The Post Covid-19 World Of Sports: Managing Emerging Legal Disputes

By Nakudu law Partners

Very few thrills in life beat the adrenaline rush of a sports fan watching his/her favourite team compete. The concept of sports has evolved over the years into a transformative and unifying factor in human interrelationship, a notable example will definitely be the ‘Christmas Truce’ of 1914, where the British and German armed forces called a truce on the eve of the 24^th of December, 1914 and amongst the activities during the truce was a keenly contested friendly football match between soldiers of both sides which took place in ‘No Man’s Land’ on Aldershot, close to the British trenches[1].

It is quite evident that sports in general has developed into a subset of human interaction and has brought an immeasurable level of entertainment to various generations alike.

The entirely exciting nature of sports brings with it the tendency to distract everyone from the real catalyst that fuels the entire machinery of sports, which is ‘Money’, the financial aspect of sports is what drives its visibility and development. A typical example is the development of sports in certain countries or continents based on the capacity of their various markets, for instance, in 2016/2017 the European football market was reported to have generated an estimated €27,000,000,000 (Twenty Seven Billion Euros) with an estimated annual growth of 7%[2], no surprise that European football boasts of one of the highest viewership in sports[3].

The purpose of this paper is to analyse how hard the world of sports will be hit by the coronavirus pandemic, the emerging legal issues that may follow and the legal mechanisms in place to resolve those issues.

EFFECT OF THE CORONAVIRUS ON THE SPORTING COMMUNITY

The entire international community has been ‘sucker punched’ in the most disastrous manner by Covid-19. On the 30^th of January, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a declaration that the Coronavirus has become a ‘Public Health Emergency of International Concern’[4]. By March, 2020, the WHO declared it a ‘Global Pandemic’.

As at the 26^th of April, 2020, the WHO has placed the total number of confirmed coronavirus cases to 2,804,796 and the total number of confirmed deaths resulting from the coronavirus to 193,710[5]. The coronavirus is spreading rapidly and dangerously, so, if you are reading this,

‘Please, stay home and stay safe’.

Just as the coronavirus is an immediate threat to public health, it is also hazardous to the global economy. The International Monetary Fund has projected that the financial crisis being caused by the global lockdown as a result of the coronavirus pandemic will be the worst economic crisis since the ‘Great Depression’ of the 1930s[6].

The necessity of several Federal and State Governments declaring a lockdown, borne from an understanding that the coronavirus can easily be transmitted and thrives in environments characterized by ‘in-person’ physical contact, has fixed the beam of the spotlight on activities that are of economic value but require the gathering of a congregation of persons.

This, unfortunately means that the sporting community will be one of the most hit by the pandemic.

Sporting activities are naturally ‘in-person’ activities that require the physical presence of performers and athletes in order to ensure the fulfilment of financial obligations between stakeholders. For instance, if a football match is meant to be played during this period of the prevalence of the pandemic, just like other contact sports, the match would require the physical appearance of players, coaches and staff, even with the possibility of the fans being absent, the nature of these sporting activities render such requirement counterproductive.

Thus, the sad reality began to set in. All sporting activities in the global community were either cancelled or postponed[7], the 2020 Olympic games was moved to 2021, same with the EURO 2020 football tournament, while most football leagues had their fixtures postponed to later dates or indefinitely[8], sad time to be a sports fan really. The reason why the sporting sector is badly hit by the coronavirus is that the catalyst of the entire sector, which is the fiscal framework between each stakeholder and the individual sports, is the actual part that took the ‘hit’.

The major sources of revenue for sporting teams, clubs and players vary from sale of media coverage rights, sponsorship, branding, advertising partnerships, merchandising and, the most obvious, match day ticketing and hospitality, sadly, most of it is unfortunately tied to live performances and its coverage. For instance, in English football, 59% of their revenue is realised from media coverage rights, 27% from sponsorship and advertisement, and 14% is derived from match day ticketing and hospitality[9].

No games = No media coverage = No match day income = No revenue stream = No salaries and bonuses = No players/athletes = No sports.

 

A significant part of the adverse effect the coronavirus pandemic may have on the world of sports are the legal issues that will result from the hiatus the sporting community is currently being forced to observe. Several emerging legal issues and the dispute mechanisms available will be addressed subsequently.

EMERGING LEGAL ISSUES RESULTING FROM THE LOCKDOWN

1. BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY

Simply put, insolvency is any situation where an individual or corporate entity is in debt and the due date for payment of that debt has passed, it is a broad spectrum and covers various modes of debt management, however, after exhausting all options in managing debt servicing obligations, the said individual or corporate entity may declared bankruptcy (this is to be done by an order of court and not the way it was done the a comedy show where the actor stood in front of his office and screamed “I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!!!”).

In the sporting world, debt and equity financing is a major part of the investment capital, thus, a lot of sporting teams and clubs competing in various leagues are currently financing considerable debt. For example, Manchester United, one of the biggest football franchises in the world is currently saddled with a total debt profile of about €496,000,000[10], other football teams all over the world also carry debt financing obligations of varying degrees.

Football/soccer, baseball, basketball, American football, rugby and cricket teams playing in various leagues may find themselves unable to meet up with debt financing obligations post covid-19, especially if they are unable to generate any form of revenue over the next couple of months, the teams of a much smaller revenue base are of greater risk of this than their counterparts with larger ‘purses’.

There are definitely going to be several duels between creditors and other key stakeholders post covid-19.

This may also lead to issues of receivership, liquidation and winding up where professionals are appointed by either the stakeholders of individual clubs or the federal courts to manage the affairs of the club or team until it is lifted out of insolvency or results in dissolution.

2. MEDIA COVERAGE RIGHTS AND FORCE MAJEURE

The daily mail reports that the European Football Association (UEFA) could lose as much as €565 million just for the postponement of the EURO 2020 competition by one year[11], it also reported that the English Premier League could lose as much as £1.2 billion if the Premier League’s 2019/2020 season is cancelled and over 80% of the loss will be attached to media coverage and sponsorship obligations[12]. This is just a glimpse of how much is at stake for clubs/teams and their media partners.

Force Majeure is the contemplation of an occurrence that is so overwhelming, it renders a party or both parties unable to fulfil their contractual obligations, that means, certain parts of the contract become impracticable. Major contracts for media rights are presumed to carry force majeure clauses that may be invoked when necessary. A typical example of a dispute brewing unnoticed is the French television broadcaster ‘Canal Plus’, it cited force majeure as the basis for its refusal to pay an upcoming €110 million ($120 million) instalment on this season’s Ligue 1 and 2 (French League divisions) fee obligation[13], the broadcaster claimed that since the league has been suspended for months, there have been no live matches, hence, no media coverage, meaning no fulfilment of the reciprocal obligation by the league association to necessitate the payment of the above sum, and this was met with stiff resistance from the French league Association and the football community is eager to watch how it unfolds.

There may also be issues as to the scope of force majeure clauses vis-à-vis the coronavirus pandemic.

Dispute as to the extent of impracticability of the contract, claimed by any party, may also arise.

3. CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS WITH SPONSORS AND ADVERTISEMENT PARTNERS

Above is the home jersey of Manchester United, a professional sports team in Europe, what are most conspicuous on the jersey are the designs, first is ‘adidas’ the brand that manufactures the jersey, then the logo of the Club, however, the crux of this illustration is the boldly affixed ‘Chevrolet’ brand which happens to be the brand sponsor of all Manchester United jerseys. This is a typical example of brand sponsorship, where these companies pay certain amounts for the privilege of slapping their identity on the jerseys and kits of several teams for the duration of the sponsorship agreement as a form of advertisement and attaining visibility worldwide.

If you pay a little attention when you are watching a football match, you would also notice electronic advertisement boards around the stadiums and also as a barricade to the field of play, these boards constantly advertise various brands of any nature. This is an example of brand advertising in sports, where these companies pay a certain sum for the privilege of brandishing their latest products on these boards at the stadiums during live matches or games.

These sponsorships and advertisement partnerships are of great risk this pandemic era as they rely heavily on match day live performances, whether it is competetive or friendly.

The absence of live matches creates a contractual hurdle for the parties as there will be a need to review and interpret contractual obligations so as not to disadvantage any party.

4. PLAYER/ATHLETE CONTRACTS AND OBLIGATIONS

The way this works is that players enter into contracts with clubs or teams that they wish to play for, these contracts carry several obligations and is usually for a certain number of years. Several issues may arise from the effects of the coronavirus pandemic. One issue would be the conflicting contractual obligations faced by players who have contracts terminating this period. A football related example; X is a football player for a professional team A in Europe, since it is quite common knowledge that an average season in Europe ends in June and most contracts end at the end of a season, thus, A’s contract stands to end in June, 2020 and he has already signed another contract with a different team B from June, 2020 till June, 2025, it means he would still be obligated to complete the season with team A and at the same time his contract starts from June (meaning he needs to start training with new team B by June). FIFA made an attempt to regulate these situations in its guidelines titles ‘FIFA Covid 19 Regulatory Issues’[14]. The guidelines have provided a leeway into how such disputes may be settled generally, the specific issues, however, may pose a challenge for disputes resolution bodies.

Another basis for legal conflict may occur in a situation where, still during the coronavirus pandemic, the lockdown is relaxed and leagues are asked to play matches indoor without fans and on that note, teams instruct players to resume, however, certain players who have a weakened immune system or pre-existing conditions (making them extremely vulnerable to the coronavirus) decide not to resume for health reason. This may cause a rift between the parties to the contract. Though certain jurisdictions have established the duty of employers to ensure the health and safety of employees[15] as well as liability to said employee at any point the physical and mental health of the employee is compromised in the course of employment[16]. This, however, accounts for the liability of an employer in the event that an athlete is infected with the coronavirus while performing his contractual obligations to the team/club and not in the event the player refuses on the ground of anticipatory risk.

Reduction of salaries and bonuses may also pose a huge issue as some clubs or teams are unilaterally taking measures to cut the remuneration of staff and players.       This may be problematic as the law generally frowns on employers unilaterally slashing the salaries of employees[17], however, whether it was consented to expressly or impliedly[18] and the consequences of either, may pose another difficulty.

5. INSURANCE COVER

The world of professional sports is riddled with various risks and liability concerns, the extent of these issues are usually not contemplated by the stakeholders, which necessitates the establishment of a framework that would enable stakeholders to be proactive and prepare against such risks and liability concerns, this has led to the incorporation of insurance into sports.

Insurance now plays a major role in sports as it is the mechanism sports teams and associations establish to avoid direct liability from certain risks. Players, Clubs and teams in the world of sports are exposed to various forms of liability including, but not limited to, public liability, employers’ liability, player to player liability, cyber liability, professional indemnity, etc[19].

Amongst the issues that may be up for determination is the scope of insurance covers and whether it covers the financial obligations of teams or clubs in the event of a cancelled international competition like the Olympics or a professional football league season like the English Premier League.

Unfortunately, the DFL (German Football League) chief executive Christian Seifert said: ‘No league has insurance against pandemics. Leagues have insurance to cover cancelled matches and some clubs have tried to insure against a pandemic but the insurance payments would have been impossibly high’[20]. Insurance companies would definitely wish to interpret insurance agreements in such a way as to avoid liability from the astronomical losses professional sports teams and leagues may experience as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.

Further issues may arise in the event sporting events resume, albeit, with restrictions amidst the coronavirus pandemic. For instance, the USA’s National Basketball Association League resumes and a player contracts the virus from an opposing player or during an away game, the questions are; will the League or the opposing team be held liable for damages based on their negligence in failing to take health and safety measures?, if not, should players take such risks? Or will the leagues be insured specifically against the coronavirus pandemic and provide compensation to players that contract the virus while performing league obligations?

These are a few of the issues that may likely arise post covid-19 and these issues will definitely trigger the dispute resolution mechanism of the various sports.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISMS IN SPORTS

The few legal issues that may arise in the world of sports post covid-19 would create an avenue where various forms of dispute resolution mechanisms would need to be explored. It is important to note that the world of sport is peculiar for operating its own legal framework independent and somewhat complementary to the conventional court systems of various countries as will be explained subsequently.

The Harvard Law School describes dispute resolution to be of 3 kinds, mediation, arbitration and litigation[21]. The various sports governing bodies have established dispute resolution mechanisms to address issues relating to their individual sports, basketball has the Basketball Arbitration Tribunal, Football has the Dispute Resolution Chambers, while all sports have the Court of Arbitration for Sports as the highest appellate body. In order not to turn this into a dissertation by analysing the dispute resolution mechanisms of the individual sports, this part shall focus on the Football community and its present dispute resolution reality.

Football is a popular and renowned sport which has the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, popularly known as FIFA, as its governing body. Football has several components with several stakeholders including the players, clubs, staff, agents, leagues, national and international associations, sponsors, insurance companies, etc., all these stakeholders create a symbiotic relationship that results in the machinery of football, simply put, when you see a cup competition successfully conducted and completed, know that all the stakeholders played their various roles with maximum efficiency.

In their interrelationship with each other, the stakeholders may experience issues with fulfilling contractual obligations as well as other issues enumerated above. These issues necessitate recourse to the various dispute resolution mechanisms that has been established over time. The dispute resolution mechanisms in football can be categorized in several subsets:

1. NATIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER (NDRC), ARBITRATION PANELS AND AD-HOC TRIBUNALS

This is the first point of approach for any disgruntled football stakeholder as regards dispute resolution. Various countries have established and are currently operating their own version of the NDRC, at the same time, ad-hoc tribunals stand as a ready alternative to the national associations as the need arises. The NDRC was an innovation of FIFA, owing to the overwhelming volume of disputes that bedevilled the Dispute Resolution Chamber over time. It was recommended, to National Football Associations, that they establish a domestic dispute resolution mechanism[22] to handle disputes between clubs and players regarding employment and contractual stability, FIFA went further to enact the National Dispute Resolution Chamber Standard Regulation to enable National Associations meet up with the mandate. A few countries have since established their National Dispute Resolution Chambers, for instance, the United Kingdom has the ‘Sports Resolution UK’[23].

However, most countries, including Nigeria, that have failed to establish their National Dispute Resolution Chamber have been left with no other choice than to rely on ad-hoc dispute resolution bodies to resolve disputes arising. For instance, in 2013, the NFF established a judicial panel to resolve the dispute of ownership of Nigerian National footballer, Sunday Mbah between Rangers FC and Warri Wolves FC[24]. Furthermore, certain league management bodies have created arbitration panels to handle disputes that arise from the participating clubs and players during the league competition, e.g, the English Football League[25].

The current reality can be further maximized with the incorporation of permanent dispute resolution bodies created in several jurisdictions under their Laws, an example is the Lagos Multidoor Courthouse in Lagos, Nigeria, created under the Lagos Multidoor Courthouse Law, 2007, specifically to facilitate the resolution of disputes using means alternative to litigation.

Thus, an aggrieved party may approach the relevant National Association for directives on the appropriate dispute resolution mechanism, and if one is not already extant, then one may be created for that purpose.

2. THE FIFA DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER (DRC)[26] AND PLAYERS’ STATUS COMMITTEE

The FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players and the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber provides for the resolution of disputes relating to the status and transfer of players, employment or contractual stability disputes between clubs and players; and generally, disputes other than disciplinary proceedings. The Players’ status committee is usually limited to determining validity of the transfer of professional footballers and their status during competitions while the DRC is primarily charged with dispute resolution in all football related issues.

The DRC serves as a complimentary dispute resolution body to the NDRC or an ad-hoc tribunal of various countries. The DRC determines matters brought to it at first instance as is convenient for the parties, the DRC may also be approached at first instance in situations where the parties may have reservations as to independence of the NDRC or ad-hoc tribunal

3. COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORTS (CAS)

Often tagged as the world of sport’s ‘Supreme Court’[27], the CAS has over the years been involved in resolving disputes from all kinds of sports through arbitration and mediation, so much so that it has been mutually accepted as the appellate dispute resolution body in sports. It is important to note that the jurisdiction of CAS was bestowed on it by the various world governing bodies of major sports based on a mutual understanding that it is perfectly equipped with the resources and expertise to resolve emerging disputes, whether at first instance or at an appellate capacity.

The World Anti-Doping Agency[28], FIFA[29], the International Olympic Committee and the International Basketball Federation (FIBA)[30] are amongst the bodies that have incorporated the CAS in their various statutes as an appellate authority. Article 57 of the FIFA Statutes, 2018 provides that appeals shall lie to CAS from its disciplinary and judicial bodies. However, this does not rob the CAS of its original jurisdiction (the powers to determine matters presented at first instance).

Thus an aggrieved party may wish to approach the CAS in an appellate capacity, having been dissatisfied by the award of the NDRC, an ad-hoc tribunal or the DRC, or in an original capacity, without any earlier recourse to any other dispute resolution mechanism[31].

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISMS IN SPORTS AND NATIONAL COURTS

National courts are a major stakeholder in the dispute resolution framework owing to its constitutional jurisdiction over all disputes within the country, a typical example is Nigeria[32].

On the 20^th day of January, 2012, a landmark decision that rocked the footballing body was delivered by the Federal High Court of Nigeria, in a judgment delivered, declaring the Nigerian Football Federation (NFF) an illegal body unrecognized by the laws of the country[33]. The reason was that the laws of Nigeria recognised the ‘Nigerian Football Association’ and not the ‘Nigerian Football Federation’, as such the conversion from the Nigerian Football Association to the NFF and recognition by FIFA are all void. This sparked uproar the led to the presentation and passage of a Bill amending the existing Act and establishing the NFF, though the Bill is yet to obtain assent from the president[34].

This is an example of the powers of the national courts to pass judgement on matters within their territorial jurisdiction, irrespective of the dispute resolution mechanism of national and international sports bodies.

The most common areas where national courts and FIFA’s judicial mechanisms collide are disputes of a commercial nature or employment/labour related disputes.

The crux of such collision is as to the extent national courts can be involved in dispute resolution in football and sports in general.

In Nigeria, FIFA issued an ultimatum on the 14^th of August, 2018, that the decision of a court reached earlier that year should be reversed by the NFF, else a consequential five year ban would be placed on Nigerian football generally. The decision of the court was to remove the recognised chairman of the NFF, Amaju Pinnick, stating that he was not validly elected and to replace him with Chris Giwa (who was serving a FIFA ban at the time), FIFA tagged the court’s decision as ‘undue influence from government in football’ which is against FIFA policy. Thus, generally, football stakeholders are encouraged not to seek legal recourse in the national courts.

The recourse to Courts in the absence of dispute resolution mechanisms has been the reality of many athletes who seek immediate remedy in close proximity. Players have been forced to turn to the court systems for reprieve and this has proven to be disadvantageous. The most prominent example of how harmful court trials may be is the case of Jean-Marc Bosman[35], who was in the prime of his career at 25, but was locked in a 5 year court trial against the football club he played for as regards his intention to join another club upon expiration of his contract, by the time the trial was over, he was past his prime and a major part of his career was lost.

This necessitated the prohibition of recourse to national courts by FIFA[36]. However, it is not enough to prohibit such recourse as such may be declared to be unconstitutional if enforced in, for instance, the Nigerian context, there must be a conscious effort from both FIFA and the National associations to create dispute resolution alternatives at the local level. This will serve as a readily available recourse for aggrieved parties that ordinarily wish to flood the courts and thereby, contributing to the congestion of cases most national courts are currently experiencing.

The Courts are in tandem with the policy of resolving disputes using means alternative to litigation, an example is the National Industrial Court creating a Dispute Resolution Chamber within the court to handle matters that can be resolved without the need for litigation.

There is a point where both judicial bodies complement each other, the National Courts may serve the purpose of enforcing the decisions of the DRC, CAS as well as ad-hoc arbitration panels[37]. For example, the existing laws in Nigeria allow for an award by an international arbitral body to be binding and enforceable upon application to a Court for enforcement[38], simply put, once the DRC or the CAS makes an award, the victorious party may apply to the High Court or National Industrial Court in Nigeria for enforcement of the award, and once granted, such award will be enforced as if it were a judgement of the Court.

It is recommended that the role of National Courts in dispute resolution should be redefined to the complementary responsibility of confirming and enforcing decisions of dispute resolution bodies as it relates to sports.

IMPEDIMENTS AGAINST THE CURRENT DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISMS

The current regime of dispute resolution mechanisms has had its fair share of shortcomings.

1. ABSENCE OF MEDIATION AND NEGOTIATION MECHANISMS IN SPORTS

Mediation is a confidential and voluntary type of alternative dispute resolution whereby an independent mediator assists the parties in negotiating a settlement of a dispute[39].

The process usually begins by the parties setting out their positions prior to the mediation, the mediator then meets separately with each party to understand the points of compromise and then set out mutual terms beneficial to all parties.

Negotiation is usually when representatives of the parties in dispute engage in a dialogue to reach an amicable resolution.

Mediation has come to the rescue of major sporting disputes over the years, albeit informal. For example, in 2012, Scot L. Beckenbaugh, a Federal mediator, was invited to resolve the dispute between the National Hockey League of the United States of America and its Players’ Association[40], a dispute the crippled the National Hockey League for months. After employing several tactics in a 12 hour marathon mediation process, the issues were resolved in principle.

Mediation and negotiation are seldom used in dispute resolution in sports, mostly owing to the adjudicatory nature of litigation and arbitration, and any time it is being employed, it is usually in an informal basis.

It is imperative that national and international bodies begin to explore enabling regulatory frameworks in order to swiftly introduce these facets of alternative dispute resolution to the world of sports.

2. INDEPENDENCE OF THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORTS

Ordinarily, in addition to the incorporation of CAS as an appellate body by various Statutes of the international governing bodies of various sports, parties voluntary submit themselves to the jurisdiction of CAS.

However, CAS was originally created and run by the International Olympic Committee with influence from the governing bodies of various sports, this may create a situation of likelihood of bias when these bodies become parties to a dispute to be decided by CAS.

Over the years, CAS has taken consistent steps to consolidate its impartiality and independence, for instance, in 1994, the CAS setup was modified to exclude the interference of the IOC, in its place, the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS) was setup to handle the affairs of CAS[41]. CAS has also taken certain steps in ensuring neutrality in the selection of its arbitrators.

These steps may not have been all encompassing as in the notorious case of Pechstein v International Skating Union OLG Munchen[42], a National Court in Germany ruled that the CAS may not be so ‘neutral’ as there was a “one-sided designation of the potential arbitrators [which] favour the [sporting] associations”. It further noted that, under the CAS rules, sporting associations had a “decisive influence” over the selection, composition and nomination of CAS arbitrators. Those factors embedded a “structural imbalance” that threatened the CAS’ neutrality, which created a risk that such arbitrators “predominantly or even entirely favour” the sporting associations over athletes in determining their disputes[43].

3. LACK OF A LEGAL FRAMEWORK

The absence of National Legal frameworks complementing that of FIFA may pose a huge problem in future. The most likely consequence is both FIFA and the national courts running parallel dispute resolution mechanisms and issuing conflicting decisions with various levels of enforceability.

It is recommended that the FIFA statutes be recognized under the various national legal frameworks, local legislations should recognize the supremacy of FIFA and its statutes as well as the enforceability of decisions of the FIFA judicial bodies. In essence, there should be a legal frame work establishing a hierarchy of dispute resolution bodies to secure the integrity of decisions.

4. UNIFORMITY OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION BODIES

The unfortunate reality is that of several dispute resolution bodies exercising jurisdiction over a particular territory. For instance, in Pechstein’s case, being dissatisfied with the decision of CAS, he rushed to the swizz courts to overturn same, being unsuccessful in his quest, he then rushed to German court where he received a favourable judgement.

The finality of decisions of CAS is now threatened as parties that initially submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of CAS my thereafter resolve to ‘forum shopping’ in order to overturn said decision. There needs to be a hierarchical framework so as to determine the finality of decisions on particular matters.

5. ABSENCE OF A NATIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER

This will be an essential body in the future of dispute resolution in Sports, the lack of it has contributed in the amoebic nature of dispute resolution in sports. National Sporting Associations are encouraged to look to establishing this in nearest future, preferably before the end of the coronavirus pandemic and in anticipation of the deluge of disputes that may arise.

6. LIMITED SCOPE OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISMS

Most dispute resolution bodies are equipped to deal with matters between FIFA members, clubs, players, coaches, agents and organizers of licensed matches[44]. The scope ought to be extended to cover the rights and obligations of other stakeholders in the world of sports, such as media organizations, sponsors, advertisement partners, ticketing companies, league management bodies, National sports federations and even fan bodies, as they are voluntarily disposed to the dispute resolution mechanisms discussed above. These stakeholders have played a key role in the development of sports over the years and should be recognized and incorporated into dispute resolution frameworks.

CONCLUSION

The current dispute resolution mechanisms may just be sufficient to handle the deluge of disputes that will arise from the coronavirus pandemic, and although there are measures that may need to be taken for long term sustainability of dispute resolution mechanisms, the immediate disputes may be successfully resolved by a collaborative effort from National sports associations and international dispute resolution bodies to explore all forms of dispute resolution.

EDITORIAL TEAM

1. Anthony Madukwe

(Senior Partner)
anthony.madukwe@nakudulawpartners.com

2. Emmanuel Omole

(Senior Associate)
emmanuel.omole@nakudulawpartners.com

3. Isimeme Andrew

(Associate)
Isimeme.andrew@nakudulawpartners.com

OUR OFFICES
1. 34, QUEEN ELIZABETH CRESCENT, ASOKORO, ABUJA.

2. NO. 13D, ISA DUTSE STREET, OFF UMARU BABURA ROAD, BOMPAI GRA, KANO, KANO STATE.

www.nakudulawpartners.com

DISCLAIMER: This article is carefully drafted with the sole intention of providing general information on the subject matter. It does not in any way create a client/attorney relationship between readers and our Firm. We are always readily available to provide top-notch legal services.

[1] https://www.aljazeera.com/sport/features/2014/12/when-war-stopped-football-20141225101720482440.html

[2]https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Technology-Media-Telecommunications/gx-tmt-prediction-european-football-30-billion.pdf

[3]https://www.roadtrips.com/blog/the-most-watched-sporting-events-in-the-world/

[4] The statement was issued by WHO at the meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee.

[5]https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200426-sitrep-97-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=d1c3e800_6

[6] ‘The Great Lockdown: Worst Economic Downturn Since The Great Depression’ by Gita Gopinath (Economic Counsellor and Director of the Research Department at the International Monetary Fund ), April, 2020. https://blogs.imf.org/2020/04/14/the-great-lockdown-worst-economic-downturn-since-the-great-depression/  

[7] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/03/coronavirus-sporting-events-affected-outbreak-200310084205890.html

[8] Ibid.

[9]https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/cz/Documents/consumer-business/cz_annual_review_of_football_finance_2019.pdf

[10]https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/may/22/premier-league-finances-club-guide-2017-18-accounts-manchester-united-city

[11] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8163853/Premier-League-face-1-2billion-hit-season-abandoned.html

[12] Ibid.

[13] https://www.sportbusiness.com/news/canal-plus-cites-force-majeure-in-french-football-rights-fee-dispute/

[14] https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/covid-19-football-regulatory-issues.pdf?cloudid=lcxv27ejnikv4hmctrbp

[15] Chapter 37 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act of 1974.

[16] Section 9 of the Employees Compensation Act, 2010.

[17] Wronko v West Inventory Services (2008) ONCA (CanLII).

[18] Tolulope Emmanuel v Gaurdian Global Resources Limited (NICN/LA/372/2017).

[19] file:///C:/Users/eomol/Downloads/legal-liability-insurance-summary.pdf

[20] Ibid.

[21] https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/dispute-resolution/what-are-the-three-basic-types-of-dispute-resolution-what-to-know-about-mediation-arbitration-and-litigation/

[22] FIFA Circular no. 1129, dated 28^th December, 2007.

[23] https://www.sportresolutions.co.uk/about-us/who-we-are/overview

[24] https://www.premiumtimesng.com/sports/123443-rangers-warri-wolves-battle-for-sunday-mba-as-falana-steps-in.html

[25] https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules–regulations/section-9–arbitration/

[26] The FIFA Statutes, 2018.

[27] https://www.wada-ama.org/en/court-of-arbitration-for-sport

[28] The World Anti-Doping Code of 2015.

[29] The FIFA Statutes of 2018.

[30] The Basketball Arbitration Tribunal Arbitration Rules of 2017.

[31] Section 12, Statutes of CAS and ICAS; https://www.tas-cas.org/en/icas/code-statutes-of-icas-and-cas.html

[32] Section 6, 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).

[33] Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/179/10: Sam Jaja v. NFF & Ors.

[34]https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2019/05/25/pinnick-says-nff-billll-move-nigeria-football-development-to-next-level/

[35] Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association ASBL v. Jean-Marc Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921.

[36]Article 59 (2) of Fifa Statutes, 2018 provides that – Recourse to ordinary courts of law is prohibited unless specifically provided for in the FIFA regulations. Recourse to ordinary courts of law for all types of provisional measures is also prohibited.

[37] For example, section 7 and 8 of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006, provides that the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria shall include matters relating to the enforcement, interpretation or appeal against any award or ruling made by any tribunal or administrative body in respect of a labour or employment dispute.

[38] Section 51 (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Cap A18, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

[39]https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9766d5d3-7445-4417-a283-c0d9481e8565

[40]https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/mediation/how-mediation-can-help-resolve-pro-sports-disputes/

[41] See the Statutes of ICAS and CAS for the objective of ICAS.

[42] U 1110/14 Kart (15 January 2015)

[43] ‘Validity of international sports arbitration awards rendered by the Court of Arbitration for Sport’ by Paul Czarnota. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b4fd6c2b-f506-4a98-b841-5a7adcf9a9ba

[44] https://en.derechosdelfutbol.com/como-litigar-en-fifa