Editorial SLT 15.3 September 2024

It is with much pleasure that we welcome readers to the September 2024 edition (citation: SLT 2024/3) of our ground-breaking journal Sports Law and Taxation (SLT) and online database www.sportslawandtaxation.com.

The 2024 Paris Olympics have been and gone, with great success, but, for some time now, the size and cost of the Games has been questioned in several quarters, particularly at a time when “green” sport is on the international and political agenda. We take a look at this issue as follows.

The need for slimmed down Olympics!

The 2024 Paris Olympics got off to a soggy, but spectacular start on 26 July, with a pageant of competing athletes on boats sailing down the river Seine and came to an equally spectacular end on 11 August in the Stade de France, in the course of which the Olympic flag was handed over from the Mayor of Paris to the Mayor of Los Angeles, which will host the next edition of the Games in 2028.

The highlight of the closing ceremony was the appearance of the Hollywood super star, Tom Cruise, who abseiled from the roof of the Stade de France into the arena below, much to the great delight of the 70,000 spectators.

The opening ceremony reputedly cost a staggering US$ 1.5 billion, but no figures appear to be available for the cost of the star-studded closing ceremony. However, the total cost of staging the Paris Games is estimated at US$ 8 billion.

More than 11,000 athletes participated in 32 sports featured at the Games, including some making their debut, such as breakdancing, which, incidentally, has been dropped from the next Olympics in Los Angeles.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) claimed that the Paris Games would be more innovative, sustainable, urban, inclusive and youthful, and herald a new era for the Summer Olympics.

As far as these Olympics being inclusive was concerned, there was the thorny issue of the participation of Russian athletes in them following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The IOC adopted special rules for the participation of these athletes, who have qualified in their individual sports, as AIN’s, individual neutral athletes. These rules included competing under a neutral flag, the Olympic flag. And the special rules also applied to Belarussian athletes participating in the Games. There is a view that such athletes should have been excluded completely from competing in the Games. So, were these arrangements a fudge?

Another innovation was that, for the first time, World Athletics would reward gold medallists with the sum of US$ 50,000 each. The IOC does not offer prize money directly, but indirectly funds sports’ governing bodies that are members of the Olympic movement. Either way, this is incompatible with the idea of the founder of the modern Olympics, Baron Pierre de Coubertin, that the Olympics should be for amateur athletes and that participation in them is more important than winning medals. So, again, is this innovation a fudge?

Over the years, the number of sports at the Games has increased, as have also the costs of staging them, including necessary infrastructural costs, such as new road and rail links. As mentioned, the total costs of the Paris Games to the taxpayer could amount to US$ 8 billion. Cost overruns are usually the norm rather than the exception, so, perhaps, the organisers of the Paris Games could expect the final costs to be even higher, at a time when the French economy, officially, is expected to remain “subdued”.

As a result of the high costs of staging the Games, in recent times, fewer cities have come forward to host them, and the IOC has simplified the bidding procedures, to reduce the costs. In the 2024 bidding campaign, three of the five candidates dropped out, resulting in the IOC awarding the Games to Paris and Los Angeles, the remaining host cities in contention.

In my view, the Games are now too big and there is a growing need to return to, essentially, the traditional sports of running, throwing and jumping.  At the first Olympic Games, which were held in 776 BC, they lasted one day and by the fifth century BC, they lasted five days. They were held every four years and no medals were awarded, only olive leaf wreathes or crowns for the winners. Furthermore, all athletes competed in the nude and any athlete that made a false start on the track suffered corporal punishment! But we are not suggesting that we return to those practices!

However, what we are suggesting is that we return to the earlier practice of having a permanent venue for the holding of the Games, such as Olympia in Greece, the birthplace of the ancient Games. A permanent venue for the Games would also have positive environmental effects – the IOC is keen on promoting “green” Olympics and reducing their “carbon footprint”– as well as reducing the costs of staging the Games!

As a result of De Coubertin’s initiatives, the revived Games of the modern era were held in 1896 in Athens, Greece, from 6-15 April, and featured nine sports: athletics, tennis, shooting, fencing, wrestling, gymnastics, swimming and weightlifting.

The President of the International Olympic Committee, Dr. Thomas Bach, hailed the Paris Games as “sensational” and, praising the “simply amazing” athletes who participated, he added:

“During all this time, you lived peacefully together under one roof in the Olympic Village. You respected each other, even if your countries are divided by war and conflict. You created a culture of peace.

This inspired all of us and billions of people around the globe. Thank you for making us dream. Thank you for making us believe in a better world for everyone.”

This is the power of sport!

Perhaps, the success of the modern Games, with all the eye watering national and international commercialism and corporate sponsorship – reputed to have contributed some US$1.3 billion towards the costs of the Paris Olympics – supporting and surrounding them, means that the point of no return may have been reached. Pierre de Coubertin must be turning in his grave!

We turn now to another pressing and related issue in international sport, where winning, at all costs, often appears to be the name of the game, especially nowadays with so much money circulating in sport: the need for integrity at all levels of sport. So, we asked Ennio Boloventa, until September 2024 of Valloni Attorneys at Law, Zurich, Switzerland, to let us have his thoughts on such an important and fundamental matter for sport as follows.

“The need for integrity in sport!

Introduction

When asked about the importance of integrity in sport, any stakeholder in the sports industry will most likely answer quite automatically that integrity is paramount; that it is a pillar of statutes and regulations; and that it is the essence of sport. If we then continue the conversation with the same person, asking what integrity actually means and why we need it in sport, the answer will probably be less automatic and more articulated.

The following remarks attempt to elaborate and build on these last questions, analysing the concept of integrity; the way in which sports governing bodies are addressing it; and the role it has in sport.

The concept of integrity

Sports governing bodies are committed to protecting and promoting integrity in sport. To start from the top of the pyramid, the Olympic Charter expressly states that, amongst the roles of the International Olympic Committee, is “to protect clean athletes and the integrity of sport, by leading the fight against doping, and by taking action against all forms of manipulation of competitions and related corruption” (the Olympic Charter, art. 2, para. 9).

In the same vein, the statutes and regulations of the international sports federations include commitments to the promotion and protection of integrity. For instance, the Statutes of FIFA, the world governing body of association football (soccer) provide that it is a FIFA objective “to promote integrity, ethics and fair play with a view to preventing all methods or practices, such as corruption, doping or match manipulation, which might jeopardise the integrity of matches, competitions, players, officials and member associations or give rise to abuse of association football” (FIFA Statutes, art.2, lit. G).

A further example, the International Cricket Council (ICC) commits “to taking every step in their power (a) to prevent corrupt practices undermining the integrity of the sport of cricket, including any efforts to influence improperly the outcome or any other aspect of any Match; and (b) to preserve public confidence in the readiness, willingness and ability of the ICC and its National Cricket Federations to protect the sport from such corrupt practices” (ICC Anti-Corruption Code for Participants, art. 1.1.5).  

Also, a fundamental organization in sport, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), through its World Anti-Doping Code, ties integrity to the fight against doping, declaring that “Anti-doping programs seek to maintain the integrity of sport in terms of respect for rules, other competitors, fair competition, a level playing field, and the value of clean sport to the world” (WADA Code, Preamble).

Despite the fact that none of these organizations provides a complete definition of the term “integrity”, the concept of integrity, as referred to in sports statutes and regulations, encompasses principles such as fairness, honesty, ethics, fair play and adherence to rules, ensuring that the essential nature of sports is preserved.

In the effort of retrieving a pure definition of integrity, we can further refer to the etymology of the same word, whereby the term “integritas” refers, in the Latin language, to something that is preserving intact its unity and nature, or that has not suffered any damage, injury, quantitative or qualitative diminution. The same term, referred to the moral dimension, indicates fairness, honesty, rectitude, thus recalling purity, the absence of any flaw or defect affecting the true essence.

Following this short etymological research, the concept of integrity applied to sport means, therefore, that it will coincide with the true essence of sport itself. In other words, whatever tarnishes or affects the essence of sport, will be incompatible with the notion of integrity.

With this in mind, where is it possible to find a definition of the essence of sport? Once again, we have to refer to a fundamental pillar of sports law: the Olympic Charter, which states that “the practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have access to the practice of sport, without discrimination of any kind in respect of internationally recognised human rights within the remit of the Olympic Movement. The Olympic spirit requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play” (the Olympic Charter’s Fundamentals of Olympism, 4).

Based on the above, we can come to a first conclusion: the essence of sport, and so the integrity of sport, is constituted by fundamental values such as fairness, honesty and respect. Equally, the essence of sport is based on the fundamental human right to compete, with no discrimination and in a spirit of fair play.

Once we have determined roughly the concept of integrity, it comes easier to identify the threats to the essence of sports, namely those situations which are incompatible with the concept of integrity and undermine the fundamental principles of sportsmanship, for example: corruption, competition manipulation and doping.

These threats are by nature linked to the concepts of cheating and fraud, or put more simply, they undermine the essence of sport by neglecting the fundamental values of fair play and compliance with the rules.

Competition manipulation and corruption

Corruption represents a significant threat to the integrity of sport. It can appear in different forms, depending upon the subjects involved, including fraud, money-laundering, abuse of authority, competition manipulation, illegal betting, wrongdoing during the organization and delivery of sports events, the transfer of athletes, and the ownership of sports organizations, often with transnational features. All these forms of corruption either constitute criminal offences or, at the least, are sanctioned by sports regulations.

Amongst those, competition manipulation, also more known commonly as match-fixing, deeply affects the essence of sport and, namely, the principle of fair play. In this respect, according to the most complete and successful legal definition of this issue:

““Manipulation of sports competitions” means an intentional arrangement, act or omission aimed at an improper alteration of the result or the course of a sports competition in order to remove all or part of the unpredictable nature of the aforementioned sports competition with a view to obtaining an undue advantage for oneself or for others” (Art. 3 (4) of the Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions, commonly referred to as the “Macolin Convention”).

In most of the cases, competition manipulation is committed for sporting and/or betting-related purposes. In the first case, the manipulation is perpetrated in order to provide a sporting advantage, for example, to protect a team against relegation or to ensure a perceived advantageous competition draw. The latter, which is the most common one, is where the manipulation is perpetrated to ensure a predetermined outcome, on which a bet is placed, resulting in an undue financial advantage. For example, when a match is manipulated to guarantee that a certain team loses or that a given number of goals are scored at the end of the first half or at the end of the match (known as “spot-fixing” and see, for example, the infamous 2010 case of three Pakistani cricketers who were convicted of spot-fixing during a Test Match against England at Lord’s).

In any event, we have witnessed different cases of match-fixing in sports, all of them sharing the very same nature, namely the removal of the true essence of sport: the fairness of the competition and the unpredictability of the course of a match and/or its result. In view of the seriousness of this issue, lawmakers have intervened – and are still intervening – to tackle match-fixing, at different levels:

a   by means of international conventions: such as the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (“UNCAC”); the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime (“UNTOC”); and, more specifically, on match manipulation, the Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions (“Macolin Convention”);

b  by means of national legislation: namely the state provisions criminalizing match manipulation in a growing number of states;

c   by means of sport regulations: such as the Olympic Movement Code on the Prevention of the Manipulation of Competitions and the regulations from international and national sports federations, which severely sanction all forms of match-fixing through long bans – even life-time – and hefty fines.

Equally, many sports organizations are establishing dedicated departments or independent units to protect the integrity of their sports and combat competition manipulations effectively, such as the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA), the Athletics Integrity Unit, the Aquatics Integrity Unit and the ICC Anti-Corruption Unit for Cricket.

These units usually have the authority to investigate and sanction violations of the respective anti match-fixing regulations and also to promote integrity by means of raising awareness initiatives and educational programmes for athletes, teams, leagues and all the relevant stakeholders in sport.

These kinds of initiatives are necessarily connected to the structural need for integrity in sport. Let us imagine, in fact, what would happen in a sport where competition manipulation is tolerated or, somehow, accepted. The consequences would be that:

• the outcome or the results of the sport’s competitions would be pre-determined;
• the athletes would not compete/play with a view to doing their best, but rather in order to achieve a certain result decided in advance;
• the unpredictability of the result, which is the essence of any sports’ competitions, would be affected;
• people and fans would most likely lose interest and passion for a sport where the result is pre-arranged and athletes are not performing at their best;
• a further consequence connected to losing followers and spectators would be the decrease or even the absence of revenues from ticketing, media rights, merchandising and sponsors. In other words, the entire movement would be affected by an economic collapse of the system;
• at the end of the process, the sport would have lost its essence: without athletes performing at their best and fans eager to attend and follow the competitions. Therefore, in this scenario, a sport without integrity would not be a sport anymore.

This is the reason why sports organizations are committed to promoting and preserving the integrity of their competitions, as they are conscious that the protection of integrity is not only necessary, from a moral standpoint, but is also key for their existence: without integrity, there would be no sport.

Doping and integrity

Another significant threat to the integrity of sport, undermining the principles of fairness, equality, and respect for the rules, is doping. The term "doping" refers to the use of prohibited substances or methods by athletes to enhance their performance artificially, thus with a view to obtaining an undue advantage. The use of doping substances or doping methods to enhance performance is fundamentally detrimental to the overall spirit of sport and also harmful to an athlete’s health and to other athletes competing in the sport. It severely damages not only the health of the athletes, but also the integrity of sport, irrespective of the motivation for the use of drugs to improve performance.

In different contexts, there are also other forms of “doping”, such as the “financial doping”. This kind of doping occurs when owners of clubs, also with a view to obtaining an undue advantage against other teams, circumvent financial regulations so to be able to invest more wealth in the management of the respective clubs/teams. Also in this case, it is clear how this form of doping constitutes a threat to the integrity of sport, by means of providing an undue advantage to perpetrators, distorting the nature of a fair competition and, thus, the integrity of sport.

Going back to the most known form of doping, the organization which plays a fundamental role since 1999 is the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). WADA is an international independent agency, which was founded to lead a collaborative worldwide movement for doping-free sport and its primary role is to develop, harmonize and coordinate anti-doping rules and policies across all sports and countries. In this respect, the Agency's most significant contribution to the fight against doping is the World Anti-Doping Code (WADA Code), which is the document harmonizing anti-doping programmes in all sports and all countries.

As highlighted in the WADA Code, the anti-doping programmes “are founded on the intrinsic value of sport. This intrinsic value is often referred to as “the spirit of sport”: the ethical pursuit of human excellence through the dedicated perfection of each Athlete’s natural talents” (WADA Code, Preamble).

Anti-doping programmes, therefore, seek to protect the health of the athletes and to provide them with the opportunity to compete on a “level playing field” without the use of prohibited substances and methods. Anti-doping programmes are the key to maintaining the integrity of sport and preserving the health of athletes.

Interestingly, the definition of “doping”, according to the WADA Code, is broader than the simple detection of a prohibited substance at a doping control. Art. 1 of the WADA Code states that “Doping is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the antidoping rule violations (“ADRV”) set forth in Article 2.1 through Article 2.11 of the Code”, namely:

• presence of a prohibited substance in an athlete’s sample;
• use or attempted use by an athlete of a prohibited substance or method;
• evading, refusing or failing to submit to sample collection by an athlete;

     4   failure to file athlete whereabouts information and missed tests;

     5   tampering with any part of the doping control process;

     6   possession of a prohibited substance or method;

7   trafficking a prohibited substance or method;

8   administering or attempting to administer a prohibited substance or method to an athlete;

9   complicity, even if attempted, in an ADRV;

10 prohibited association with sanctioned athlete support personnel;

11 discourage or retaliate other persons from reporting relevant anti-doping information to the authorities.

It is, therefore, clear how the fight against doping goes beyond the simple detection of prohibited substances, due to the devastating impact that doping can have not only on the integrity but especially on the health of the athletes. Also, with this threat affecting the essence of sport, it is evident why this kind of approach is needed: as already mentioned and cannot be overstated, not only would sport where doping is allowed lose its essential nature and followers but would also jeopardise the mental and physical health of the athletes involved as well.

Conclusions

The severity of the threats to the very essence and existence of sport demonstrates that integrity in sport is not merely an abstract concept, but it is the very foundation upon which the entire sporting world is built. This is the reason why sports organizations, through their statutes and regulations, unequivocally prioritize integrity, identifying it as a statutory aim and objective.

Corruption, competition manipulation, and doping emerge nowadays as the primary challenges, each posing a significant risk to the authenticity and fairness that sport is supposed to embody. Match-fixing and other forms of competition manipulation strike at the heart of what makes sport captivating and meaningful: the unpredictability of the result and genuine and fair competition. The establishment of dedicated integrity units within sports organizations further exemplifies the commitment to preserving such integrity and ensuring that sport remains a true contest of effort and clean and fair competition.

Doping, in particular, reveals its devastating impact not only on the integrity of sport but also on the health and well-being of athletes. As analysed, the role of WADA and the WADA Code is pivotal in providing a comprehensive framework for maintaining fairness and protecting athletes and sporting integrity. Doping, in its various forms, distorts the “level playing field” that is essential for fair and true competition.

Thus, the need for integrity in sport is undeniable and multifaceted. It is not only a moral imperative, but also a practical necessity for the survival of sport itself. Integrity ensures that sport remains a genuine expression of the human right to compete in a fair-play spirit, untainted by corruption, manipulation, or artificial enhancement. As various stakeholders in sport continue to uphold and enforce the principles of integrity, they safeguard the true essence of sport: its ability to inspire, to challenge, and to unite people across the world. Without integrity, sport would definitely lose its meaning, its appeal, and, ultimately, its existence. So, the continuous efforts to protect and promote integrity in sport are not just a formal/theoretical need on paper, but are also truly essential, in practice, to protect the aims and role of sport in our society.”

Few, we suggest, would disagree with these conclusions!

UEFA and Manchester City

A brief mention should be made of the latest developments in the long-running case against Manchester City Football Club brought by UEFA, the governing body of European football, for alleged breaches of their Financial Fair Play Rules. We now have – and not before time – a timetable for dealing with the case, which began 18 months ago following a four-year investigation by UEFA.

The club faces 115 charges, some of which date back to 2009, and the hearing of them, before an independent disciplinary commission, will take place in September.  The outcome of the case is expected to be known in 2025.

The club denies all the charges, stating that they have a “body of irrefutable evidence” against them.

The manager of the club, Pep Guardiola, has remarked that “I am happy that it starts soon and hopefully it finishes soon for the benefit of all of us.”

And the chief executive of the English Premier League, Richard Masters, has commented that “It is time now for the case to resolve itself.”

And so, say all to that!

Articles in this issue

As you will see from the Table of Contents of this issue, we include a wide range of topical sports law and sports tax articles, which will engage our readers’ attention and provide them with much “food for thought”.

On the sports law side, with the Paris Olympics fresh in our minds, we would draw your particular attention to the article by Ian Felice and Emma Labrador on the legal consequences of limited television coverage of the Paris 2024 Olympic Games.

The background to and the aim of their article is set out in their introduction as follows:

“For many years, the Olympic Games have been considered a global event drawing billions of TV spectators around the world.

But the way these Games are aired and enjoyed has changed significantly as a result of the quickly evolving media landscape. As the 2024 Paris Olympics have come to an end, discussions concerning content availability, broadcasting rights, and the laws controlling sports event distribution have been spurred by complaints about the limited television coverage experienced in these Games when compared to previous editions.

In order to understand better the legal ramifications of these changes, this article will concentrate on three main areas: intellectual property rights; broadcasting rights; and potential challenges resulting from limited viewing access to sports’ showcase event.”

And they reach the following conclusions:

“The Paris 2024 Olympics marked a turning point in the history of sports broadcasting, as more regulated TV coverage and a major move towards digital platforms were implemented. Although this offers room for creativity and more freedom in terms of how content is consumed, it also raises a multitude of legal issues. To guarantee that the Games are open to everyone and that their legal risks are kept to a minimum, the IOC and broadcasters must negotiate a complicated legal environment that includes issues, such as the distribution of broadcasting rights, the enforcement of intellectual property, the effect on consumers, and the possibility of legal challenges. All of that whilst trying to accommodate evolving consumer preferences and complying with the values of the Olympic Movement!”

And on the sports tax side, we would mention the article in which Athena Constantinou provides a general guide on NIL taxation of collegiate athletes in the USA. In her introduction, she writes:

“In recent years, the landscape of collegiate athletics in the United States of America has undergone a significant transformation. A pivotal development has been the recognition of athletes’ rights to their Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL). Historically, the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) imposed strict regulations prohibiting athletes from profiting from their NIL through the application and implementation of the so-called “amateurism criterion”.

However, a series of legal challenges and public pressure led to a seismic shift in policy, allowing collegiate athletes to monetize their NIL as of 1 July 2021.

This newfound opportunity has opened up a myriad of income streams for athletes, including endorsement deals, sponsorships, social media promotions, merchandise sales, and appearances. These opportunities, whilst financially rewarding, also introduce a complex array of tax implications.

With athletes now navigating contracts, managing income from diverse sources, and meeting tax obligations, the importance of understanding NIL taxation cannot be overstated.”

She concludes her article as follows:

“This guide has explored the multifaceted aspects of NIL taxation for collegiate athletes in the United States. From understanding taxable income and deductions to navigating federal, state, and local tax obligations, athletes must approach their NIL earnings with a well-informed strategy.

This guide has explored the multifaceted aspects of NIL taxation for collegiate athletes in the United States. From understanding taxable income and deductions to navigating federal, state, and local tax obligations, athletes must approach their NIL earnings with a well-informed strategy.”

As always, we would welcome and value your contributions in the form of articles and topical case notes and commentaries for our journal and also for posting on the SLT dedicated website www.sportslawandtaxation.com. Please do not hesitate to send them to us!

So, now read on and enjoy the September 2024 edition of SLT.

Dr. Rijkele Betten (Managing Editor)

Prof. dr. Ian S. Blackshaw (Consulting Editor)

September 2024