Sports Law & Practice

I have just finished advising on a dispute between a professional football player and a premier league club in a major European league. The dispute was settled between the parties, a few days before commencement of legal proceedings. In many ways, this dispute highlighted the lengths the parties to the dispute are prepared to follow, in order for them to achieve a pre-mature termination of the contract of employment.

I promised, some time ago, that I will publish my findings on a wider research project that relates to the case of the football club of Rangers. The project has now been completed and as it is featured in a legal journal, it is currently going through the proofing stage by independent referees [including well respected practitioners and academics]. I am hoping that the findings will be published before the end of the year.

Football administration in Europe is in crisis. Fans around Europe protest against the lack of transparency in the decision making process and against those who have been given the mandate to organise football in their country.  The fans, who on many occasions sacrifice the very last penny they have to support their beloved club, have been let down. This has to stop. We must all be prepared for the imminent apocalypsis, regarding the dubious dealings of those who have chosen to ignore transparency and integrity, in the name of money and satisfaction of personal relationships. The truth must be told. Dr Gregory Ioannidis 2 June 2013

Self-regulation is the necessary aspect that characterises the existence of two of the most important sporting governing bodies in the world: FIFA & UEFA. Their particular insistence on protecting self-regulation has been misinterpreted by many commentators and stakeholders in Greece. As a result, Greek football is now fast approaching a word-wide embarrassment. 

I promised my readers, in a previous post, that I will offer discrimination in sport the attention it deserves. I will also ensure that my readers are able to appreciate an insight that usually does not become available to the public.  I am now looking at a case which involves a female professional in football. The opponent is a governing body and the legal basis of the matter concerns sex discrimination in sport. The issues are many and very important for the future of self-governance in sport. The outcome of this matter, will probably expose the dark side of football governance and the stereotypes that continue to exist in this environment.  I hope that this case would encourage more complainants to come forward. Football is not a privilege for the few. Its governance requires transparency and equality. I hope a change could be imminent. Dr Gregory Ioannidis 26 May 2013

Discrimination in sport is a very important area of the discipline of sports law and deserves special recognition. It may give rise to race discrimination and sex discrimination. The examples from the world of sports are far too many to be ignored and it is my intention to commence today a series of different posts that will critically analyse all pertinent issues to the matter. In doing so, I would also like to invite all of you to contribute to the discussion and, where possible, to suggest solutions.

We heard this week that a football agent is challenging UEFA's Regulations of Financial Fair Play [FFP]. From the relevant press release, we identified the main arguments and we intend to fully analyse them in due course.  In summary, the football agent is claiming that the UEFA FFP Regulations violate certain rights and have the effect of restricting the income of football agents. The basis of the complaint relates to the argument that such regulations are anti-competitive.

It is not my intention to spend too much time discussing the individuals involved, in the incident that marked the game between Liverpool and Chelsea on Sunday 21 April 2013. The most important aspect of this discussion relates to the appropriate regulation of 'on the field violence' incidents. Such was the indignation caused with the incident in question, that the old perennial discussion of the differences between self-regulation and state regulation becomes pertinent.

This blog has, extensively, been analysing, over the last few months, all developments in relation to Scottish football. I have written several posts as to the dangers of avoiding an effective change in the structure of all Scottish leagues and, most importantly, I have contacted the Scottish Football Association, with specific proposals regarding such changes. It became evident today that the changes proposed by the football authorities have not satisfied all of their stakeholders. The lack of unanimity in the voting process, demonstrates not only the plethora of different  and uncompromising ideas of all parties involved, but also the different interests that they wish to apply in the game. The lack of consensus now threatens to jeopardise the healthy existence of several clubs and to make the dire financial situation of many others worse.  In conclusion, I have two observations to make. The first one concerns the role of the football authorities in Scotland. The lack of co

There has been considerable discussion, over the years, as to whether the actions of sports governing bodies could be challenged in a court of law. The discussion created a plethora of arguments and such arguments formed, subsequently, the basis for the development of a more clarified framework regarding the governance and regulation of modern sport. Such framework also confirmed the proposition that, under certain conditions, actions of sports governing bodies [or of their disciplinary bodies] could be challenged under certain causes of action.

Some of my readers may question the relevance of the present post to the general theme of this blog. They may even question the slightly dramatic title to this post. The words 'lesson' and 'never forget' may appear to cause a certain degree of surprise. But I am convinced that at the end of this post, my readers will be satisfied that these were terms well chosen.

Practitioners often receive instructions from clients who wish to appeal before the Court of Arbitration for Sport. In the majority of these cases, clients are motivated by a sense of injustice, which is usually well-justified. A practitioner, obviously, needs to remain independent of sentimental considerations and keep an open mind at all times. An Appeal before the Court of Arbitration for Sport could be an expensive process and one that will cause additional stress and anxiety to the client. Above all, it is an Appeal that very much depends on very specific procedural considerations.

I appeared last Friday before the National Anti-Doping Panel at Sport Resolutions in London, on behalf of a professional boxer. This was an Appeal regarding the 24-month period of ineligibility against the athlete, as a result of a positive anti-doping test. The adverse analytical finding was the result of the use of a 'contaminated' nutritional supplement, which, unbeknown to the athlete, contained in it, the prohibited substance methylhexaneamine (MHA), which is a stimulant and it is classified by WADA as a specified substance. My involvement in this case made me realise that we are a long way away from educating and protecting athletes from the dangers of the use of dietary and other nutritional supplements. I hope, with the present post, to raise some concerns and disseminate further findings with a constructive discussion.