This was the theme tackled by Richard Parrish of Edgehill University at the recent Sport and the EU conference. He noted that the EU had to manage a transformation that involved balancing different business models while functioning as a sports regulator.
This was the theme tackled by Richard Parrish of Edgehill University at the recent Sport and the EU conference. He noted that the EU had to manage a transformation that involved balancing different business models while functioning as a sports regulator.
He emphasised that the single market could be tempered by consideration of the specificities of sport, although he also noted the difficulties that arise in balancing players’ rights with the idea that sport is special. One commentator from the audience asked why football or any other sport should think of itself as a special case. The individual’s right to move in search of work was paramount.
Richard Parrish argued that one should not go too far in arguing that the EU had unleashed neo-liberalism in sport. The EU was capable of a sensitive application of law to sport, indeed sometimes it was too generous. The EU was keen on a notion of supervised autonomy and the promotion of social dialogue, although there was contradictory evidence about the role of the players’ organisation, Fifpro.
Fifa and Uefa faced the challenge of accommodating to developments in the EU law and Uefa had been slightly more acute at accommodating that. However, one also had to distinguish between global and domestic sports law. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was important in the development of a ‘lex sportiva’.
Article 17 of the Fifa rules about terminating a contract without just cause set up compensation criteria that gave CAS very wide discretion and led to variable decision-making.
Although Parrish was properly cautious in what he said, one got the sense that he wasn’t a great fan of Fifa.