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.

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

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.

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.

The Latvian Consumer Protection Law implements more than a dozen of EU directives, including Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts.

Read more on the EUCJ case: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-365/23