|
The spectacle of lawyers being handsomely rewarded for pursuing fascinating sporting disputes before courts and regulatory authorities sticks in the craw of many.
This is one of the reasons why Richard Caborn's campaign to give governing bodies a degree of legal immunity from employment laws and the like has been supported across Europe. However, even if a return to the collusive (and abusive) relationship between government and governing bodies (so well described in Peter Oborne's book about Basil D'Oliveira) is unlikely in a more transparent and less deferential age, the case for any immunity depends to a large extent on how governing bodies might be expected to exploit any legal privilege that no one else enjoys.
Three recent examples of governing bodies' behaviour show that governing bodies need to be fully accountable. All of them show governing bodies exploiting their legal monopoly in the organisation of international competitions for purposes that should not be shielded from legal scrutiny – even if ultimately their actions might be held to be lawful.
The first example is provided by cycling, where the body that organises Pro Tour events – the Amaury Sports Organisation (ASO) - refused to admit to its events a team that was sponsored by a betting company which is an activity reserved to state undertakings in France under legislation that the European Commission is about to attack. Supported publicly by the European Commissioner, a Court in Leige has ordered ASO to admit the excluded team to a Belgian event which can be seen on TV in France. This will doubtless displease the French state undertakings whose relations with ASO are likely to be close.
The second example is the reported threat by the England Cricket Board (ECB) to deny Ireland's cricket team entry to a tournament that it is organising in England next year because Ireland is organising its own international tournament that clashes with England's one-day matches against the West Indies this summer. The ECB will be disturbed by the fact that the Irish matches will be broadcast over UK territory as it might have an adverse impact on its viewing figures. Again, this behaviour does not deserve any immunity from legal scrutiny.
Finally, and most ironically because the UK government is itself the victim, FIBA (the world governing body for basketball) has threatened to deny access to the 2012 Olympics to British teams because the government (through Richard Caborn) has decided to freeze lottery funding to governing bodies who have been deemed "unfit for purpose" by an independent review. FIBA regards this action as unacceptable government interference.
Predictably enough, Richard Caborn has protested that FIBA's action "holds the taxpayer to ransom". However, it will be interesting to see whether he rules out taking (or supporting) legal action on the basis that disputes should be resolved within the "sporting family" and not by the Courts. Whatever he does, FIBA's action ought to cool any enthusiasm for legal autonomy for governing bodies – an enthusiasm that is not shared by many who have experience of how questionably governing bodies can behave under the law, even as it currently stands.
Stephen Hornsby
303
Simkins' early warning bulletins are for general guidance only. Legal advice should be sought before taking action in relation to specific matters. Where reference is made to Court decisions facts referred to are those reported as found by the Court. Please note that past bulletins included in the Archive have not been updated by any subsequent changes in statute or case law.
<< back to articles & bulletins
|