Deadline Day Drama: Concluding Transfer Agreements

 Image source: Stretty News

Deadline Day is often a day full of speculation and drama as all eyes are on the various clubs up and down the country, watching the players coming and going and who's attracting the largest fees. Although deals made on deadline day usually appear to be last minute (and some are), they have usually been in the pipeline for weeks, in some cases even months. However, notwithstanding that the last few days leading up to the deadline are some of the most hectic of the season as clubs attempt to bring their negotiations to a successful conclusion.

Transfer Negotiations

During the transfer window, several negotiations will usually take place at the same time between the (1) the buying and selling club; (2) the buying club and the player's agent (aka intermediary) over a player's personal terms and; (3) the buying club and player's agent in relation to the agent's commission.

Under Article 18(3) of the FIFA RSTP, the selling club must first give permission to the potential buying club to speak to a player about a potential move.  However, it would not be unusual for the buying club to gauge a player's interest, first of all, through their agent, before making any formal move.

Super Bowl related Promotions & The Risk of Infringing NFL Trademarks

Image source: NFL 

The Super Bowl is arguably the most anticipated and watched event on American television and is scheduled for this coming Sunday, 05 February 2017. The fixture is organised by the National Football League (NFL) and has been running since 1967. [1] The name & phrase "SUPER BOWL" is a registered trademark owned by the NFL, an organisation which is very protective of its lucrative intellectual property and aggressively pursues any uses it deems as unauthorised.

The use of the phrase "Super Bowl" is a right reserved only by the NFL as well as its partners, advertisers & sponsors who have purchased a license to use the trademark. The NFL currently receive over $1billion in income from licenses related to the Super Bowl. [2] Any unauthorised use of the 'Super Bowl' trademark, that goes unchallenged by the NFL, can significantly diminish the mark's value.

Release of players for association teams: The Joel Matip Dispute

Image source: YouTube

FIFA finally made a decision today in the dispute concerning Joel Matip and his eligibility to play in domestic fixtures, during the Africa Cup of Nations, after refusing to play following being named in Cameroon's preliminary squad.

The governing body has concluded that Matip did not breach any of its rules and is thus eligible to play for Liverpool FC in domestic matches that are being played during the running of the Africa Cup of Nations.

The background to the dispute

In December 2016, reports revealed that Liverpool FC's Joel Matip, and Cameroon national, told the Cameroon team that he did not want to play in the Africa Cup of Nations, which began on January 14th, following a bad experience with Cameroon coaching staff. [1] 

Despite Matip stating on more than one occasion that he has retired from international football (quitting in 2015), Cameroon still included the player in their preliminary squad for the Africa Cup of Nations and threatened to take action. This left Liverpool manager, Jurgen Klopp, with the dilemma of whether his player was eligible to play in domestic games or not, given the defender's circumstances. As a result, Matip was left out of Liverpool's squad for last week's game against rivals, Manchester United as well as their FA Cup tie with Plymouth, with Klopp stating that he needed clarification from FIFA...and quickly!

Trademarks: LA Gear v LA Chargers

 

In the latest trade mark dispute, to affect the sporting world, roll-up the LA Chargers & LA Gear. The Chargers Football Company LLC are moving from San Diego to Los Angeles and thus re-naming themselves, LA Chargers. Of course, where there is a name change there is also a new trade mark application being submitted. 

The Company registered the trade mark name "LA Chargers" and "Los Angeles Chargers" in January 2017 and also released a fancy new logo (that was also to be compared to the LA Dodgers due to the strikingly similar design). The registration of the trade mark names were to cover pretty much everything that you can stick a brand on and sell to the consumer: clothing, footwear, jewellery, toys, sports equipment etc.

Now when you register a trade mark, there is always a period of time to allow any party to oppose the registration on the basis that it may cause confusion and potentially harm the reputation of another party. Low and behold, on 20 December 2016, footwear brand LA Gear (you may remember them for their light up shoes in the early 1990s) lodged an opposition against the "LA Chargers" mark on the basis that potential customers may become confused as to where the goods originate from and that they are in some way sponsored or endorsed by LA Gear. They claim that the use of 'LA' will cause confusion may easily arise as both brands are offering goods to the same class of consumer.

Why Samir Nasri is unlikely to receive a 4 year ban if found guilty of an ADRV

Image source: Mirror

Samir Nasri found himself at the centre of a twitter storm, in late 2016, after a Los Angeles health clinic posted a photograph of Nasri, on Twitter, along with the comments that he had attended for an IV vitamin procedure for hydration.

Following a series of tweets, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) called for an investigation following Nasir's use of the IV procedure. The Spanish Anti-Doping Agency (AEPSAD) is now investigating the matter with some news outlets reporting that Nasir could face a 4 year ban, as a result of the incident. 

IV therapy is banned outright by WADA unless it is administered in quantities of no more than 50ml per six hour period or in cases where the athlete has obtained a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE). The clinic's website describes the IV procedure as one litre of hydration designed to combat superbugs and viruses. Whilst there is no suggestion that the multi-vitamin intravenous procedure contained any banned substance, WADA prohibits the practice as the intravenous method may be used to disguise other forms of doping. 

Under Article 2.2 of the WADA Code an athlete has a personal duty to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his or her body and that no prohibited method is used. If it is confirmed that Nasri did indeed receive the intravenous therapy procedure, then he is likely to be in breach of this provision. It is not a defence, under Article 2.2, to state that he was not aware or did not intend to breach this provision as a violation can still be established regardless of intent, fault, negligence or knowing use. Therefore, Nasri can still be found in breach of the rules even if he can show that there was no intent to cheat.

The legislative history of FIFA's transfer rules & the cases that transformed the system

Image source: http://media.premiumtimesng.com/wp-content/files/2015/07/220x138xfifa-headquarters.jpg.pagespeed.ic.6VnDt9uYLI.jpg

One of the most important pieces of sport legislation is FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). The regulations establish rules in relation to the international transfer of players, the status of players, their eligibility to participate in organised football, as well as the release of players for association teams and the players' eligibility to play for those teams. Notwithstanding that, the rules are also relevant with regards to domestic transfers, between two clubs within the same association, as although the domestic association provides their own rules, those rules must take into account binding provisions of RSTP and FIFA's principles.

For the purposes of this post, the writer will focus on the history of the regulations concerning the international transfer of players - that is the transfer of players between two clubs that are members of different associations - and the landmark case law that transformed those rules.

Case law discussed:

• Union Royale Belge des Societes de Football Association ASBL v Jean-Marc Bosman
• Olympique Lyonnais v Olivier Bernard & Newcastle United FC
• SV Wilhelmshaven v Club Atletico Excursionistas & Club Atletico River Plate
• AJ Auxerre v AS Roma & Phillipe Mexes and AS Roma v FIFA
• Heart of Midlothian v Andy Webster & Wigan Athletic FC
• FC Shakhtar Donetsk v Matuzalem Francelino da Silva & Real Zaragoza SAD & FIFA
• Panathinaikos FC v Sotirios Kyrgiakos
• Club Atletico Penarol v Carlos Suarez & Cristian Rodriguez & Paris Saint-Germain

The FA v Manchester City FC & Chelsea FC

On 05 December 2016, The Football Association (FA) charged Manchester City Football Club (MCFC) and Chelsea Football Club (CFC) with breaches of the misconduct rules, under FA Rule E20, in respect of their fixture against one another on 03 December 2016.

Rule E20 states the following:

"Each Affiliated Association, Competition and Club shall be responsible for ensuring:

(a) that its directors, players, officials, employees, servants, representatives, spectators, and all persons purporting to be its supporters or followers, conduct themselves in an orderly fashion and refrain from any one or combination of the following: improper, violent, threatening, abusive, indecent, insulting or provocative words or behaviour, (including, without limitation, where any such conduct, words or behaviour includes a reference, whether express or implied, to

any one or more of ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, religion or belief, gender, gender reassignment, sexual orientation or disability) whilst attending at or taking part in a Match in which it is involved, whether on its own ground or elsewhere; and

(b) that no spectators or unauthorised persons are permitted to encroach onto the pitch area, save for reasons of crowd safety, or to throw missiles, bottles or other potentially harmful or dangerous objects at or on to the pitch."