Geschil over bevoegdheid Nederlandse rechter te oordelen over "sponsorovereenkomst" FC Utrecht en Argentijnse spelersmakelaar

Rechtbank Midden-Nederland 30 december2015, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2015:8754

De feiten in het incident

FC Utrecht is een Nederlandse betaald voetbal organisatie. In 2011 heeft FC Utrecht interesse getoond in een doelman, [A] (hierna: [A] ), die op dat moment speelde bij Racing Club de Avellaneda te Argentinië. De heer [X] van “Full Players” heeft [A] destijds vertegenwoordigd.

Voor de tewerkstelling van [A] had FC Utrecht een vergunning nodig. Op basis van de Uitvoeringsregels Wet Arbeid Vreemdelingen, heeft FC Utrecht de verplichting om aan [A] een bruto jaarloon van ten minste € 533.000,00 te betalen. FC Utrecht was bereid om aan [A] een jaarsalaris van maximaal € 250.000,00 te betalen. Vervolgens hebben partijen gesproken over het maken van afwijkende afspraken. Deze afspraken zouden er kort gezegd op neer komen dat een deel van het betaalde salaris zou worden terugbetaald aan FC Utrecht.

FC Utrecht heeft op 21 juli 2011 een aanbod gedaan aan Full Play International. In dit aanbod gaat FC Utrecht ervan uit dat Full Play International een deel van het salaris van [A] zou sponsoren. Een forumkeuzebeding is in dit aanbod niet opgenomen.

Op 1 augustus 2011 heeft de heer [X] , namens Full Players S.A., het volgende aan FC Utrecht bericht:

In accordance to your note dated July 21st 2001, we hereby accept to sponsor part of the salary of the goalkeeper [A] , as stated on the fourth paragraph of the already mentioned note… “This means that the player has to pay a part of his net salary to Full Play and Full Play is prepared to pay the difference between the salary of Euros 533.000 minus Euros 250.00 to FC Utrecht”.

Please send us the formal agreement as soon as you can, between your club and Full Playgroup S.A. where such sponsorship will be defined.

FC Utrecht heeft op 6 september 2011 een concept van een sponsorovereenkomst toegezonden aan de heer Van Kooperen, die op dat moment optrad als contactpersoon voor Full Play International. In de conceptovereenkomst is onder meer een forumkeuzebeding opgenomen.

Full Play International, althans [K] , heeft op 14 september 2011 op de conceptovereenkomst gereageerd. Deze reactie luidt als volgt:

Regarding the sponsorship agreement, I have these comments to make: 
1. Our signing company will be Full Play Group SA […]
2. As it has been agreed the gross salary of the player is E250k per year. So, as stated in the agreement we have to pay back the club E283.000, in four installments, for the sponsorship rights you have granted to us. Adding these two amounts, we reach E533.000 which is the less sum for a non-European player a club has to pay in Holland. 
3. So, if point 2 is ok, do we have to transfer the club the E283.000, or with the signed agreement is enough for them? In any of the two situations, we shall need a side letter stating the reality of the operation. Let s chat tomorrow in order to clarify these few points and close the agreement.

Full Play International heeft de conceptovereenkomst niet ondertekend.

FC Utrecht heeft niet het volledige bedrag van € 533.000,00 betaald aan [A] , maar heeft een gedeelte daarvan ingehouden.

De beoordeling in het incident

Full Play International vordert dat de rechtbank zich onbevoegd verklaart. FC Utrecht voert verweer. Op de stellingen van partijen wordt hierna, voor zover van belang, nader ingegaan.

Full Play International is een rechtspersoon naar buitenlands recht, zodat de vordering van FC Utrecht uit dien hoofde een internationaal karakter draagt. De rechtbank dient - ook zonder daartoe strekkende incidentele vordering - de vraag te beantwoorden of de Nederlandse rechter bevoegd is van de vordering kennis te nemen. Nu Full Play International niet in een land van de Europese Unie gevestigd is, is de Verordening (EU) nr. 1215/2012 (EEX) op grond van artikel 6 EEX beperkt van toepassing. De internationale bevoegdheid van de Nederlandse rechter wordt derhalve beoordeeld aan de hand van het Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering en de artikelen 18, 21 en 24 tot en met 26 EEX.

Forumkeuze

In artikel 25 EEX wordt een regeling gegeven voor het geval partijen in een overeenkomst een forumkeuze hebben opgenomen. Op grond van dit artikel geldt dat van een geldig forumkeuzebeding sprake is, indien vaststaat dat dit beding voorwerp heeft uitgemaakt van een wilsovereenstemming tussen partijen, die duidelijk en nauwkeurig tot uiting komt, waarbij de in artikel 25 lid 1 onder a, b en c EEX gestelde vormvereisten ten doel hebben te waarborgen dat de wilsovereenstemming tussen partijen inderdaad vaststaat. Op grond van artikel 25 lid 1 Herschikte EEX-Vo moet de forumkeuze zijn gesloten:

- hetzij bij een schriftelijke overeenkomst of bij een schriftelijk bevestigde mondelinge overeenkomst;

- hetzij in een vorm die wordt toegelaten door de handelwijzen die tussen de partijen gebruikelijk zijn geworden;

- hetzij, in de internationale handel, in een vorm die overeenstemt met een gewoonte waarvan de partijen op de hoogte zijn of hadden behoren te zijn en die in de internationale handel algemeen bekend is en door partijen bij dergelijke overeenkomsten in de betrokken handelsbranche doorgaans in acht wordt genomen.

Voorop wordt gesteld dat de geldigheid van een forumkeuzebeding autonoom moet worden beoordeeld en dat de beoordeling in dit vonnis derhalve los staat van de geldigheid van de hoofdovereenkomst.

Van een door beide partijen ondertekend geschrift waaruit blijkt dat zij overeenstemming hadden over de forumkeuze, is niet gebleken. De op 6 september 2011 door FC Utrecht verzonden conceptovereenkomst werd niet ondertekend. Uit de geciteerde e-mail van 14 september 2011 blijkt dat Full Play International ook niet de intentie had om de conceptovereenkomst te ondertekenen. De heer Bello heeft expliciet aan FC Utrecht bericht dat Full Play Group SA en niet Full Play International partij bij de conceptovereenkomst zou worden.

In het vervolg van dit vonnis zal steeds de naam Full Play International worden gebruikt, terwijl in de hoofdzaak nog zal moeten worden beoordeeld welke consequentie de opmerking van de heer Bello heeft op de vraag of Full Play International (of één van de overige gedaagden) partij is bij enige rechtsverhouding met FC Utrecht.

Uit hetgeen FC Utrecht heeft gesteld, blijkt niet dat Full Play International met een forumkeuze heeft ingestemd en dat die wilsovereenstemming vervolgens is vastgelegd in de toegezonden conceptovereenkomst. FC Utrecht heeft geen feiten gesteld waaruit blijkt dat voorafgaand aan de toezending van de conceptovereenkomst is gesproken over een forumkeuzebeding. Het forumkeuzebeding was geen onderdeel van het aanbod op 21 juli 2011, stond niet in de geciteerde bericht van 1 augustus 2011, maar wordt voor het eerst in de conceptovereenkomst vermeld. Voor de totstandkoming van een rechtsgeldige forumkeuze is onvoldoende dat van de zijde van Full Play International in de geciteerde e‑mail van 14 september 2011 geen opmerkingen zijn gemaakt over het forumkeuzebeding. In de gegeven omstandigheden mocht FC Utrecht er niet vanuit gaan dat een voorgestelde forumkeuze stilzwijgend werd aanvaard.

Plaats uitvoering verbintenis

Artikel 6 sub a van het Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering (Rv) bepaalt ten aanzien van verbintenissen uit overeenkomst dat ook kan worden gedagvaard voor het gerecht van de plaats waar de verbintenis die aan de eis ten grondslag ligt, is uitgevoerd of moet worden uitgevoerd.

Om de plaats van uitvoering te bepalen van de verbintenissen die voortvloeien uit de door FC Utrecht gestelde overeenkomst, zal eerst moeten worden vastgesteld welk recht op die overeenkomst van toepassing is. De bepaling van het toepasselijke recht dient - bij gebreke van een rechtskeuze - plaats te vinden aan de hand van artikel 4 van de Verordening (EG) nr. 593/2008 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 17 juni 2008 inzake het recht dat van toepassing is op verbintenissen uit overeenkomst (Rome I-Vo). Dit betekent dat allereerst moet worden beoordeeld wie van partijen de kenmerkende prestatie heeft verricht ten aanzien van de overeenkomst waarop FC Utrecht zich beroept.

Daarbij is niet beslissend of Full Play International het bestaan van de aan de eis ten grondslag gelegde overeenkomst betwist, of dat zij betwist bij een overeenkomst partij te zijn. Bij de beoordeling van het bevoegdheidsincident ligt in beginsel niet ter beoordeling voor of het bestaan van een overeenkomst tussen FC Utrecht en Full Play International wordt erkend of betwist, dan wel of voor het bestaan van die overeenkomst voldoende bewijs wordt aangedragen. Voldoende is dat aan de ingestelde vordering een verbintenis uit overeenkomst ten grondslag is gelegd. Dat laatste is hier het geval. FC Utrecht heeft haar vorderingen gegrond op de niet-nakoming van een verbintenis uit een overeenkomst. Dit betekent overigens niet dat geen rekening mag worden gehouden met het verweer van Full Play International (vgl. HvJ 28 januari 2015, RvdW 2015, 406).

FC Utrecht heeft aangevoerd dat het in dit geval gaat om een ‘sponsorovereenkomst’, waarbij naast het opnemen van de uitzendingen voor FC Utrecht televisie en het verstrekken van deze beeldopnamen aan Full Play International, ook van belang zijn: het exploiteren van ‘merchandising’ van FC Utrecht, het organiseren van tours en vriendschappelijke wedstrijden namens FC Utrecht, het aanbrengen van andere clubs voor samenwerking met FC Utrecht en het gebruik van drie ‘business seats’ van FC Utrecht.

Tussen partijen staat vast dat aan de sponsorovereenkomst geen uitvoering is gegeven. Er zijn geen uitzendingen geweest van voetbal van FC Utrecht in Argentinië, terwijl dit volgens FC Utrecht de kern van de sponsorovereenkomst zou vormen. Vast staat dat de sponsorovereenkomst niet los kan worden gezien van de wens van partijen dat [A] bij FC Utrecht zou komen spelen zonder dat daarvoor feitelijk een bruto jaarsalaris van € 533.000,00 zou worden betaald. Dit blijkt uit het geschil zoals partijen dat hebben gevoerd ten overstaan van het College van Arbitrage van de KNVB, uit de geciteerde e‑mailcorrespondentie en de wijze waarop FC Utrecht aan de overeenkomst met [A] uitvoering heeft gegeven. De feitelijke gang van zaken tussen partijen is geweest dat FC Utrecht aan [A] vanaf 1 augustus 2011 een bruto jaarsalaris heeft toegekend van € 533.000,00. Op de loonstrook van [A] heeft FC Utrecht een bedrag van ongeveer € 165.000,00 ingehouden, zodat feitelijk een loon van € 250.000,00 (bruto) werd betaald. [A] heeft geen betalingen aan Full Play International gedaan, Full Play International heeft geen voetbalwedstrijden in Argentinië uitgezonden en heeft evenmin betalingen aan FC Utrecht gedaan.

Gelet op het voorgaande moet voorlopig - in het kader van dit incident - geoordeeld worden dat als er een overeenkomst tot stand is gekomen, deze overeenkomst heeft ingehouden dat FC Utrecht zich verbond om [A] in Nederland te laten spelen tegen een salaris van € 533.000,-- en dat Full Play International zich verbond daarvoor een financiële bijdrage te leveren aan FC Utrecht van € 283.000,--. De kenmerkende prestant van deze overeenkomst is FC Utrecht, omdat de prestatie van Full Play International in dit verband alleen bestaat uit het verstrekken van geld. Dit betekent dat Nederlands recht van toepassing is op deze overeenkomst.

De verbintenis die aan de vordering ten grondslag ligt (een betalingsverplichting van Full Play International van € 283.000,-- aan FC Utrecht) moest naar Nederlands recht (artikel 6:116 BW) in Nederland plaatsvinden.

Derhalve moet worden uitgegaan van bevoegdheid van de Nederlandse rechter. De incidentele vordering van Full Play International, zal derhalve worden afgewezen.

De rechtsgrond die FC Utrecht aan haar vordering ten grondslag heeft gelegd, is gelijk voor alle gedaagden. Ook ten aanzien van de niet verschenen gedaagden, zal in de hoofdzaak derhalve het oordeel gelden dat de Nederlandse rechter bevoegd is.

TMC Asser and IVIR (University of Amsterdam): Study on sports organisers' rights in the EU

In 2011 the European Commission announced that it would launch a study to analyse the exploitation of rights to sports events (sports organisers’ rights) from the perspective of the EU legal framework. This study was awarded to the T.M.C. Asser Instituut and Institute for Information Law and is published HERE

Executive summery

The legal protection of rights to sporting events (”sports organisers' rights”) is a contentious issue.

While in recent years distinct aspects of the problem have been addressed by legislatures andcourts, both at the national and at the European level, a great deal of legal uncertainty persists.

Divergent views on the appropriateness, form and scope of such legal protection exist among stakeholders and other concerned parties, reflecting the complex nature and multiple functions of sports in modern society. The universe of sports and media is a complex network of social and commercial relationships with a variety of stakeholders, each one of whom can claim rights or specific interests in the value chain of organizing and exploiting sports events, such as clubs, leagues, athletes, federations, fans, media content providers, sponsors, owners of sport facilities, sports betting operators and news media.

Consequently, the question of protecting sports events is by no means a one-dimensional legal issue, and should be framed in a broader socio-economic context. On the one hand, professional sport represents a large and fast-growing sector of the European economy – and in no small measure this is due to the commercial significance of sports media rights. On the other hand, sports are widely regarded as playing a pivotal role as a “social cohesive”, an agent of communal, and conveyor of moral, values. This helps explain why major sports events qualify in various Member States as “events of major importance” for society, subject to special media rules mitigating exclusive rights of broadcasters to guarantee viewers’ access to these events via free-to-air television.

The general objective of this study is to examine and critically assess a number of the most pressing questions of substantive law relating to the existence and exercise of sports organisers' rights in the EU. The specific objectives of the study are:

 - To map the legal framework applicable to the origin and ownership of sports organisers' rights in the 28 Member States;

-To analyse the nature and scope of sports organisers' rights with regard to licensing practicesin the field of the media, taking into account relevant EU law provisions;

- To examine the possibility of establishing licensing practices beyond the media field, notably in the area of gambling and betting;

- To provide recommendations on the opportunity of EU action to address any problem that may be identified in the above mentioned areas of analysis.

  

Protection of sports organisers’ rights

 Part 1 of the study focuses on the various types of legal protection presently available to the organisers of sports events. Property rights are the first category to be addressed. Most sports events take place in dedicated venues over which the sports organisers have either ownership or  exclusive-use rights. This type of exclusivity, carrying the power to exclude unauthorized individuals or media from the venue and to allow entry subject to specific contractual conditions, serves as an important legal instrument of protection for sports organisers. This scheme is usually referred to as “house right” and while it has not been explicitly recognized by the courts in all Member States, it most likely exists and is enforceable everywhere in the EU.

Intellectual property rights comprise the second category. In the case of Premier League v QC Leisure the (European) Court of Justice (CJ) has clarified that sports events as such do not qualify for copyright protection under EU law. The same does not hold true, however, for the audiovisual production, recording and broadcasting of sporting events. The images of sporting events attract the interest of constantly growing shares of TV and on-line audiences, and are often of enormous commercial value. The various media products resulting from the audiovisual recording and broadcasting of sports events give rise to a variety of intellectual property rights, especially in the field of copyright and rights related to copyright (neighbouring rights) – areas that are largely harmonized at the EU level. These rights include the copyright in the cinematographic work (filmwork) that, in many cases, is the result of audiovisual coverage, as well as an array of related (neighbouring) rights in the recording and broadcasting of the audiovisual registration of the sports event. While many of these rights find their origin in EU secondary law, some related rights occur only in distinct Member States, such as the special sports organisers right that exists in France under the Code du Sport, or the Italian sports audiovisual related right.

A third category of rights examined are so-called “image rights” - rights that protect the commercial likeness of sports players and athletes, based on a variety of legal doctrines, such as personality rights and right to privacy. While image rights form a heterogeneous legal category untouched by harmonization, most Member States do accord some level of legal protection against unauthorized commercial uses of players’ images. As recent case law in Germany and the Netherlands suggests, players or athletes can, however, not invoke their image rights to prohibit, or require remuneration for, audiovisual coverage of sports events in which they participate.

As Part 1 demonstrates, the rights and interests of sports organisers are generally well safeguarded at the substantive legal level. The “house right” gives sports events organisers and clubs (and indirectly the sports federations) a right to exclude unauthorized media from the venue, and thereby creates leverage for the event organisers to negotiate exclusive contracts regarding media coverage. In practice, these contracts may or may not provide for complete or partial transfer(s) to the sports organisers of the copyrights and neighbouring rights in the audiovisual recording and transmission of the event. Sports events organisers or their federations may, alternatively, elect to produce and distribute media coverage of the sports events themselves. Either way, the combination of house right, media contract(s), and intellectual property protection of the audiovisual recording and broadcast effectively allows the sports event organisers to enjoy complete ownership and/or control over the audiovisual rights in the sports events.

 Sports organisers’ rights management in the field of media

 Part 2 of this study examines how sports organisers’ rights are managed and licensed in the field of media. Regarding the marketing of sports media rights, it analytically describes the way in which these rights are sold and critically analyses the compatibility of current and evolving licensing practices with EU competition law and internal market law. Regarding the exploitation of sports media rights, it looks into the limits posed to exclusivity in order to grant access on free-to-air television for events of “high importance for the public”.

  The marketing of sports media rights: licensing practices

 EU competition law enforcement has had a major impact on the way premium sports media rights are sold in the EU. Prior to the European Commission’s precedent decisions on the joint selling of sports media rights (UEFA Champions League 2003, DFB 2005, FAPL 2006), the National Competition Authorities (NCAs) of various Member States had prohibited this practice on the basis of their national competition rules. The Commission, however, made clear that joint selling can be deemed compatible with EU competition law, albeit under strict conditions.

Ten years after the UEFA Champions League decision, the joint selling of sports media rights has become the dominant practice. Since Italy reintroduced the system of joint selling in 2010, Cyprus, Portugal, and Spain are now the last European markets in which first division football clubs selltheir rights individually. Also for other sports, the individual sale of media rights is exceptional.

 The comparative analysis of EU and national decisional practice reveals that for the most part the NCAs have replicated the heavy-handed remedy package designed by the European Commission.

The “no single buyer” obligation, a remedy that was exceptionally imposed by the Commission in FAPL, is increasingly being emulated at the national level. Only with regard to the duration of exclusivity, more and more NCAs are demonstrating a readiness for a more flexible approach (i.e. by accepting exclusive rights contracts exceeding three years).

 The imposed remedies, facilitated by technological developments, have effectively addressed concerns about output restrictions related to joint selling. The problem of warehousing of rights or unused (new media) rights no longer seems to be a concern. The positive impact of EU competition law intervention on the supply-side dynamics is all the more evident when considering prevailing practices in Member States where NCAs have not (yet) intervened. In these countries, sports media rights are still sold in one exclusive bundle, for a long period of time, and without a transparent public tender procedure.

 EU competition law intervention has been less successful in terms of challenging existing market dynamics at the downstream level: the premium sports content bottleneck continues to frustrate markets for the acquisition of premium sports media rights. In various markets, the main vertical effect of the chosen remedies has been that in the downstream market a duopoly emerged in the place of a monopoly. This also has implications for competition in new media markets. The emerging trend to market premium sports media rights on a platform-neutral basis favours powerful vertically integrated media content providers. This risks negating the progress that was made in enabling smaller operators to acquire earmarked packages for certain platforms.

 The study also examined licensing provisions granting sports media rights on an exclusive territorial basis in light of EU internal market law. While initially the CJ’s Premier League v QC Leisure judgment was considered a game-changer for the way in which sports media rights would be marketed in the EU, so far little seems to have changed. The English Premier League has responded by introducing new contractual provisions that, unfortunately, make consumers everywhere in the EU worse off. The de facto imposition of the UK “closed period” rule for Premier League matches across Europe, however, again raises questions about the public interest dimension of this old-fashioned measure and may indicate competition issues.

  

The exploitation of sports media rights: right to short reporting

 The study further analysed the right to short reporting as enshrined in Article 15 AVMSD and as implemented in the national regulatory frameworks of the 28 Member States of the European Union. Three scenarios have been tested. The first one sought to determine the conditions of access to the signal of a domestic broadcaster which has acquired exclusive TV rights on those events of high interest to the public as well as the conditions and modalities of use of the short extracts produced. The second scenario is similar to the first one, except that it involved two broadcasters established in different EU jurisdictions. It also sought to define which law is applicable to determine if an event qualifies as an event of high interest to the public. The last scenario tested the possibility for a broadcaster to get access to the venue of an event of high interest to the public to exercise its right to short reporting. In addition, the scenario checks whether the right of access to the venue extends to a right to record images in margin of the events.

The right of short news reporting is an important element of the EU legal order safeguarding the right of broadcasters to have access to “events of high interest to the public”, such as important sports events, which are subject to exclusive broadcasting rights. However, the way this right is currently framed, allowing Member States the option of either mandating access to the transmitting broadcaster’s signals, or requiring direct access to the venue where the event takes place, has resulted in some differences in implementation by the Member States (i.e. on the duration of the short news reporting).

  

Sports organisers’ rights management in the field of gambling

Part 3 of this study examines, from an EU and national legal perspective, the possibility for sports organisers to license their exploitation rights beyond the media field, notably in the area of gambling. In the last decade or so, the advent and rapid rise of online sports betting services has fundamentally altered the relationship between professional sports organisers and the gambling industry, creating commercial and promotional opportunities but also integrity threats for sport.

The analysis focuses on the existence of a sports organisers’ right to consent to the organisation of bets (“right to consent to bets”) and on legal limitations that restrict the licensing of other exploitation rights to gambling operators.

A sports organisers’ right to consent to bets

With the enactment of a new gambling law in 2010, the French legislature, following case law precedent recognizing sports bets as a form of commercial exploitation of sports events, introduced a right to consent to bets. Apart from France, two other Member States have legally recognized a right to consent to bets, namely Poland and Hungary. Sports organisers in these countries, however, have so far no experience (Hungary) or only limited experience (Poland) with the actual enforcement of this right.

Numerous national and European sports organisers have called for the adoption of a similar right at the EU or EU-wide national level. This report dispels two general misconceptions that seem to persist in the debate on the merits of a right to consent to bets.

 First, when sports organisers advocate the right to consent to bets as a mechanism to enable a “fair financial return” from associated betting activity and to preserve the integrity of sport, the arguments are commonly framed within a perceived need for more legal protection. In essence,   what is asked is the recognition of a broad-scoped sports organisers’ right that would cover all kinds of commercial exploitation of sports events, including the organisation of bets. The analysis reveals however, that the financial and integrity benefits attributed to a right to consent to bets could be achieved well outside the framework of private law. A right to consent to bets can be introduced as,a regulatory condition in gambling legislation without recourse to an express recognition of a broad-scoped horizontal sports organisers’ right.

 Second, the right to consent to bet is not an efficient way to allocate revenue from betting to all levels of professional and amateur sport. Whatever the fee structure, the price paid in exchange for the right to consent to bets will always be relevant to the volume of bets that a sporting event is able to attract. Hence, financial benefits predominantly flow to professional sport and more particularly to the organisers of premium sports events. Small or less visible sports are unlikely to benefit from this instrument. Furthermore, there is no evidence for a link between the financial return stemming from a right to consent to bets and the financing of grassroots sports.

 The review of the experiences with the implementation of a right to consent to bets in Victoria (Australia) and France further highlights a number of challenges associated with the introduction of such an instrument.

 Since the exercise of a right to consent to bets is capable of constituting a restriction on the free movement of gambling services within the meaning of Article 56 TFEU, it must be justified by an imperative requirement in the general interest and comply with the principle of proportionality.

The CJ has accepted the prevention of fraud as a legitimate objective justification. The financing of public interest activities through proceeds from gambling services, on the other hand, can only be accepted as a beneficial consequence that is incidental to the restrictive policy adopted. It follows that a strict regulatory framework that genuinely reflects a concern to prevent the manipulation of sports events must accompany the introduction of a right to consent to bets. Of the existing regulatory systems, only the Victorian (Australia) regulatory regime clearly demonstrates a primary concern with safeguarding the integrity of sports events and is therefore recommended as a best practice model.

 Regarding the institutional and operational requirements for the successful implementation of a right to consent to bets, it must be concluded that the transaction costs related to this instrument are particularly high. The integrity and financial benefits of a right to consent to bets can only be fully achieved when it is carefully managed by a national regulatory authority that:

 1. actively prosecutes illegal betting services (including the offering of sports bets by licensed

operators without the sports organisers’ consent);

2. monitors the commercial exploitation of the right to consent to bets to prevent discriminatory

or anti-competitive marketing conditions;

3. provides for an ex post mechanism for complaint handling and dispute resolution;

4. has the power to conduct on-going monitoring of the parties’ compliance with the mutual rights and obligations contained in the contractual agreements.

Given that a number of national regulatory authorities suffer from limited staff and resources, it is questionable whether they would be capable of fulfilling this challenging task.

Gambling advertising restrictions and sports sponsorship

 In line with the principle of freedom of contract, sports organisers are in principle free to choose the contractual partners for the commercial exploitation of their rights. One main obstacle emerges, however. Restrictions on gambling advertising at the national level (may) create difficulties for sports organisers, clubs, and individual athletes to enter into sponsorship agreements with gambling operators.

 The analysis of regulatory frameworks governing the advertising of gambling services reveals a patchwork of different national approaches. The potential for conflicting national restrictions causes in particular challenges for organisers of cross-border sports events and for clubs or individual athletes participating in such events (as they may be induced to infringe national gambling advertising regulations or breach personal sponsorship contracts).

 Over and above the lack of consistency across Member States, a widely observed absence of legal certainty appears to cause the biggest problem. Even when national gambling advertising regulations exist, uncertainties remain about their applicability to sponsorship agreements. For example, only a few national gambling advertising regulations clarify the extent to which both parties to a sponsorship agreement, i.e. the sponsored party and the gambling operator, can be found liable for breaching these regulations. Inconsistencies in the enforcement of the applicable regulations make it even more difficult to anticipate the costs of non-compliance. This legal uncertainty undermines the effectiveness of the measures that seek to protect consumers against the financial, social, and health risks associated with gambling. Moreover, it ultimately results in considerable market uncertainty and potential losses of sponsorship revenue for sports organisers, clubs, and individual athletes.

Full study can be found HERE

WIPO magazine: Sports, Sporting Goods and the Sports Business

By Dr. Jochen M. Schaefer, Legal Counsel, World Federation of the Sporting Goods Industry (WFSGI)

Sports fans around the world have been spellbound by the achievements of athletes participating in the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games in London. In previous issues, WIPO Magazine has offered a variety of perspectives on the importance of intellectual property (IP) to different sports organizations. This article explores the importance of IP protection from the perspective of the sporting goods industry.
The sports industry is a wide-ranging business encompassing the sale of food and sports memorabilia as well as the sale of media rights and sponsorship deals. Many players are involved, from clubs, leagues and sponsors to media broadcasters and, of course, those that produce all the equipment that make high-performance sport possible – the sporting goods industry. A 2011 study by management consultants A.T. Kearny estimates that the global sports industry is worth as much as US$620 billion.
Read more HERE

Sport & EU Review May 2012

Sport&EU Review vol. 4, no. 1 for May 2012 has now been published. This issue features, among other, an original article on football fan culture written by Jonas Havelund, Lise Joern and Kristian Rasmussen, a legal commentary on contractual stability in basketball penned by Boaz Sity and a forum contribution on football players’ lifelong education authored by Andy Harvey. Followers of the FREE kick research programme will be interested in Albrecht Sonntag’s report column, while participants of the 7th Sport & EU Conference in Lausanne in June will have a chance to review the conference programme and the accepted abstracts. Rounding up the contents are the regular sections on upcoming conferences and new book releases

Download HERE

Source: http://www.sportandeu.com

High Court decides Sportradar not liable for use of statistics relating to UK football matches

Today the English High Court handed down judgment in the Football Dataco Limited & Othrs v Sportradar GMBH and Sportradar AG database right infringement case. The case was brought by certain English and Scottish Football Leagues and their licensees against an online sports data company, Sportradar. Read more HERE

Full Judgment HERE

French Court Rules on Jurisdiction to Sue FIFA for Anti Competitive Conduct

by Gilles Cuniberti on April 18, 2012

On February 1st, 2012, the French supreme court for private and criminal matters (Cour de cassation) ruled that French courts had jurisdiction over a claim brought against FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) for anti competitive conduct. More HERE

NFL “Bountygate” and its Legal Ramifications

On March 2, it was revealed that members of the New Orleans Saints coaching staff, including former defensive coordinator Gregg Williams, implemented a “bounty program” where defensive players would be compensated $1,500 for “knockout” hits that rendered specific players unable to return to the game, and $1,000 for “cart-off” hits that temporarily removed a player from the contest. 
Lees verder

The forthcoming guernsey image rights law: a world first

• A tiny island in the English Channel, officially known as the Bailiwick of Guernsey, is about to become the very first jurisdiction in the world to enact an image rights law that puts in place a new form of intellectual property right which can be registered and commercialised.
  
  Lees hier verder
  
  Update 26 june 201 2from The Guardian:
  
  

  Image rights register for celebrities proposed in Guernsey

  Scheme would allow famous people to register catchphrases and gestures and charge whenever they are used by others