Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T00:59:55.119Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sports Law in an Olympic Year: Citius, Altius, Fortius?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2012

Jack Anderson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 2012 London becomes the first city to host an Olympics for the third time. The contrast between the Games of 2012 and those of 1908 and 1948 could not be starker and form a background to some of the matters discussed in this short piece. Central to the discussion is the contention that the development of the body of law now known as sports law is related to the accelerated commercialisation of sport during the past century. In short, the business of modern sport is exactly that – a business; indeed, sport is now a global industry and the commodification of sport will be seen to an exaggerated effect in London throughout the summer of 2012. Accordingly, this article by Jack Anderson begins by giving an outline of the financial robustness of modern sport, epitomised by the Olympics, before presenting a brief history of the evolution of sports law. Thereafter various issues in contemporary sports law are identified and discussed. The conclusion attempts to bring all of these themes together in order to give an overview of the area as a discrete, vibrant, if still emerging, discipline of law.

Keywords

sports lawOlympic Games
Type
Sports Law
Information
Legal Information Management , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , June 2012 , pp. 72 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2012. Published by British and Irish Association of Law Librarians

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Footnotes

1 http://www.london2012.com/about-us/the-people-delivering-the-games/the-london-organising-committee.

2 See generally Hampton, Janie. (2008) The Austerity Olympics. London, Aurum PressGoogle Scholar.

3 Cook, Theodore. (1909) Official Report on the Fourth Olympiad, London 1908. London, British Olympic Association, p. 24Google Scholar.

4 On the preparations for the Games, see further Baker, Kenneth. (2008) The 1908 Olympics: The First London Games. London, SportsBooks, chap. 1Google Scholar.

5 Zarnowski, C Frank (1992) “A Look at Olympic Costs”, Journal of Olympic History (1) 16–27Google Scholar, p. 20.

6 Cook, T (1909), op. cit., p. 24

7 The research on the history and development of sport in Britain at the material time is voluminous. Nonetheless, three monographs that continue to reward on re-reading include Birley, Derek, (1993) Sport and the Making of Britain, Manchester University Press, ManchesterGoogle Scholar; Holt, Richard. (1990) Sport and the British: A Modern History, Clarendon Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar and Vamplew, Wray; (1988) Pay Up and Play the Game: Professional Sport in Britan, 1875–1914, Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 For a witty review of how the British “invented” these sports see Norridge, Julian. (2008) Can we have our balls back, please? How the British Invented Sport. London, Allen LaneGoogle Scholar.

9 Enderby Town Football Club v the FA [1971] Ch 591.

10 Enderby Town Football Club v the FA, op. cit., 609.

11 Enderby Town Football Club v the FA, op. cit, 605.

12 The most celebrated example would, probably, be that of Eastham v Newcastle United FC [1964] Ch 413 where a player challenged the extant “retain and transfer system” in professional football principally by arguing that it was an unreasonable restraint of trade.

13 For a detailed review of the case law see Anderson, Jack. (2010) Modern Sports Law. Oxford, HartGoogle Scholar, chap. 2. See also Gardiner, Simon et al. (2012) Sports Law. 4th ed., London, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar; James, Mark. (2010) Sports Law. Basingstoke, Palgrave MacMillan, 2010Google Scholar; Lewis, Adam and Taylor, Jonathan (2008) Sport: Law and Practice. 2nd ed., Haywards Heath, Tottel PublishingGoogle Scholar.

14 Calvin v Carr [1980] AC 574, p. 593, Lord Wilberforce.

15 See, for instance, Chambers v British Olympic Association [2008] EWHC 2028 (QB).

16 See generally Blackshaw, Ian. (2009) Sport, Mediation and Arbitration. The Hague, TMC Asser Press, 2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 See further http://www.sportresolutions.co.uk.

18 The website of the CAS, http://www.tas-cas.org, is an excellent resource with information on its code of operation, its history, membership and jurisprudence.

19 On the last point, see, for example, CAS 2010/A/2172 Oleg Oriekhov v UEFA. In that case, Oriekhov, a football referee, challenged a life ban given by the sport's European governing body on foot, of a betting fraud on a match he had refereed. The ban was upheld by CAS.

20 Thus far in 2012 the most notable doping case at CAS involved the former winner of cycling's Tour de France, Alberto Contador, who received a two-year ban for doping infractions. The award, published on 6 February 2012, is listed as CAS 2011/A/2384-6 UCI and WADA v Contador & RFEC.

21 The rules are available at http://www.tas-cas.org/adhoc-rules.

22 CAS OG 10/04 Claudia Pechstein v DOSB & IOC.

23 For further background see McArdle, David. (2011) ‘Longitudinal profiling, sports arbitration and the woman who had nothing to lose’ in McNamee, M and Miller, V (eds) Doping and Anti-Doping Policy in Sport. London, Routledge, pp. 50–65Google Scholar.

24 CAS 2011/A/2658 British Olympic Association v World Anti-Doping Agency.

25 For further details see http://www.sportresolutions.co.uk.

26 CAS OG 2000/011 Raducan v IOC.

27 The principle of strict liability remains central to current anti-doping policy in sport and holds that any athlete who tests positively for a banned substance is solely responsible for the substance being found in their body, irrespective of whether they unintentionally or negligently consumed the prohibited substance. The default sanction for a breach of doping rules is a two-year suspension.

28 CAS CG 2010/01 Jones v CGF.

29 CAS OG 10/01 and 02.

30 Case C 415/93 Union Royal Belge des Société de Football Association ASBL v Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921.

31 Football Association Premier League & Others [2012] 1 CMLR 29.