The Disputes in Sports Law - Coursework Example

Sports Law Introduction Sports field is a worldwide cultural phenomenon that is not only a big part of the global economy but also wealthy basis of international and national private and public laws. Sports law is classified into two broad fields; private and public division. The private segment is referred to as lex sportive and it is the core of the legal field1. Siekmann says that “is formed by rules of organised sport”. Organised sport refers to a build up of organizations for each sport which include national organizations which make up broader regional and internationals organizations for example the world football organization. The other division is the public segment which basically consist national legislation as well as regional and universal agreements in the area of sport. Blackshaw asserts that sport accounts for more than three per cent of the world trade (61). This means that sport is a big business with so much money at stake. Such an environment in sport has resulted to a rising trend of sports disputes. Sports disputes include a myriad of claims from personal injuries to issues of “sports sponsorships, endorsement, licensing, merchandising, image rights and broadcasting arrangements”2. According to Blackshaw, sports disputes can be classified in two categories; Disputes arising from all types of legal relations between parties in respect of which it has been decided to invoke CAS arbitration. For example, sponsorship, TV and athlete management contracts and issues of civil liability. And disputes arising from last instance decisions made by the tribunals of sports federations, when their statutes and regulations or a specific agreement provide for CAS jurisdiction. For example, disciplinary issues, in particular, doping, and decisions concerning the selection and eligibility of athletes3 Generally, there are three ways of handling sports disputes; taking the dispute to court, appealing to international authorities that have been formed by sports federations, seek private mediation or arbitration of the dispute. Handling sports disputes ’within the family of sport’ Maitre Benard Foucher, a French constitutional lawyer, has opined that it is much better to settle sports legal disputes ‘within the family of sport’. This means that sports disputes should be settled outside of the court system. This is a more recent opinion. In the case McInnes v. Onslow-Fane4 the former English Vice Chancellor, Megarry was of the view that the sports bodies were better positioned to judge than the courts. Similar views had been expressed by Lord Denning in Enderby Town Football Ltd v. Football Association Ltd5. Sports disputes being settled ‘within the family of sport’ would then mean that there should be bodies responsible for handling disputes. One such body is the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) also referred to as Tribunal Arbitral du Sport (TAS) in French. “The CAS has a minimum of 150 arbitrators from 37 countries”6 and they are not necessarily required to follow the Common Law principle. Legal Scholars Matthew Mitten and Hayden Opie support CAS an excellent body for sports legislation. They say that “The establishment and development of the CAS has provided an effective mechanism for resolving Olympic and international sports disputes in an expert and internationally coherent manner, thereby largely avoiding the problems of inconsistent rulings by national courts unfamiliar with international sports association governance and rules”.7 Foucher’s opinion that sports disputes should be settled outside of the court system could be a legitimate view. This is because sports rules could be considered universal to some extent. Most national sports organizations are expected to follow international standard during their inception, their regulation is monitored by global bodies and most competitions involve almost all countries. For example, the Olympics; for competitors to be allowed in the Olympic, they have to be vetted in the standards provided by the Olympic standards. “There are national Olympic committees (NOCs) in more than 200 countries or territories throughout the world that promote, sponsor, and oversee Olympic and international sports competitions. Each of them must comply with the IOC Charter and bylaws, as well as the laws of their respective countries.”8 This means that coming up with a unified way of resolving sports disputes rather than using the national court systems could be the best way to adopt. In the case of Olympics competitions, some activities would be passed by the IOC charter but be rejected by the laws of respective countries. It is critical to analyse to what extent the development of a unified sports legislation law could jeopardise the legal norms of the different countries. That means that when coming up with generally acceptable global legal framework should consider different legal jurisdiction of different countries in order to form legal principles that are generally agreeable. Mitten and Opie argue that the global processes that are considered while establishing and international sports antidoping code and to bring a resolution to the different Olympic and international sports disputes necessitates international cooperation global law making.9 However the appreciate the fact that every respective national or international governing body and individual athletes who take part in the Olympic and other international sports competition are subject to and are protected by laws of their countries. Since their different country’s laws are different, then it would be problematic to solve Olympic and other international sports disputes. This is confirmed by the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in the case Reynolds v. International Amateur Athletic Federation10. The court decided that “ an Ohio district court lacked personal jurisdiction over a London based IF in litigation brought by an athlete domiciled in Ohio” 11 This is because IF has sought to establish uniform rules that are consistent worldwide. This explains the possibility that national courts could reach inconsistent conclusions in international sports disputes. Solving sports disputes in the family of sports would be one of the ways to establish, implement and enforce global legal norms. Different countries in the world differ in the legal system it uses, for example one country adopts a common law system while the other embraces a civic law system. In addition, there are cultural issues like ethnocentrism and nationalism as well as cultural importance of sports that would result to conflicting judicial views. Such realities dictate the need for a consistent worldwide legal framework in sports. Handling sports disputes ‘within the family of sport’ calls for unified and generally acceptable rules. However, it does not negate the need for nations to ensure protection of their citizens who participate in the Olympics and other international sports as well as the need for nations to safeguard its sovereignty. Apparently, this has resulted in tension between the national and international handling of sports disputes. There have been instances where the international governing body rules and regulations are opposing to national laws. Similarly, in other instances, CAS awards have been inconsistent with national laws. There should be an extermination of how his conflicts are being solved. Studies in this area should be carried out especially to ascertain the effects of such disparities in the legal framework. Several studies have recognised, though in a cursory manner, that the ethical codes followed by international sports federation could be considered a form of global private law. Conclusion It is apparent that Olympic and international sports laws conflict in one way or another with national laws. If parties in dispute file a case in their domestic courts, the courts will use their national law to resolve the disputes. This calls for the Olympic and international sports rules and agreements to be in line with national laws. That could prove as challenging given the number of countries that participate in these sports. CAS has been working efficiently in resolving disputes across a wide spectrum. However without continuous judicial review of the CAS award in pursuit of a generally acceptable international standard, it would be hard to create a universal body of private law worldwide. Maitre Benard Foucher’s, opinion that it is much better to settle sports legal disputes ‘within the family of sport’ holds water. This is because Olympic and International sports take place on a global scale and it involves long-term and consent-based relationships. Therefore, it is necessary to have universally acceptable rules and dispute resolution. On the other hand, the speculation that a universal lex sportiva could displace sovereign national laws hoists issues that scholarly study should investigate. References Blackshaw Ian, “The Court of Arbitration for Sport: An International Forum for settling Disputes Effectively ‘Within the Family of Sport’”, Entertainment Law, Vol, 2, No. 2, 2003, pp. 61-63. Enderby Town Football Ltd v. Football Association Ltd [1971] 1 All ER 215. McInnes v. Onslow-Fane [1978] 3 All ER 211 Mitten Matthew and Opie Hayden, “Sports Law: Implications for the Development of International, Comparative, and National Law and Global Dispute Resolution”. Tulane Law Review Association, No. 269, 2010, pp. 283-308. Mitten et al., Sports Law and Regulation: Cases, Materials, and Problems, (2d ed. 2009), pp. 278-80. Reynolds v. International Amateur Athletic Federation, 23 F.3d 1110 (6th Cir. 1994). Siekmann R. “Introduction to International and European Sports Law”.ASSER International Sports Law Series, 2012. DOI: 10.1007/7978-90-6704-852-1_2. Read More