Legalsport

Sports Lawyer in Latvia

+37122525686 aris@sportslaw.lv Starta iela 2,Riga, LV1026

Author: Legalsport

  • Merger of two major Latvian sports bodies

    Merger of two major Latvian sports bodies

    Latvian sport is governed in a multi-level structure:

    a) the level of sports federations – all sports

    b) the olympic movement – only sports recognised by IOC qualify

    Two “towers” for the Latvian sports

    In Latvia both of the levels (a&b) belong to a different organisaion: a – to the Latvian Sports federations council (called “LSFP”), and b – to the Latvian Olympic Committee (called “LOK”).

    Section 10. Sports Organisations

    (1) Sports organisations are sports clubs, sports federations and other institutions referred to in this Law.

    ..

    (6) The activities of the sports federations recognised in Latvia shall be coordinated, their shared interests represented and implemented by the sports organisation – the association Latvian Sports Federations Council.

    (7) The activities of the sports federations recognised in Latvia in respect of the Olympic sports approved by the International Olympic Committee shall be coordinated, their shared interests represented and implemented by the sports organisation – the association Latvian Olympic Committee.

    Latvian Sports Law section 10 on LSFP and LOK

    The LSFP and LOK merger

    On 27 March 2024 both organisations are carrying out general meetings to approve their merger. Such initiative is based on their respective statues and the Associations and Foundations Law.

    Delegation arising from the Sports Law

    Although the merger is mainly based on the two legal sources cited (respective Statues and Law governing Associations & Foundations), the draft merger agreement and the draft decision does not clarfiy the role of the Latvian Sports Law.

    Article 10 of the Sports Law delegates to the associations their respective powers. I.e., the rights to certify sports federations and represent the Republic of Latvia – those do not arise from the text, whatever it might be, in the Statutes or the Articles of Association of each respective organisation here.

    Such rights both LSFP and LOK have, because the parliament has given them such authorisation.

    Therefore, although a decision to approve the merger might create political pressure on the Latvian parliament, might not be legally enforceable and the legal preparations of such decisions might very likely be rejected by the Company register.

    The meeting of members simply does not have the power to decide on such matters, where the higher hierarchy law has not authorised them to such.

    Can this defect be cured? Hypothetically, if the merger agreement referred to a “condition precedent” that the parliament approves this merger, would it validate the voting as such? Most likely, still no, since the Law would have to be amended. The lawmaking process has its requirements before a Law can be passed, and it hardly could be considered a valid decision in itself, without a consequential additional meeting after the LAw manemdments hav ebeen passed.

    Statutes as a supreme source of rights?

    In the daily work life of an organisation, its statutes likely play the major and most important role. So it is easy to forget that the Statues and the initial delegation to an organisation actually might arise from a more supreme source of Law.

    The provisions in the Sports Law, assigning LSFP its share of competencies, and LOK its share of the other competencies – is a politicla decisino, which cannot be changed by simple decision of the organisations themselves, in whatever forum they meet.

    Who will fill the separate roles per Sports Law?

    In addition to the two mentined organisations, there also exists a “Latvian National Sports Council” with separate function of each president of the above organisations.

    The Latvian National Sports Council is a public consultative institution which participates in the development of the State sports policy, facilitates sports development and cooperation in the field of sport, and also in the making of decisions regarding matters related to sport. The Cabinet shall approve the by-law of the Latvian National Sports Council.

    Latvian Sports Law section 9

    Among many constituents of the Latvian National Sports Council are several ministers of the government, as well as (a) the president of the association Latvian Olympic Committee, and (b) the president of the association Latvian Sports Federations Council, and several others.

    The roles of LOK and LSFP presdicents are separate in this forum. Looking further in the Law, we can find roles for each of the officials from each organisation separately in the anti-doping matters, too.

  • First racism related disqualification in 2024 in Latvian football

    First racism related disqualification in 2024 in Latvian football

    A 3 month ban to a footballer who apparently had engaged in unethical actions – after a local league player had sent racially offensive messages to a basketball player and the matter became public, Latvian Football federation has decided to sanction the footballer for ethical matter.

    Latvian Federation bans footballer for unethical statements

    The original announcement of LFF only refers to unethical behaviour being the reason, without explaining the details. However, it is believed by the Latvian media that a recent event in relation to the same footballer is the cause for such action by the federation.

    The summary of decision of LFF reads:

    The Ethical Committee of the Latvian Football Federation (LFF), after examining the case materials, has disqualified FK “Liepāja” player Eduards Tīdenberg from participating in all competitions organized by the LFF for three months.
    The disqualification takes effect from tomorrow, March 9th, and is valid until June 8th.
    This punishment was applied for the unethical statements of the football player, which are in contradiction with the LFF Code of Ethics.

    08 March 2024 announcement by LFF – https://lff.lv/zinas/17414/eduardam-tidenbergam-pieskirta-tris-menesu-diskvalifikacija/

    The initial announcement of investigation leaves little doubt as to the event in consideration, as reported by media:

    Evans, who was born in the United States, posted a fading message [story] on the social networking site Instagram on Saturday, showing Tiedenberg’s correspondence with him. In it, the football player called the basketball players of this national team slaves and shamed them as representatives of the “totalizator country”, he also wished them to “burn in hell”*

    Media summarising what has happened – https://jauns.lv/raksts/sports/596099-futbola-federacijas-etikas-komisija-vertes-eduarda-tidenberga-rasistiskos-apvainojumus-gvinejas-izlases-basketbolistam

    * the footballer had originally written “fire in hell”, which might be understood as intentional or erroneous use of words, which might be direct translation of words form Latvian or Russian, as translated and referred to by the media in above excerpt

    The reported racism by the Latvian footballer?

    Racism has been very sensitive topic in 2023, with 2 formal investigations finding that at least on paper “racism in Latvian football does not exist”.

    An unexpected and unlikely screenshot in twitter was leaked:

    The player published an instagram story, implicitly confirming that the screenshot can be perceived as real, and apologising. Also teammates and the club carried out certain activities to help the colleague.

    Media reactions

    Important context to the ban was given by the media: there had been no doubt that the ban was related to the racial offence:

    • https://news.inbox.lv/14wdi1a-tidenbergs-par-rupjibam-gvinejas-basketbolistam-diskvalificets-uz-gandriz-pusi-sezonas?language=lv
    • https://jauns.lv/raksts/sports/597722-liepajas-futbolists-tidenbergs-lidz-junijam-diskvalificets-par-rasistiskiem-izteikumiem

    Could it be something else

    There hadn’t been any other investigation by the ethical committee at that time, neither in relation to the same footballer.

    We inform you that the published information about the actions and statements of Latvian football player Eduards Tīdenbergs has come to the attention of the LFF Ethics Committee. The committee will review this situation shortly.

    LFF announcement on 25 Feb 2024 through Twitter (X)

    Any doubts?

    1. Were the messages sent

    (a) simply unethical, as LFF Ethics committee concluded,

    or

    (b) is it more significantly a racism case?

    2. Is a screenshot of correspondence from a social media account (not verified – without the famous blue “check” mark) enough to disqualify an athlete? We have to consider, of course, that the teammates and the club implicitly admitted the account belongs to the guy, and he had had effective control over the account at all times. Had he disputed the ownership of the account, might have saved half of season’s worth. Could he?

    3. Are we still in the land of “no racism exists in Latvian football” (or even Latvian sports overall), or we are safe to assume that the media classifications are enough to move on from that statement? The official decision does not specify this nuance.

  • First post

    This is the first post of Legalsport.eu to mark the site’s opening. Our experience goes a lot deeper into the past 10+ years, building on the good ideas that we will bring in here in the Legal matters in sports!