Issue I-2013

ISSN 2039-0416

European Sports Law
and Policy Bulletin
INTERNATIONALAND COMPARATIVE
SPORTS JUSTICE

Michele Colucci and Karen L. Jones eds.

SPORTS LAW AND POLICY CENTRE

CONTENTS
NOTE ON THE AUTHORS .................................................................... 13
INTRODUCTION
by Michele Colucci….......................................................................... 19

PART I_____________________________________________________________
INTERNATIONAL SPORTS JUSTICEINTERNATIONAL SPORTS JUSTICE: THE COURT OF ARBITRATIONFOR SPORT
by Massimo Coccia............................................................................. 23
DISPUTE RESOLUTION AT THE FÉDÉRATION INTERNATIONALE
DE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION AND ITS JUDICIAL BODIESby Omar Ongaro and Marc Cavaliero ...................................................... 77
FAST BREAK: AN OVERVIEW OF HOW THE FÉDÉRATIONINTERNATIONALE DE BASKETBALL HANDLES DISPUTESFAIRLY, QUICKLY, AND COST-EFFICIENTLY
by Andreas Zagklis….......................................................................... 113
WINDS OF CHANGE: THE NEW DISPUTE RESOLUTION SYSTEM
OF THE FÉDÉRATION INTERNATIONALE DE VOLLEYBALL
by Achilleas Mavromatis and Andreas Zagklis …................................... 129
FROM COURT TO COURTS: AN OVERVIEW OF THE EHF HANDBALL
DESIGNED LEGAL SYSTEM
by Monika Flixeder and Loïc Alves …................................................... 147
THE FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE L´AUTOMOBILE
by Rui Botica Santos…....................................................................... 159
INTERNATIONAL RUGBY JUSTICE: A PRÉCIS OF THE JUDICIALSYSTEM OF THE INTERNATIONAL RUGBY BOARD
by Susan Ahern….............................................................................. 197

10Contents

PART II_____________________________________________________________SPORTS JUSTICE AT NATIONAL LEVEL
ARGENTINA
by Javier H. Delfino…....................................................................... 225

BELGIUMby Sven Demeulemeester and Wouter Lambrecht
BRAZILby Eduardo Carlezo and Rodrigo Marrubia Pereira
CROATIAby Vanja Smokvina….................................................................... 309…................................................................................. 327

ENGLAND
by Richard Parrish and Adam Pendlebury
FRANCEby Jean Michel Marmayou
GERMANYby Jan Sienicki…........................................ 341….............................................................. 373…............................................................................... 407

ITALY
by Mario Gallavotti and Stefano La PortaJAPAN
by Takuya Yamazaki
KENYA
by Felix Majani….......................... 271….......................................................................... 289

CZECH REPUBLIC
by Marketa Haindlova
DENMARKby Jens Evald…............................... 253…........................................ 425…........................................................................ 445….............................................................................. 465

THE NETHERLANDS
by Wil Van Megen…........................................................................... 481

European Sports Law and Policy Bulletin 1/2013

PORTUGAL
by José Manuel Meirim

11…................................................................... 493

STATE OF QATAR
by Ettore Mazzilli and Martin Cockburn…........................................... 503

ROMANIAby Geanina Tatu…............................................................................. 523

RUSSIAby Olga Rymkevich…......................................................................... 543

SLOVAK REPUBLIC
by Tomáš Gábriš
…............................................................................ 561
SPAIN
by Juan de Dios Crespo Pérez…......................................................... 581

SWITZERLAND
by Lucien Valloni and Thilo Pachmann…............................................. 599

TURKEY
by Anil Gürsoy Artan and Murat Artan…............................................. 615

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
by Saleh Alobeidli….......................................................................... 627
UNITED STATES
by Katherine Porter…................... .................................................... 639

PART III_____________________________________________________________THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSISSPORTS JUSTICE: «FASTER, HIGHER, STRONGER» BUT ABOVE ALL FAIRAND EFFICIENT
by Michele Colucci and Karen L. Jones …............................................. 661

EUROPEAN SPORTS LAW AND POLICY BULLETIN 1/2013

NOTE ON THE AUTHORS

Susan Ahern, Irish Barrister and Head of Legal and Legislative Affairs for theInternational Rugby Board (IRB).
Saleh Alobeidli, Senior Associate and member of the Sports Law Practice at Al
Tamimi & Co. He is a licensed Advocate to appear before all UAE courts including
the High Court, the DIFC courts, as well as all the sport dispute resolution bodies.
Loïc Alves, Legal Officer of the European Handball Federation, Graduate in Sports
and European Law.
Anil Gürsoy Artan, LL.M, Sports Lawyer, Partner of Yogurtcuoglu & Gursoy
Attorneys at Law, Ankara, Turkey.
Murat Artan, General Manager of Caykur Rizespor A.S (Turkish Super LeagueClub).
Rui Botica Santos, Partner at CRA - Coelho Ribeiro e Associados (a Portuguese
law firm) and founder of CRATimor Leste. Licensed lawyer in Portugal, Brazil,
Timor-Leste and Macau. Judge at the FIA International Court of Appeal andArbitrator at the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Master Honoris Causa from the
ISDE (Spain).
Eduardo Carlezzo, Partner of Carlezzo Advogados. President of the SouthAmerican Association of Football Lawyers. General Secretary of the Sports Law
Commission of the Federal Board of Brazilian Bar Association. Professor of postgraduation course in Sports Law organized by the Brazilian Bar Association (SãoPaulo).
Marc Cavaliero, Head of Disciplinary and Governance in FIFA’s Division for
Legal Affairs.

14Note on the Authors

Massimo Coccia, CAS Arbitrator, Professor of International Law, Partner at Coccia
De Angelis Pardo & Associati Law Firm in Rome, Italy.
Martin Cockburn, Lawyer specialized in international sports law. Upon completionof the ‘Master in International Sports Law’ at the Instituto Superior de Derecho y
Economia in Madrid (Spain) and admission to the lawyer’s bar in Munich (Germany),
he joined the Legal Department of the Qatar Football Association in March 2009.
Michele Colucci, Attorney, Professor of International and European Sports Law
at Sports Law and Policy Centre, European College of Parma, ISDE Madrid,
former member of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber and Arbitrator at the
ECA of the European Handball Federation.
Juan de Dios Crespo Pérez, Sports Lawyer, Director of Ruiz-Huerta & Crespo
Sports Lawyers in Valencia (Spain). Professor at Masters, including FIFA-CIES,MESGO, ISDE, etc. Arbitrator at the ECA of the European Handball Federation.
Author of several books and more than 100 articles on Sports Law.
Javier H. Delfino, LL.M., Lawyer and Associate Professor of Labour and Social
Security Law at Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Derecho, Argentina.
Sven Demeulemeester, Partner at ALTIUS law firm in Belgium where he (co-)
heads the Sports law and Employment law department.
Jens Evald, Professor, dr.jur., Aarhus University, teaches among other subjects
Danish and International Sports Law. His works include books and articles on
private law issues, legal history, legal philosophy, biographies and sports law. He
was chairman of Anti Doping Denmark (2006-2012) and editor of Idraetsjuristen(The Sports Lawyer), yearbook of the Danish Sports Law Association.
Monika Flixeder, Legal and Euro Event Senior Manager of the European Handball
Federation, Lecturer in Sport Management and Law at Vienna University, AUT.
Tomáš Gábriš, Attorney-at-law and Assistant Professor at the Comenius University
in Bratislava, Faculty of Law, Slovak Republic. Member of the Legislative
Commission of the Slovak Football Association, member of the Scientific Committeeof the think tank Sport and Citizenship (France), member of the International
Association of Sports Law.
Mario Gallavotti, Italian lawyer at Gallavotti Honorati de Marco & Partners,
FIGC Legal Counsel, member of FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber and UEFA
Appeals Body.

European Sports Law and Policy Bulletin 1/201315

Marketa Haindlova, attorney-at-law specialized on sports law, chairperson of the
Czech Association of Football Players, vice chairperson of the Czech Associationof Ice-hockey Players, extern lecturer at the Law School of Charles University in
Prague.
Karen L. Jones, JD, MA, Academic Programme Coordinator, Managing Editor of
the International Sports Law Journal (ISLJ) and Researcher at T.M.C. Asser
Instituut, Asser International Sports Law Centre. Lecturer in legal aspects of sports
management (sports law), Hogeschool van Amsterdam, Amsterdam University.
Adjunct faculty, International and Comparative Sports Law, John Marshall Law
School (Chicago, IL). Owner & Managing Director, Mission2Transition(www.Mission2Transition.com).
Stefano La Porta, Italian lawyer at Gallavotti Honorati de Marco & Partners.
Wouter Lambrecht, LL.M. is Legal Manager of the European Club Association(ECA) and former associate at ALTIUS law firm.
Felix Majani, LLM in international sports law, consultant at Coelho Ribeiro e
Associados law firm (Portugal) and co-Founder of the African Sports Law andbusiness journal.
Jean-Michel Marmayou, Professor at Aix-Marseille University, Director of studies
for the professional Master in Sports Law, Director of Les Cahiers de droit dusport, Co-Director of Sports law Centre of Aix-Marseille (Business law Centre: EA4224). He is also affiliate Professor at Kedge Business School and holds the Chair
for Sports Law and Event Marketing - Kedge Business School/Aix-Marseille
University.
Rodrigo Marrubia Pereira, Attorney at law. Partner of Carlezzo Advogados.
Post graduate in Sports Law by the Brazilian Sports Law Institute.
Achilleas Mavromatis, PhD in Sports Law, Attorney at Law, Mavromatis Lawyers,
Thessaloniki, Greece. He is President of the Hellenic Volleyball Federation and
Board Member, European Volleyball Confederation (CEV). He is also Secretary of
the FIVB Legal Commission (2006-2012) and member of the FIVB FinanceCommission (2012).
Ettore Mazzilli, Qualified lawyer specialized in sports law registered by the Bar
Association of Bari (Italy) as well as an European Lawyer registered by the SRA ofEngland and Wales. Among others, he has been working as Legal Advisor for the
Qatar Football Association since 2005.

16

Note on the Authors

José Manuel Meirim, Sports Law Professor at NOVA Faculty of Law, Catholic
Law Faculty (School of Lisbon), and Faculty of Human Kinetics. Founder anddirector of Desporto & Direito. Of-counsel at ABBC law firm (practice area ofSports Law).
Omar Ongaro, Head of Players’ Status and Governance in FIFA’s Division for
Legal Affairs.
Thilo Pachmann, Ph.D., Partner of the Swiss law firm of Pachmann.
Richard Parrish, Professor of Sports Law and Director of the Centre for Sports
Law Research, Edge Hill University, UK.
Adam Pendlebury, Senior Lecturer in Law at Edge Hill University, UK.
Katherine Porter, Staff Attorney in the Litigation and International Arbitration
practice groups at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP in New York. She
holds an J.D. from Villanova University School of Law, LL.M. from the Instituto
Superior de Derecho y Economia (ISDE), and B.A. (Communications, Spanish)from Wake Forest University.
Olga Rymkevich, Senior researcher in Labour Law, Marco Biagi Foundation,
University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Jan Sienicki, German-Polish Sports Lawyer, LL.M. International Sports Law,
resident and practicing in Berlin, Germany.
Vanja Smokvina, PhD, Senior Research Assistant at the Faculty of Law, Universityof Rijeka, Croatia, and Visiting Research Associate at the Edge Hill University,
Centre for Sports Law Research, UK.
Geanina Tatu, Romanian & French Sports Lawyer, LL.M. International Sports
Law (ISDE-Madrid), Master II Droit du Sport (Aix-Marseille University).
Wil Van Megen, Head of FIFPro’s Legal Department and attorney-at-law with
Berkouwer & Zwiers advocaten.
Lucien W. Valloni, Ph.D., Partner at the Swiss law firm of Froriep in Zurich andhead of its litigation & arbitration as well as sports law practice group.

European Sports Law and Policy Bulletin 1/2013

17

Takuya Yamazaki, Japanese Attorney-at-Law, is the founder and Managing Partnerof Field-R Law Offices, a niche sports and entertainment legal practice based inTokyo. Takuya has vast legal and business experience in sports both in Japan andinternationally. He is a member of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber, a position
held since 2009. In 2011 he became the Deputy Chairman of FIFPro Division
Asia/Oceania. Takuya is also a member of various committees for the Japan Sports
Arbitration Agency as well as a board member of the Japan Sports Law Association.
Andreas Zagklis, Attorney at Law (Greece), LLM; Martens Rechtsanwälte,Munich, Germany.

EUROPEAN SPORTS LAW AND POLICY BULLETIN 1/2013

INTRODUCTION
Sports justice is of paramount importance for any club, athlete, and any other person
registered with a sports association. They all have rights and obligations that are peculiarin the sense that they are proper to the context of sport, and therefore are mostappropriately granted or supervised by sports justice within an autonomous system.
In the name of their autonomy and the specificity of sport many associations
around the world developed their own justice bodies. Some of them seem to be more
effective than others but all share the same goal: to settle disputes, to mediate and toguarantee the correct interpretation of sporting rules and regulations.
This is not a simple task since the scope of sports justice is not always easy
to describe. In fact ordinary justice maintains its role in granting and supervising certain
rights and obligations that are not so different from those protected by sports justice.
The lines of distinction become even more blurred when issues of individual
or fundamental rights come into play.
This has become an interesting paradox, because sports justice and ordinary
justice are not always discernible. One possible explanation may be found in the realityof certain countries where the two systems tend to converge.
This book is unique in that, for the first time, ever the Court of Arbitration forSport, the sports justice systems of six international federations and twenty-three national
federations as well as their relationship with ordinary justice, have been closely analysed.
The authors are all eminent scholars, sports lawyers and arbitrators who
provide in-depth review and personal insights into the complexities of the topic.
The book is divided into three parts. The first covers the major international
associations in football, volleyball, basketball, handball, and Formula 1.
The second part focuses on the national sports justice systems and, inparticular, on the general principles of sports justice as defined by the national Olympic
Committees and by the football federations. Proper attention is given to the rules andprocedures of the sports judicial bodies and to the relevant case law.
The last part gives an overview of all justice systems covered in order to
identify the critical issues and relevant trends.
The aim is to provide all stakeholders with selected and detailed informationin view of raising awareness of existing practices all over the world.
Brussels - The Hague, 30 September 2013
Michele Colucci

Karen L. JonesPART I_______________________________
INTERNATIONAL SPORTS JUSTICEEUROPEAN SPORTS LAW AND POLICY BULLETIN 1/2013

INTERNATIONAL SPORTS JUSTICE:
THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT
by Massimo Coccia*
SUMMARY: 1. The Creation and History of the CAS – 2. The Organization of the
CAS – 3. Jurisdictional and Admissibility Issues – 4. Appointment and Challenge of
Arbitrators – 5. Joinder, Intervention and Other Forms of Third Parties’ Participation– 6. Provisional and Conservatory Measures – 7. Evidentiary Issues – 8. Applicable
Law – 9. Appeals Against CAS Awards – 10. Concluding Remarks

Abstract:
This article examines the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), dealing first with
its history and its organization and then with the most relevant procedural issues
that are encountered in CAS arbitration proceedings. In particular, this article
explores some of the features which characterize and distinguish the CAS ordinary
arbitration procedure, the CAS appeals arbitration procedure and the CAS Olympic
arbitration procedure. Important procedural topics such as jurisdictional andadmissibility issues, the appointment and challenge of arbitrators, theparticipation of third parties in CAS proceedings and the granting of interim
measures are analyzed in depth. Evidentiary issues are also examined in detail,with particular reference to burden of proof, witness statements and discovery.
Finally, the article examines the appeals to the Federal Tribunal against CAS
awards and the various grounds for annulment provided by Swiss law.
1.

The Creation and History of the CAS

1.1

The Early Days

The idea of an international jurisdiction specialized in sporting matters was first____________________CAS Arbitrator, Professor of International Law, Partner at Coccia De Angelis Pardo & Associati
Law Firm in Rome, Italy.

*

24

Massimo Coccia

launched by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) at the beginning of the
1980s. During the 1981 IOC Session, held in Rome, the IOC member Judge Keba
Mbaye – a high-profile jurist from Senegal, then a judge at the United Nations’International Court of Justice – chaired a working group that started drafting thestatutes of an arbitral institution that soon was going to be named Court of Arbitrationfor Sport (CAS).1
An important driver of the IOC’s initiative probably was the wish to reduce
the risk of litigation before ordinary courts. Indeed, in those years the number ofinternational sports related disputes was increasing and sports organisations often
had to defend themselves before various courts in different jurisdictions.
In 1983 the IOC adopted the first statutes of the CAS, which entered into
force on 30 June 1984. Not coincidentally, given the position of Judge Keba Mbaye,
the first statutes of the CAS set forth a procedural framework that was comparable
to that of the International Court of Justice,2 providing for (a) an arbitral jurisdiction
in contentious cases, based on the acceptance of an arbitration clause by the parties
to the dispute and yielding a binding decision, and (b) an advisory jurisdiction,
based on a unilateral request submitted by any interested sports body and producing
a non-binding advisory opinion.
For several years very few cases were litigated before the CAS, given thatsports organisations were not inserting CAS arbitration clauses in their statutes orin contracts they signed. In 1986, the very first case was registered in the CAS
docket; it was an entirely Swiss dispute concerning ice hockey. In 1991, theInternational Equestrian Federation (FEI) was the first international federation toinsert in its statutes an arbitration clause accepting the jurisdiction of the CAS on
any dispute arising from a decision of its disciplinary bodies. As a consequence, thefirst batch of disciplinary cases litigated before the CAS concerned equestrian issues,
such as horses’ mistreatment or equine doping.
1.2

The Gundel Case

In 1992, the arbitral award issued in one of those equestrian disciplinary cases waschallenged by the sanctioned rider – Mr Elmar Gundel – before the Swiss Federal
Tribunal, that is, the Swiss Supreme Court (hereinafter, the “Federal Tribunal”).
Mr Gundel mainly claimed that the award was invalid because the CAS did notmeet the requirements of independence and impartiality needed to be deemed as aproper arbitral institution. On 15 March 1993, the Federal Tribunal issued a landmark
judgment that was going to revolutionize the CAS.3____________________
1
See M. REEB , The Role and Functions of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), The
International Sports Law Journal, 2002, n. 2, 21-23.
2
Cf. J. CRAWFORD, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law, 8th Edition, Oxford, Oxford
University Press, 2012, 721-733.
3
ATF 119 II 271, reprinted in M. REEB (ed.), Digest of CAS Awards 1986-1998, Berne, Staempfli,
1998, 561. Cf. L. FUMAGALLI, La circolazione Internazionale dei lodi sportive: il caso del Tribunale
Arbitrale dello Sport, in Rivista diritto sportivo, 1994, 336.

CAS

25

The Federal Tribunal recognized that, as long as the CAS dealt with disputes
to which the IOC was not a party, the CAS was a true and independent arbitralinstitution whose panels were proper arbitral tribunals issuing regular arbitral awards;
so, in the Federal Tribunal’s view, there was no question that the CAS was sufficiently
independent to adjudicate disputes having as a party the FEI or other international
federations. However, the Federal Tribunal indicated that the links with the IOC
were too meaningful (particularly in terms of financing, rule-making and appointmentof arbitrators to the list) to maintain the same position in the event of CAS
proceedings involving the IOC itself. The Federal Tribunal thus recommended thata greater independence of the CAS be ensured vis-à-vis the IOC.4
1.3

The Paris Agreement and the ICAS

As a consequence, on 22 June 1994, the representatives of the highest sports
bodies in the Olympic Movement5 – the IOC, the Association of the Summer
Olympic International Federations (ASOIF), the Association of International Olympic
Winter Sports Federations (AIOWF) and the Association of National Olympic
Committees (ANOC) – signed in Paris an agreement (now known as the “Paris
Agreement”) that established the International Council of Arbitration for Sport(ICAS) as an independent and autonomous foundation constituted pursuant to
Article 80 et seq. of the Swiss Civil Code, and placed the CAS under its aegis.
Since then, the ICAS has been responsible for the administration and funding of
the CAS “with the aim of ensuring the protection of the rights of the parties before
the CAS and the absolute independence of this institution”.6
The ICAS governing body is composed of twenty respected and experienced
jurists (for example, judges of high courts) from different jurisdictions, who areappointed in the following manner: four members are appointed by the IOC, threeby the ASOIF, one by the AIOWF and four by the ANOC; then, four members areappointed by the twelve ICAS members listed above with a view to safeguarding
the interests of the athletes, and four members are chosen by the other sixteen
ICAS members from among personalities independent of the above mentioned
sports bodies.
The ICAS, among other things, elects among its members the President of
the ICAS and of the CAS (who must coincide) and the Presidents of the CAS
Divisions, it adopts and amends the arbitration and mediation rules, it appoints the____________________
ATF 119 II 271, reprinted in M. REEB (ed.), Digest of CAS Awards 1986-1998, Berne, Staempfli,
1998, 561, at 570.
5
According to Rule 1 of the Olympic Charter, the Olympic Movement is under “the supreme authority
and leadership of the International Olympic Committee” and “encompasses organisations, athletes
and other persons who agree to be guided by the Olympic Charter”. On the legal and institutional
aspects of the Olympic Movement, see A.M. MESTRE, The Law of the Olympic Games, The Hague,
TMC Asser Press, 2009, 35 ff.
6Preamble of the Paris Agreement, in M. REEB (ed.), Digest of CAS Awards, II, 1998-2000, The
Hague, Kluwer, 2002, 883.
4

EUROPEAN SPORTS LAW AND POLICY BULLETIN 1/2013

DISPUTE RESOLUTION AT THE FÉDÉRATION INTERNATIONALE DE
FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION AND ITS JUDICIAL BODIESby Omar Ongaro and Marc Cavaliero*
SUMMARY: I. The Dispute Resolution Chamber and the Players’ Status Committeeof FIFA – II. The judicial bodies of FIFA

Abstract:
FIFA defends the principle according to which, as a general rule, disputes between
the members of the football movement should be dealt with and settled within the
structures of organised football, i.e. by sporting decision-making bodies. Bearing
this principle in mind, in the field of players’ status FIFA has created andimplemented a successful dispute resolution system that it puts at disposal of thevarious stakeholders, i.e. member associations, clubs, players, coaches as wellas licensed match and players’ agents, in order to deal with the various litigations
that might arise amongst them, mainly of a contractual nature.
In this contribution the relevant decision-making bodies within thepertinent dispute resolution system shall be briefly introduced, as well as theirrespective competences. Furthermore, the presentation aims at describing FIFA’s
competence/jurisdiction to hear a series of specific disputes and at touching on
the delimitations with regard to ordinary courts of law and possibly existing
national decision-making bodies established within the framework of a member
association.
FIFA has also put in place judicial bodies that are capable of imposing awide range of sanctions in case of breach of the FIFA regulations. The scope of____________________
Omar Ongaro, Head of Players’ Status and Governance in FIFA’s Division for Legal Affairs; A
similar contribution was published in French language within the scope of the “1ère Journée JuriCNOSF”, organised by the C.N.O.S.F., the Centre de droit et d’économie du sport, the Juris-éditions
Dalloz and the Cour de Cassation française.
Marc Cavaliero, Head of Disciplinary and Governance in FIFA’s Division for Legal Affairs.
The position expressed in this short article reflects the personal opinion of the authors and does notnecessarily correspond to the official position of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association(FIFA).
*

78

Omar Ongaro and Marc Cavaliero

action of these judicial bodies is immense and covers a number of different
situations. The scope of action of the FIFA judicial bodies is necessary for aproper functioning of FIFA and for its member associations and officials as well
as for a correct and uniform application of the diverse regulations by stakeholders.
Thus, in the second part of the chapter, the three FIFA judicial bodies ofFIFA – the FIFA Disciplinary Committee, the FIFA Appeal Committee and theFIFA Ethics Committee – will be briefly introduced, with a focus on the FIFA
Disciplinary Committee and the enforcement procedure that has been implemented
at FIFA level and the extension procedure of sanctions taken at national level tohave worldwide effect.
I.

THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER AND THE PLAYERS’ STATUSCOMMITTEE OF FIFA

1.

Introduction

1.1

General remarks

For those involved in sports law and in particular, in football matters, there is mostcertainly no need to recall that the current dispute resolution system establishedwithin the structures of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)is one of the most important outcomes of the complete revision of the various rules
pertaining to the international transfer of players carried out back in the year 2000,
respectively early 2001. Like most of the principles currently contained in theRegulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations),2
the basis of the relevant system is to be found in the agreement reached between
FIFA, Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) and the European
Commission in March 2001. Besides addressing topics of substantive nature, namely
the contractual stability,3 the protection of minors,4 the training of young players5
as well as the solidarity in the football world,6 the said agreement also explicitly
referred to the creation of a dispute resolution system. It is within the scope of thisbackground that with the coming into force of the 2001 edition of the Regulations
on 1 September 2001, FIFA laid the fundament for the implementation of a dispute
resolution and arbitration system7 that has rapidly become more and more popular____________________
Available at www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/officialdocuments/doclists/laws.html: Regulations Status andTransfer 2012.
3
Cf. Chapter IV., art. 13 et seqq. of the Regulations: Maintenance of contractual stability between
professionals and clubs.
4
Cf. Chapter VI., art. 19 et seq. of the Regulations: International transfers involving minors; and also
Annexe 2 to the Regulations: Procedure governing applications for first registration and internationaltransfer of minors.
5
Cf. art. 20 in conjunction with Annexe 4 of the Regulations: Training compensation.
6
Cf. art. 21 in conjunction with Annexe 5 of the Regulations: Solidarity mechanism.
7
Cf. art. 42 of the 2001 edition of the Regulations.
2

FIFA

79

and today enjoys a high grade of recognition, credibility and acceptance.
The pertinent dispute resolution system provides the various stakeholders
with efficient means suitable to settle their mainly contractual litigations within the
football family without the need to seek redress before civil courts. The evergrowing popularity of the system in particular also in relation to employmentrelated disputes between clubs and players of an international dimension weights
even more if one is to consider that, in order to satisfy corresponding requests
from the European Commission and to respect constitutional rights under certain
public legislations, players and clubs are not barred from referring their employmentrelated litigations to ordinary courts.8
While the first edition of the Regulations providing for such a system did
not address in detail the question of jurisdiction and thus left a certain space fordiscussions, with the aim to ameliorate the situation in the 2005 edition of theRegulations that came into force on 1 July 2005 an entire chapter was dedicated tothat specific aspect.9 Since then, the relevant Regulations provide for clear rules
pertaining to both, i) the competence of FIFA to deal with specific disputes between
players and clubs, coaches and clubs or member associations, and clubs against
clubs,10 and, ii) the various competences of the different decision-making bodies
within FIFA dealing with the relevant disputes, i.e. the Players’ Status Committee
and its Single Judge, the Dispute Resolution Chamber and the DRC judge.11
The success of this dispute resolution system established within FIFA’s
regulatory framework can best be endorsed by some figures: during the year 2012,
1787 claims were lodged in front of the various decision-making bodies, i.e. Dispute
Resolution Chamber, DRC judge, Players’ Status Committee and its Single Judge.
During the same period of time, around 450 decisions were passed with respect todisputes falling within the competence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber(approximately 230 by a panel of the chamber, 220 by one of the two DRC judges)
and 250 matters were adjudicated with respect to disputes falling within thecompetence of the Players’ Status Committee (approximately 40 by the plenary
Committee, 210 by one of its Single Judges). In summary, the competent bodies
passed decisions in around 700 litigations. This is again a new top level. Back in
the years just prior to the coming into force of the 2001 edition of the Regulations
the relevant FIFA services were faced with approximately 400 cases per year.

Consequently, we are looking at an impressive increase by more than 400%.
These figures do not include the activity of the sub-committee of the Players’
Status Committee dealing with matters pertaining to the protection of minors.12
The reasons for this very impressive development are manifold: the creationof the Dispute Resolution Chamber, which, not least thanks to the approach shown____________________
Cf. art. 22 of the Regulations, as an exception to art. 68 para. 2 of the FIFA Statutes.
Cf. Chapter VII. of the 2005 edition of the Regulations and Chapter VIII. of the current 2012
edition of the Regulations.
10
Cf. art. 22 of the Regulations.
11
Cf. art. 23 and 24 of the Regulations.
12
Cf. art. 19 para. 4 and Annexe 2 of the Regulations.
89EUROPEAN SPORTS LAW AND POLICY BULLETIN 1/2013

FAST BREAK: AN OVERVIEW OF HOW THE FÉDÉRATIONINTERNATIONALE DE BASKETBALL HANDLES DISPUTES FAIRLY,QUICKLY, AND COST-EFFICIENTLY
by Andreas Zagklis*
SUMMARY: 1. Introduction – 2. Transfer and nationality disputes – 3. Disciplinary
disputes – 4. Ad-Hoc (and technical) disputes –5. Financial disputes – 6. Conclusion

Abstract:
The Fédération Internationale de Basketball (“FIBA”) provides both internaland external dispute resolution mechanisms, highlighted by the innovative
Basketball Arbitration Tribunal (“BAT”), that allow parties a fair, quick, andcost-efficient resolution to the various types of disputes that arise in basketball.

1. Introduction
While the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) has become the “supervisory
jurisdiction over the rules and practices of international and national sport bodies”,1
it can decide appeals only after the internal remedies of a federation have been
exhausted.2 Thus, the responsibility at the first level is still on the shoulders of thefederations. And considering the legal, financial, political and other effects of sports
disputes, together with their – at times disproportionately – extensive coverage by
the Media, this is a heavy burden on large international federations like the Fédération
Internationale de Basketball (“FIBA”). With this responsibility in mind, FIBA has____________________
Attorney at Law (Greece), LLM; Martens Rechtsanwälte, Munich, Germany. The author wishes tothank Mr Stephen Bock, Attorney at Law in New York, USA, for his assistance in the preparation ofthis article. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect thoseof Martens Rechtsanwälte, FIBA or BAT.
1
KEN FOSTER, “Lex Sportiva and Lex Ludica: The Court of Arbitration for Sport’s Jurisprudence”
in Blackshaw - Siekmann - Janwillem Soek, eds., The Court of Arbitration for Sport, 1984-2004,(TheHague, Netherlands: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2006), 420.
2
See Code of Sports-related Arbitration, Article R47.
*

114

Andreas Zagklis

been at the forefront of developing dispute resolution mechanisms that are tailoredto the needs of the specific types of disputes present in international basketball.
FIBA’s dispute resolution system is designed with two overarching principles inmind.
The first overarching principle is that disputes must be resolved fairly,
quickly and cost-effectively. It is of paramount importance to FIBA that its dispute
resolution mechanism is fair to all parties involved in the dispute. All parties musthave the opportunity to be heard, explain their position and present their evidence.
Even if the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (“CAS Code”) provides in Article
R57 for a de novo hearing which heals any possible procedural defects of theprevious instances, it is of vital importance that national federations, clubs andplayers feel that they have had their “day in court” when pleading before the FIBA
bodies. Furthermore, the dispute resolution process must be as quick as possible.
This quickness is especially important in sports in order to allow sporting events tobe conducted without any unnecessary obstacles. These mechanisms are used todetermine the results of games or the status of players which cannot remain unclear
for a long period of time in order for competitions to run smoothly. Finally, thedisputes must be cost-efficient. Cost-efficiency is obviously important to the parties.
The fact of the matter is that not all players or clubs can afford to spend a lot ofmoney resolving a dispute. For example, a player who has not been paid by his
club for four months might not have the ability to pay large fees in order to adjudicate
his salary dispute precisely because he is not receiving his salary payments. It isimperative for him that the proceedings remain cost-effective so that he can exercise
his rights within the dispute resolution mechanism. Moreover, the cost-efficiencyof the dispute resolution mechanism does not only have the parties in mind but
FIBA as well. FIBA has chosen to invest in its internal mechanisms to limit thefederation’s costs. Any decision made within these internal mechanisms could be
the subject of an appeal to the CAS which FIBA would then have to defend. Given
that most CAS proceedings are no longer free3 and that legal representation usuallyentails significant costs, it is in FIBA’s best interest to adjudicate the dispute in sucha way that the parties do not need to resort to an appeal before the CAS.
The second overarching principle is that the disputes should be classified
based on the type of dispute to allow the dispute resolution mechanism to be
crafted based on the specific intricacies of that dispute. FIBA divides its disputes
into four categories, each with dispute resolution systems designed to combat theunique issues within each category. The first category of disputes is transfer andnationality disputes (see Section 2. infra). These disputes arise when a club is____________________
According to the recent (March 2013) amendment of Article R65 of the CAS Code, the proceedings
are free in case of “appeals against decisions which are exclusively of a disciplinary nature andwhich are rendered by an international federation or sports-body”. However, “[i]f the circumstances
so warrant, including the predominant economic nature of a disciplinary case […] the President of
the Appeals Arbitration Division may apply Article R64 to an appeals arbitration”, meaning that the
cost-free character of an arbitration may be lifted in such (exceptional) cases.

3

FIBA

115

seeking to sign a player who last played abroad but the player’s former club refuses
to grant a letter of clearance4 or when there is a dispute over a player’s nationality.
The next category of disputes is disciplinary disputes (see Section 3. infra). These
disputes involve FIBA sanctions applied to individuals, clubs, national member
federations or Continental Confederations (which in basketball are called “Zones”)
for violations of the FIBA General Statutes or Internal Regulations. Doping sanctions
would fall under this category of disputes. The third category is ad-hoc matters or
technical disputes (see Section 4. infra). These disputes are based on the results
within a basketball competition, such as a protest filed by a team over the result ofa game, or disputes requiring interpretations of the Official Basketball Rules. Finally,
the fourth category of disputes is financial disputes (see Section 5. infra). These
disputes involve players, coaches, agents or clubs quarrelling over the interpretationand enforcement of their rights and obligations under the contracts that they haveentered into.
This article will highlight the solutions that FIBA has found in order tosolve disputes in a quick, fair and cost-efficient way through the prism of thesefour categories of disputes.
2. Transfer and nationality disputes
This category of disputes deals mainly with a player’s eligibility to play with acertain club or national team. Generally, a player is eligible to play for a club if he isregistered with the club’s national federation5 and complies with the licensing
requirements of the FIBA Internal Regulations.6 Likewise, in order to be eligible
for a national team, a player must “hold the legal nationality of that country andhave fulfilled also the conditions of eligibility according to the FIBA Internal
Regulations7”. In essence, these disputes are based on a party claiming that theplayer has (or has not) satisfied these eligibility requirements. While FIBA cannot
force a player to represent a certain club or national team, it can prevent a playerfrom participating with a certain club or national team.
2.1

Transfer disputes

Transfer disputes are rather common in professional basketball. The basic principle
governing transfer disputes is the following:___________________In order for a player to be registered with the new club’s federation, he must first obtain a letter ofclearance from the former club’s federation for an international transfer. This letter of clearance
basically states that the player is allowed to be registered with the new federation. See FIBA Internal
Regulations, Article 3-42.
5
See FIBA Internal Regulations, Article 3-7 which states that “[p]layers who participate in professional
leagues must be registered with organisations which are affiliated to a national member federation;otherwise they will not be able to participate in the Competitions of FIBA.”
6
For licensing restrictions, see FIBA Internal Regulations, Articles 3-66 through 3-71.
7
See FIBA Internal Regulations, Article 3-15.
4

PART II___________________________________SPORTS JUSTICE AT NATIONAL LEVELEUROPEAN SPORTS LAW AND POLICY BULLETIN 1/2013

SPORTS JUSTICE IN ENGLAND
by Richard Parrish and Adam Pendlebury*
SUMMARY: 1. Introduction – 2. Principles of sports justice – 3. Relationship between
ordinary and sports justice – 4. National Olympic Committee regulations – 5. English
football regulation – 6. Rights and obligations of clubs and players – 7. Domestic
sports law: sports judicial bodies, dispute settlements and procedures – 8. Arbitration– 9. Conclusions

Abstract:
This contribution highlights the complex and multi-faceted nature of sports justicein the UK, specifically in England. The key findings to emerge from this work
are: (1) the state does not directly regulate sport although it does exert statutory
and non-statutory influences on sport, (2) sports bodies must comply with thestandards expected by ordinary courts, (3) contractual relations lie at the heart ofmany sporting relationships in the UK, (4) public law remedies, such as judicial
review, are not available to challenge decisions of sports governing bodies but(5) the courts operate a private law supervisory jurisdiction over decisions ofsports governing bodies meaning that the standards expected of sports governing
bodies are very similar to those expected under judicial review, (6) in the law of
tort courts have accepted that in sport a duty of care is owed by participants,
match officials, governing bodies and event organisers, (7) criminal law
prosecutions in sport are rare, particularly those concerning injury sustained on
the field of play, (8) sports bodies are keen to insulate ‘domestic sports law’ fromthe influence of ‘national sports law’ and, therefore, (9) sophisticated disciplinarycommissions and arbitral bodies play an essential role in resolving English sports
disputes.
____________________
Richard Parrish is Professor of Sports Law and Adam Pendlebury is Senior Lecturer in Law atEdge Hill University, UK.

*

342

1.

Richard Parrish and Adam Pendlebury

Introduction

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a constitutionalmonarchy operating a bi-cameral parliamentary system. The UK comprises England,
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, although since 1998 the latter three countries
have certain devolved decision making powers. Whilst this chapter has sports justicein England as its focus, UK law, UK sports policy and the rules of the British
Olympic Association apply to all four countries. Only English football regulations located in Football Association, Premier League and Football League handbooks are examined in this chapter.
2.

Principles of sports justice

The UK operates a non-interventionist and non-consolidated sports model.1 Thismodel implies an ‘arms-length’ role for the state in sport in which sports are organizedby the sporting associations themselves rather than through state legislation and the
National Olympic Committee and the National Sports Federation are not combined.
This model reflects the prevailing view in UK politics that sport is essentially aprivate pursuit to be organised and promoted by private interests. Nevertheless, thestate has recognised that as sport performs some public and quasi-public functions,
it should retain an interest in the sector, although this interest is generally elaborated
through arm’s length / semi-governmental organisations such the Sports Councils.
Consequently, in theory at least, sports bodies in the UK retain autonomy todetermine their own organisational and regulatory choices free from stateinterference. In practice, these choices are restricted by three considerations: (1)direct statutory influences (2) indirect statutory influences and (3) non-statutory influences.
2.1

Direct statutory influences on sport: illustrative examples

Sports clubs and governing bodies in the UK are not statutory bodies requiring
state authorization and there is no statutory requirement that they take any particularlegal form.2 Traditionally, many sports bodies took the form of unincorporated
associations, although this form is now rare in professional sport and confined largely
to amateur sports bodies. These bodies have no legal personality and therefore cannot
sue or be sued in its own right with legal action having to be brought against or defended
by its members. The relationship between the members of the association is a contractual
one based on the rules of the association. Unincorporated associations are still subject
to wider legal control when their activities engage ordinary statutory provisions, such as
licensing laws regulating the sale of alcohol, health and safety laws, general employment___________________
See CHAKER, A.N. (1999), Study of National Sports Legislations in Europe, Strasbourg: Councilof Europe.
2
For a full discussion see LEWIS, A. & TAYLOR, J. (2008), Sport: Law and Practice, Tottel Publishing,1014-1027 and BELOFF, ET AL., (2012), Sports Law, Oxford: Hart, 23-28.
1Sports justice in England343

laws and tax laws. Most famously in Britain, the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC)
operated as an unincorporated association until it changed its status in 2013 to that of abody incorporated by Royal Charter. This procedure required petition to the Privy
Council, a body that advises the Sovereign on the exercise of Royal Prerogative.
Incorporation is usually granted for a body that works in the public interest. It enables
the sports club to hold assets in its own name, rather than through a custodian
trustee, and it removes any potential liability of individual members. Royal Charter
sports bodies are rare, although the Jockey Club was established in this way. The
MCC case is reflective of the trend, encouraged by the commercialization of sport,
which has seen many unincorporated associations changing their status and assuming
corporate structures of which there are several forms. This includes those privatecompanies limited by guarantee (such as many governing bodies), those private or
public companies limited by shares (such as the Football Association and some footballclubs) and ‘co-operative’ style sports bodies established as Industrial and Provident
Societies (such as the Rugby Football Union). Limited companies limit the liability ofits members, has the ability to hold property in its own name and can sue and be sued in
its own name. Sports bodies assuming the status of a limited company must fulfill therules which apply to all companies, such as registration and the filing of accounts andreports. UK company law also imposes certain duties on the directors of the company.
A particularly pronounced direct statutory influence on sport stems fromthe requirement that sports bodies must be compliant with the statutory framework
covering safety at sports grounds. This statutory framework has itself been influenced
by a number of serious safety lapses at sports grounds and by the findings of thesubsequent inquiries, such as the Taylor Inquiry into deaths of 96 spectators at theHillsborough stadium in Sheffield in 1989. These inquiries have influenced thestatutory standards regulating safety at sports grounds. In addition to actions brought
under tort, organisers of sporting events have been statutorily liable for injuriescaused to spectators or participants since the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 which
imposes a duty of care on the organisers / clubs to ensure the safety of lawful
visitors and the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984, which provides limited protection
for trespassers. In addition, the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 imposes a
duty on the event organiser for protecting the health, safety and welfare of everyone
working at, or attending, the event. The Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 provides
for licensing of sports grounds and the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of SportAct 1987 provides for a system of safety certification by local authorities for certain
covered stands at sports grounds. The Football Spectators Act 1989 (s8) established
the Football Licensing Authority (now Sports Ground Safety Authority) which is
required to operate a licensing scheme to regulate the spectator viewing
accommodation at Premier and Football League Grounds plus Wembley and theMillennium Stadium in Cardiff. The Sports Ground Safety Authority is also required
to keep under review how local authorities discharge their functions under the Safetyof Sports Grounds Act 1975 at those grounds.
Although sometimes confused in the popular press, the issue of regulating

EUROPEAN SPORTS LAW AND POLICY BULLETIN 1/2013

SPORTS JUSTICE IN FRANCE
by Jean-Michel Marmayou*

SUMMARY: 1. Principles of French Sports justice – 2. Relationship between ordinary
and Sports justice – 3. Relevant NOCs regulations – 4. Relevant football regulations– 5. The sports judicial bodies – 6. The procedure – 7. Dispute settlements – 8.
ADR and interim relief – 9. Sanctions on clubs and players – 10. Implementationof decisions and awards

Abstract:
This article aims at providing an overview of sports justice in France with its
main principles and its most important legal institutions. It sets out the basic
principles in which sports justice in France operates, provides input as to theinteraction between sports justice and ordinary justice and deals with the main
judicial bodies operating within the sports justice system.
This article presents the rights and obligations of the main actors in sports, thepenalty system, the procedure applicable by the disciplinary commissions insolving technical, disciplinary or economic litigations.
It presents the french specificity of collaboration between the State administrationand sports bodies who had obtained the State’s recognition, public subsidies andspecial regulatory powers.
1.

Principles of French Sports justice

There is no doubt that sport requires a system of justice that is adapted to its own____________________
Professor at Aix-Marseille University, Director of studies for the professional Master in Sports
Law, Director of Les Cahiers de droit du sport, Co-Director of Sports law Centre of Aix-Marseille(Business law Centre: EA 4224). He is also affiliate Professor at Kedge Business School and holds
the Chair for Sports Law and Event Marketing - Kedge Business School/Aix-Marseille University.
www.centrededroitdusport.fr.

*

374

Jean-Michel Marmayou

specific needs: that is to say rapidity of intervention so as to meet the specific time
demands encountered in sport; a system that overcomes state boundaries and betteraccommodates the global nature of sport; and finally, a system that is close to theneeds of the participants in a sport.
Unlike certain foreign systems, and despite certain proposals that havebeen put forward in this respect,1 the French legal system has chosen not to answer
these needs by creating a specific jurisdiction capable of dealing with all sportrelated disputes. That is to say that, even though sporting activities encompass acertain number of specificities, justice in sporting matters still comes under jurisdictionof the ordinary legal system.
Hence, as is perfectly normal, sport is subject to public justice. Even so, it
is also, to a large extent, governed by private justice.
Within every social organisation, the natural reflex is to seek to ensure that
disputes are settled “in-house”, at least initially. The world of sport is no exception.
First of all, conflicts often tend to be settled internally through a spontaneously
established system of justice. The law itself then encourages the development ofan alternative system of justice by providing that certain disputes shall be submitted
to mandatory preliminary conciliation hearings brought before the CNOSF [National
Committee for French and Olympic Sports]. Finally, arbitration has become aparticularly favoured route for resolving disputes in sporting matters.
Many disputes in the world of sport tend not to be brought before the state
courts due to the existence of an effective filter in the form of a dispute settlement
system set up within the national sports associations themselves. Of course, thisinternal system of dispute settlement is not unique to sport since other social groups
also self-regulate their disputes. But none has created an organisation that has thecomplexity and sophistication of the national sports federations.
In France, national sports federations are free to set up bodies to deal withdisciplinary matters. However, this freedom is closely linked to the associative
structure of the federations, which is very specific to France.
Although the law on associations dating from 1 July 1901 enshrines theprinciple of freedom of association and therefore the almost unlimited possibility ofcontractually setting up an internal system of dispute settlement reserved to themembers of an association, it must nevertheless be immediately said that in France,
national sports federations are not in practice subject to the law on associations
alone. Although this may be the case, it will only arise when the federation inquestion has decided to do without public funding. If they wish to benefit frompublic subsidies and special regulatory powers, they are required to comply with
the Code du Sport [codified laws on sport] which governs the State’s recognitionof a certain number of obligations, thereby creating a de jure restriction on theoriginal freedom of association.
In this respect, it is worth mentioning Article L131-8 of the Code du Sport
that stipulates that ministerial approval can only be granted to federations that have____________________
1

CONSEIL D’ÉTAT, Sports: pouvoirs et discipline, La Documentation française, 1991.

Sports justice in France

375“adopted articles of constitution containing certain mandatory provisions anddisciplinary rules compliant with model regulations”.
If we add to this that Ministerial approval is the sine qua non condition forthe delegation of a public service mission, it follows that the organisation of anational sports federation’s internal dispute settlement system is largely unified andgoes beyond the specific differences of the various sporting disciplines.
Obviously, the weight of state law in the organisation of French sport
explains why certain principles of justice applicable in sport are enshrined directlyin the Code du Sport. They will be examined later in this paper and not in this firstsection.
The role played by state law also explains why the principles underlying
dispute settlement in sport in France more particularly concern internal disputesettlement in the system organised by the judicial authorities.
This role also explains why the so-called sports justice is not able to deal withdisputes when the substance is more financial than purely disciplinary.
2

Relationship between ordinary and sports justiceThe organisation of sports justice in France is influenced by both the French legal
system’s adherence to the Romano-Germanic family of continental law and thevery particular model of French sports’ organisation.
The dual hierarchy (national and Olympic federations) and the global natureof modern-day sport lead to an increased generation of norms and tiers dealing
with disputes. This constitutes a real headache for specialists, especially in France
where the organisation of sport, although delegated to organisations establishedunder private law (the national sports federations), is nevertheless covered by astate framework and public authority prerogatives.
In France, a sportsperson encountering legal problems is faced with a seriesof difficulties which seriously complicate his or her courses of action.
He/she must first seize the instance with the appropriate physical andgeographical competence within his national federation. He/she must then respect
the jurisdictional hierarchy of the sports federation. He/she must still further submit
to prior conciliation in the form of a hearing before the CNOSF. Lastly, he/she has
to decide whether the judicial or the administrative courts are competent to hear
his/her case.
The dispute settlement systems within sports federations are not selfsufficient and there is no reason why they should be allowed to override the state
courts.2 It results from this principle in particular that “exclusion” clauses are void,and this tends to prevent members of sports federations from having recourse to
the state courts.3 Moreover, these clauses contaminate the smooth running of____________________
F. BUY, La justice sportive, Cah. dr. sport no 2, 2005, 13. J.-P. KARAQUILLO, Un pluralisme judiciaire
complémentaire original. La résolution par les institutions sportives et par les juridictions
d’Etat de certains litiges sportifs, D. 1996, 87.
3
TGI Paris, 26 January 1983, D. 1986, somm. 366, obs. G. Baron. – CE, 11 May 1984, no 46828 et
2SPORTS LAW AND POLICY CENTRE
Via Cupetta del Mattatoio 8 - 00062 Bracciano RM
P. IVA 10632481007
www.slpc.eu – info@slpc.eu

ORDER FORM
INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE SPORTS JUSTICETHE EUROPEAN SPORTS LAW AND POLICY BULLETIN, ISSUE 1-2013
Michele Colucci and Karen L. Jones eds.
698 pages
ISBN 978-88-905-114-7-9
Price:
Book 120,00 euro (plus shipment costs)
eBook 90,00 euroBook + eBook 150,00 euro (plus shipment costs)
To order please send an email to info@slpc.eu or send a fax to +39 0692912678
specifying:
Quantity: ______________________________________________________________________________________________
Last name and First name________________________________________________________________
Organization________________________________________________________________VAT Number________________________________________________________________
Address_______________________________________________________________
Postal code
City or locality
State________________________________________________________________
Email