Editorial Sports Law & Taxation, Vol. 16, No. 4, December 2025
It is with much pleasure that we welcome readers to the December 2025 edition (citation: SLT 2025/4) of our ground-breaking journal Sports Law and Taxation (SLT) and online database https://sportslawandtaxation.com.
The regulation of sport and the challenges which that engenders has been a particular feature of the past year. For example, the establishment of the new Football Regulator in the United Kingdom and the intertwining of sport and politics manifesting itself in the ban on fans of the Israeli Football Club, Maccabi Tel Aviv, attending their club’s Europa League tie with Aston Villa FC at Villa Park in Birmingham in November, as a result of the Israeli-Gaza conflict.
So, we asked Ian Felice and Matthew Torres, partners in the leading Gibraltar international law firm of Hassans, to report on the regulation of sport in Gibraltar, which also presents some issues. Here is their report:
“Sports regulation in Gibraltar
The regulation of sport in Gibraltar faces a unique set of challenges.
These stem from its political status; limited land and resources; increasing professionalisation; current and aspirational membership of international governing bodies; and the drive to maintain high standards across a fast-evolving sporting landscape. At the heart of the debate are questions of governance; facility allocation; cross-border collaboration; safeguarding; financial sustainability; and the impact of international obligations. All of which amidst the always tenuous line between amateur and professional – or, at least, semi-professional – sport.
The Gibraltar sporting model
Gibraltar sport regulation is defined by its hybrid approach: local associations run largely by volunteers with limited budgets coordinate closely with government bodies, such as the Gibraltar Sports and Leisure Authority (GSLA), whilst simultaneously answering to international federations, such as FIFA, UEFA, ICC, and the wider global sporting family. This interconnectedness brings both opportunity and strain, as local governing bodies must constantly balance domestic, largely recreational needs, with their respective international obligations.
Despite its small size, Gibraltar has developed a diverse and passionate sporting ecosystem, encompassing football, hockey, basketball, netball, rugby, athletics, esports and many more.
Notably, Gibraltar’s esports scene has grown quickly, aided by government support and a flexible regulatory approach, which has helped to transform leisure associations into recognised sporting bodies, with access to dedicated facilities and international competitions.
The potential economic benefits, including increased tourism and investment through event-led sports development, are clear drivers of government policy, most recently illustrated during the hosting of the Netball World Youth Cup 2025. However, expanding infrastructure and regulatory oversight has revealed the limits of Gibraltar’s resources.
Facility constraints and allocation disputes
Perhaps the most obvious challenge is the allocation of sporting facilities. Land scarcity means all sports – indoors and outdoors – must share limited venues. This results in frequent scheduling conflicts, especially during international events, and has led to public debate about fairness and child safeguarding.
The government has asserted that robust frameworks are in place to protect young athletes, but that facility sharing is an unavoidable reality. Still, parents and coaches across different sports have expressed frustration at interruptions during peak training periods.
Sporting successes, such as the qualification by Lincoln Red Imps FC to the group stages of the UEFA Conference League football competition, place even greater strain on resources, as the Gibraltar current principal outdoor venue is effectively out-of-bounds to everyone else during the days around the hosting of home fixtures.
The situation is exacerbated by the inevitable need to undertake major redevelopment projects, such as the transformation of Victoria Stadium into the new Gibraltar FA National Stadium. Such undertakings, whilst boosting Gibraltar’s international profile, can temporarily undermine local access and disrupt commercial interests. A recent dispute involving a bar at the Stadium has recently become a constitutional challenge – even featuring Lord Pannick KC!
Internationalisation: cross-border and treaty implications
Gibraltar sports associations frequently interact with national, provincial and local counterparts in Spain, the UK, and wider Europe. Gibraltar junior basketball players, for example, are this season participating in the neighbouring Cadiz province competition after an absence of 11 years. Many clubs and athletes rely on Spanish facilities, particularly for training, due to the lack of space at home – a situation likely to change, positively or negatively, with the ratification of the new UK-EU-Spain and Gibraltar Agreement currently under final drafting and negotiation. Provisions promoting cross-border mobility for athletes may unlock new opportunities for collaboration, joint events, and resource sharing. However, regulatory details around competition rules, athlete movement, and sponsorship require clarification.
The Treaty’s promise of a generational shift in Gibraltar’s cross-border relations offers hope for sports development but will likely introduce new regulatory challenges for sports associations and policymakers. Any change in freedom of movement, funding or access could render existing governance structures obsolete overnight, necessitating rapid adaptation.
Governance, financial regulation and club sustainability
One of the most pressing regulatory concerns in Gibraltar sport is financial governance – a sector under increased scrutiny since the Gibraltar Football Association admissions into UEFA and FIFA. The recent sanctioning of Manchester 62 FC, with the unprecedented docking of league points for licensing and wage payment breaches, highlights the stakes. The licensing framework aims to enforce compliance with wage payments, tax declarations, and overall financial sustainability but monitoring remains difficult.
These sanctions, whilst potentially damaging in the short term, reflect an emerging commitment to club sustainability and international credibility. FIFA and UEFA require national associations to enforce rules strictly and the Gibraltar FA efforts to strengthen oversight and ensure player welfare are critical steps forward. However, systemic challenges remain: smaller clubs struggle with financial planning, and there is a lack of a dedicated National Dispute Resolution Committee to adjudicate wage issues and contractual disagreements.
The government and Gibraltar FA are working to improve these systems, but success will depend upon whether clubs can adapt. Many sports associations are reviewing their constitutions and governance mechanisms, prompted by stricter annual registration procedures and the GSLA renewed focus on Key Performance Indicators and safeguarding. The risk is that overregulation might deter grassroots growth and stretch smaller organisations beyond their means.
Safeguarding, child protection, and inclusion
Safeguarding is an area where Gibraltar sporting associations have invested significantly, developing one of the most robust frameworks in Europe according to government statements. Associations are required to comply with stringent child protection criteria, with failure resulting in denied funding – a mechanism designed to reinforce compliance and accountability.
An ongoing challenge, however, is balancing inclusivity and access with security and fairness. The GSLA coordinates safeguards across recurrent spot checks and an independent panel, but questions persist over the practicalities of enforcing these rules across multiple venues and disciplines. Sharing facilities among divergent sports sometimes generates friction, with parents and coaches demanding more dedicated space for priority training. The government’s stance points to a need for community-wide compromise, but the underlying tension reflects broader questions about how best to regulate sport in a resource-limited jurisdiction.
At the same time, Gibraltar regulatory authorities have spearheaded innovative campaigns promoting equality and inclusion in sport, extending opportunities to underrepresented groups and encouraging participation from all sectors of society.
Match-fixing, integrity, and professionalisation
Gibraltar also faces the universal threat of match-fixing and sporting integrity breaches. Regulatory education programmes, such as those run by the Gibraltar FA, have targeted both players and staff, aiming to stamp out underground betting and fraudulent behaviour. These efforts are part of wider international collaborations, with the CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) jurisprudence helping to guide disciplinary cases but vigilance must be relentless as professionalisation deepens and financial incentives increase.
The esports phenomenon: regulation and future growth
A notable development in the Gibraltar sporting landscape is the rise of esports. Driven by government encouragement and a flexible licensing environment, esports has moved from informal gatherings to an established association with access to world-class facilities at the Europa Sports Complex. Regulatory issues here mirror those in traditional sports: copyright, licensing, data protection and possible overlaps with gambling legislation. The Gambling Act 2005 and the imminent enactment of the Gambling Act 2025, originally crafted for online gaming, now plays a crucial role in shaping esports oversight.
If Gibraltar can maintain its balanced approach – supporting innovation whilst ensuring compliance with local and EU data privacy law – it will continue to attract new investment and global recognition. However, as with other disciplines, the rapid pace of change raises questions about whether regulation can keep up with new business models and technologies.
Policy recommendations and future outlook
To ensure sustainable growth and compliance, Gibraltar must continue to evolve its regulatory frameworks. Key recommendations include:
– expanding and upgrading sports facilities to minimise scheduling conflicts and ensure adequate space for all major sports;
– investing in club sustainability, not merely through sanctions but education, support, and financial planning resources;
– establishing a National Dispute Resolution Committee to streamline the adjudication of contractual and safeguarding disputes;
– continued review of association constitutions, governance models, and annual registration procedures, with particular focus on safeguarding and inclusion metrics.
– leveraging cross-border relations to open new avenues for training and collaboration whilst actively monitoring potential regulatory pitfalls.
Above all, Gibraltar must retain its core value of fair play, blending pragmatism with ambition in the face of local challenges and international pressures.
Conclusion: navigating complexity
Regulating sport in Gibraltar reveals the delicate balancing act required in a small jurisdiction with big ambitions. Whilst the government and the local sports bodies have built a robust foundation – marked by a commitment to safeguarding, international standards, financial oversight and innovative growth areas – resource constraints, facility allocation, and club sustainability continue to challenge the regime. The ongoing evolution of cross-border agreements, rising professionalisation and expansion into new domains, like esports, present further opportunities and hurdles.
Gibraltar’s sporting community finds itself at a pivotal juncture, where responsive regulation and bold policymaking will define its future. Success will require not just strict adherence to rules but thoughtful engagement with stakeholders, adaptability to emerging trends and a willingness to invest in both infrastructure and people. If these ideals are realised, Gibraltar can become a model of effective sports regulation for micro-jurisdictions worldwide.”
Some ongoing challenges, indeed, ahead for Gibraltar!
Doping in sport
The regulation of doping in sport has also continued to be an issue during the past year and reared its ugly head in a novel guise in the form of the so-called “Enhanced Games”, with calls for them to be banned by the World Anti-doping Agency (“WADA”).
The President of WADA, Witold Banka, has called upon the United States Anti-Doping Agency (“USADA”) to do more to help to prevent the Enhanced Games, comprising track and field, short-course swimming and weightlifting and which allows competitors to use performance-enhancing substances under medical supervision, from taking place for the first time in Las Vegas, USA, in May of next year.
Banka stated that:
“Sometimes we don’t know what to say about this ridiculous idea, because from the ethical point of view, from the moral point of view, how is it possible that people come to agree to compete, taking all these prohibited substances?”
And added that:
“It’s completely against everything that we are doing [… and …] very dangerous.”
Travis Tygart, the USADA chief executive, agrees, describing the Enhanced Games as a “dangerous clown show, not real sport”.
Those behind the Enhanced Games claim that they will become the “Olympics of the future”, allowing athletes to take drugs in a bid to break world records.
Aron D’Souza, the Australian businessman and the founder of the Enhanced Games, considers that athletes should be entitled to do what they wish with their own bodies.
However, the Enhanced Games have been criticised for their potential impact on athletes’ health, as well as for undermining fair play.
But it is not clear what can be done, from a legal point of view, to prevent the Enhanced Games taking place as planned.
Olympics transgender women ban
Another ongoing controversial issue is the eligibility of transgender women to compete in female sports events. In fact, it has been reported that the International Olympic Committee (“IOC”) is expected to announce, early next year, a new policy of banning transgender women competing in such events.
This follows the results of a science-based review regarding the permanent physical advantages of being born male, even in those cases where treatment for reducing testosterone has been undertaken by these women.
This review was carried out by Dr. Jane Thornton, the IOC medical and scientific director, who is a former Olympic rower.
To date, the IOC position on this controversial matter has been to allow transgender women to compete in female events with reduced testosterone levels but has left it to individual sports governing bodies to decide based on their own rules.
It would appear that there is some further work to be done, before a final decision is taken by the IOC, to ensure that the new policy is legally defensible. This, one would expect, relates to any possible human rights’ legal challenges, taking into account the IOC general principles, as enshrined in the Olympic Charter, that the practice of sport is a human right and also that any form of discrimination in sport, including on the grounds of sex or sexual orientation, is prohibited.
Articles in this issue
We now turn our particular attention to some of the interesting articles which we publish in this issue of SLT.
On the sports law side, we would draw the attention of our readers to the article by Dolf Segaar on Sex testing and human rights. He introduces this controversial subject as follows.
“I am writing this article at a time when attention is being drawn to the treatment of women in The Netherlands. The reason for this is the tragic death of a 17-year-old girl who was attacked and murdered on her way home after a night out.
The enormous outrage that this caused has resulted in a nationwide protest. Women no longer accept living in an unsafe society and are “claiming the night”. This is not new, which makes it all the more sad. As early as 1975, following the murder of Susan Alexander Speeth, feminists in Philadelphia (USA) protested and organised protest marches with the slogan “taking back the night”.
Since then, there have been many similar protests by women worldwide, which gives hope for the improvement of the position of women. Unfortunately, history also teaches us that violence against women continues to occur. This is because there are no easy measures available. The call for men to “raise their sons” sounds sympathetic and obvious, but it is not clear to whom that call is directed.
Against this background, I am writing this article about “sex testing” in sport. This concerns regulations of international and national sports federations that are aimed at testing women to determine whether they are allowed to participate in female competitions and prescribing that medical treatment is required if, on the basis of their sex characteristics, they are not allowed to participate according to these rules. For convenience, I will refer to the various rules collectively as “sex testing”.
I see fundamental similarities between women’s protests to “claim the night” and their indignation about sex testing rules. Although different in origin and intensity, both protests can be traced back to the same perceived violations of their fundamental human rights, such as the rights to non-discrimination, privacy and dignity.”
And he ends his article with the following observations:
“In November 2021, the IOC published the Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity and Sex Variations. This document replaced previous guidelines and emphasises:
1 respect for gender identity and physical variations;
2 no mandatory medical or genetic testing;
3 no standard testosterone limits imposed by the IOC itself; and
4 responsibility for individual sports federations to establish fair and inclusive rules.
The IOC has, therefore, opted for an approach that is much more in line with the ECHR and the views of Human Rights Watch and the United Nations on sex testing as expressed in this article. At the same time, the IOC currently leaves room for sports federations to make their own rules. However, the new President of the IOC, Kirsty Coventry, has recently set up four working groups, with the aim of reshaping the Olympic Games, and one of them includes the protection of women’s sport.
During the 2024 Olympic Games in Paris, female boxers, such as Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting, came under fire due to rumours about their gender and the lack of sex verification. In response, in November 2024, the International Consortium on Female Sport (ICFS) requested the IOC to establish rules on “sex-based eligibility to restore safety and fairness for female athletes”. According to the ICFS, there are currently no clear rules on this matter and “such is a clear violation of the Olympic Charter”.
In my opinion, it can be concluded from the ECtHR ruling in the matter of Semenya that sex testing regulations are contrary to the ECHR and recommendations and findings of the United Nations and Human Rights organisations, especially when these regulations prescribe compulsory medication or medical treatment in order to participate in sports competitions, where, at the same time, it is unclear whether such treatment will have the required effect and whilst it is uncertain whether DSD athletes have a significant advantage in sport. Such rules are, at first glance, discriminatory and contrary to privacy and human dignity.
However, there may well be reasons to accept such regulations nonetheless on objective, reasonable and proportionate grounds. But the existence of such grounds should not be decided lightly and can only be achieved after thorough and scientific analysis of the desired regulations, with solid substantiation by respected experts.
However, none of this explains why, despite the obvious difference in strength and physique, the sporting world is happy to accept that Michael Phelps swims faster and Usain Bolt runs faster on the one hand and require women with DSD to change.
But perhaps I should just accept that not everything in sport can be explained!”
We would also mention the article by Dr. Fabian Masurat on The settlement of football disputes in Germany. In his introduction, he writes as follows:
“The legal situation regarding disputes in the field of football has changed fundamentally in Germany in recent years. Whilst football remains deeply rooted in Germany’s social and cultural structure, the increasing commercialisation of the sport has led to an expansion of its legal dimensions, resulting in disputes in the areas of labour law, contract law, commercial law and regulatory law.
Traditionally, the resolution of such disputes has taken place within the self-regulatory structures of sports governing bodies, such as the German Football Association (Deutscher Fußball-Bund, DFB) and the German Football League (Deutsche Fußball Liga, DFL), and, at the international level, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, Switzerland. However, this autonomous model of sports justice is now subject to increasing judicial scrutiny, particularly following the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in RFC Seraing v. FIFA.
This judgment marks a turning point and reaffirms the primacy of European Union (EU) fundamental rights. In particular, art. 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU over the internal rules of sports organisations. The CJEU’s insistence on effective legal protection challenges the long-standing assumption that CAS decisions cannot be reviewed by national courts and has significant implications for the resolution of football disputes in Germany and all over Europe.”
And he concludes his article as follows:
“The settlement of football disputes in Germany reflects an evolving balance between self-regulation and judicial accountability. Whilst arbitration remains the preferred mechanism, both for efficiency and expertise, the RFC Seraing judgment underscores that such mechanisms must remain subordinate to the rule of law and EU fundamental rights.
German law already provides the structural basis for compliant sports arbitration, but practitioners should anticipate closer judicial scrutiny, particularly where disputes intersect with EU competition or labour law.
Ultimately, Seraing signifies not the end of sports arbitration, but its constitutionalisation within the EU legal order.”
On the sports tax side, we would mention the article by Prof. Luis Toribio Bernárdez on The taxation of image rights in Spain – The Ancelotti case. He introduces his interesting and topical article as follows:
“If there is one sector that has recently been subject to strict and intense scrutiny by the Spanish tax authorities, it is professional football. This is not precisely because of a whim of the Administration, but because there have been numerous strategies used by footballers, coaches, clubs, agents and other parties involved with the intention of obtaining more advantageous tax treatment for the income derived from their sporting activities and, in particular, those related to the transfer of their image rights to third parties.
In many cases, these investigation and control procedures have led to criminal prosecution for the possible commission of a crime against the Public Treasury – in Spain, for this crime to occur, it must be proven that the amounts not paid by the same taxpayer and in the same tax period exceed € 120,000 – which, in certain cases, have resulted in an agreement between the accused footballer and the Spanish Administration, thus avoiding them facing custodial penalties which, in some cases, could have led to them being sent to prison – the most famous cases being those of Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo.
Other players involved in this type of procedures, however, decided not to sign an agreement with the authorities, risking continuing with the criminal proceedings until the end and obtaining an exonerating judgement – this is what happened to Xabi Alonso.
The most recent case concerns former Real Madrid CF coach Carlo Ancelotti, who last July received notification that he had been convicted under Section 30 of the Provincial Court of Madrid of a crime against the Public Treasury relating to the 2014 tax period, with regard to personal income tax (“IRPF”), to a one-year prison sentence and a fine of € 386,361.93.
To understand this judgment, however, it is necessary to know the ins and outs of the case involving the Italian coach and, especially, the details of the tax strategy that he adopted, which, we understand, was recommended by his advisers, after signing with Real Madrid in the summer of 2013. We will discuss this in the next section.”
And he concludes his article with the following pertinent comments:
“After careful examination of the Provincial Court judgment, and, in particular, of the facts considered proven, the truth is that it is difficult to disagree with the solution reached by the Court, because, in the author’s opinion, the “crude” (if we may use that expression) nature of the tax strategy followed by the Italian coach is surprising, giving the impression that the corporate structure devised to channel the payment of his image rights was created in a totally improvised manner and without the slightest intention of giving it any credibility in the event of a possible tax audit.
However, despite the above, the judgment leaves us with some questions that affect issues that we consider to be of great importance and which, eventually, could even affect the sense of the decision.
Firstly, the judgment states, on several occasions, that there was an intention to conceal the income derived from the transfer of image rights to Real Madrid from the tax authorities. Nevertheless, we do not believe that this was actually the case, since the Spanish team declared and paid the corresponding withholding taxes on such payments, and, therefore, the tax authorities were fully aware of these amounts and the details of the entity receiving them, which, it should be remembered, was Vapia LLP.
This leads us to a second question, which is even more relevant: why then does the court judgment state that the transferee company did not pay tax in any country on the amounts derived from the transfer of image rights?
The judgment implies that Real Madrid did pay tax on these amounts, specifically, the judgment states that it paid tax “on its 50% share of the exploitation of Mr Ancelotti’s image rights”. However, Real Madrid was not the recipient of any income derived from the exploitation of its coach’s image rights, but rather the payer of such rights, from which it can be inferred that the Spanish club could not, in any case, be acting as a taxpayer for income that was not its own, but rather as a taxable person, in the capacity of withholding agent, for the payments that it made to the entity to which the rights were assigned. This means that the amounts withheld by the sports entity did not correspond to its own tax debt, but to the tax debt of the principal taxpayer – whether Ancelotti, if it is considered that there was simulation in the transfer of his rights, or one of the assignee entities. Consequently, such withholdings should have been treated as payments on account, and, therefore, as a reduction, of the tax debts accrued in Spain by the entity receiving the income from the exploitation of the image rights (Vapia LLP).
Given that we do not know the specific amounts paid by Real Madrid to each of the parties involved during the tax year in question – on the one hand, to Ancelotti as remuneration for his work as head coach and, on the other, to Vapia LPP as payment for the transfer of image rights – we cannot make accurate calculations to verify whether, once the deductions made on the payments to Vapia LLP have been subtracted, the alleged tax debt settled with the Italian coach in the 2014 exercise could be reduced to less than € 120,000, which would exclude the possibility that the conduct in question could be prosecuted as a crime against the Treasury. In fact, this is precisely what the coach’s defence sought to argue through an expert report that quantified the debt generated in 2014 at € 109,000.”
We would also mention the article by Adrien Khaznadji on France: Change of residence of individual sportspersons. In his introduction, he writes as follows.
“Elite professional athletes competing in individual sports – such as a motor sports pilot, tennis player, golfer, jockey and professional surfer – engage in activities that are international, independent and highly publicised.
Unlike professional athletes employed by a club or sports federation, these athletes do not necessarily have a stable connection to an employer based in a particular country and often derive a large part of their income from multiple, transnational sources: bonuses, prize money, image rights, partnerships, and sponsorship contracts. This mobility, which is inherent to their careers, raises complex questions of taxation and social contributions, particularly when they choose to move abroad to establish their tax residence.
This article will focus on the case of athletes of French origin. Between the need to sever ties of residence with France effectively, the identification of income that remains taxable there, and the determination of the applicable social security regime, the tax implications of such a transfer are manifold and often underestimated.
This is by no means a new question, but it is taking on a different dimension today. It is no longer limited to a few athletes concentrated in the most high-profile sports, like tennis or golf. In some sports, recurring revenue from social medias can now surpass prize money, and the intensification of sporting calendars means some athletes travel almost non-stop throughout the year. This is exemplified by the Formula 1 circuit, where the logistical demands of a 24-race season make a stable “home base” almost theoretical for drivers.
The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the tax implications of moving abroad for an athlete, who is not employed by a sports team, using a departure from France as an illustration. This analysis aims to offer insights into transfer of tax residence from a legal and tax perspective.
Therefore, any French resident moving abroad must:
1 be aware of the consequences of leaving France;
2 also pay attention to specific points regarding the establishment of their new tax residence;
3 look at their situation with regard to French social security when deciding to move abroad to establish their tax residence there.”
And in the conclusion to his article, the author makes the following important observation regarding the social security aspect of the subject, often overlooked:
“The organization named URSSAF plays a central role in the French social security system. Responsible for collecting contributions to fund social protection – health insurance, pensions, family allowances, and so on – it also ensures businesses’ compliance with their social contribution obligations. Its role, therefore, goes beyond simple collection: it has the power to investigate professional situations, particularly when a taxpayer’s activity has even a temporary connection with French territory. For athletes working abroad, URSSAF is, therefore, a power-that-be, capable of intervening in cases of doubt about the actual location of the activity or the legal nature of the income received.
Transferring tax residence outside France does not only have an impact upon income tax. It also changes the athlete’s social security affiliation, as the French social security system is based on the principle of territoriality. Thus, a change of country of residence:
– modifies affiliation to a social security scheme; and
– may, depending upon the case, remove or partially maintain certain obligations towards URSSAF.”
As you will see from the Table of Contents of this issue, we include, in addition to the articles highlighted above, a wide range of topical sports law and sports tax articles, which, we believe, will, once again, engage our readers’ attention and provide them with much ‘food for thought’.
As always, we would welcome and value our readers’ contributions in the form of articles and topical case notes and commentaries for our journal and also for posting on the SLT dedicated website https://sportslawandtaxation.com, which continues to go from strength to strength and covers important sports legal and tax developments and issues, also CAS media releases.
Finally, we take this opportunity of wishing all of our contributors and readers the compliments of the holiday season and all the best in the New Year 2026, which promises, once again, to be an exciting and challenging one for sport in the difficult geopolitical times in which we live!
So, now read on and enjoy the December 2025 edition of SLT.
Dr. Rijkele Betten (Managing Editor)
Prof. Dr. Ian S. Blackshaw (Consulting Editor)
December 2025
