sports law Archives - Legal Cheek

How one Magic Circle lawyer helped kick off a global sports law practice

Tue, 02 Sep 2025 06:54:06 +0000

Linklaters’ Shamin Choudhury, managing associate and co-head of the firm’s global sports sector group, discusses building a sports law niche at a Magic Circle firm, the legal and commercial forces shaping the sector, and his advice for aspiring sports lawyers

Linklaters’ Shamin Choudhury

“We officially set up the sports practice in 2019,” recalls Shamin Choudhury, managing associate and co-head of Linklaters’ global sports sector group. He and a veteran partner spotted sports deals ballooning in value and complexity to the point a Magic Circle firm could add real value and apply global expertise. Armed with that insight and a passion for sport, Choudhury helped grow Linklaters’ sports law offering as a newly qualified solicitor — and he’s been at the heart of its growth ever since.

Choudhury, a former state school student who studied law at Warwick University, admits he “didn’t quite enjoy” the dry academic side of his degree until a practical law-and-business module hooked him and made him see a future as a solicitor. By graduation, he still hadn’t secured a training contract. Instead, he took six months to travel and worked briefly as a temporary paralegal at Goldman Sachs, an experience that gave him a glimpse of the finance world and how it operated.

He eventually landed a winter vacation scheme at Linklaters in late 2016, seated in structured finance — a department he jokes he “still doesn’t fully understand what every part of the team does” — which led to a training contract offer. During his training, Choudhury rotated through a series of transactional seats from banking to private equity, including a secondment in Dubai. “I always knew I was more of a transactional lawyer than a litigator,” he reflects. He qualified in March 2020 having just returned from secondment, just as Covid lockdowns hit which he says was an unusual start to life as a new associate.

Applications for Linklaters’ Winter, Spring and Summer Vacation Schemes are now open

Right as he qualified, an early mentor, partner Julian Davies, saw the sports sector on the cusp of something big. Sports deals were reaching sizes and levels of complexity where “it made sense for us to be involved,” Choudhury explains. So in 2019 Linklaters formed its dedicated sports sector team, with Davies spearheading and Choudhury handling much of the early legwork from the transactional side. What began as a speculative venture with an open “give it a go” mentality quickly gained momentum.

Choudhury continued his structured finance work (which often lent itself well to unique sports deals) even as sports mandates started to flow in. “We got a lot of mandates from various types of institutions in the sports space, and that’s where we really grew our practice,” he says of the early mix of sports-related M&A, regulatory and financing matters. In 2023, he spent nearly a year on secondment in New York, serving sports clients while further honing his finance skills. Having now worked in London, Dubai and New York, he brings a global perspective to the practice. Today, as co-head, he coordinates and works with a network of lawyers across the firm whenever a big sports deal comes in. “It’s not six or seven people sat in a corner doing sports work every day,” he points out. Instead, specialists from competition, litigation, corporate, finance and other teams assemble around each sports matter, marrying their expertise with a shared passion for the sector.

His client work is equally varied. One day might involve quietly chipping away at a long-running project; the next could bring urgent calls requiring quick thinking and reactive advice. “You’ve got to manage your day well,” Choudhury says, describing how he juggles steady deal work with ad hoc queries by setting priorities and pulling in colleagues as needed. Amid it all, he carves out time for business development, constantly looking for new opportunities and connections. He urges junior lawyers to do the same from early on: building confidence and a network is an ongoing part of the job, not something to leave until you’re senior.

Over the past few years, Choudhury has amassed an enviable roster of sports-related work. Much of it is confidential, but a few highlights can be shared. On the club side, he helped a long-term client go from minority ownership in 2021 to majority ownership of Norwich City FC by 2025. “We’ve assisted in the journey of acquiring a small piece to becoming the steward of the club,” he smiles, having guided the client through incremental share purchases and the maze of football regulations that come with club ownership. His team has also been involved in private equity investments across sports, including in league-based deals and media rights — though details remain under wraps. More recently, he’s advised on a deal spanning across women’s football, basketball, cricket with others in the practice advising in the fast-paced sphere of Formula 1. It’s an eclectic practice that, he jokes, makes his mainstream finance deals feel less exciting to others by comparison.

Choudhury sees a few major trends powering the sports law boom. “Women’s sport is front and centre for many now and represents a strong business opportunity,” he says, highlighting the surge in interest and investment in women’s leagues and clubs. Investment within and originating from the Arabian peninsula is another driver — countries in the region are pouring resources into sports at home and abroad, rapidly transforming the landscape. Then there’s the continued rise of competition law issues in sport. From breakaway leagues to clubs and players challenging regulations and laws, stakeholders are more alive than ever to their legal rights and increasingly willing to compete in legal forums. As deals get larger, “clubs, leagues and investors are getting more clued up about protecting their own interests,” he notes.

Applications for Linklaters’ Winter, Spring and Summer Vacation Schemes are now open

With these opportunities come challenges. One is the sheer volume of regulation: sports businesses must comply with layers of sporting rules on top of ordinary law. Another is bridging the cultural gap between traditional sports insiders and the finance-savvy investors now entering the arena. “These two groups have not typically worked closely together in the preceding decades,” Choudhury explains — and part of his job is translating between the passion of sport and the pragmatism of business. Finally, there’s often tension among stakeholders themselves. Sport is an inherently emotional investment, he notes. Owners who are fans at heart want to win trophies, which doesn’t always sit easily with the need for sustainable, profit-minded management of a pure business. Negotiating that balance is often important for a lawyer to understand — a rounded commercial view is a powerful tool for any lawyer, he notes.

For those keen on this field, Choudhury’s advice is straightforward. He emphasises that “sports law” isn’t a single defined discipline — “there’s no Sports Law Act,” he quips. Rather, it’s a collection of legal areas applied to a sports context. So focus on the aspect that excites you most — be it finance, regulation, media or something else – and get as much exposure to it as possible. That could mean writing about sports-related legal issues, volunteering with a sports organisation, or simply reading up extensively. Networking is also key. Choudhury encourages reaching out to people in the industry for insights — “nine times out of ten, they’ll say yes,” he notes — but he advises having a clear purpose when you do, rather than a vague request to chat. And don’t worry if your route isn’t linear. Choudhury himself took a winding path, and believes those extra experiences only helped. It’s a long career — “a marathon, not a sprint” as many of his mentors have advised over the years — and the world of sports law will reward genuine passion and the initiative to seize opportunities when they arise.

Shamin Choudhury will be speaking at ‘Behind the game: Explore sports law — with Linklaters’, a virtual student event taking place on Thursday 25 September, from 4pm to 6pm. APPLY NOW.

@linklaterscareersuk It’s Summer Vacation Scheme Season! Here are our Top Tips for Day 1: Arrive early – a little extra time helps you settle in and shows your enthusiasm Introduce yourself – greet your new colleagues and fellow schemers, and let your personality shine Dress professionally and comfortably – first impressions matter, so choose something professional that you feel good in Don’t forget your notebook and pen – you’ll want to capture key insights along the way Come along with Jess to see what a day on the scheme really looks like! #vacationscheme #linklaters #career ♬ House Glamor Fashion – PMsound

About Legal Cheek Careers posts.

The post How one Magic Circle lawyer helped kick off a global sports law practice appeared first on Legal Cheek.

]]>

White lines and harsh fines: cocaine and football banning orders

Fri, 27 Jun 2025 07:45:59 +0000

Aspiring criminal barrister Harry Toy takes a look at changes to football legislation

Football is coming home… or is it? In July 2021, England faced Italy in the final of the UEFA Euros 2020. Perhaps, to some, the game is regarded as one of England’s greatest football success stories in recent times (even though England lost!). Yet, despite the cause for celebration, it took a turn when extreme violence ensued.

The main problem was the popularity of the event, when thousands of supporters without tickets forced their way into Wembley Stadium. Ultimately leading to the Baroness Casey Review, which described the day as “sad and disgraceful in equal measure” as well as “a source of national shame”.

Later on, in the report, after surveying several eyewitnesses, they reported that illegal drug use (mainly cocaine) had become widespread and was being taken in plain sight. 47% of those surveyed said they saw illegal drug use upon arrival at Wembley Stadium. At first blush, readers of the report and media coverage might be inclined to think: (1) that cocaine use amongst football fans is commonplace; (2) that there is surely sufficient law to prevent such from happening. It is these two components that form the rest of this article.

Cocaine use amongst football fans

Cocaine, once upon a time, was not the primary drug of choice for football groups as it used to be ecstasy (otherwise known as Methylenedioxymethamphetamine or MDMA). However, fans turned to cocaine following a decline in its purity and then, subsequently, its price. Nowadays, the drug is firmly rooted within football culture, perhaps because of cocaine’s unique short-term effects, which provide a sense of euphoria and confidence . This is certainly the view of one Football Association (FA) Representative who said in Bandura’s et al research that:

“Cocaine use among football fans can give them a sense of euphoria and courage, the same as four, five, six, seven pints in a much smaller time frame”.

In that same vein, Newson’s study indicates that the consumption of cocaine amongst football fans is higher than the national average, and there is a link between cocaine and violence. Whilst it is acknowledged within the literature that cocaine cannot be the sole cause of violence, as there may be other variables, for instance, individual characteristics, the culture, or even poly-substance abuse, cocaine remains a risk factor for the cause of violence.

Want to write for the Legal Cheek Journal?

Find out more

Is the law sufficient to deal with the matter?

Well… prior to the events on 11 July 2021, the law was not broad enough to cover drug-related offences as ‘football related offences/disorder’ under Schedule 1 of the Football Spectators Act 1989. This schedule provides an exhaustive list of ‘relevant offences’ that will be subject to a football banning order. While, at the time, the Act did include numerous offences relating to alcohol and public order offences — it plainly ignored drug offences. As Daniel Greenberg CB put it in the Baroness Casey report:

“It is difficult to see any policy rationale for the very limited extent to which drugs-related disorderly behaviour is addressed by the existing FBO regime… given such disorder is as likely to be fuelled by drugs as by alcohol.”

With this being a core recommendation of the report, The Football Spectators (Relevant Offences) Regulations 2022 was passed, which incorporated possession of a controlled drug (Section 5 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971) and the supply of controlled drugs (Section 4(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971) into the Schedule 1 of the Football Spectators Act 1989.

What is a football banning order?

A football banning order is a complex piece of legislative drafting, with three statutory sections under the Football Spectators Act 1989. The first, pursuant to Section 14A, is a football banning order where the individual commits a ‘relevant offence’ (as contained in Schedule 1 of the Football Spectators Act 1989). The second, pursuant to Section 14B, is a banning order made in respect of a complaint by a relevant chief officer (e.g. a chief officer of police for any police force or a chief constable of the British Transport Police). The third, pursuant to Section 22 provides a banning order much like Section 14A yet applies to incidents that occur abroad, similar to those offences contained within Schedule 1.

The rationale for such banning orders was to be a deterrent to football violence. Despite this, there has been a rapid shift towards a more punitive approach. As Pearson and Scott assert:

“Football fans were once again guinea pigs for the development of novel legal instruments to attempt to manage social problems.”

Since their inception there have been persistent updates to Football Banning Orders, most recently under Section 192 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. This legislation changed the circumstances under which a Section 14A banning order should be issued. Previously, this was connected to regulated football match where the court must be satisfied that the imposition of the banning order will prevent violence or disorder. Now, the wording has changed to:

“The court must make a banning order in respect of the offender unless the court considers that there are particular circumstances relating to the offence or to the offender which would make it unjust in all the circumstances to do so.”

Here, the law has taken a huge step away from how the Act was originally intended. The aforementioned change is only one of many since its inception, which led James and Pearson to label these updated football banning orders as ‘super-FBOs’.

To that end, what extent should and does a football banning order apply under this new regime? At present, there is little appellate court authority to determine this, but to take previous authority, it seems that there may be a requirement to show that the offence in question has a connection to a football match (R v Doyle (Ciaran) and Others [2012] EWCA Crim 995). Therefore, how long before or after a football match does a relevant offence need to be in order to be subject to a football banning order? Similarly, in that same light, how close to a football match does a relevant offence need to be?

As a strict rule of thumb, it would be very difficult to say that all relevant offences in and around a football match will be subject to a football banning order. As it is clear from the wording of the new regime, each case will turn on its own facts. Yet the principle of connection still, in many respects, holds some water — although the statute in its new regime does not explicitly state this requirement.

With this conceptual boundary as to where and when a football banning order should take place, policy and policing measures to contain football disorder are informed by the Home Office statistics, which are at best lacklustre. First, they only consider the top end of the football pyramid — this does not address the full extent of football up and down the country. Second, in the context of drugs, the legislative change is still fairly recent, and it is difficult to suggest from a statistical point of view the extent of the problem.

Harry Toy is a first-class Law with Criminology graduate from Nottingham Trent University. He is an aspiring criminal barrister and has recently completed the BTC at Nottingham Law School with a scholarship for Academic Excellence. His LinkedIn account can be found here.

The Legal Cheek Journal is sponsored by LPC Law.

The post White lines and harsh fines: cocaine and football banning orders appeared first on Legal Cheek.

]]>

Corruption in the beautiful game

Fri, 14 Jun 2019 09:34:58 +0000

Much work still to be done before football’s reputation is restored, says Staffordshire University law student Naz Khan

Whilst it might be the ‘beautiful game’, an uglier side of football persists in the form of an undeniably persistent undercurrent of corruption. Revenues are expansive — some €22 billion (£19 billion) in Europe alone, incentivising the use of murky funding arrangements and myriad backroom deals in order to ensure regulatory oversight is kept to a minimum. Such corruption strangely remains a matter of public knowledge, demonstrated by a variety of decisions best explained by reference to an ulterior motive, most recently in the awarding of the 2022 World Cup to the State of Qatar, although historical examples are all but too prevalent.

There is little to indicate that corruption is merely a regional, nor state-wide phenomenon. Instead, since late 2015 more than 40 officials from FIFA — the sport’s international governing body — have been charged with corruption. Outcomes of the trials appear to confirm that such allegations are well-founded, with more than half of those arrested having already pleaded guilty, and other trials ongoing. Whilst it might be somewhat of a cliché to announce that a scandal goes all the way to the top of an organisation, FIFA has managed to fulfil the trope in its stride, with former FIFA president Sepp Blatter found to have made illegitimate payments to a rival for the presidency back in 2011. Investigations into Blatter and other FIFA officials regarding the 2018 and 2022 World Cup Finals remain ongoing.

The question which naturally arises as a result of ongoing corruption is how best to combat such practices. Whilst those that have already occurred are evidently matters for the judiciary, FIFA can be seen to have rolled out a variety of anti-corruption practices in response. At the centre of these provisions is the renewed FIFA Code of Ethics 2018, which aims to give teeth to a previously impotent system of regulation. Infringements which previously had an absolutely discretionary sanction attached now tote minimum and maximum sanction guidelines, with certain infringements, such as inappropriate gambling, carrying potentially unlimited sanctions. Further, the framework regarding match manipulation has been fleshed out, and provisions made to deal with infringements by senior officials more harshly.

Want to write for the Legal Cheek Journal?

Find out more

Nonetheless, it should be noted that FIFA has seen fit to include an anti-defamation clause covering all who are beholden to the Fédération, a perhaps unsubtle alteration, given the role of investigative journalism in uncovering the most infamous examples of corruption within its ranks. An Independent Ethics Committee with a renewed remit also appears to have arisen in response to the events earlier this decade. This is of little surprise — previous efforts of the Committee can be characterised by both in-fighting and a certain level of wilful incompetence, demonstrated by a decision in 2014 to refuse to disclose the results of its own investigation into the 2018/2022 World Cup bidding process, despite protestations from the author himself.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, FIFA have submitted to the need for external oversight, having commissioned an independent whistle-blowing organisation to established means by which concerned insiders might reach out. Of course, the success of whistleblowing is entirely dependent on the quality of the whistle-blower themselves, and indeed, if the public justice exhibited in recent years is anything to go by, any corrupt officials who remain will be highly motivated to maintain airtight secrecy.

Unfortunately, the UK also appears to be suffering from its own deficit of proper oversight. 2016 saw scandals involving the apparent possibility of third-party player ownership within the UK, and the dismissal of the England team’s shortest-lived manager as a result. More recently, a culture of deregulation can be seen to have taken hold, with a sharp growth in the size of the economy surrounding player transfers. Nevertheless, it can be asserted that the UK continues to exhibit a substantial framework of anti-corruption laws, helping to combat the growth of any malfeasance, although it might equally be asserted that the UK simply excels at hiding the corruption which does occur. Thus whilst organisations like the Transparency International UK might be engaged in aiding the FA in its efforts to maintain an even playing-field, a more robust framework would arguably benefit the process.

There is little doubt that the UK should take the opportunity to present itself as a model citizen whilst it has the chance. If it were to do so, it would distinguish itself against any background of inappropriate conduct. Even in an ostensibly post FIFA scandal world, football appears to still be tarred with the brush of corruption. The Nigerian Football Federation (NFF) can presently be seen to dismiss allegations of corruption levied against it by the state, indicating that power imbalances can deter even attentive governments. At the same time, state-led investigations into the conduct of Switzerland-based FIFA probes indicate that there are few facets of the sporting world which can remain free from the taint of corruption, despite assertions of virtue.

There remains much work to be done before football might be restored to a status befitting the dedication of its global fans, and whether the events of this decade will become a footnote or a precedent remain to be seen. Given the scale of corruption uncovered to date, it would appear that the future fate of the ‘beautiful game’ must be decided by all parties, big and small.

Naz Khan is a final year undergraduate law student at Staffordshire University and an LLM candidate at Durham University. Upon completion of his masters, he aspires to work as a barrister.

The post Corruption in the beautiful game appeared first on Legal Cheek.

]]>

Event: How to get into media and sports law

Mon, 25 Jun 2018 11:43:22 +0000

With 5RB’s Christina Michalos, Howard Kennedy’s Mark Stephens, RPC’s Joshua Charalambous, Wiggin’s Ross Sylvester and ULaw’s Peter Goodchild

On the evening of Thursday 12 July Legal Cheek is holding a free event for students interested in media and sports law.

Offering advice will be some of the country’s leading lawyers specialising across these practice areas, including 5RB media and sports law barrister Christina Michalos, Howard Kennedy sports and media lawyer Mark Stephens, Wiggin head of sports law Ross Sylvester, ULaw associate professor Peter Goodchild, who specialised in IP, new media and data protection as a solicitor at firms including Slaughter and May, and Joshua Charalambous, an associate in RPC‘s commercial, IP, technology and media group.

The quintet will answer students’ questions in a Question Time-style panel discussion running from 6pm to 7:15pm, hosted by ULaw, but open to all students, at its Bloomsbury campus.

Between them the speakers have acted for some very big name clients, including Associated Newspapers, Sky, David Beckham and Manchester United. They will share their war stories, offer advice on how to obtain training contracts and pupillages in this area, and answer students’ questions in a Question Time-style panel discussion. Afterwards there will be an opportunity to chat informally over drinks and nibbles.

Apply to attend. You’ll be asked to submit a CV and two questions for the panel.

ABOUT THE SPEAKERS

Christina Michalos

Christina Michalos is a leading specialist in privacy; media & entertainment law (including data protection and freedom of information); soft intellectual property; and sports law. She is known as a leading practitioner in image rights work and is the author of The Law of Photography and Digital Images (Sweet & Maxwell, 2004). She has a particular interest and expertise in issues arising from internet user generated content and social networking sites.

Her high profile work includes: acting for the Met Police in the Leveson Inquiry (phone hacking); counsel for the successful Claimant in Clift v Slough Borough Council (jury trial & Court of Appeal) a leading decision on Article 8 and qualified privilege; AW v Holland (privacy injunction & committal application for breaches on Facebook & Twitter); advising the Met Police regarding internet & Facebook issues arising from the Baby P case; acting for the Department of Health before the Information Tribunal in response to the Pro Life Alliance’s FOIA request for abortion statistices; and acting for Associated Newspapers Ltd in the copyright and privacy claim brought by HRH the Prince of Wales and heard before Blackburne J.

Mark Stephens

Mark Stephens is one of the highest profile media and sports lawyers in the UK. He specialises in international, appellate and complex litigation, constitutional, human rights, IP, media & regulatory work, defamation, privacy, media, art and cultural property, data protection and freedom of information, intellectual property and international arbitration. His clients have included The Wall Street Journal, Mike Tyson and David Beckham.

He has created a niche in international comparative media law and regulation. His expertise also covers specialisms in creative arts & cultural industries, human rights, judicial review, complex commercial litigation, intellectual property law, Privy Council cases — Ultimate Appeal Court for parts of the Commonwealth, as well as regulatory cases & inquiries. Mark is also extremely active in many other areas having been appointed by the Foreign Secretary to the FCO Free Expression advisory board and the Lord Chancellor to be a Champion for the Community Legal Service.

Ross Sylvester

Ross Sylvester is a partner in the content distribution and transmission group and head of Wiggin’s sport group. He acts for a number of leading broadcasters, distribution platforms and blue chip media businesses; providing advice in relation to the distribution of channels and programming via traditional broadcast means such as satellite, cable and DTT and the exploitation of content across more nascent internet and mobile platforms. Ross has also developed a particular specialism in relation to the creation, acquisition and exploitation of sports media and data rights.

In addition, he advises on the end-to-end chain of transmission, negotiating arrangements with the technical service providers who provide the processes, infrastructure and delivery systems for the distribution of channels and content as well as with the sales houses and media agencies who sell the advertising around this content.

Peter Goodchild

Peter Goodchild is the programme lead at the University of Law for the Graduate LLB. After practising as a commercial IP and tech lawyer, he started teaching in 2000, and has taught, run and designed courses across GDL, LLB and LPC since. He runs the Tech Forum on the Bloomsbury Campus.

Joshua Charalambous

Joshua Charalambous is an associate in RPC’s commercial, IP, technology and media group. This diverse range of work sees him act for clients in a variety of sectors including sport, FMCG, retail, technology, insurance, and pharmaceutical/life sciences. He has authored a number of articles for LawInSport and Sweet & Maxwell’s Entertainment Law Review on legal issues in sport and IP.

The post Event: How to get into media and sports law appeared first on Legal Cheek.

]]>

Does sports law exist?

Tue, 29 Aug 2017 10:35:34 +0000

If no, it’s certainly on its way

The simple notion of ‘sports law’ masks a deeper, underlying ambiguity in relation to how we analyse and define the disparate fields of legal study. Debate on this topic centres on whether we should view this enigmatic label as the more traditional ‘sport and the law’ (which encompasses the application of existing legal rules and norms to sporting disputes) or in the more maverick light of ‘sports law’ (a separate corpus of law — a lex sportiva — that boasts an underlying theory in order to piece together the various and highly-technical strands of sporting disputes).

I adopt the middle ground: there is not, at present, an identifiable, autonomous branch of law that warrants the prestigious title of ‘sports law’. However, it may only be a matter of time before even the staunchest of traditionalists are forced to admit that the law of sport has indeed arrived to the legal scene.

Criteria for a new field of law?

In sketching out the main elements of the creation of a lex sportiva, American law professor Timothy Davis argues that the strongest indication of an area of law transforming into a distinct legal entity is the “unique application by courts of law from other disciplines to a specific context.”

The sui generis nature of sporting disputes is best highlighted by what many sport lawyers term the ‘specificity of sport’. It is this concept that allows a national governing body to prevent men and women competing against each other, that enables the punishment of sportspersons who have increased their athletic ability through the use of performance-enhancing drugs (despite the fact that the athlete may not have demonstrated significant fault or negligence — Sharapova v International Tennis Federation) and that permits participants to inflict a level of injury upon each other that would normally be punished were it to happen off the field (R v Barnes).

As further evidenced by the reluctance of the UK government to criminalise doping under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, it appears that there is a unique sports-sympathetic jurisprudence evolving from the decisions of International Sports Federations’ final appeal tribunals and, more importantly, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

This is lent further credence by the fact that, although arbitral awards are usually only binding upon the immediate parties in the present case, the awards and judgments of CAS often provide guidance in future cases. In short, they can often function as precedent.

Want to write for the Legal Cheek Journal?

Find out more

Consequently, it may simply be the traditional values of an anachronistic profession that is hindering the emergence of ‘sports law’. However, this is unsurprising given that the law of sport is not alone in its quest for recognition. Similar difficulties continue to plague the nascent topics of space law and computer law, whilst the same recognition problems initially befell the now firmly established areas of environmental law, company law and healthcare law.

On the other hand, lecturer Jack Anderson believes that sports law may only offer an ‘occasional snapshot of other more substantial areas of law’ (this echoes the comments of Joseph Sommer in relation to cyberspace law, where the author noted that it is “an excellent lens for seeing other things” but it is not a “particularly useful focal plane of legal analysis”). Furthermore, Professor James Nafziger astutely posts that lex sportive is the product of “only a few hundred arbitral decisions within a limited range of disputes over a historically short period of time.”

Why does it matter?

Clearly, this dispute is likely to rumble on for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, a more pertinent question to consider at this stage is whether, beyond a mere academic concern, it really matters if we classify ‘sports law’ as a separate field of legal enquiry or not.

At first glance, the answer is no. However, if we scratch beneath this superficial surface, we see that the answer is not so clear-cut. Given the increasing frequency (and complexity!) of sports disputes, many associations, clubs and players are likely to seek tailored legal advice. The ongoing Pechstein litigation, which arose in 2009 and has yet to be fully resolved, is just one example of the juridification of contemporary sporting disputes.

If it is correct that parties are actively seeking high quality legal advice to resolve intricate sporting issue, it would be sensible for practitioners to have specialised knowledge of the elaborate association between law and sport. In order to attain this, one may need to recognise that ‘sports law’ is a discrete field of law that requires a dedicated study of its nuances and peculiarities. As such, the current ‘sports law v sport and the law’ debate may have practical implications that reach far beyond the confines of textbooks and journal articles.

Concluding remarks

For many, sports law may not be seen as intellectually rigorous enough to warrant the classification of its own, independent legal field. Sport is arguably seen by many practitioners and laymen as more about enjoyment and leisure, and it is probably correct that we should focus more on the participation in, rather than the litigation of, sports.

Nevertheless, to ignore the rapid emergence of sport (and the concomitant legal disputes that are intertwined within it) since its commercialisation and commodification in the early 1980s would be to brush aside and over-simplify the issue at hand. The law of sport may contain a wide variety of eclectic contents — some might say that it resembles a dog in a field; you never quite know what it might pick up next — but it still deserves respect.

In this light, the answer to whether a lex sportive exists perhaps lies in whether we believe sports law exists ourselves. In other words, the creation of a distinct field of law may be described as little more than a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, sports law is now offered as an elective at many universities, written about by numerous academics (see, for example, the dedicated section on ‘Sports Law’ on Hart Publishing) and litigated in various courts across Europe.

If sports law does not exist already, it is most certainly on its way.

James Brown is a Keele University graduate. He is the recipient of the Neuberger Prize 2017, a prize awarded to the top four academically performing law students from non-Russell Group universities in the UK.

The post Does sports law exist? appeared first on Legal Cheek.

]]>

Weird laws of sport

Mon, 15 Aug 2016 08:15:23 +0000

Whatever you do, keep your hat on

The Olympics are underway and here at Legal Cheek we were particularly looking forward to the Men’s 20km walk, the final of which was last Friday at 18.30.

Why this event in particular? Well, we like trying to spot the rule-breakers — those who, rather naughtily, run rather than walk.

It is, after all, a perfectly sensible law of walking events that each walker must have one foot in contact with the ground at all times, lest they be classed as running.

Other laws of sport aren’t so rational. Ever been timed out in cricket for not getting your pads on quick enough? Maybe you forgot to sign your scorecard in golf and got disqualified from the tournament? If you have then you’ve been unlucky enough to get caught out by two of sports more unusual rules.

Here’s another. If you are a female chess player, you can get in trouble for showing too much cleavage. Yes, you heard right. This ancient game recently adopted a rule from prehistoric times, so that if you are a chess-playing, cleavage-showing woman, and your opponent complains, the judging panel can then assess whether you’re dressed appropriately for the match.

As Sava Stoisavljevic, the female European Chess Union General Secretary, told Chessbase News in 2012, the change in dress code was due to female players’ appearance causing a commotion. “I heard many comments from spectators and coaches,” said Stoisavljevic. “It’s nice to see chess players with short skirts — they are very pretty girls… But I believe there should still be some limit.”

This infographic reveals that among other strange sporting laws are:

• Keeping your hat on in tennis

• Not, while playing water polo (a brutal game, as its aficionados know), splashing water in your opponent’s face

• Not taking your shirt off in athletics to celebrate on the home straight

• And on no account, if you’re a goalkeeper in a football match, rolling your sleeves up

You have been warned.

The post Weird laws of sport appeared first on Legal Cheek.

]]>

If no one is above the law, then why do doping athletes get off so lightly?

Thu, 21 Jul 2016 13:12:14 +0000

Lawlessness in sport and its threat to the Olympic Games

The 2016 Rio Olympics is just weeks away, yet the integrity of the Olympic Games continues to be marred by damning allegations of doping.

Russia has been accused of operating an extensive programme of state sponsored doping, and of the systematic concealment of positive drugs tests.

According to a ground-breaking report by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) — which is partially funded by the United States — there was a “deeply rooted culture of cheating” in Russian athletics that ultimately sabotaged the London 2012 Olympic Games.

Former WADA president Dick Pound alleged that these disconcerting findings, reminiscent of practices during the Cold War, are probably just the “tip of the iceberg”, and likely extended to a multitude of countries of and variety of sports.

The report detailed evidence of continuing corruption, as recent as 2015, when the report was published. The sheer scale of corruption and doping uncovered led the International Association of Athletics Federations to ban the Russian Athletics Federation from international competition, including the 2016 Rio summer Olympic Games.

Though the decision was welcomed throughout the sporting world, many are disappointed with the lack of legal action against individuals, public bodies and possible governments that were implicit in what could be construed as fraudulent, deceptive, wholly immoral and illegal activity.

Want to write for the Legal Cheek Journal?

Find out more

This begs an important question: is illegality in the confines of the sporting world exempt from the law?

The role of The Court of Arbitration for Sport

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is an independent, international court that facilitates the resolution of sports-related disputes between a wide range of individuals or legal entities, athletes, clubs, sports federations, organisers of sports events, sponsors and television companies.

CAS is often understood as the Supreme Court in the world of sport. Its decisions are final and binding, but nevertheless the court’s authority does not allow it to legitimise or regulate independent, international governing bodies.

CAS’s primary failure is that it is a court of dispute: a dispute may only be submitted to the court if both parties mutually agree — in writing or contract — on recourse to CAS. Thus, despite having the jurisdiction to adjudicate doping disputes, allegations of systematic doping are outside CAS’s jurisdiction. This narrow scope of jurisdiction effectively overlooks all undisputed, unconstitutional activity.

What about European law?

Sport is generally regarded as an exceptional jurisdiction where the law and the English legal system largely cannot intervene.

International governing bodies such as the Federation International Football Association (FIFA) independently regulate the legal aspects of their respective disciplines through the use of continental and regional sub associations. International governing bodies are ultimately responsible for the imposition of sanctions upon any bodies or persons who violate — or are implicit in the violation of — its constitution.

Despite the business-like operations of international bodies and the undoubted possibility of corruption, this questionable policy of self-regulation is not challenged. It could be argued that sport must come under the jurisdiction of the law and, by extension, competition laws.

Inter-association agreements between continental governing bodies such as The Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) and similar national bodies may arguably reduce sporting competition in European football. This could be construed as a violation of articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) 2007, which it prohibits as “incompatible with the common market”:

All agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal market.

Furthermore, article 102 prohibits:

Abusive business conduct by an undertaking where that undertaking has a dominant position in a given market within the EU.

So if sport governing bodies were treated as businesses, it would be theoretically possible for football transfers of an anti-competitive nature to violate article 101. In addition, hypothetically, clubs that exploit their dominance by purchasing and subsequently loaning players out of the EU in an attempt to starve competitors of quality players could be in violation of article 102.

Despite how ridiculous it may seem, there is precedent to take action. In the case of Walrave v Union Cycliste Internationale, the Court of Justice held that professional sport is undoubtedly a form of economic activity, thus EU competition laws apply.

Apparently aware of the possibility of EU intervention, in 2015 UEFA introduced Financial Fair Play Regulations, in an attempt to reduce monopolistic like behaviour as a means to control competition in European football. Astonishingly, the very regulations introduced to combat anti-competitive behaviour have been widely criticised as anti-competitive under article 101 and 102 of TFEU — potentially indicating European law is not suited to a regulatory role in European sport.

Can athletic doping be made a criminal offence in the UK?

The use of banned performance enhancing drugs in the UK is not currently under the jurisdiction of criminal legislation that prohibits the use of conventional illegal drugs. Their illegality in the sporting sense does not extend to criminal illegality under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

However, earlier this year it was reported that David Cameron had plans to make doping a criminal offence in the UK. Similar legislation has been adopted by Austria, France, Spain and New Zealand, and could see athletes and those implicitly involved in doping prosecuted and imprisoned.

Taking Austria as an example, since 2010, doping has been categorised as serious fraud. Athletes caught doping are liable to a three year prison sentence. If the cost of the fraud exceeds €50,000, they will be liable for up to ten years imprisonment.

Whether or not this could be integrated into the English legal system is highly contentious.

Doping is a strict liability wrong; if an athlete is found with a banned substance in their system, they are automatically subject to a ban regardless of the intentional or unintentional nature of the positive test. In contrast to strict liability, criminal offences in the English legal system require a degree of intentional or negligent action. Any merger of the differing standards would heavily complicate the system of fault and may erode the independence of international associations, which is required to prevent conflicts of interests on the part of governments who may discourage the prosecution of their athletes.

Ultimately, the lack of an independent specific regulatory authority allows quasi-governmental associations — who have tremendous economic power — to create and perpetuate a culture of subterfuge in international sport, undermining the integrity of the Olympics and arguably professional sport.

Joel Padi is a first year law student at Keele University.

The post If no one is above the law, then why do doping athletes get off so lightly? appeared first on Legal Cheek.

]]>

How law touches on every area of sport

Thu, 17 Mar 2016 10:34:32 +0000

An introduction to the little known world of sports law

Let’s be honest — the only reason you’re on Legal Cheek is because you’re trying to improve your “commercial awareness”. You don’t really know what that means but law firms bring it up more often than not, and you’re hoping your reluctant reading helps you get to 250 words on the “what recent article has been of interest to you and how is it relevant to this firm?” question that all training contract applications have in common.

Sorry, but this piece isn’t going to help you understand how the Finance Act 2015 affects the legal market.

With the Euro 2016 in France and the Olympics 2016 in Rio de Janeiro just months away, I thought it might be a good idea to write something on sports, especially since it is an area of law that I am genuinely interested in — and because it’s about time I fill up the “achievements” section on my CV.

The Olympics is the biggest and most special sporting event. It has the unique ability to bring together people of all races and ethnicities, and inspire an entire nation to unite. But what role does the law play in all this?

Quite a bit actually.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) owns the Olympic Games. The city that wins the bid to host either a summer or a winter Olympic enters with the IOC into what is known as the Host City Contract. This leads to the formation of the Olympic Games Organising Committee (OCOG) and the OCOG is responsible for the development and designing of all logos, mascots and policies of a particular Olympics.

The Paralympics is hosted in the same city a short while after the closing ceremony of the Olympics but the Paralympics has separate commercial rights owned by the International Paralympic Committee.

With many participating nations unable to fund their own training and development programmes, and with the IOC’s broader goal of providing a platform for the next generation, cash flow is vital. In fact, it is estimated that only 10% of Olympic marketing revenue is retained by the IOC for operational and administrative costs, with the remaining 90% being distributed to organisations to promote the development of sport worldwide.

The IOC realised that it had an unprecedented number of viewers worldwide (3.6 billion people from 220 countries watched the London 2012 Games) and used this fact to pull in multinational companies seeking to reach unfamiliar consumer bases and increase brand awareness.

The IOC now generates billions of pounds through broadcasting rights, global sponsorship, licensing programs, ticketing and merchandise.

Sponsorship

The reason brands are willing to pay incredible sums to become official sponsors of the Olympic Games is because associating yourself with the Olympics is one of the most effective modern marketing strategies. Not only is the Olympic logo of interlocking rings the world’s most recognisable symbol, it is also synonymous with humanity, world peace, goodwill and inspiration.

Lawyers have a significant role to play when it comes to sponsorship contracts. These agreements need to be drafted very precisely to ensure there is no room for ambiguity in the future, including benefits to the sponsor, payments due under the agreement, circumstances in which the sponsor may use the event’s intellectual property, and termination rights.

An example of a termination right is “morality clauses” which are vital to a sponsorship agreement as they allow termination of the agreement where a sponsor conducts itself in a way which will damage the image of the event.

Although this example is a reverse situation, the practicality of the morality clause can be seen in Adidas’ decision to end its sponsorship deal with the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) in the wake of the doping allegations against it.

Morality clauses have actually been in the headlines in the last couple of weeks. Former world number one tennis star and highest paid female athlete Maria Sharapova announced in early March that she tested positive for a banned substance. This announcement led to Nike, Porsche and TAG Heuer immediately cutting ties with her.

Nike also had to drop Manny Pacquiao, the Filipino boxer, after his homophobic remarks in February this year.

These endorsements are worth millions and were it not for termination rights, sponsors would struggle to protect themselves from being associated with the negative press that comes with these calamities.

Ambush marketing

It’s not that money is the root of all evil, it’s just that unethical practices are inevitable where money is involved.

Ambush marketing is a major issue in world sport and risks the organiser’s ability to fund the event. It is where a competitor of an official sponsor associates itself with an event without paying the requisite fee to the event owner. Counterfeit jerseys are an example of ambush marketing.

The most significant reason for ambush marketing is that the official sponsor is a competitor of the ambush marketer and has a long-standing relationship with the organisation; a high-profile example being that of Coca-Cola’s partnership with the Olympic Games since 1928 meaning that Pepsi will almost certainly never be a sponsor.

Ambush marketing is prevalent in major sporting events. During a game between the Netherlands and Denmark in the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa, 36 Dutch women were asked to leave the stadium for wearing outfits that effectively advertised for an unofficial beer company. Vacating the women did not make a difference as the damage had already been done — the beer company was in the spotlight.

Tackling it is not as straightforward as it may seem. In the UK, the only way ambush marketing can be dealt with is by bringing an action for trademark infringement, but the claimant would need to show that consumers get confused and that the claimant suffered damage because of the ambush marketers.

The Rugby World Cup 2015 in England tried a new approach to counteract this issue. Heineken, the official alcohol sponsor, secured a marketing exclusion zone within a 500 metre radius around venues that meant its lager was the only brand sold in the stadium and within 500 metres of it.

With that said, the Olympics has special legislation which protects its intellectual property and also requires host cities to introduce special legislation to ensure Olympic properties and its official partners are protected. The London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 was introduced in preparing for the London 2012 Olympics.

Licensing

Licensing is where an event owner grants a manufacturer a licence to use the trademarks on its products and sell them as merchandise in return for royalty. It is another method of raising commercial revenue, not least because shirts, hats, key rings, mugs and even towels can be sold as merchandise.

The Organising Committee for London’s 2012 Olympics reportedly raised around £100m from merchandise sales but this figure only represents the Organising Committee’s share — not the total value of merchandise sales.

Adidas, kit sponsor of Team GB, invested £100m to sponsor the 2012 Games and reached its target for sales of merchandise by the end of the event’s first week.

Ticketing

Ticketing also makes a significant contribution to the overall revenue generated by the Olympics, but a significant issue in most jurisdictions is that re-selling tickets for higher than purchase price is not unlawful.

Contract law is very relevant here as all ticket agreements must contain clauses detailing the cancellation policy due to adverse weather conditions, as well as a disclaimer in relation to safety at the venue. However, unusually wide disclaimers are invalid in the UK as the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 holds void and unenforceable a provision excluding liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence.

Intellectual property rights

The commercial success of the Olympics due to merchandise, ticketing and sponsorship would be near impossible were it not for intellectual property (IP) rights. IP laws enacted by the IOC and the World Intellectual Property Organisation protect the Olympic symbols and logos. The Olympic five-ring symbol, the Paralympic Symbol and the motto “Citius, Altius, Fortius” (Faster, Higher, Stronger) are all also protected by special domestic legislation.

Sporting bodies here in the UK rely on the Trade Marks Act 1994 to register a trademark but if a mark is not registered (i.e. it is a common law mark), the bodies can rely on the tort of “passing off”. Team names and logos can be registered as long as it satisfies the requirement of distinctiveness. “Tottenham” FC was able to be registered successfully as the word was proved to be associated with the club and not that geographical area of London.

Additionally, the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended) can protect musical works, literary works and broadcasts. In the context of the Olympic Games, the theme song and music of the opening and closing ceremony of all Olympics are copyrighted. Even the Olympic anthem is copyrighted.

Protectionary measures

To ensure that official sponsors are protected, the Games are not overly-commercialised. To encourage “Olympic spirit”, the IOC has developed a clean venue policy. The clean venue policy makes use of numbered zones to allow proper application of this policy.

An interesting incident involved Michael Jordan and his USA Dream Team in Barcelona 1992. Zone 1 — the competition and spectator area — prohibits advertising other than logos and symbols that identify manufacturers of sporting equipment and uniforms. Michael Jordan was sponsored by Nike in his personal capacity and so wore his Nike clothing to the medal ceremony. The only problem was that as official sponsor, Reebok was to be given exclusive rights of the event. Had the officials not convinced Jordan to wrap himself in a USA flag so as to cover the Nike logo, the IOC would have suffered from considerable embarrassment for allowing its official sponsor’s rival to share the spotlight.

Sports law: the future

Sports law is a relatively new concept, and compared to traditional areas of law like criminal and tort, it is still finding its feet. The law has had to develop itself to meet the demands of modern society, and one such demand was to use the law to protect any product worth commercialising.

Sport is now a billion dollar industry in its own right which makes it easy to understand why event owners have gone to such great lengths to protect themselves and their commercial partners.

No doubt the marketing industry is responsible for the commercialisation of and unprecedented investment in the Olympic movement but had it not been for the law, governing bodies would struggle to sustain this progression.

What is certain, for now, is that the law can and will only grow to become more relevant in the Olympic movement and in sports more widely.

Ali Farooq is a law student at Leeds Beckett University.

Sources

Gardiner S, O’Leary J, Welch R, Boyes S and Naidoo U, Sports Law (4th edn, Routledge, 2012)

International Olympic Committee, Marketing Report (London, 2012)

The post How law touches on every area of sport appeared first on Legal Cheek.

]]>