What are the legal issues affecting MMA fighters?

http://www.godisageek.com/wp-content/uploads/UFC-21.jpg

What is MMA?

MMA stands for mixed martial arts and is a full combat sport using techniques across various disciplines including jiu-jitsu, muay-thai and wrestling. The main promoter and organiser of MMA is the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) which is based in the United States but rolls-out events, globally. The UFC doesn't really have any other competitors and therefore holds a near-monopoly position in the commercial MMA market. This also gives them a significant advantage when negotiating contracts with fighters who are unable to supplement their income with any other competing organisation.

The popularity of MMA, as a spectator sport, has exploded over the last few years and now enjoys a global fanbase with the UFC having an estimated brand worth of $4bn, according to Forbes. However, it wasn't always bright lights and pay-cheques for MMA, the sport has had an uphill battle in terms of convincing critics over concerns about the sport's violent nature and safety regulations. The sport is still banned in Norway and France, in October 2016, announced the implementation of combat sport regulations which sees MMA outlawed across the country. However, in the United States, MMA continues to go from strength to strength, enjoying enormous growth each year. In March 2016, New York became the 50th state to legalise MMA and is looking forward to a sold out Madison Square Garden bout, in November, when Irish superstar, Conor McGregor looks to make history when he challenges Eddie Alvarez, in an attempt to become the first fighter to hold two UFC titles, at the same time.

The MMA bandwagon shows no signs of slowing down and as the commercialisation of the sport continues to grow and the UFC's worth continues to rise, it is only fair, just and reasonable that the fighters, who put themselves physically and financially at risk, are protected and not subjected to exploitation and unfair contract terms.

Keeping a lid on goal celebrations - The Rules

http://i1.dailyrecord.co.uk/incoming/article9110355.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/JS103078728-1.jpg

This weekend saw a number of instances that saw players booked for their goal celebrations and even Mourinho criticising Conte for celebrating his team's winning performances. I take a look at the FIFA rules that govern goal celebrations and the possible drawbacks for the game, as a result.

What are FIFA's rules on goal celebrations?

The rules concerning goal celebrations can be found under Rule 12 of FIFA's Laws of the Game which state that a player can be cautioned for unsporting behaviour which can include the following:-

• A player removing his jersey or pulling his shirt to cover his head, when celebrating a goal
• If, in the opinion of the referee, a player makes gestures which are provocative, derisory or inflammatory when celebrating a goal
• A player climbs onto a perimeter fence to celebrate a goal being scored

Recent examples & potential issues

In the Betfred Cup Semi-Final, Rangers and Celtic went head to head at Hampden Stadium, in Glasgow. Both teams have a fierce rivalry and know what it means to score against the other and ultimately, win the tie. The match had been locked at 0-0 for most of the game but Celtic had been knocking heavily at Rangers' door for much of the second half. The Rangers keeper was pulling off some great saves which was leaving Celtic and their fans increasingly frustrated, at not being able to find the net. Then in the 88th minute, Moussa Dembele hit the net (as a result of an assist from Leigh Griffiths). One half of the stadium erupted and Dembele & Griffiths flew towards the exuberant fans to share in the joy, embracing them in the moment. Everyone in the stadium was clear on what the goal could potentially mean with Rangers having very little time on the clock, to equalise. The Referee failed to see any merit or reason in the goal celebration and Dembele was showed a yellow card, for the manner in which he celebrated his goal.

NEWS: Rita Jeptoo suspended for four years by the CAS

Lausanne, 26 October 2016 –

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has issued its decision in the arbitration procedure between the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), Athletics Kenya (AK) and the Kenyan athlete Rita Jeptoo. The CAS Panel in charge of the matter has imposed a four-year period of ineligibility on Ms Jeptoo and disqualified the athlete’s results in the 2014 Boston marathon and all other results as from 17 April 2014 (including the 2014 Chicago marathon). On 25 September 2014, Ms Jeptoo underwent an out of competition doping control. On 12 October 2016, Ms Jeptoo won the Chicago marathon. 

On 24 October 2014, the sample provided by the athlete was found to contain recombinant EPO (rEPO). After conducting an investigation, on 27 January 2015, AK found Ms Jeptoo guilty of an anti-doping rule violation and imposed a two-year period of ineligibility on her. On 13 March 2015, the athlete filed an appeal at the CAS against the decision of AK which she later withdrew. On the same day, the IAAF also filed a statement of appeal at the CAS challenging the decision issued by AK and requesting that a four-year period of ineligibility be imposed on the athlete due to aggravating circumstances surrounding her doping offence. The IAAF also requested that the athlete’s results in the 2014 Boston marathon be disqualified. 

The arbitration was conducted by a panel of CAS arbitrators: Prof. Ulrich Haas, Germany (President), Mr Alan Sullivan QC, Australia, and Judge Robert Reid QC, UK. 

Doping in Cycling - Cases & Sponsorship Fallout

https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/inspirewp/live/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/04/doping1_R-e1412932962962.jpg

Speculation about doping in cycling has been prominent for a number of years with more and more cyclists falling foul of anti-doping rules. The latest potential name on the hit-list is none other than Sir Bradley Wiggins, of Team GB, who just over a month ago was set to be the UK's most decorated Olympian at another successful games. However, a Russian-led hacking exercise into WADA's database has prompted questions about performance-enhancing drugs, that he may have been using, during his career.

The questions focus on TUEs that allow athletes to take prohibited substances, for valid reasons, usually supported through evidence from a doctor. The leaked information states that Wiggins obtained three TUEs for the treatment of asthma and allergies between 2011 and 2013 and which were taken prior to a significant race for that season. Further, there is also concern that Wiggins, in obtaining his TUEs, had enlisted the aid of disgraced doctor, Geert Leinders - who received a lifetime ban for doping offences committed in relation to the Rabobank cycling team (2001-2009). There is no suggestion, at this stage, that Wiggins has broken the rules but there is speculation as to whether the TUEs were obtained inappropriately and why the TUES or even his alleged conditions of asthma etc had not been revealed previously (in his latest autobiography, for example). Latest suggestions that he missed a whereabouts test, in May, only fuels the speculation.

What is whereabouts? 

The whereabouts system is ran by anti-doping organisations, such as UK Anti-Doping, and it requires athletes to submit details of their whereabouts so they can be located for testing, at any time and anywhere, without advanced notice.

Given the latest anti-doping speculations surround Team Sky and Sir Bradley Wiggins, I have taken a look back at some of the most recent doping cases arising from the UK and abroad and the general effect, that such scandals have, on sponsorship.

Football without the fans is nothing - Mauro Icardi, Similar Cases & Misconduct

Inter Milan's, Mauro Icardi, was today sanctioned following comments he made about Inter fans, in his new autobiography book.

Inter's star striker stated in his autobiography that he confronted the club's "Ultras", following an Inter defeat in 2015 and had been described as a "hero", as a result. It is also understood from social media comments, about the book, that the striker goads the fan group by stating that he has Argentine friends that would come over to Italy and 'back him up'.

Such statements did not go down well with Inter's "Ultras" (a group of fans known for their ultra-fanatical support of a particular team) who not only, in response, displayed hateful banners aimed at Icardi but also jeered him throughout their latest match and even turned up outside his house.

The club released a statement confirming that discussions had been held with the striker and that whilst the player would be punished, he would retain his captaincy of the club - a position that fans called for Icardi to lose.

It is difficult to see how Icardi will bounce back from this string of events with more and more fans turning on him, by the day. Is it only a matter of time before he is transferred out of Inter, like numerous other professionals who have fallen foul of the fans & conduct rules, in the past?

eSports - Employment, Immigration, IP & Integrity

http://esports.inquirer.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Teams.png

eSports is arguably the fastest developing sporting phenomenon, of our generation, and its popularity is sweeping the globe, at a lightning rate, with a vast fan base and growing betting market. Such popularity creates an opportunity for big brands to become involved in eSports and worldwide travel for the players/teams involved. However, on the other hand, it is also creates the opportunity for games to be undermined by match manipulation and corruption. This blog post attempts to cover the main legal issues affecting eSports gamers today.

But firstly...

What is eSports? 

eSports is the competitive playing of video games, at a professional level, for cash prizes (sums regularly in the millions) either as an individual gamer or as part of a team of gamers. The video games are played as part of a tournament and matches are spectated by a growing fan-base.

The sport was first prominent in South Korea as a spectator sport with fans creating 'Beatlemania' type hysteria over their favourite individual gamers and teams. It didn't take long before the Asian phenomenon made its way to the United States with big league video games such as League of Legends and World of Warcraft.

The viewer ratings of eSports in the United States is staggering. In 2014, 31 million Americans watched eSports with 27 million viewers watching the League of Legends final - compare that to the 14 million viewers who watched the World Series (Baseball) that same week. In 2015, that number rose to 36 million watching the League of Legends final. It's clear to see that eSports is taking over, as a spectator sport, and shows no signs of slowing down.

Fans are able to watch games live, either by attending a tournament and watching first hand (the UK opened its first eSports venue, The Gfinity Arena, in 2016), or they can also stream the events live through streaming site, Twitch. Twitch is a social network for gamers and a live streaming video game platform. Amazon.com was not slow in seeing the growth in eSports and was quick to snap up a commercial opportunity with the purchase of Twitch for $1billion. Other such platforms that stream eSports includes YouTube and now, Twitter too. The UK aired its very first eSports TV channel on Sky in 2016, called Ginx which has seen huge success since it went live.

News: CAS issues decisions in the cases of Russian racewalkers

Today, the Court of Arbitration for Sport issued the following media release concerning five Russian racewalkers and anti-doping offences:

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has issued decisions in the cases of Russian racewalkers Elmira Alembekova, Ivan Noskov, Mikhail Ryzhov, Vera Sokolova and Denis Strelkov who all tested positive for EPO at the Saransk race walking centre on 2 June 2015.

All five athletes have been found to have committed an Anti-doping Rule Violation (ADRV) pursuant to Rules 32.1 and 32.2 of the International Athletics Federation (IAAF) Competition Rules and sanctioned as follows:

• Ivan Noskov, Mihail Ryzhov, Vera Sokolova and Denis Strelkov are all sanctioned with a fouryear period of ineligibility, starting on 15 July 2016. Furthermore, all competitive results obtained by them in the period 2 June 2015 to 15 July 2015 are disqualified, with all the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points, prize and appearance money.

• Elmira Alembekova is sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility, starting on 17 July 2016. Furthermore, all competitive results obtained by Elmira Alembekova in the period 2 June 2015 to 17 July 2015 are disqualified, with all the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points, prize and appearance money.
  
  

Essendon FC: A conclusion in the anti-doping saga

source: https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/953c8c8a0495153919e22185969e1e2648c6054d/0_299_4500_2703/4500.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=b28942be0fc50105725949d3b1f4b756

Yesterday, the Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT) threw out the appeal of more than 30 current and former players of AFL team, Essendon FC, against doping bans that were imposed on them by the Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS). 

Where did it all begin?

In February 2013, Essendon FC was investigated by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). The inquiry suspected that 34 past and present Essendon players had been taking the banned substance, Thymosin Beta-4, via injection during the 2012 season. The substance was given to the players by a team official as part of a team-wide supplement plan. The players were of the understanding that the substance was compliant with the WADA Code.

The investigation highlighted governance and duty of care failures, on the part of the club, and the AFL fined Essendon $2,000,000, suspended the coach and general manager and banned the team from playing in the 2013 finals series. 

The findings, regarding the individual players, were also submitted to the AFL but their Anti-Doping Tribunal found that there was insufficient evidence to declare the players guilty of doping offences. None of the players had tested positive, most likely due to the passage of time, and as such the Tribunal dismissed the claims and no sanctions were imposed, clearing Essendon FC of any wrongdoing.

Lassana Diarra: Art. 45 TFEU, Breach of Contract, Compensation & Transfer Fees

source: http://www.footballclubdemarseille.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Diarra-edf2016.jpg

Last week the news emerged that French international, Lassana Diarra, was taking legal action against FIFA and the Royal Belgian Football Association (RBFA) after he was ordered to pay 10 million Euros to Lokomotiv Moscow which resulted in a failed transfer to Sporting Charleroi.

Diarra left Lokomotiv in 2014 after agreeing a four year deal with them in 2013, following what was reported to be a dispute over a pay cut. Charleroi approached Diarra in February 2015 and produced a letter of intent to sign the player but eventually decided not to do so in July 2015, as they did not want to face any sanctions that Diarra may have been forced to pay. Lokomotiv sought damages, from Diarra, for breach of contract and the case went to FIFA for a decision. Diarra was ordered, by FIFA, to pay 10 million Euros as compensation to Lokomotiv for breach of contract, a decision which was later appealed and upheld by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) which also imposed an additional 110,000 to the Court, as a result of his conduct.

Diarra is now suing both FIFA and the RBFA, through the Belgian Courts, on the basis that the order was in violation of the free movement of workers guaranteed by European treaties and he was technically unemployed in February 2015 when an approach came from Charleroi.

It is understood that the verdict in the case will be given in the coming months.

International Injuries, Insurance & Compensation

source: http://img.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Photo/competitions/General/02/41/10/03/2411003_w1.jpg

Under Scots law, for any sports related injury legal case to succeed in an action of negligence, the victim must be able to prove three things:

• A duty of care was owed
• That duty of care was breached
• The damage suffered was caused as a direct consequence of the breach

In football, all participants owe a duty of care to one another. In order to show a breach of that duty, conduct must be reckless and fall below the standard required of a reasonably skilful and competent professional player. It must be an act that is more serious than an error of judgement. Thereafter, the injury suffered must be foreseeable. For example, it must be the type of injury that one would expect from a foul or tackle. Given that, the test for negligence in the sporting world is a high threshold to meet.

In the glamorous, big money world of football, players are considered as assets on the club’s financial books and their fitness can not only affect the club’s balance sheets but it can also cost the player personally.

International transfer of minors: What are the rules under Art. 19?

In 2016, Manchester City were reported to Fifa by Argentine club, Velez Sarsfield, following the move of Benjamin Garre from the Argentine side to the English side. Velez's president described the transfer as an attempted "trafficking" of a schoolboy which was an "immoral act".

In order to avoid the exploitation of minors, there are strict restrictions on clubs signing players who are under the age of 18 and who reside outside the European Union (it is yet to be seen how this will affect English and Scottish clubs, post Brexit). 

What is the rule? 

The rule can be found under Article 19 of the Fifa Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players which state that the international transfer of players are permitted only if the player is over the age of 18, apart from 3 exceptions:-

1. The transfer is caused by the moving of the player's parents due to work commitments (unrelated to football);
2. The transfer is to a club within 50km of the border of the country, in question and;
3. The transfer takes place within the territory of the European Union, of a player over the age of 16

In Manchester City's case, following the complaint, FIFA advised that there was no case to answer as Garre, although from Argentina, held an Italian passport. Velez has advised that they may still appeal this decision through the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

However, Barcelona, Real Madrid and Atletico Madrid have all received transfer bans recently for breaking this rule.

Maria Sharapova calls ITF biased - The legal issues

Maria Sharapova spoke out today for the first time since her doping ban was reduced and claimed that the International Tennis Federation (ITF) had acted bias and were keen to make an example out of her.

Sharapova tested positive in January for the drug, meldonium, and was initially given a two year ban which was, yesterday, reduced to 15 months following appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

Sharapova said the following:

"I got a 24 month suspension but they [ITF] wanted four years for me. I went through the ITF hearing, which was in front of an arbitration panel which was chosen by the ITF... I am at a hearing knowing the people that I am speaking to were chosen by the people I am actually in a fight with. They call that neutral? That is not neutral. CAS is neutral and this is what CAS has awarded to me."

National governing bodies such as the ITF have a duty to not reach its decisions under any influence of bias. When making decisions they must not show bias to one decision or another and there must not be any perception of bias during the disciplinary process.

The test for establishing bias is an objective one and is based on the reasonable man test: Would the reasonable man conclude, in the circumstances, that there may have been an influence of bias in the decision making process?

This test was applied in two main cases without any favourable results for the claimant:

Clinical Negligence in Sport - Putting the athlete's health first

For some, a career in sport is a dream role and this is no different for medical practitioners who are either employed by the sports clubs themselves or receive referrals, on a private basis. The risks for practitioners working at elite levels of sport are very significant, with some professional indemnity insurers even refusing to indemnify practitioners who work at the highest levels due to the eye-watering financial consequences if something goes wrong.

With the very best footballers earning in excess of £100,000 per week at the top levels, and others in lower leagues receiving a more than healthy £20,000 per week, it is easy to see how loss of earning claims could reach astronomical proportions if liability attaches to a medical practitioner for an injury that cuts a sporting career short.

While it was not a medical negligence claim, the case of Collett v Smith provides the perfect example of settlement figures that medical practitioners could be liable for if an award of damages is made against them. 18-year-old Collett was playing for Manchester United in a match against Middlesborough FC. In the course of the game he was tackled by the first defendant. The tackle was high and over the ball and, as a result, Collett sustained a fracture of the tibia and fibula of his right leg. Collett pursued damages for injury, loss and damage caused by the negligence of Smith. Collett chose to pursue Middlesborough FC (rather than Smith himself), arguing that they were liable for their employee’s actions given that he was connected to the club and acting in the course of his employment, as a professional footballer. In particular, Collett claimed for future loss of earnings as a result of not being able to pursue a successful career as a professional footballer and thereafter, as a football manager or coach. Middlesborough FC admitted liability and it was for the Court to determine the final settlement figure.

Held: Award in excess of £4.3 million including:

General Damages: £35,000 

Past Loss of Earnings: £456,095 

Future Loss of Earnings: £3,854,328

Remember that this is a case where the footballer was not established and his 'worth' effectively had to be estimated. Imagine the scenario for someone treating a Messi or Ronaldo type footballer, with all the potential earnings that attach to such superstar players, and something goes wrong to their permanent injury.

Given that, it is important that all medical practitioners are aware of the rules concerning clinical negligence and the main areas in which a sports practitioner is likely to fall foul. Equally, it is also important for clubs and governing bodies to be aware of the risks in this area of law, as they could also find themselves liable, as discussed later.

CAS and Maria Sharapova: Delegating anti-doping duties

Today, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) published their judgement in the Maria Sharapova anti-doping case which saw the original two year ban, for the use of meldonium, reduced to 15 months. This means that Sharapova can get back to playing tennis, competitively, as early as April 2017.

In March 2016, the ITF informed Sharapova that she had tested positive for the drug, meldonium. A press conference was later arranged by Sharapova where she announced that she had inadvertently committed an anti-doping rule violation as a consequence of taking meldonium which had been prescribed by a doctor for several years. Both herself and her team had failed to realise that the drug had been added to the prohibited list. In June 2016, the ITF appointed an independent panel who heard Sharapova's case. They held that she had violated an anti-doping rule violation, disqualified her results at the Australian Open (2016) and banned Sharapova for two years. Sharapova lodged an appeal, against the tribunal's decision, at the CAS. 

Harry Redknapp: Players bet on own match

A further story from The Telegraph, this week, revealed that Harry Redknapp's players, whilst at Portsmouth, bet on the result of one of their own games. One player is alleged to have told an agent to remortgage his house whilst it is also alleged that the opposing team were also betting on the same fixture. Undercover reporters from the newspaper filmed Redknapp, without his knowledge, whilst he revealed the information. That 'sting' is just one out of a number of stories that has come to light this week, as part of The Telegraph's wider football investigation. 

There is no suggestion that Redknapp was involved in any criminal activity, such as match-fixing, but it is alleged that he did not report the information, concerning his players, to the Football Association when he first became aware of it. The FA has strict rules in relation to the reporting of such information and it's gambling rules underwent a complete overhaul in 2014,  following Andros Townsend (then Tottenham Hotspur), Cameron Jerome (then Stoke City) and Dan Gosling (then Newcastle Utd) all being on the other end of a disciplinary hearing for breach of gambling rules, with Townsend receiving a 4 month ban.

Formerly, footballers playing within the jurisdiction of the FA, were only banned from betting on matches in which their own club was involved. New provisions now see a total ban on professional players from betting on any matches played worldwide. Similar to the SFA, there is also a ban on betting on other football business such as transfer of players, team selection and manager appointments as well as releasing insider information.

What now for Allardyce and the Football Association?

This week saw a growing number of reports from The Telegraph newspaper of widespread corruption in football, most notably concerning England manager, Sam Allardyce. That report saw Allardyce resign from the top position in English football but could further sanctions, for Mr Allardyce, now follow from the Football Association (FA) and if so, to what extent?

The FA described Allardyce's conduct, as the England manager, "inappropriate" and having "made a significant error of judgement". They advised, in a statement, that their priority was to "protect the wider interests of the game and maintain the highest standards." Now that the FA has dealt with Allardyce as their employee, they will now look to see if any charges can be brought against him as a 'participant of the game'. One such charge may refer to his conduct as bringing the game into disrepute under general conduct rules.

The FA have a number of sanctions available to them, ranging from fines to a complete lifetime ban, if they decide to bring charges against Allardyce. The allegations, however, from what have been reported in The Telegraph, do not appear to be criminal but, rather, focus on Allardyce's handling of a conflict of interest. It is unlikely, therefore, that Allardyce would receive a lengthy or lifetime ban as this would be disproportionate to the allegation, in question, and excessive.