A recent decision by the FIBA Basketball Arbitral Tribunal (BAT) has ordered a Latvian basketball coach, R.Š., to pay €12,000 in compensation to a club. The ruling, case number 1894/22, raises several questions about the circumstances surrounding the dispute.
Key Points of the Ruling:
Special Compensation: Coach R.Š. has been ordered to pay Stichting Eredivisie Basketball Leiden €12,000 in special compensation, plus a 5% annual interest rate on any unpaid amount.
Arbitration Costs: The arbitration costs, set at €4,700, are to be split between the parties, with R.Š. covering 80% and Stichting Eredivisie Basketball Leiden covering 20%. R.Š. is also required to pay the club €1,260 for administrative costs.
Legal Costs: R.Š. must pay Stichting Eredivisie Basketball Leiden €2,800 to cover the club’s legal expenses.
Analysis:
The core of the dispute centers on the €12,000 compensation.
The additional costs awarded to the club highlight the financial consequences of such legal battles.
It’s notable that there is information in public domain that the coach basically did not start to work for that club.
It is very possible, that this amount of money was written into the contract.
It is possible, that the coach did not use legal help, when signing the contract, or ignored it.
It is also possible, that the 12000 euros, is the compensation for clubs loss, not a fixed amount in the contract.
Implications:
This case underscores the importance of:
Thoroughly reviewing contracts.
Seeking legal counsel before signing agreements.
Understanding the potential financial risks involved in sports-related disputes. Especially international deals!
This ruling serves as a cautionary tale for coaches and clubs alike, emphasizing the need for clear and comprehensive contracts to avoid costly legal battles.
The football law annual report by FIFA highlights a case involving a Latvian club. The solution reached by CAS demonstrates some important considerations for both players and clubs when looking to find a cooperation.
Letter of Interest or Binding Contract? Lessons from a Recent FIFA and CAS Dispute case
In the world of professional sports, particularly football (soccer), the line between a “Letter of Interest” and a binding employment contract can be surprisingly blurry. A recent dispute involving Latvian club Rigas Futbola Skola (RFS) and Brazilian player Pedro Igor Martins da Silva highlights the potential pitfalls of unclear agreements and the importance of robust contract drafting.
The Case in Brief:
In February 2023, RFS expressed interest in Pedro Igor through a Letter of Interest. The player participated in a training camp in Turkey. However, differing accounts emerged regarding his subsequent departure.
The player claimed he was denied entry to Latvia due to visa issues and advised to return to Brazil.
RFS, on the other hand, asserted the player voluntarily withdrew due to homesickness.
Both parties filed claims with FIFA, alleging breach of the Letter of Interest. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) rejected both claims, finding the Letter of Interest was not a binding contract.
This outcome was satisfactory to the club, but not to the player. The player appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
Key Legal Takeaways:
Admissibility of Appeal: A preliminary issue arose regarding the admissibility of the player’s appeal. He filed two documents, a “Statement of Appeal” and an “Appeal CAS.” The CAS Sole Arbitrator clarified that the appeal brief can be filed with the statement of appeal and that the “Appeal CAS” document met the required standards. This highlights the importance of understanding procedural rules and ensuring timely and compliant filings.
Letter of Interest vs. Binding Contract: The core issue was the legal nature of the Letter of Interest. The CAS arbitrator emphasized that the player had to prove a binding employment relationship. Participation in a training camp, while demonstrating interest, does not automatically create a contract.
Essential Elements of a Contract: Crucially, the Letter of Interest, though signed by RFS’s sporting director, lacked the player’s signature confirming acceptance. Furthermore, it was contingent on a transfer agreement with Floresta EC, which never materialized. The arbitrator concluded that the Letter of Interest was merely an offer, not a binding agreement.
Importance of Clear Contractual Language: This case underscores the critical need for clear and unambiguous language in contractual documents. Letters of Interest should explicitly state their non-binding nature if that is the intent. Conversely, if the intent is to create a binding agreement, all essential terms, including signatures from all parties and any conditions precedent, must be clearly defined.
What This Means for Clubs and Players:
This case serves as a cautionary tale for both clubs and players involved in international transfers. Ambiguous agreements can lead to costly and time-consuming disputes.
How We Can Help:
If you are a sports club, player, or agent facing similar issues, or if you have any questions regarding contract drafting, interpretation, or dispute resolution in sports law, we can provide expert legal guidance.
Contract Drafting and Review: We can assist in drafting clear and comprehensive contracts that protect your interests and minimize the risk of disputes.
Dispute Resolution: We can represent you in proceedings before FIFA, CAS, and other relevant sporting bodies.
Legal Advice: We can provide expert legal advice on all aspects of sports law, including contract law, transfer regulations, and disciplinary matters.
Don’t leave your contractual rights to chance. Contact us today for a consultation and ensure your agreements are legally sound. Initial review of a contract + <30 minutes one discussion is offered for 80 euro during February 2025.
Disclaimer: This blog post is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with a qualified legal professional for advice tailored to your specific situation.
Extract from the FIFA report
In February 2023, the Latvian club Rigas Futbola Skola expressed its interest in the Brazilian player Pedro Igor Martins da Silva to Floresta EC through a Letter of Interest. The Player participated in Riga’s training camp in Turkey, and following this, the Parties had different views regarding the events that led the Player to travel to Brazil.
The Player claimed he travelled to Riga but was denied entry due to a lack of a visa. He was informed by another player at the Club that staff had advised him to return to Brazil because he could not play without the necessary permissions. Conversely, the Club asserted that the Player chose not to accept the employment offer due to unhappiness and homesickness, deciding instead to return to Brazil and continue playing for Floresta EC.
Both the Player and the Club filed claims before FIFA, alleging the breach of the Letter of Interest.
The DRC rejected both claims, considering that the Letter of Interest was never intended to be a binding contract. The Player appealed before CAS. As a preliminary matter, the Sole Arbitrator addressed the Respondent’s objection to the admissibility of the Appeal, as the Player filed two documents within the time limit for the filing of the Appeal: one document named “Statement of Appeal” and another called “Appeal CAS.”
The Sole Arbitrator determined that the Code allows for the appeal brief to be filed together with the statement of appeal. Although the Appellant did not request that the Statement of Appeal be considered as the Appeal Brief, the Sole Arbitrator found that “Appeal CAS” met the requirements of Article R51 of the Code.
On the merits, the Sole Arbitrator determined that the Player had to prove the existence of a binding employment relationship with the Club.
Although the Player participated in the training camp in Turkey, this alone did not establish a valid contract.
Moreover, the Letter of Interest, signed by the Club’s sporting director, was not returned with the Player’s signature, and no evidence was provided to confirm its return.
The Sole Arbitrator further concluded that the Letter of Interest was an offer, not a binding agreement, contingent on the Club reaching a transfer agreement with Floresta EC, which did not occur.
Given the above, the Sole Arbitrator dismissed the appeal.
In a shocking turn of events, FC Valmiera, the 2022 Latvian Higher League champions, have been denied their license for the upcoming 2025 season. The Latvian Football Federation (LFF) cited financial irregularities as the primary reason for the decision, leaving the club’s future hanging in the balance.
Football Law vs national Law: edition “Latvia”
While the initial ruling comes as a significant blow, FC Valmiera does not have to be backing down. Despite being unable to appeal the LFF’s decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), the club could use the Latvian Law for its benefit. To exhaust all available options within Latvia. They could challenge the LFF’s decision with the Latvian Sports Federation Association (“LSFP” – Latvijas sporta federāciju padome) and, if necessary, take their case to the justice or the Latvian Administrative Court.
LFF is a federation that requires a governmental approval to be able to operate in the field of football and claim the “national championship” organiser.
For this reason, without going into scientifical details, LFF must adopt their licensing decisions in line with the public law requirements of all governmental duties.
Licensing is not something that can be done or omitted, it is made to be a mandatory rule with a legally binding nature, falls under “public law” which is governed by the jurisdiction given to the adminsitrative courts in Latvia. Though, there is a question whether the courts agree in each case, remains to be seen and requires serious legal evaluation.
Are there substantial arguments for Valmiera
This is not the first time FC Valmiera has faced financial troubles. The club has been plagued by mounting debts and unpaid wages, leading to the departure of their title-winning coach and the loss of lucrative European competition opportunities. However, they managed to overcome these challenges and finish fourth in the league last season.
The license denial raises serious questions about the club’s ability to compete in the top flight. If their appeals are not continued and/or are unsuccessful, FC Valmiera can consider it is relegated to a lower division, jeopardizing their status as one of Latvia’s leading football clubs.
With a theoretical option to play in lower leagues, is is unclear if that is just one tier lower, or a lot lower – with the current debts, and current LFF system, not appealing might simply mean to start at the very regional local village competition.
Conclusion on Valmiera vs LFF matter in long term
The outcome of this legal battle, should Valmiera undertake to continue, will have significant implications for the Latvian football landscape. It remains to be seen whether FC Valmiera wants, and whether it can successfully challenge the LFF’s decision and secure their place in the 2025 Higher League season.
Let’s look back at the best sports law publications in traditional media in 2024! Most of the content has been in Latvian language
Latvian sports and racism
January: on the problem of racism, and whether it is a problem at all; together with co-author Elvis, who suggested taking a closer look at this topic, highlighting the (quickly hushed up) scandal in hockey and football.
March: Before the Olympic Games in Paris, various calls were made for participation or refusal. The real decisions could be seen after a few months. Perhaps in a few years or decades, documentaries will be made when the heroes of that time will be able to openly list the logic of their decisions.
May: Issues of summer camp contracts. These are important before paying money for the camp. If this has not been done, then you can try to appeal to consumer rights or some general regulations. But there are things that can only be specified in the contract.
July: The FIA has finally brought a WRC round to Latvia. The legally well-organized motor and motorsports at the world level are no strangers to Latvia, just as the Latvian courts have had something to say about the national motorsports regulation.
August: Latvian courts have developed an unjustified avoidance of considering sports disputes through administrative procedures. It is difficult to agree with such jurisprudence – this article presents a more serious approach with legal arguments. https://juristavards.lv/doc/285635-sporta-nozares-stridu-paklautiba
Anti-doping
September: Sports policy and doping are based on some important principles. Various wealthy institutions are fighting against doping, and sometimes also among themselves. https://www.diena.lv/raksts/sporta-avize/tuvplana/antidopinga-sistema-14324016
Match manipulation (match-fixing)
November: In betting cases, it is difficult to prove who took money from whom or received instructions. However, a strong response has been prepared in CAS practice and in the regulations of the most important sports organizations.
Protecting Your Image: Constitutional Privacy Rights for Celebrities and Athletes
The Right to Publicity: A Celebrity’s Shield
In today’s digital age, where personal information is readily accessible and shared, celebrities and athletes face unique challenges in protecting their image and likeness. One powerful tool they possess is the right to publicity, a legal right that grants individuals the exclusive ability to control the commercial use of their identity.
What is the Right to Publicity?
The right to publicity is a type of privacy right that protects an individual’s name, image, likeness, or persona from unauthorized commercial use. This means that celebrities and athletes can prevent others from using their image or likeness to promote products or services without their consent.
How Does the Constitution Protect This Right?
The Right to Publicity in Latvia
Legal Framework
While Latvian law doesn’t explicitly codify a specific “right to publicity,” it offers protection through various legal mechanisms:
Constitutional Protection:
Article 96 of the Constitution of Latvia.
Article 100 of the Constitution of Latvia guarantees freedom of speech, which includes the right to freely acquire, possess, and distribute information and express opinions. This right can be interpreted to include the right to control the commercial use of one’s image and likeness.
Article 105 of the Constitution protects property rights, which can be extended to one’s image and likeness as a valuable asset.
Civil Law:
General Civil Law: Latvian civil law provides remedies for unauthorized use of a person’s image or likeness, such as injunctions and damages.
Law on Author’s Rights: While primarily focused on copyright, this law can also be relevant in certain cases, particularly when the unauthorized use involves creative elements or artistic expression.
Key Considerations for Celebrities and Athletes in Latvia
To protect their rights in Latvia, celebrities and athletes should consider the following:
Consent: Always obtain written consent before allowing anyone to use your image or likeness for commercial purposes.
Licensing Agreements: Enter into licensing agreements with companies that wish to use your image or likeness to ensure clear terms and conditions.
Monitoring Online Activity: Regularly monitor social media and the internet to identify and address any unauthorized use.
Consulting with a Latvian Lawyer: Seek legal advice from a lawyer specializing in intellectual property and media law to understand the specific nuances of Latvian law and to take appropriate action to protect your rights.
International Comparisons: France, USA
France, known for its robust protection of intellectual property rights, offers strong legal protection for the right to publicity. French law, particularly the “droit à l’image,” provides comprehensive safeguards against the unauthorized use of a person’s image or likeness. This right is broadly interpreted and offers significant protection to celebrities and athletes.
By understanding the legal framework in Latvia and seeking expert legal advice, celebrities and athletes can effectively protect their rights to their image and likeness.
While the U.S. Constitution doesn’t explicitly mention the right to publicity, it is often derived from various constitutional provisions, including:
The First Amendment: This amendment protects freedom of speech and expression. However, it’s important to note that the right to publicity can sometimes conflict with the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. Courts often balance these rights, considering factors like the nature of the use, the commercial nature of the use, and the potential harm to the celebrity’s reputation.
The Fourteenth Amendment: This amendment guarantees due process and equal protection under the law. It can be used to argue that the unauthorized use of a celebrity’s image or likeness constitutes a deprivation of property rights.
Key Considerations for Celebrities and Athletes
To protect their right to publicity, celebrities and athletes should be aware of the legal and ownership issues of their image rights
By understanding their constitutional rights and taking proactive steps to protect their image, celebrities and athletes can safeguard their valuable assets and ensure that their likeness is used appropriately.
Disclaimer: This blog post is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult with a lawyer for advice on specific legal issues.
A contractual term requiring a young sportsman to transfer part of his income if he becomes a professional athlete may potentially be unfair, provided that it is shown that that term creates a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations arising under the contract, according to Advocate General Rantos.
High profile basketball player concerned
Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C-365/23 | [Arce] is the case well known in Latvian sports due to it being related to a famous basketball family, the focal player in fact being a leader of the Latvian national basetball team in the recent years, and recently also being a laser-shooter in the NBA.
The basketballer at issue was naturally not the only young athlete that was contracted by the agency/academy. However, the company selling the service appears to be reasonably the sole such provider in Latvia, therefore there hardly is a market to compare with.
When the contracttual conditions of the agency/academy were leaked to the general public, a representative of the company came out with a public proposla that all and any athletes under the contract can exit the agreement without any sanctions. Many of them did so, including the elder brother of the superstart baller in this litigation.
Implicitly, the company admitted it considers the contractual provisions unfair or at least questionable. Given the publicly announced details of several athletes exiting the contracts, the clients agreed that the contracts were unfair and performing the contracts was too burdensome.
GA opinion key message
A contract concluded between a young sportsman and an undertaking helping to develop his sports career falls, in principle, within the scope of the directive on the protection of consumers against unfair terms.
In 2009, a young sportsman, who was a minor and represented by his parents, concluded a contract with a Latvian undertaking which offers sportspersons a range of services for developing their professional skills and careers. The purpose of that contract was to provide that young sportsman with a successful professional sports career in the field of basketball. That contract, which was concluded for a period of 15 years, provided for a whole range of services, such as, inter alia, training under the supervision of specialists and sports medicine services, psychological support and marketing, legal and accounting support. In return, the young sportsman undertook, if he became a professional, to pay that undertaking remuneration amounting to 10% of all net income from sports events, advertising, marketing and media appearances related to the sport concerned received during the period of that contract, provided that that income was at least €1 500 per month.
Who could have predicted NBA contract?
When the litigation started, the young athlete had turned into a demanded NBA shooter with a still significant salary. At the moment of AG opinion, the ocerall value of the player’s contracts was just below 80 million $.
Contract, valued at 16 million for 2024-2025, was waived by the NBA club, leaving the player with “only” the guaranteed part of 5,25m$.
Therefore the numbers used in GA opinion should be assessed carefully.
In view of the fact that the income generated by the young sportsman, who has since become a professional basketball player, as a result of contracts signed with sports clubs, amounted to a sum of more than €16 million, he was required to pay 10% of that sum to that undertaking, that is to say, more than €1.6 million. The case was brought before the Latvian courts, which held that the contractual term in question was unfair. The undertaking concerned lodged an appeal on a point of law before the Latvian Supreme Court, which decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice. The referring court seeks to ascertain whether the directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts applies to the contract at issue and, if so, the extent to which that directive precludes such a term.
Sports is not so special in consumer protection law
In his Opinion, Advocate General Athanasios Rantos considers that such a contract falls, in principle, within the scope of that directive and that such a contractual term may prove unfair.
That directive is intended to apply in all sectors of economic activity and, in principle, to all types of contracts for the purchase of goods and the provision of services which have been concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer. In the present case, at the time when the contract at issue was concluded, the young sportsman had not yet begun his professional career and therefore acted as a ‘consumer’ who was objectively in a weaker position than the undertaking, both in terms of technical knowledge and bargaining power. That conclusion cannot be invalidated by the fact that, subsequently, that young sportsman has become a professional athlete, in so far as the unfairness of a term is assessed at the time of conclusion of the contract. It is at that moment, which coincides with any unfavourable position vis-à-vis the seller or supplier, that the contract is likely to have unfavourable consequences, even in the long-term, for the consumer.
In its analysis, the national court must ascertain, inter alia, whether the contractual term satisfied the requirement of transparency, namely that it was drafted in plain, intelligible language, so that the consumer is in a position to evaluate, on the basis of clear, intelligible criteria, the economic consequences it could have for him or her. In the present case, that seemed, in principle, to be the case as regards the method of calculating the remuneration due, but it is also for the referring court to examine whether the information provided by the supplier enabled the young sportsman to take a prudent decision and, more specifically, whether he could estimate the value of the services offered by the undertaking as a whole in relation to the remuneration potentially due to that undertaking.
contractual term which has not been individually negotiated is regarded as unfair if it causes a ‘significant imbalance’ in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.
national court to see whether applicable rules in national law exist in the absence of an agreement between the parties, so as to assess whether that contract places the young sportsman in a less favourable legal position than that provided for by national law.
In the absence of such legislation, it is for that court to refer to market practices in the matter of remuneration for services in the field of the sport concerned and, more specifically, whether there is a link between the value of the service provided by the undertaking and the remuneration required of the young sportsman. That court will, in particular, have to bear in mind the risk, for the undertaking, of not having the guarantee of receiving remuneration if the young sportsman does not become a professional, whereas that remuneration will serve not only to finance the services offered to the young sportsman, but also to all other young sportspersons who have concluded similar contracts, including those who have not become professionals.
consequences of classifying a term as ‘unfair’: must be regarded, in principle, as never having existed. It cannot therefore have any effect on the sportsman, who should be restored to the legal and factual situation in which he would have been in if that term had not existed, without the national court being able to require him to pay any amount by way of the remuneration provided for in the term held to be unfair.
Latvian consumer Law
In Latvian consumer cases the main concerns have been around loans and credits, different subscription agreements, as well as unfair trade practices. The rules and practices are built around the EU directives.
Rich do as they please – Riga municipality each year assigns significant amounts of public money to different sporting events, large part of that has been given to the Basketball Club VEF Riga, in clear breach of municipality’s own regulations.
Key Criteria
Riga municipality considers several criteria when assessing the public money, among them:
the achievements of the applicant in the recent years
tax debts at the moment of application and moment of concluding the support contract
VEF Riga qualifies for the public money based on the sporting merit: it was the Latvian basketball champion in 2023/2024.
However, the tax matter is a whole different story. As of 13.09.2024, according to the state revenue service VEF Riga owes the state significant money in tax debts.
Serving the formality
When reading the regulation grammatically, one has to consider only two dates:
1. when the application was submitted, and
2. when the contract was signed.
On 10.06.2024 VEF Riga did not have a tax debt above EUR 150. This is the day when application to Riga municipality was submitted.
However, just a few days early (on 04 June) the debt was EUR 62’269.88. Coincidence or not, the debt again jumped up to EUR 19’241.57 by end of June. and the club has been in the red for most of the time ever since.
It could be assumed that the club signed the contract before 23 July, because this is the last day when VEF Riga did not have a tax debt (at the time of this writing on 13.09.2024).
Was it a well planned strategy or just a coincidence?
Is it a good governance for the municipality to completely ignore that the tax money is handed out to a private entity with regular tax debts, except for 2 periods* in the year?
The Valmiera football club had qualified on sporting merits for the 2024/2025 UEFA Conference league through finishing 4th in the Latvian football Premier League (Virslīga), but has lost the opportunity through unfortunate development of events.
The Valmiera’s club has been in financial trouble during 2024 and was refused the licence for justified reasons. In their place, FK Liepāja will participate in the financially rewarding Eurocups.
What happended to Valmiera FC?
The football club is run under the limited liability company form, firm called SIA “Valmiera FC”.
During 2023 the company has had times of having tax debt more or less regularly (most of June 2023 has been debt-free, a few days in debt; Almost good July with only the last week in debt; remaining in red throughout the whole August 2023 before returning to green in September, just to loose it again in October). The company went into 2024 with a tax debt of 42’428.49 euro. By the 1st of March the debt had only grown (130’929.42 euro).
Matchday 1 on 10 March: tax liabilities growing, at 131k euro. As of 20 May, debt stands at 174k, already above 210k by the end of May. Tendency has been worsening.
Nevertheless, the club is 3rd in the standings of the Latvian Virslīga and had convinced certain players to join due to the UEFA competition access.
Simple as that, if a club does not pay taxes, they should not be allowed to participate in the UEFA competitions (which, due to rich bonuses, would enable the club to cover the debs incurred earlier).
Were there chances for appeal?
Although the club obtained the licence to play in the Virslīga with the significant tax debt, it was refused the UEFA licence which matter is decided separately.
So, how is this different.
The national licence passed through, what could go wrong with UEFA licence, right?!
The refusal for the UEFA licence, after having obtained the national LFF-A licence therefore, might not have seemed inevitable for the Valmiera FC management.
A ray of light for Valmiera might have been the note of Auda FK also having unpaid debts. However, in the view of LFF, those were of a significantly smaller amount. Although the reasons and arguments of the 17 May 2024 Appeal were not published, it is likely that the appeal simply asked for another review of their case, without presenting sufficient grounds as on 22 May 2024 the Appeals Committe rejected the appeal.
Now Valmiera has the option to address their claim to the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS).
Mere technical reading of the regulations and the decision reveals very poor chances for the ambitious but under-financed club, with their best days in the past (champions in 2022, hopefully 2025 might be better luck):
decision is based on para.62&65
according to the quoted paras, the club has to demonstrate compliance with tax laws
The Latvian football has chronically suffered from clubs not covering their payments timely (or not at all), therefore the LFF regulations have been developed based on an extensive experience and practice in the field.
For debts over EUR 50 000 the regulations require denial of the licence, or revoke of it, if already issued.
Gadījumā, ja tiek konstatēts, ka UEFA vai LFF-A licences pretendentam pastāv nenokārtotas finansiālās saistības, pamatojoties uz Paragrāfiem 63-66 līdz 30 000 EUR apmērā, licences pretendentam var tikt piemērotas šī Paragrāfa p. 1 a) līdz d) minētās sankcijas, 30 000 – 50 000 EUR apmērā – šī Paragrāfa p. 1 e) minētā sankcija, virs 50 000 EUR – p. f) vai g) minētā sankcija.
With this in mind, technically Valmiera is in the risk area of being stripped of the national LFF-A licence, as well.
For clubs in the lower leagues, risk of losing licence starts from debts of EUR 25 000 already
Gadījumā, ja tiek konstatēts, ka LFF-B licences pretendentam pastāv nenokārtotas finansiālās saistības, pamatojoties uz Paragrāfiem 63-66 līdz 15 000 EUR apmērā, licences pretendentam var tikt piemērotas šī Paragrāfa p. 1 a) līdz d) minētās sankcijas, 15 000 – 25 000 EUR apmērā – šī Paragrāfa p. 1 e) minētā sankcija, virs 25 000 EUR – p. f) vai g) minētā sankcija.
In other words, judging from the regulations perspective, Valmiera FC has very poor chances to succeed should they go to CAS.
Lost UEFA bonuses
The UEFA bonuses have been of significant aid to the Latvian clubs. As to the Valmiera, playing in the UEFA Conference league in Q1, would have guaranteed them EUR 150 000 – very decent income just for stepping on the field. Chances are, that good draw might enable qualification for a next round – EUR 350 000 for second round. With these numbers in mind, it might be useful for he club to still consider if there are arguments that CAS might hear… but are there any good arguments?!
Payments to clubs participating in the qualifying phases of the UEFA Champions League, UEFA Europa League and UEFA Conference League
For each round played, each club will receive a fixed fee of €175k (subject to exceptions).
• All clubs eliminated during the qualification rounds will finish their run in the UECL, irrespective of the competition in which they started a qualification path. The amounts for the clubs eliminated in the UECL qualifying rounds or play-offs are as follows:
o UECL Q1: €150k
o UECL Q2: €350k
o UECL Q3: €550k
o UECL play-offs: €750k
• Each domestic champion club that does not qualify for the UCL, UEL or UECL league phase will receive €260k in addition to the above-mentioned amounts, as applicable
It was announced that Latvian Football Federation disqualified a footballer earlier in 2024 for an ethical misconduct.
Apparently, the player had submitted an appeal (or a simple request?) against the 3-month ban, which was satisfied, to reduce the forced idle time to 2 months.
The news were reported by LFF, with a significant note in the final paragraph…
“Vienlaikus Ētikas komiteja atgādina, ka atkārtotu rasistisku izpausmju gadījumos draud bargākas sankcijas, ieskaitot arī mūža diskvalifikāciju.”
Translation: At the same time, the Ethics Committee reminds that in cases of repeated racist expressions, there is a threat of harsher sanctions, including lifetime disqualification.
The initial link to the LFF’s press release was posted to Twitter / X on 2 May 2024.
The reduced ban also caught some attention by sports news media in Latvia, specifically noting that the ex-captain of the team is expected to return in game-action ASAP:
Pērn "Liepājas" kapteiņa funkcijas pildījušais Tīdenbergs varēs atgriezties laukumā jau nākampiektdien https://t.co/pQ9qPIcoEC
As it can be seen, the essence most likely turns around the word “slave”. As well, usage of “donut country” might be classified as racially oriented language. The player likely has admitted that this was the case, claimed to have been regretted it.
The reasoning as to how wide any usage of words can be considered as racial, remains unclear, therefore it is strongly recommended to footballers not to use any derogatory words that might be perceived as racial.
It is important not only what an ethical commission considers is racial and constitutes a case of racism, but also how the addressee of the statements perceives the received messages. I.e., the offended basketball player had all the rights to feel that the personal attack was very much driven due to the racial prejudices by the FK Liepāja’s footballer.
The Latvian – Estonian basketball league project’s 4th season has ended with the victory of “Prometey”. For the first time in 4 years a game was declared “technical loss” to a team not appearing in a scheduled game, and the Final was played without any Latvian club. Unless you consider Prometey to represent Latvia, since their home games take place in Riga.
The exceptional Champions
The league regulations state that the tournament is for clubs of both Baltic states, with one exception for one team only. And this year it turned out not to be the single exception.
According to Wikipedia, Prometey Slobozhanske, is a Ukrainian basketball club based in Slobozhanske, previously based in Kamianske. It played in the Ukrainian Basketball SuperLeague, the highest tier of basketball in Ukraine, from 2019 to 2022.
So what are they special with?
Special League Regulations for Prometey
Prometey enjoys special treatment by the Latvian-Estonian league, and rightfully so, having such club on board offers something new for the fans on regular basis. It is believed that Prometey might be the richest club in this year’s tournament, and likely the richest club ever to be based in Riga (many rich clubs have played in Riga, but that is another story).
Tournament – Joint league containing Estonian and Latvian Clubs that has its own entity and budget. As a exception on 2023/2024 basketball season containing also BC Prometey team from Ukraine.
Definition of the “Tournament” in the regulations
Infamous no-show on 9 march 2024 in Tartu
Apart from the Riga-based club taking away the spot in finals for one of the Latvian clubs, it made most noise also during the regular season. Prometey made the history books by becoming first club in the league to be disciplined for not coming to an away match in Estonia.
Club team that does not show up for a scheduled game without announcing and without a justified cause will lose the game by forfeit and the score will be 0:20. In addition there shall be a fine of 5000 EUR.
..
The team that receives a second forfeit during the season shall be disqualified from the Tournament competition. All the game results of the respective team are annulled. In addition, there shall be a fine of 20400 or 40800 EUR (Article 7.6.).
..
The Boards of National Federations can decide the additional punishments (e.g. starting the next season from the lower league).
League regulations Section 11.3. Forfeit
It was reported in media that the team had injury problems. Although Prometey had objective reasons to ask for the match to be re-scheduled, the Tartu team did not accepy any of the proposals. Prometey claims that they approached the Latvian Basketball federation (“LBS”) with their issue.
Representatives of other clubs claimed for removal of the Ukrainian club from the competition at all, some called them names, etc.
Obviously, some club managers cited the financial power of Prometey to dismiss the injury list as a real problem.
According to the public information, Prometey had approached LBS and Tartu club to ask for game date change, and their doctor would allow only 6 players to participate in that match.
So why the forfeit still?
Whom to ask?
How to properly document?
What is striking from the public information – the club tried to speak with LBS and Tartu club. However, as much as the officers of LBS might believe in their authority to decide all basketball related matters, LBS does not have any decision powers in these situations for this joint League. Directly approaching Tartu club remains at Prometey’s own risk, as it turned out that Tartu was not at all motivated to agree on a date change.
Correct Answer to question 1: Tournament Regulations govern the Latvian-Estonian Basketball League 2023/2024, along with any other rules, regulations, manuals, circulars and decisions referenced to herein or adopted by the Management Board of the Latvian-Estonian Basketball League (EST-LAT BL OÜ); matters which are not regulated with the regulations or other regulations and principles which are approved by Management Board of Organizer shall be conducted according to Official FIBA Rules.
Why? Definitions of the regulations stipulate the following:
Management Board – Executive body of the Company and of the Tournament.
Company – The legal entity EST-LAT BL OÜ established jointly by Latvian and Estonian Basketball Association
Organizer – Management Board, Tournament directors and administration workers
There is an obvious error in definitions, evidently, however it cannot lead to think that LBS might have rights to adopt or approve the game date change.
Although the club’s doctor had likely made certain recommendation, there is no mention of the fact being properly documented with sick leaves, etc. If an employer is short-handed on staff, usually any absence can be justified only with doctor’s prescription. Employers may excuse their players without demanding sick leave at all times, however, in relation to third parties this might have been a crucial proof of an objective situation.
Correct Answer to question 2: hard to tell… it depends if the arguments were true at all. Meaning that simple arguments of difficult situation is not a proof, unless it has some documentation under the claims.
Other legal highlights
From legal standpoint, interesting topics as to the sponsors and nationalities of players can be highlighted.
Prohibited or limited advertising
The Latvian law on gambling prohibits advertising the gambling product outside of gaming places. The title sponsor of the league has traditionally been a sports betting company. Per Law, betting is a sub-type of gambling. Therefore, such questionable practice, although tolerated by the Law enforcement officers, remains beyond the Law.
There are also regulations as to the advertising of credits and loans in the Consumers’ protection Law. One of the banners shown among the league’s sponsors is exactly operating in this business field, however, it remains a matter of law enforcement officers accepting that such practice can be tolerated, being favourable towards the sports industry.
Nationality related limitations
In Case C‑680/21 the European Court of Justice analysed the rule of minimum/maximum number of players based on their nationality in national leagues. Since the Latvian – Estonian league is hardly a professional league, this rule might not be against the EU Law. However, it is more likely than not that this tradition which has started in the 90s before Latvia and Estonia joined the EU, is actually illegal.
