Legalsport

Navigating the Legal Landscape of Sports

Author: Legalsport

  • Court case against 2030 Winter Games in the French Alps

    Someone posted a claim (a pdf document) that was apparently filed in the court against Winter Olympics. It was done in a specific French municipality. I found this on Linkedin and find it interesting to summarize from my perspective.

    Key arguments

    • The document challenges the legality of the Olympic Host Contract signed on April 15, 2025, between the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the French National Olympic and Sports Committee (CNOSF), and the regions of Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (AURA) and Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (PACA).
    • It also contests the broader decision to host the 2030 Winter Olympics in the French Alps under the terms set by the IOC.
    • This decision is being viewed under the public law perspective, or under the the Adminsitrative Law and doctrine.

    Having studied public Law in France (Aix-Marseille III university), I find this motion very interesting.

    Legal Grounds for the Challenge

    For a hundred years the olympic contracts have been signed and executed, and now is the time to have a court validate on these.

    The municipalities are subject to very stric Laws in their activities and what they can undertake – although those powers are very wide. But still – they have limits.

    The applicants argue that the contract and the decision to host the Games are illegal on several grounds:

    Lack of Proper Authorization
    • The presidents of the AURA and PACA regions allegedly signed the contract without proper authorization from their regional councils.
    • The CNOSF’s internal authorization process is also questioned.
    • These “organisations” are not operating on their free will, but based on a mandate given to them.
    Illegality of Contract Clauses
    • The contract imposes obligations on public authorities (including the French State) that are not signatories.
    • It includes clauses that:
      • Require changes to French tax law to exempt the IOC and its affiliates from taxes.
      • Restrict public demonstrations near Olympic venues.
      • Mandate expedited visa and work permit processes.
      • Require free provision of public services (e.g., health, transport, security) to the IOC and its partners.
    Financial Risks and Disproportionate Guarantees
    • The contract obliges public authorities to cover potential deficits and provide financial guarantees (e.g., €500 million in case of cancellation).
    • These obligations are argued to be disproportionate and akin to illegal public gifts (libéralités).
    Jurisdiction and Applicable Law
    • The contract stipulates that disputes be resolved under Swiss law by the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne.
    • The applicants argue this violates French public law, which mandates that disputes involving public contracts be handled by French administrative courts.
    Environmental and Democratic Concerns
    • The decision to host the Games was made without public consultation, violating Article 7 of the French Environmental Charter and the Aarhus Convention.
    • The Games will require major infrastructure projects (e.g., Olympic villages, transport links) with significant environmental impact.
    • Especially the new buildings will happen in sensitive Alpine areas.

    Urgency and Request for Suspension

    • The applicants argue that immediate suspension is necessary to prevent irreversible financial. And environmental harm.
    • They cite ongoing public spending and infrastructure planning as evidence of urgency.

    Who Filed the Complaint

    • Regional elected officials (e.g., Pierre-Henri Janot, Jean-François Coulomme).
    • Environmental and civic associations (e.g., AESC, Résilience Montagne, ATTAC 05, Ligue des droits de l’Homme).
    • Local taxpayers from the AURA and PACA regions.

  • AG Emiliou’s Opinions on Sports Governing Bodies’ Regulations – Part 3 of 3

    Welcome back to the final part, readers!

    In the final part of our mini-series, we explore Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou’s opinions on the third case, Case C-133/24 (Tondela and others), which involves a no-poach agreement among football clubs in Portugal‘s first and second divisions during the COVID-19 pandemic. This case examines the compatibility of such agreements with EU competition law, specifically Article 101 TFEU.

    Introduction

    The dispute in this case arises from a no-poach agreement concluded by football clubs in the Portuguese football league’s first and second divisions, in agreement with the national football association, during the COVID-19 pandemic. The agreement aimed to prevent clubs from signing players who had unilaterally terminated their contracts due to the pandemic or any exceptional decisions arising from it.

    Legal Framework and Background

    The Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional (LPFP) is a private-law not-for-profit association that supports and regulates professional football activities in Portugal. During the 2019/2020 season, the LPFP, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, decided to suspend the First and Second Divisions indefinitely. Subsequently, the LPFP and the Union of Professional Football Players (SJPF) set up a COVID-19 Monitoring Committee to negotiate measures ensuring the sustainability of the sport.

    On April 7, 2020, the LPFP and the clubs participating in the First Division agreed that no club would hire a player who unilaterally terminated their employment contract due to the pandemic. This agreement was later adopted by some Second Division clubs.

    Questions Referred for Preliminary Ruling

    The Tribunal da Concorrência, Regulação e Supervisão (Competition, Regulation and Supervision Court, Portugal) referred three questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

    1. Does an agreement such as the no-poach agreement constitute a rule of sporting interest for the purposes of the Meca-Medina case-law?
    2. Can such an agreement be regarded as proportionate and appropriate, and therefore compatible with Article 101(1) TFEU?
    3. Does Article 101(1) TFEU preclude an interpretation that an agreement with the characteristics described may be classified as a restriction of competition by object?

    Advocate General Emiliou’s Analysis

    Scope of the Meca-Medina Case-law: Advocate General Emiliou explains that the Meca-Medina case-law applies to agreements that restrict the freedom of action of undertakings if they are justified by the pursuit of legitimate objectives in the public interest, are genuinely necessary for that purpose, and do not eliminate all competition.

    No-Poach Agreements and Restrictions by Object: Emiliou argues that no-poach agreements, which prevent clubs from hiring players who terminated their contracts, can be inherently anticompetitive. However, the specific circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and the limited scope of the agreement may exclude its inherently anticompetitive nature.

    Proportionality and Appropriateness: The Advocate General suggests that the agreement in question was motivated by the genuine desire to ensure a fair and orderly end to the season, preserving the integrity and fairness of the competition. The agreement had a limited scope, applying only to certain players for a short period, and did not eliminate all competition.

    Conclusion

    Advocate General Emiliou proposes that the Court answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling to the effect that:

    1. A no-poach agreement concluded during the COVID-19 pandemic by professional sports clubs, in agreement with their national sports association, shall not be classified as restrictive by object if its genuine rationale was to preserve the fairness and integrity of the sports competition.
    2. Such an agreement falls within the scope of the Meca-Medina case-law provided that it genuinely sought to ensure the integrity and fairness of the sports competition and was necessary and proportionate to that objective.

    Final Thoughts

    This concludes our three-part series on Advocate General Emiliou’s opinions on sports governing bodies’ regulations. We hope you found these insights valuable and informative. Stay connected with us for more updates and detailed analyses on legal developments in the world of sports.

    Thank you for reading, and we look forward to sharing more insights with you soon.

  • AG Emiliou’s Opinions on Sports Governing Bodies’ Regulations – Part 2 of 3

    Welcome back, readers!

    In the first part of our series, we introduced Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou’s opinions on three significant cases involving sports governing bodies and their regulations.

    Today, we continue with an in-depth look at the second case, Case C-428/23 (ROGON and others), which involves the Deutscher Fußballbund e. V. (DFB) and its regulations governing the activities of players’ agents.

    Historically, sports has been “exceptional” playground. Though, agents are a pure business, even though they work in the exceptionla field of sports, without necessarily being athletes.

    Introduction

    The dispute in this case arises from requests for cease and desist lodged by three applicants:

    • two undertakings providing consultancy and representation services to football players, and
    • the managing director of one of those firms.
    • They challenge certain rules set out in the DFB’s regulations, arguing that these rules infringe EU competition law.

    Legal Framework and Background

    The DFB is the umbrella organization of 27 German football associations, with approximately 25,000 clubs and more than 7 million members. It is also a member of FIFA and is subject to its regulations. The DFB adopted the Reglement für die Spielervermittlung (RfSV), which governs the activities of players’ agents and entered into force on April 1, 2015.

    The RfSV imposes several obligations on agents, including:

    • Registration requirements for agents and natural persons when registering a legal person.
    • The production of an agent’s declaration, subjecting agents to various statutes, regulations, and rules of FIFA, the DFB, and the DFL.
    • Prohibitions on agents sharing in the club’s future transfer proceeds and receiving commissions for services in respect of minors.
    • Obligations to disclose fees paid and payments made to agents.

    Breaches of these regulations can be sanctioned as unsportsmanlike conduct.

    Questions Referred for Preliminary Ruling

    The Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany) referred two questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

    1. Do the principles developed in the Meca-Medina case-law apply to the regulations of a sports association that regulate the use of services of undertakings outside the association on a market upstream of the association’s activities?
    2. If so, must the Meca-Medina test be applied to all provisions of those regulations, or does its application depend on substantive criteria, such as the proximity of the individual rule to the sporting activity of the association?

    Advocate General Emiliou’s Analysis

    Scope of the Meca-Medina Case-law: Advocate General Emiliou explains that the Meca-Medina case-law applies to regulations of a sports association that concern the use of services of undertakings active in markets upstream or downstream of the association’s activities, provided that those services are capable of having a direct and significant influence on the association’s core activities.

    He emphasizes that the rationale of the Meca-Medina case-law is to enable public authorities to leave certain matters to self-regulation by entities pursuing the economic activities concerned. However, this mandate must be limited to activities carried out by the undertakings represented in the association.

    Application of the Meca-Medina Test: The Advocate General suggests that each rule included in a regulation issued by a professional body or sports association ought to be examined separately. However, there may be situations where it would be artificial to split a set of rules into its various components, as they constitute an indivisible whole.

    He also notes that the degree of proximity between the activity of the association and the activity of the undertakings affected by the association’s rules is relevant in assessing whether the rules are necessary and proportionate in light of the legitimate objective in the public interest pursued.

    Conclusion

    Advocate General Emiliou proposes that the Court answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshof to the effect that:

    1. The Meca-Medina case-law applies to the regulations of a sports association that concern the use of services of undertakings active in markets upstream or downstream of the association’s activities, provided that those services are capable of having a direct and significant influence on the association’s core activities.
    2. The conditions laid down in the Meca-Medina case-law must, in principle, be applied in respect of each rule contained in regulations issued by a professional or sports association unless a meaningful assessment requires some or all of those rules to be evaluated in combination.

    Stay tuned for the final part of our series, where we will explore the third case and provide a comprehensive conclusion on Advocate General Emiliou’s opinions.

    Pro sports does not seem to be only a healthy movement, right? People do make business and iving out of it!

  • AG Emiliou’s Opinions on Sports Governing Bodies’ Regulations – Part 1 of 3

    Today, we begin a three-part series exploring the recent opinions delivered by Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou on three pivotal cases involving sports governing bodies and their regulations. These cases, presented before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CURIA), delve into the autonomy of sports associations and their compliance with EU competition, internal market, and data protection rules.

    Would you agree that sports organisations enjoy full discretion in their realm?

    Introduction

    In recent years, the Court has reviewed the compatibility of certain regulations adopted by international or national sports associations with EU competition and internal market provisions.

    The present case, involving the Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA), is a natural follow-up to those cases.

    The dispute concerns FIFA’s regulations governing the activities of players’ agents and raises various interpretative issues arising from EU provisions on competition, internal market, and data protection.

    Legal Framework

    The legal framework for this case includes Article 6 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which outlines the lawfulness of processing personal data. Specifically, processing is lawful if it is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject.

    Facts, Procedure, and the Question Referred

    The applicants in the main proceedings are:

    • FT, an agent for players and the Vice-President of the players’ agents’ association ‘Football Forum’, and
    • RRC Sports, a company based in Germany that also acts as a players’ agent.
    • The defendant, FIFA, is a non-profit association governed by Swiss law and the global governing body for football. FIFA’s regulations, known as the FIFA Football Agent Regulations (FFAR), provide the framework governing the remuneration, activities, and conduct of players’ agents.

    The applicants brought an action for an injunction before the Landgericht Mainz (Regional Court, Mainz, Germany) seeking to bar the application of certain rules of the FFAR on the grounds that they infringe:

    • Article 56 TFEU – freedom of services,
    • Articles 101 and 102 TFEU – competition rules, and
    • Article 6 of the GDPR – processing of personal data.
    • FIFA maintains that the rules are necessary for the integrity of football. I.e., football would collapse without them.

    Preliminary Remarks

    Advocate General Emiliou makes several preliminary remarks to set the scene for his opinion:

    1. Systemic Remarks:
      • The practice of sport, in so far as it constitutes an economic activity, is subject to EU law provisions applicable to such activity. Rules adopted by sporting associations governing paid work or the performance of services by professional or semi-professional players may come within the scope of EU provisions on free movement and competition.
      • The ‘sporting exception’ should be interpreted narrowly. Rules adopted solely on non-economic grounds and relating solely to sport per se must be regarded as extraneous to any economic activity.
    2. Methodological Remarks:
      • The referring court asks the Court to provide guidance on the interpretation of four distinct provisions of EU law concerning a detailed set of regulations adopted by a world sports association.
      • The Advocate General emphasizes the need for a specific assessment of the rules in question in light of their content, legal and economic context, and objectives.

    Analysis

    The Advocate General’s analysis focuses on the compatibility of the FFAR with EU law, particularly Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, Article 56 TFEU, and Article 6 of the GDPR. The analysis involves examining whether the rules in question have an anticompetitive object or effect, whether they can be justified under the Meca-Medina case-law, and whether they may benefit from an exemption under Article 101(3) TFEU.

    In the next part of this series, we will delve deeper into the Advocate General’s analysis of the rules on agents’ remuneration and licensing, and their compatibility with EU competition law.

    Stay tuned for more insights and detailed analysis in Part 2 of our series on Advocate General Emiliou’s opinions on sports governing bodies’ regulations.

  • Upcoming Sports Law judgments: AG opinion from May 2025

    Greetings, readers!

    Today, we are excited to share a brief overview of Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou’s recent opinions on three significant cases involving sports governing bodies and their regulations. These cases, presented before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CURIA), delve into the autonomy of sports associations and their compliance with EU competition, internal market, and data protection rules.

    Federations consider themselves “supreme power”, above the law – according to AG, there should be change in attitude.

    Case Summaries:

    1. Case C-209/23 (RRC Sports):
      • Two football agents challenge certain rules in an international sports association’s regulatory framework, arguing that these rules violate the freedom to provide services, EU competition rules, and data protection provisions. FIFA defends the rules as lawful and necessary for the integrity of football
    2. Case C-428/23 (ROGON and others):
      • Two consultancy and representation service providers for football players, along with the managing director of one firm, seek to prevent a national sports association’s regulations from causing irreparable harm
    3. Case C-133/24 (Tondela and others):
      • Football clubs in Portugal’s first and second divisions agreed with the national football association to abstain from signing players who had unilaterally terminated their contracts due to COVID-19-related issues

    Advocate General Emiliou’s Opinions:

    Advocate General Emiliou’s opinions address the extent to which sports governing bodies’ regulations must comply with EU laws. He proposes a narrow interpretation of the ‘sporting exception,’ suggesting that regulations adopted solely on non-economic grounds and related solely to sport fall outside the scope of EU competition and internal market rules.

    Emiliou argues that while sports associations can adopt regulations related to activities of operators in upstream or downstream markets, these regulations must be justified if they have significant anticompetitive effects. Justification is possible if the regulations pursue legitimate sporting objectives and satisfy proportionality and effectiveness tests (the ‘Meca-Medina case-law’).

    Additionally, Emiliou reviews the regulations against free movement rules and examines the distinction between restrictions of competition by object and by effect. He concludes that ‘no-poach’ agreements, generally restrictive ‘by object,’ may be justified given their specific objective, limited scope, and the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic .

    Stay Tuned for More!

    In the coming days, we will provide a detailed analysis of each case, exploring the legal intricacies and implications of Advocate General Emiliou’s opinions. We will delve deeper into the arguments presented, the potential impact on sports governance, and the broader implications for EU law.

    Stay connected with us for these in-depth analyses and more updates on this evolving legal landscape. If you have any questions or specific areas you would like us to cover, please feel free to reach out!

    Thank you for reading, and we look forward to sharing more insights with you soon.

  • FIBA ​​Tribunal Orders Latvian Coach to Pay €12,000 Compensation to Club

    FIBA ​​Tribunal Orders Latvian Coach to Pay €12,000 Compensation to Club

    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.

  • CAS case: RFS (Riga football school) vs. Silva

    CAS case: RFS (Riga football school) vs. Silva

    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.

  • FC Valmiera Faces License Rejection: appeal options per Latvian Law

    FC Valmiera Faces License Rejection: appeal options per Latvian Law

    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.

  • Looking back at articles of 2024

    Looking back at articles of 2024

    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.

    https://www.diena.lv/raksts/sporta-avize/tuvplana/rasisms-sporta-14311284

    Olympic principles

    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.

    https://www.diena.lv/raksts/sporta-avize/tuvplana/piedalities-nedrikst-atteikties-14314943


    We are preparing for summer camps in the spring

    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.

    https://www.diena.lv/raksts/sporta-avize/tuvplana/ligums-par-vasaras-nometni-14317789


    The first WRC in Latvia

    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.

    https://www.diena.lv/raksts/sporta-avize/tuvplana/motoru-sporta-tiesibas-14320814

    Jurisdiction of sports disputes

    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.


    https://www.diena.lv/raksts/sporta-avize/tuvplana/sporta-sacensibu-manipulesana-14326743

  • Image rights of athletes in Latvia: constitutional law rules

    Image rights of athletes in Latvia: constitutional law rules


    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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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:

    1. Consent: Always obtain written consent before allowing anyone to use your image or likeness for commercial purposes.
    2. Licensing Agreements: Enter into licensing agreements with companies that wish to use your image or likeness to ensure clear terms and conditions.
    3. Monitoring Online Activity: Regularly monitor social media and the internet to identify and address any unauthorized use.
    4. 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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.