Legalsport

Navigating the Legal Landscape of Sports

Category: Governance

  • Latvian NT player ‘s rights to play against international clubs

    Latvian national basketball team’s player’s club match against Russian clubs has been a topic in Latvian media recently, here is a legal assessment of this issue.

    The international tournament at issue

    Latvian media began reporting in mid-July that Latvian national basketball player D. Bertāns’ club would participate in a pre-season tournament in Serbia with the participation of two leading teams of the Russian Federation.

    Jauns.lv news: “Will Dāvis Bertāns play against Russian teams? His club “Dubai” has agreed to participate in the Occupier League Super Cup“

    https://jauns.lv/raksts/sports/663795-vai-davis-bertans-speles-pret-krievijas-komandam-vina-klubs-dubai-piekritis-piedalities-okupantu-ligas-superkausa

    The tricky nature of D. Bertāns’ situation

    First, Internet users are asking questions about the basketball player’s employer’s decision and the ethical side of the basketball player’s own possible participation.

    Secondly, questions about the legal side of such participation.

    Personal attitude

    The basketball player’s attitude towards the ethical side of the issue seems to have been sufficiently analyzed by the Internet so far. One can only speculate whether a similar trend will continue in the future. It is clear that participation in such a tournament is primarily decided by the club management, not by an individual basketball player.

    The filter of Latvian “Sports’ law”

    The Latvian Sports Law contains a number of legal provisions regarding the participation of athletes in tournaments with Russian teams.

    This situation is made especially tricky by the fact that Bertāns could soon be very useful to the national team in the Eurobasket 2025 games, and it would be a great pity to lose one of Latvia’s best players due to such a tournament, for legal reasons.

    Sports law norms: Articles 16.1 and 17.1

    First of all, it is necessary to understand what the criteria of the law are. The second part of Article 16.1 would apply to Bertāns, but Article 17.1 would not really apply.

    Article 16.1. Prohibition on participation in sports competitions

    (1) Sports teams registered in the Republic of Latvia, regardless of their legal status, are prohibited from participating in:

    1) national championships and national cup competitions of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus;

    2) sports competitions in international leagues of team sports games where more than half of the participants are teams from the Russian Federation or the Republic of Belarus.

    (2) Athletes and sports workers are prohibited from participating in sports competitions held in the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus.

    Article 17.1. Prohibition on organizing sports competitions

    (1) It is prohibited to organize the following team sports competitions in the Republic of Latvia:

    1) national championships and national cup competitions of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus;

    2) sports competitions in international leagues of team sports games where more than half of the participants are teams from the Russian Federation or the Republic of Belarus.

    (2) In the Republic of Latvia, it is prohibited to organize competitions of national team sports games (adult, youth and junior) (hereinafter in this Article – national team) in which national teams of the Russian Federation or the Republic of Belarus participate under their own flag or in a neutral status.

    (3) National teams of the Republic of Latvia in team sports games are prohibited from playing against national teams of the Russian Federation or the Republic of Belarus if they participate in competitions under their own flag or in a neutral status.

    Bertāns as a player in the context of the Sports Law

    In the current wording of the law, D. Bertāns as a player is only subject to a small part of the regulatory restriction.

    His club is not registered in Latvia, not even in Europe and is not bound by the national regulation of Latvia.

    The matches will not take place in Latvia, therefore the club has no reason to worry about Latvian norms territorially either.
    The rule regarding the athlete’s participation in matches on Russian territory is not fulfilled, because Russian clubs will go to Serbia, which is an independent and sovereign state, whose autonomy Latvia fully recognizes.
    The proportion of numerical tournament participants does not exceed the legally permissible “concentration”
    Even if, theoretically, Bertāns would play for the Latvian team in the tournament and be the only national basketball player, the law would not punish this situation considering that “more than half” of the participants should have been from Russia or Belarus. This time, exactly half of the 4 teams are from Russia, so there is no “more” than half.
    The sports law allows athletes or clubs to participate in international tournaments and compete against teams from Russia, as long as they are not hosted in Latvia (by analogy, we can think of Istanbul clubs in the Euroleague, which are not allowed to play against the Tel Aviv club in Turkey and thus such a Euroleague match took place in Riga).

    Player’s employment contract?

    No matter what the laws say and what society says about any of the choices, the most specific criteria for each athlete to receive a salary are written in their employment contracts.

    Bertans’ contract with the club most likely stipulates the criteria under which the player will be able to receive his salary.

    Usually, athletes are obliged to participate in all matches, if health permits. It is without doubt also the same that all is written in the contract, that, as deciding not to start with a unilateral decision – normal clubs will not have such leeway, even for the biggest superstars.

    This can have serious consequences for the player.

    The importance of the sequence of events

    Secondly, it is important to evaluate the dates, or the sequence of events: Eurobasket will take place from 27.08 to 14.09. The tournament in Serbia will be on 24-25 September.

    An athlete cannot be legally punished for a probability, but only for an actual fact.

    So, in fact, the criterion of the Sports Law, which could theoretically deny participation in the national team and the tournament in Serbia at the same time, will not be able to apply at all, because the national team matches will be held earlier.

    Bertāns is safe

    Summing up all the conclusions, at least for the duration of the Eurobasket, this national team player appears to be legally safe!

    This is of course not a binding legal advice, as it is based only on publicly available data, without regards to more specific details.

  • 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.
  • Riga municipality gives EUR 200’000 to VEF Riga basketball club in 2024 – deservedly?

    Riga municipality gives EUR 200’000 to VEF Riga basketball club in 2024 – deservedly?

    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?

    One of the most convenient ways to see the current tax debt of the club is through this link: https://company.lursoft.lv/en/basketbola-klubs-vef-riga/40008115274

    *(due to the tax system practicalities in Latvia, tax payments are calculated on specific dates and apply to specific periods)

  • Latvian-Estonian Basketball League season 2024 finish

    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.

    “Prometey” par skandālu Tartu: Mēs piedāvājām četrus variantus spēles pārcelšanai…

    Could Prometey avoid the Forfeit?

    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?

    1. Whom to ask?
    2. 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.

  • 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.