The seven times winner of the Tour de France, the 37 year old Texan Lance Armstrong, announced recently - to the great surprise of the cycling world - that he was returning to compete in the 2009 Tour, after an absence of more than three years. Doubts still remain, however, over whether or not he had taken performance enhancing drugs and, in particular, EPO - a blood-boosting hormone that enhances endurance (and that is what the Tour de France is all about) - in order to achieve his spectacular performances in cycling’s premier international competition.

Unfortunately for Armstrong, cycling in general (and the Tour de France in particular) has been dogged over the years by various individual and team drugs scandals – not least, the nine Festina team cyclists involved in doping during the 1998 Tour de France. Armstrong has offered to undergo independent doping tests throughout the 2009 Tour to prove that he is ‘clean’.

Notwithstanding, the head of the French Anti Doping Agency, Pierre Bordry, has offered Armstrong the opportunity of having samples taken from him during the 1998 and 1999 Tour de France retested. But he has refused to consent to these new tests.

Bordry is disappointed and has told the media:

“If the analysis is clean it would have been very good for him. But he doesn't want to do it and that's his problem”.

Bordry added:

“It was a good opportunity for him to answer positively to my proposition, because if he is clean, as he says, I am ready to follow him”.

Under the rules of the World Anti Doping Code (WADC), there is a limitation period of eight years on testing for possible doping offences and that is why Armstrong’s consent is needed to undertake these new tests, which otherwise would be out of time – in other words, ‘statute-barred’. Article 17 of the WADC, headed ‘Statute of Limitations’, provides as follows:

‘No action may be commenced against an Athlete or other Person for an anti-doping rule violation contained in the Code unless such action is commenced within eight (8) years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred’.

Armstrong gave the following rather terse response to Bordry's invitation to prove that he had “never cheated in his brilliant career”.
 
“Unfortunately, Mr. Bordry is new to these issues and his proposal is based on a fundamental failure to understand the facts”, he said in a statement. “In 2005, some research was conducted on urine samples left over from the 1998 and 1999 Tours. That research was the subject of an independent investigation [the Emile Vrijman Report of 31 May, 2006], and the conclusions were the samples have not been maintained properly, have been compromised in many ways, and even three years ago could not be tested to provide any meaningful results. There is simply nothing I can agree to that would provide any relevant evidence about 1999.”
 
The urine samples in question have been the subject of speculation ever since the French newspaper L'Equipe reported in 2005 that six ‘B’ samples taken from Armstrong contained the banned substance EPO. Of course, this assertion has never been proved nor disproved.

In response to Armstrong’s claim that the samples concerned have not been properly stored, Bordry has asserted that:

“Scientifically there is no problem to analyse these samples – everything is correct”.

That is where the matter rests. In other words, the uncertainty over Armstrong’s past remains. In my view, he has lost a golden opportunity of proving his innocence - once and for all. For, if he had nothing to hide, he would be expected to agree to the retesting of these samples. He not only owes this to himself and his fellow competitors, but also to the Tour de France and the sport of cycling itself.

It will be interesting to see how this saga eventually unfolds during the staging of the 2009 Tour de France and how Armstrong fares in it.

Ian Blackshaw

 

The Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique (FIG) has concluded its investigation into the age of Chinese gymnasts who competed at the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games, following allegations that double gold medal winner He Kexin (何可欣) was 14 – below the FIG’s minimum age of 16 for artistic gymnastics.

In a somewhat cryptic statement, the FIG revealed that the ages of the athletes under investigation had been ‘confirmed’ and that conclusions had been shared with the International Olympic Committee (IOC), who now also considered the case closed.

“We are satisfied with the information provided by FIG, and we now consider the (2008) matter closed”, Emmanuelle Moreau, spokeswoman for the IOC, told Associated Press. Presumably this means that both the FIG and the IOC are satisfied that the athletes concerned were 16 at the time of the Beijing Olympics.

However, some questions remain. The FIG said it is still investigating the age of Chinese gymnasts Dong Fangxiao and Yang Yun, who competed at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, as it ‘does not consider the explanations and evidence provided to date in regards to these athletes as satisfactory’.

Andy Brown 

The Fédération Internationale Gymnastique (FIG) will announce the results of its investigation into the age of Chinese gymnast He Kexin’s (何可欣) age “in the next three to four days”, said an FIG spokesperson. “The difficulty has been in securing documents requested from the Chinese authorities”.

Kexin won a gold medal in both the women’s Uneven Bars and Team events at Beijing 2008, however a computer security expert uncovered a search engine cache of a document removed from the General Administration of Sport of China government website, which suggested that Kexin’s age is 14 – below the FIG minimum of 16 for artistic gymnastics. World Sports Law Report has a copy of the search engine cache, which has since been removed.

The FIG is in charge of eligibility for the Olympics rather than the International Olympic Committee (IOC), and so must decide on sanctions.

Andy Brown

 

Football League Two teams will be breathing a sigh of relief after the trapdoor to the Football Conference prematurely slammed (almost) shut – i.e. before the football season has even started. Luton Town will start the 2008/9 season on Saturday at home against Port Vale, but with a 30-point disadvantage after the Football League imposed a further 20-point deduction for failing to agree a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) with creditors to add to its 10-point deduction for going into administration in the first place.

Rotherham United have now joined Luton at the foot of the Football League after the club failed to agree a CVA with its creditors. A new company applied to the Football League to replace the old club and the Football League has exercised its ‘absolute discretion under the exceptional circumstances of its insolvency policy’ to allow this to take place, as long as the club accepts a 17-point deduction and pays a £750,000 bond pledging to return to Rotherham within four years (the new club will start its season against Lincoln City at Sheffield’s Don Valley Stadium).

While there is some optimism from Rotherham’s new owners (and Leeds United’s position at the end of last season proves that deductions can be overcome), the deductions will be welcomed by the rest of the Football League Two clubs, who fear the traditional dogfight to avoid the two relegation spots to the Conference, which now appear filled.

However, these cases illustrate that the Insolvency Policy of the Football League appears to punish the club, its new owners and its fans, rather than those who have caused the damage through financial mismanagement (for example, Peter Ridsdale is now Chairman of Cardiff City, while Leeds United languish in League One, after points deductions following his exit). This is an area that the Football League needs to re-examine.

Andy Brown

 

Following on from the success of our Player Contracts Briefing in July, which was attended by just under 100 delegates, World Sports Law Report is organising a full-day Briefing examining anti-doping regulations in sport. The Briefing will be hosted by Charles Russell LLP at their London offices on 22 October.

As the Dwain Chambers case illustrated, striking a balance between strict liability against dopers and an athletes right to compete is a difficult task. It has been pointed out that the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) two-year ban allows an athlete to commit a doping offence at the Olympics, yet compete again in four years’ time. However as international sports lawyer Ian Blackshaw pointed out in the July edition of World Sports Law Report, a lifetime ban could be considered an unreasonable restraint of trade.

A lifetime ban for a user of recreational drugs, who is not cheating to beat his competitors, may also not be the most humane policy, as highlighted by Ian Smith, Vice President, Legal Affairs with the Professional Cricketers’ Association. It may also be considered unfair that athletes in a relay team relinquish their medals if one of the team is convicted of doping, as the Antonio Pettigrew and Marion Jones cases proved.

Methods of doping and avoiding detection, combined with restrictions based on athlete privacy into what data can be collected from athletes, are making the job of anti-doping authorities problematic. It is also becoming increasingly difficult to decide when a method of training or simulation should be considered anti-doping, as WADA’s debate over whether to include hypoxic chambers on its prohibited substances list illustrated.

All of these issues, as well as the future of anti-doping and doping regulation will be discussed at the Briefing. For more information, click here or contact Laura Caruso on +44 (0)20 7012 1384, or by clicking here.

Andy Brown

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andy Brown

 

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

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

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

Andy Brown

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Andy Brown

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andy Brown

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andy Brown

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

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

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

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

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

Andy Brown

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

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

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

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

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

 Andy Brown

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Andy Brown

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

Andy Brown

 

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

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

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

 Andy Brown

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

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

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

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

Andy Brown

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andy Brown

 

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

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

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

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

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

 Andy Brown

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

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

 Andy Brown