Court of Arbitration for Sport:- Winter 2016/2017- Case Round Up

This article looks at a number of the decisions made by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) between December 2016 and February 2017. For details of all the decisions made by CAS in this period, please consult their website. A video version of this article can be found via this link :- Youtube:- SportsLawin5

1. An appeal by a Turkish weightlifter was dismissed on 8 December 2016, illustrating the Court’s strict approach to an anti-doping rule violation.

Sibel Ozkan Konak, was originally found guilty by the IOC Disciplinary Committee on 21 July 2016 for an anti-doping rule violation. A substance called Stanozolol (a steroid) had been found in a urine sample taken whilst she was competing in the Beijing Olympics. Konak had her competition results declared void and was ordered to return her silver medal. She subsequently filed an appeal at CAS against the ruling.

The appeal was given short shift by the sole arbitrator Hon. Michael J Beloff QC who described the case as ‘straightforward’. Beloff stated that any arguments about the degrees of fault of the athlete were irrelevant. The presence of Stanozolol in the body is prohibited by the Olympic anti-doping rules, and this drug was discovered in Konak’s sample. As a result there was no other option but to impose a sanction, and the appeal was dismissed.

2. In contrast to the weightlifter case, on 23 January 2017 the Belarus Canoe Association managed to get a ban for an anti-doping rule violation overturned on appeal.

On 15 July 2016, the International Canoe Federation imposed a one-year competition ban on the whole Belarusian men’s canoe/kayak team including coaches, staff and athletes, due to a number of alleged doping violations. The allegations were made after French police raided the Belarusian training camp in April 2016. At the raid a number of doping substances and equipment were confiscated and after the raid five of the athletes subsequently tested positive. After appealing to CAS a panel of arbitrators found there was not enough evidence to justify banning the whole Belarusian canoe team and overturned the ban.

3. On appeal, CAS reduced the sanctions imposed on Real Madrid CF for breaching FIFA rules on the transfer of minors.(20 December 2016)

The FIFA Appeal Committee originally found that Real Madrid had breached a number of articles in FIFA’s regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. Primarily the breach concerned Article 19, which prohibits the international transfer and first registration of foreign players under the age of 18, except in limited circumstances. After a FIFA appeal, Real Madrid appealed to CAS who amended FIFA’s decision as follows:-

1. Real Madrid were banned from registering any new players (international or national) for one transfer period (previously two); and

2. Real Madrid had to pay a fine of 240,000 Swiss francs (previously 360,000).

The arbitrator explained that Real Madrid’s infractions were less serious than was being argued by FIFA’s judiciary bodies, and as such while the ruling was upheld, the sanctions would be reduced.

While Real Madrid welcomed the sanction reduction they argued CAS should have revoked the ruling entirely. On the other hand, many Catalan commentators argued Madrid received favourable treatment. They point to the fact that Barcelona had an appeal for similar violations dismissed in 2014. Either way, with many top European football clubs increasingly looking to recruit young talent in order to gain a competitive advantage, CAS will inevitably deal with this issue again.

4. On 2 February 2017, CAS decided on an employment law dispute between Turkish footballer Hakan Calhanoglu (the “Player”) and Trabzonspor FC (the “Club”).

In April 2013 the club filed a complaint with the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (“FIFA DRA”) claiming the Player had breached the terms of his employment contract without just cause when he signed for another football team in Germany. In January 2016 the FIFA DRA imposed on four-month period of ineligibility on the player. The Player and the Club appealed, with the Player asking for a stay of the four-month ban pending the outcome of the CAS hearing whilst the Club sought compensation.

The panel of arbitrators found the Player had breach the FIFA regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and dismissed the Player’s appeal. However CAS allowed the Club’s appeal and ordered the Player to pay 100,00 euros in compensation to the Club.

5. CAS usually acts as a final court of appeal, however in the below case, due to suspension of the All Russia Athletics Federation, it acted as a court of first instance.

The case, decided on 23 December 2016, involved a Russian athlete, Anastasiya Bazdyrera (“Athlete”) and Russian coach Vladimir Mokhnev (“Coach”). The Player was found to have breached Article 32.2 (b) of the IAAF competition rules on use of a prohibited substances/methods and was given a two year ban. The coach was found guilty of violating IAAF rules on the possession, trafficking and administration of banned substances and was banned for 10 years.

 

 

 

 

FIFA Election and Reforms

On Friday, members at FIFA’s extraordinary general meeting elected a new president, Gianni Infantino and announced a package of reforms aimed at improving the organisation’s governance:-
1. Gianni Infantino
•    He was Michel Platini’s close confidant and deputy at UEFA for 15 years. Platini is currently banned from football in relation to acceptance of a £1.35 million payment from Sepp Blater.  Infantino has been at the centre of world football administration for almost two decades. These decades have in a large part, as illustrated above, been characterised by alleged and proven incidents of corruption and bribery.  Whilst Infantino is not guilty by association it casts some doubt on how progressive his reforms will be. He is certainly not a revolutionary outsider; and
•    At what cost was he able to win the FIFA presidency? In part we know he promised various associations, particularly in Africa, money towards development. These nations swung the vote for Infantino who already had the backing of most European associations. This begs the question, whether Infantino was voted in because of his reformist credentials or because of the promises he made to potential voters. (A common question in all modern elections). Furthermore we have little idea what was promised behind closed doors and whether his presidency going forward will be hamstrung by these commitments.
2.   The Reforms:–
•    These include the introduction of term limits, transparency on pay, measures to improve diversity and the separation of political and commercial matters; and

•    One of the most interesting measures is contained in Article 14 of the reform proposals. It states that all member states and the associated confederations (eg UEFA etc.) must get their accounts independently audited every year with the subsequent results published. This reform has the potential to have a significant impact, as it could help avoid (or discover) financial corruption at member associations.  The penalty for non-compliance could be the loss of FIFA recognition, meaning a nation would be on the outside of world football.  However reports from Transparency International state only 41 out of 209 members nations currently have independently audited reports available. That leaves 168 members who have not. So if some associations, fail to comply with the auditing requirement, will they receive the associated punishment? If they don’t it could undermine the credibly of this measure and the whole reform process.

If FIFA’s governance does not see sustained improvement in the coming years, sponsors like VISA have raised doubts over whether they would continue to associate with the organisation.  Historically companies have been reluctant to withdraw sponsorship for fear of rival companies replacing them. Rather then internal politics, perhaps it would only be the threat of loss of commercial revenue which could spur FIFA into true and long-lasting reform.