Sintaxis del SD

is a relationship between non-payment of the players and match fixing. • Question: Is Football involved in money laundering at all level? Brigitte Slot responded: Football is one of the main mediums for money laundering, from the Amateur to the Professional Level. • Question: What do you expect from the EU Institutions? Wil van

Megen responded: We expect their cooperation. In particular, the Commission should support the Awareness Program.

• Question: Do you think that the Black book provides us with a big picture of the situation? Wil van Megen: No, there should be more that we don’t know, but many players are afraid to speak up, they are afraid of possible violence, and of the system which does not encour- age them to cooperate.

The second part of the Roundtable convened an impressive discussion panel that included the speakers, and was joined by Marjan Olfers and Rob Siekmann (Asser). This panel engaged in interesting discussion and debate, with questions and participation from the audience. The discussion was kicked off with the panelists addressing the questions: How can we resolve the issue of sports fraud? And, what can we do today to begin addressing sports fraud?

Some of the key issues, comments and debate by the panelists and audi- ence members during this Asser Sports Fraud Roundtable seminar included:

• Marjan Olfers aksed, “Do we think that we can solve these issues within the sports world itself?” She further commented, “…there has to be a relationship between bookmakers and sports institutions. They both have to seek the uncertainty of the outcome and as its con- sequence the integrity of Sport. The lacking of uncertainty and integri- ty would be detrimental both to the bookmakers and the sports insti- tutions.”

• R. Siekmann raised the question as to whether or not the develop- ment of a “WADA-like” entity for sports fraud is appropriate. R. Siekmann further stated, “In this regard it is essential the coopera- tion and direct involvement of sports federations and national gov- ernment. It is necessary to test whether the political world has inter- est in tackling the issue. In order to tackle it efficiently we need some leverage at the political level.” W. van Megen commented that UEFA is not behaving in the right way, it is not cooperating efficiently. Football organizations do not agree with the WADA model, there is no strict liability and proportionality in it.” Further, he states, there should be “balance beforehand so you don’t have to fight for it like with WADA”. M. Olfers acknowledged that there are some similar experiences between doping and sports fraud. T. Veenstra comment- ed that “The European Lotteries would be in favor of a WADA-like model but within the world of sport there is no such enthusiasm. We can say that doping is an inside job, it stays within the system. Match- fixing instead is part of a criminal chain, and sport is only instrumen- tal.” M. Olfers disagreed, stating, “…when we look at doping, we see criminal organization involved in drug trafficking. The main issue is that the focus in only on the members of football associations, and the problem in itself is not tackled, the criminal working outside of the world of sport is not punished…match-fixing/sports fraud occurs outside of the sport; if you focus on the players, you miss the main criminal actors.”

• Addressing the question, “What is the difference between corruption in sport and corruption in all other types of business?” B. Slot respond- ed, “The corruption and money laundering schemes are the same in football as in other sectors, but football has specific features more attractive for criminal organizations. Anyway we should apply to football the same measures used in other sectors.”

• M. Olfers mentioned that within The Netherlands, institutions are working on a code of conduct. One of the issues is to be seen in clubs’ structure; if it is allowed to purchase a club from outside of the coun- try, there are not enough checks and balances measures applicable, and therefore, we cannot establish the legality of the money used to buy the club.

• Unique implications around match-fixing and the relationship between match-fixing and betting.

• In response to the question, “Do you have any tips for police and other organizations in this regard?” W. van Megen commented: “Authorities should take players more seriously, but at the same time be more flexible. It is necessary to leave the players a way out, oth- erwise they will not be encouraged to cooperate. Awareness is also very important, and in that regard authorities should be more active.” M. Olfers stated, “Players and members of the sports world do not know where or how to approach the authority and therefore they feel alone and vulnerable.”

• The complicated aspects of sports fraud in that it often involves a “network” of individuals and businesses which often is not easily dis- covered or fully re-dressed.

• Addressing sports fraud at the “player” level is not sufficient to resolve the problem. B. Slot noted that there is “too much focus on the play- ers”.

• In response to a question regarding punishment and sanctions, T. Veenstra commented: “The problem is that we are relying on very few individuals. Why does nobody from sports institutions, organ- izations, or government take a position on this topic?”

• The problem of sports fraud must be addressed cooperatively between all areas of the sports community including: legal, academic, players, fans, officials, legislators, etc.

• T. Veenstra commented: I think we can start to tackle the problem at a national level, but it cannot be only national though. In the U.S. every sports federation is against any type of sports betting. I think this is excessive, but they have a position on the matter. What is hap- pening creates awareness, but sometimes I’m alarmed and pessimistic. So far it seems to be a lost cause.

• R. Siekmann recognized that “there is no structure of cooperation.” There needs to be a coordinated and collaborative solution. T. Veenstra elaborated on this point stating, “…there needs to be more cooperation; and better participation between government”. T. Veenstra also commented, that “we are fighting an uphill battle”. There should be more focus on making sports fraud a criminal offense. Some suggestions that were made include:

• The importance of coordination at the national and international levels, and identifying and engaging those stakeholders.

• The need for a governance body at the EU or international level to address sports fraud.

• T. Veenstra mentioned the Anti-money laundering regulation up for review in the European Commission. He believes anti-betting infor- mation should be included also.

• The need for additional governance measures such as a ‘code” or “charter” as well as the possibility of standard language in player con- tracts to more fully address sports fraud.

• Addressing player compensation and clubs that are not sufficiently financed is one aspect of addressing the issue of sports fraud. • There should be a monitoring system that will share information with

world associations, and arrangements also with UEFA, FIFA and other organizations.

Some final comments by the panel included: B. Slot commented on the fact that the problem consists of “interconnected illegal activity….quite complex” and there is a distinction between finding the root cause and (addressing) the political issue.” W. van Megen pointed out the “need to focus on all individuals outside of football.” T. Veenstra stated, “I’m quite optimistic…but recently at times pessimistic…” R. Siekmann acknowledged, “In my opinion, this is a global issue. It is a political problem, and the cooperation between private and public entities is essential if we want to tackle it efficiently. There needs to be good lob- byists at the international level.” M. Olfers concluded, “We should do everything in our power to preserve the integrity of the game. It all starts with awareness.”

The Roundtable Seminar concluded with the Chairperson, Karen Jones, recognizing that this type of forum contributes to raising aware- ness to the ongoing issue of sports fraud, and the importance of con- tinued dialogue and focusing on solutions to this problem.

India is amidst an exciting time in sports. Indians are realizing the impor- tance of sport as a healthy activity as well as a source of entertainment. This is leading to a growing popularity of sporting events and thus the influx of money. The corporate have started perceiving sports as an industry and have started investing substantial sums of money in sports in the form of license/right to conduct an event, broadcasting rights, and sponsorship rights amongst others.

As the supply of a particular sport event is limited that is a particu- lar team/player can play a limited number of matches depending upon the international calendar, there is increasing competition to get a slice of the sporting pie. Thus stakeholders who fail to get a share of the sport- ing rights often encourage breakaway leagues and tournaments and try to lure star sportspersons to these leagues.

The success of the Indian Premiere League (IPL) in India has suc- cessfully demonstrated the commercial viability of franchisee and clubs based system in Indian sports. Besides cricket, leagues and independ- ent events have begun to sprout up in kabaddi, hockey, motorsports, volleyball, boxing and chess. A pertinent question therefore arises; are the leagues and events held outside the aegis of the National Sport Federation (NSF) serving a beneficial purpose for sports?

Sports worldwide are organized in a pyramid structure, where a par- ticular sport is governed and regulated by a single IF with various NSF affiliated to it. The IF governs the regulatory aspect i.e laying down the rules of the sport, eligibility criteria and playing conditions, the IF also makes the annual calendar for that sport and conducts the world cham- pionship and other international level events. A corollary at the nation- al level would entail that the NSF would follow the regulations of the international federation as a condition of its membership and have exclu- sive powers to make the annual calendar, develop grass-root level of sport and conduct tournaments and training camps in the country.

The importance of the pyramid structure and the risk to the sports due to multiple sport federations has been recognized by IOC and has been addressed in the European Commission’s Helsinki Report and the White Paper on sport. The risks are the integrity and uniformity of the sport would be affected if the structure is not maintained and the grass- root development of the sport will suffer. Integrity and uniformity would entail non-discriminatory uniform rules that are applied to the sport worldwide. It includes sporting sanctions like disciplinary action, sus- pensions, fines and bans for behavior contrary to the spirit of sports which lie at the core of the sport movement and can be applied only within the sporting structure.

The directions of the Delhi High Court directing the competition commission to undertake enquiry against the All India Chess Federation for preventing its players from taking part in a tournament outside its aegis, BCCI’s sanctions on the Indian Cricket League and the conduct of the World Series Hockey by the Indian Hockey Federation alleged-

ly fall within the ambit of the IF/NSF trying to curb the advent of break- away leagues through their rules.

The challenges to the IF/NSFs rules restricting rival tournaments and release of players for these tournaments (e.g India) have come under competition/anti-trust laws that is the abuse of dominant position and anti-competitive agreements leading to unreasonable restraint of trade. The sports industry is a unique industry because the pyramid structure which ensures monopoly is essential in maintaining the integrity of sport and unlike other industries, the sports industry strives on competition rather than from the lack of it. This reasoning gives birth to the excep- tion of ‘Specificity of Sport’ i.e certain sporting activities are excluded from the purview of the competition laws. The European courts while creating this exception have divided the IF/NSF activities into two parts. The first being pure sporting functions whereas the second being activ- ities having a substantial economic impact.

Pure sporting activities like laying down the rules of the sport, defin- ing the size and weight of the ball and dimensions of the playing field are excluded from the ambit of competition laws. But activities of the IF/NSF having substantial economic impact are within the purview of the competition law. The regulatory power of the IF/NSF if used to gain commercial and financial advantage would fall within this ambit.

Therefore the IF/NSF to justify their rules having a substantial eco- nomic impact needs to satisfy two essential conditions:

1. That their agreements are not anti-competitive i.e they do not attempt/cause appreciable adverse effect on competition; and/or 2. That they are not abusing their dominant position and are not impos-

ing unfair or discriminatory conditions.

The European courts have held that these conditions in the sporting sec- tor are satisfied when a particular rule though restricting competition has a proper objective in mind, this objective cannot be obtained with- out the restrictive rule and the restriction is essential for the integrity, continuity, organization and conduct of the sport at national and inter- national level, and the rule is applied uniformly and transparently.

The Competition Commission of India is faced with a similar task today to recognize the specificity of sport and carve out exceptions in the Indian scenario. The decision of the CCI will have a huge impact on the Indian sport industry as many corporate await a chance to start their own breakaway leagues and commercially gain from the revenues generated from these leagues.

spring Sports Fraud Roundtable Seminar with a Fall Sports Fraud Roundtable Workshop. The goal of the workshop will be to identify specific solutions to the issue of match-fixing in the EU. The attendees of the Fall workshop will contribute to the development of a position paper on a key aspect of sports fraud; to be determined ahead of the Fall workshop.

If you would like to participate in the Fall workshop please contact the Programme Coordinator, Karen Jones at [email protected] and check our website, www.sportslaw.nl or www.asser.nl.

Karen L. Jones, JD, MA, Programme Coordinator, Asser International Sports Law Centre

O