions - one of the main benefactors for top level sport - especially hard. It has also resulted in the public cutting back on luxuries and for many, sport is an expensive luxury – this has been illustrated by many clubs freezing ticket prices in an attempt to halt attendance decline. The recession follows a financially tough season for domestic rugby union, which took place in 2007 despite players and fans decamping to France for the Rugby World Cup.

Football is also more than £3 million in debt, according to Lord Triesman, Chairman of the Football Association. UEFA is considering amending its club licensing system to stop clubs amassing unacceptable levels of debt. Many clubs began the 2008/9 season without a sponsor and many clubs are facing administration due to financial difficulties – the latest being Southampton, whose parent company went into administration recently.

Our Briefing will examine issues that sport will have to deal with due to the recession, such as restructuring of sponsorship and player contracts; methods of coping with declining revenue; the impact that the current economic climate has had on London 2012; maximising media revenue through combating piracy; impact on club investment and more.

In the spirit of the Briefing, we are also offering a £100 discount on the usual price of attendance, plus additional delegates can attend for £100 each.

For a full programme and a list of speakers, please visit our site, or contact Erika Joyce on +44(0)20 7012 1383.

 The Sports Law Centre at the University of Nice Sophia-Antipolis is organising a briefing on 16 January in Nice about the ‘specificity of sport’. The aim of this briefing is to analyse the notion of specificity of sports in order to justify a particular legal treatment of sports activities.

Speakers include Frédéric Thiriez, President of the Ligue de Football Professionnel; Patrick Baumann, Secretary General of the international basketball federation (FIBA); Jérôme Champagne, FIFA’s Director of International Relations; Jonathan Hill, UEFA’s Director of European Affairs. Delegates include: FIFA, UEFA, FIBA, the French Basket-Ball Federation, law firms and more.

For more information, including a full programme, click here or send an e-mail to Marc Peltier, Director of the Sports Law Centre.

Readers of World Sports Law Report will know that the journal features insightful - and sometimes exclusive - news articles, plus features examining current issues in sports law written by expert lawyers. However, at Christmas time - after a few mince pies and a glass of sherry - we decide to do something different and ask the esteemed members of our editorial board to make predictions about what the main issues facing sports lawyers will be during the coming year.

This year, I decided to have a go myself, however as our editorial board supplied more than enough predictions to include in the print journal, I decided to omit mine. So here they are:

The global recession will hit expensive luxury products especially hard, and for many, football is an expensive luxury product. We have already seen empty seats and blank jerseys this season, as the financial supporters of the beautiful game cut back on luxuries. However, football fans are loyal and will find new, cheaper, methods of consumption. 2009 is perhaps a bit early for the Premier League to adjust its tried and tested rights model to accommodate the increasing threat that free (illegal) internet coverage presents, however it is expected that smaller sporting clubs and organisations will adopt increasingly innovative methods of getting bums on seats and cash in banks.

Sport is already considering how it can generate revenue from betting – which is predicted to be less affected by the economic downturn than other economic areas – and much debate will ensue over whether event organisers can sell a ‘right to bet’ to operators keen to offer odds on events. Corruption in sport will continue to follow the same road as doping in sport, and whether an organisation similar to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) should be set up to police this area will attract serious debate.

The protection of the privacy of athletes under the revised WADA Code will also attract further examination at a regulatory level. Finally, I predict - and hope - that World Sports Law Report will continue to stay ahead of the pack in reporting on all of these developments.

I think that about sums it up, however it was interesting to note that Gareth Southgate made similar predictions about a recession hitting football following my considerations on what the major issues would be. As manager of a club in an industrial city without a rich overseas benefactor, Southgate should be acutely aware of any approaching ‘football recession’.

December’s edition of World Sports Law Report – which is now available on our internet site – contains predictions from Luca Ferrari of Studio LCA in Milan; Richard McLaren of the University of Western Ontario; Mike Morgan of Hammonds; David Zeffman of Olswang; and Michael Stirling of Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP. They provide an interesting insight into where sport may be heading in 2009. One thing that is certain – recession or boom – is that people will continue to play and support sport and with that thought in mind, have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Andy Brown

Howard Stupp, the International Olympic Committee's (IOC) Director of Legal Affairs and Andy Parkinson, UK Sport's Acting Director of Drug Free Sport will be available at Tackling Doping in Sport to discuss the IOC's recent decision to re-test samples taken at the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games for CERA - a form of EPO used for blood doping.

Jonathan Crystal, Barrister for Dwain Chambers, will provide a case study. Sprinter Dwain Chambers will also attend.

Jonathan Harris, Anti-Doping Manager for the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, will also provide an overview of plans to tackle doping at London 2012.

The Briefing, to be held at the London Offices of Charles Russell LLP on 22 October, will also discuss how the new version of the World Anti-Doping Code, which comes into effect from 1 January, will allow sporting organisations to implement a four-year maximum ban for intentional doping, rather than the current two-year maximum.

Delegates include: FIFA, the England & Wales Cricket Board, the British Equestrian Federation, the Amateur Swimming Association, UK Athletics, the Royal Yachting Association and, of course, numerous law firms. For more information, including a full programme, click 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

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