City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)

Blue Pete said:
My life fades. The vision dims. All that remains are memories. I remember a time of chaos, ruined dreams, this wasted club. But most of all I remember the Centre forward, the man we called 'Aguero'. To understand who he was you have to go back to another time, when the game was powered by the red cartel, and the media spouted great lies of bluff and bluster. Gone now, swept away.
Click to expand...
Visions of Mad Max
 
Blue Pete said:
My life fades. The vision dims. All that remains are memories. I remember a time of chaos, ruined dreams, this wasted club. But most of all I remember the Centre forward, the man we called 'Aguero'. To understand who he was you have to go back to another time, when the game was powered by the red cartel, and the media spouted great lies of bluff and bluster. Gone now, swept away.
Click to expand...
What is this thing ‘centre forward’ you allude to? Is that like a half back?
 
In legal disputes in the world of sport, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne usually has the final say. But now there has been an important and far-reaching ruling.

Athletes no longer have to accept the decisions of the CAS as binding. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has paved the way for them to take their cases to ordinary EU courts with a landmark ruling in sports history. There, it can be reviewed whether CAS rulings are compatible with public policy, i.e., with the fundamental legal principles of the European Union. This could have a major impact on CAS, which until now has largely had the final say in international sports justice.

“This is a significant day for sports arbitration,” said sports law expert Jan F. Orth from the University of Cologne to the German Press Agency. “The ECJ has today strengthened the rights of the structurally weaker parties, i.e. primarily athletes and clubs. They can now increasingly achieve that a national court reviews the compatibility of CAS rulings with European public policy.”

Antitrust law likely to be in focus in future
The ruling in Luxembourg significantly restricts CAS – how much it will weaken it in the long term remains to be seen: Until now, the rulings of the Court of Arbitration for Sport have been largely final. Only the Swiss Federal Court could overturn the decisions of the Lausanne-based arbitration court – and then only in the event of procedural errors.

But that is now changing. “The courts of the member states must be able to thoroughly review the compatibility of these arbitral awards with the fundamental rules of EU law,” said the ECJ court in Luxembourg. Antitrust law is likely to be a key issue here. Athletes and clubs repeatedly challenge rules that are often imposed on them by large associations.

In an initial reaction, the CAS remained calm and pointed out that sports judges already apply EU law “when necessary.” CAS Director General Matthieu Reeb asserted: “In the service of the international sports community, the CAS will continue to mediate disputes worldwide in a timely and expert manner.”

Belgian club wins legal battle against FIFA
In the specific case in question, Belgian football club RFC Seraing has been in dispute with world governing body FIFA for more than ten years over the ban on so-called third-party ownership. This stipulates that the economic rights of players may not be sold to investors. The ban is laid down in the rules and regulations of FIFA, the European Football Union UEFA, and the national associations.

FIFA therefore prohibited the club from allowing external investors to acquire rights to players and imposed a transfer ban and fine on it in 2015. The case ended up before CAS, which ruled in FIFA's favor. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court also found no grounds for objection.

Seraing then questioned the independence of CAS, as it is financed by international associations. The club took the case to the courts in Belgium. The ECJ ruling means that the dispute can now continue there and RFC Seraing has a new chance of a favorable outcome.

The club's lawyers welcomed the ruling: “In summary, the ECJ has put an end to the procedural fraud with which international sports federations attempted to circumvent the actual application of EU law by introducing mandatory arbitration outside the EU.” The International Olympic Committee said it would carefully review the ruling.

Sports lawyer Orth: “Not the end of CAS”
The ECJ ruling comes as no surprise—the Advocate General at the ECJ had already argued that national courts in the EU must be able to review the rulings of sports arbitration tribunals based outside the EU. In her view, CAS's jurisdiction in soccer is being imposed on sports stakeholders.

“But it does not mean the end of CAS,” clarified sports lawyer Orth. “International sports arbitration remains important and useful so that we have uniform standards worldwide when it comes to assessing sports-related issues.”

Since 1984, CAS has ruled on disciplinary penalties, transfer permits, and doping bans, among other things. According to the ECJ's intention, only if fundamental EU rights are violated in the process will parties to the proceedings be able to appeal to ordinary EU courts in the future.
 
Stoned Rose said:
English translation?
Click to expand...
Judgment on sports justice: “Significant day”: EU’s highest court restricts Cas
In legal disputes in the world of sports, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne normally has the final say. But now there's an important and momentous ruling
.
Athletes no longer have to accept decisions of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) as binding. With a landmark ruling in sports history, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has paved the way for them to appeal to ordinary EU courts. There, it can be reviewed whether CAS arbitration awards are compatible with public policy, i.e., with the fundamental legal principles of the European Union. This could have major implications for the CAS, which has so far largely had the final say in international sports justice.

"This is a significant day for sports arbitration," sports law expert Jan F. Orth of the University of Cologne told the German Press Agency. "Today, the ECJ has strengthened the rights of the structurally weaker, especially athletes and clubs. They can now increasingly obtain a national court's review of the compatibility of CAS arbitration awards with European public policy."

Antitrust law likely to be in focus in the future
The ruling in Luxembourg significantly limits the CAS – how much it will weaken it in the long run remains to be seen: Until now, the rulings of the Court of Arbitration for Sport have been largely final. Only the Swiss Federal Supreme Court has been able to overturn the decisions of the Lausanne-based arbitration tribunal – and then only in cases of procedural errors.

But that's now changing. "The courts of the Member States must be able to thoroughly review the compatibility of these arbitration awards with the fundamental rules of Union law," said the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Antitrust law is likely to be a key issue in this regard. Athletes and clubs repeatedly sue against rules often imposed on them by large federations.

In its initial reaction, the CAS expressed a decidedly calm attitude, pointing out that sports judges would already apply EU law "when necessary." CAS Director General Matthieu Reeb affirmed: "In the service of the international sports community, the CAS will continue to resolve disputes worldwide in a timely and expert manner."

Belgian club wins legal case against FIFA
In this specific case, the Belgian football club RFC Seraing has been in dispute with FIFA for more than ten years over the ban on so-called third-party ownership. This prohibition stipulates that players' economic rights may not be sold to investors. The ban is enshrined in the regulations of FIFA, the European Football Union (UEFA), and the national football associations.

FIFA therefore prohibited the club from allowing external investors to acquire player rights—and imposed a transfer ban and fine in 2015. The case ended up before CAS, which ruled in FIFA's favor. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court also found no objection.

to main content
The Tagesspiegel
Subscription
Main menu
menu
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has been weakened by a ruling from the European Court of Justice.
© Laurent Gillieron/KEYSTONE/dpa
Judgment on sports justice: “Significant day”: EU’s highest court restricts Cas
In legal disputes in the world of sports, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne normally has the final say. But now there's an important and momentous ruling.

Status:today, 2:12 pm


Athletes no longer have to accept decisions of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) as binding. With a landmark ruling in sports history, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has paved the way for them to appeal to ordinary EU courts. There, it can be reviewed whether CAS arbitration awards are compatible with public policy, i.e., with the fundamental legal principles of the European Union. This could have major implications for the CAS, which has so far largely had the final say in international sports justice.

"This is a significant day for sports arbitration," sports law expert Jan F. Orth of the University of Cologne told the German Press Agency. "Today, the ECJ has strengthened the rights of the structurally weaker, especially athletes and clubs. They can now increasingly obtain a national court's review of the compatibility of CAS arbitration awards with European public policy."

Antitrust law likely to be in focus in the future
The ruling in Luxembourg significantly limits the CAS – how much it will weaken it in the long run remains to be seen: Until now, the rulings of the Court of Arbitration for Sport have been largely final. Only the Swiss Federal Supreme Court has been able to overturn the decisions of the Lausanne-based arbitration tribunal – and then only in cases of procedural errors.

But that's now changing. "The courts of the Member States must be able to thoroughly review the compatibility of these arbitration awards with the fundamental rules of Union law," said the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Antitrust law is likely to be a key issue in this regard. Athletes and clubs repeatedly sue against rules often imposed on them by large federations.

In its initial reaction, the CAS expressed a decidedly calm attitude, pointing out that sports judges would already apply EU law "when necessary." CAS Director General Matthieu Reeb affirmed: "In the service of the international sports community, the CAS will continue to resolve disputes worldwide in a timely and expert manner."


Belgian club wins legal case against FIFA
In this specific case, the Belgian football club RFC Seraing has been in dispute with FIFA for more than ten years over the ban on so-called third-party ownership. This prohibition stipulates that players' economic rights may not be sold to investors. The ban is enshrined in the regulations of FIFA, the European Football Union (UEFA), and the national football associations.



FIFA therefore prohibited the club from allowing external investors to acquire player rights—and imposed a transfer ban and fine in 2015. The case ended up before CAS, which ruled in FIFA's favor. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court also found no objection.


Seraing then questioned the independence of the CAS, as it is funded by international associations. The club took the case to the Belgian courts. The ECJ ruling means the dispute can now continue there, giving RFC Seraing a new chance of a favorable outcome.

The club's lawyers welcomed the ruling: "In summary, the ECJ has put an end to the procedural fraud with which international sports federations attempted to circumvent the effective application of EU law by introducing mandatory arbitration outside the EU." The International Olympic Committee stated that it would read the ruling carefully.

Sports lawyer Orth: “Not the end of the Cas”
The ECJ ruling comes as no surprise – the Advocate General at the ECJ had already argued that national courts in the EU must be able to review arbitration awards made by sports arbitration tribunals based outside the EU. In her view, the jurisdiction of the CAS in football is being imposed on sports stakeholders.

But it doesn't mean the end of CAS," sports lawyer Orth clarified. "International sports arbitration remains important and useful, so that we have uniform standards worldwide when it comes to assessing sports court issues."

The CAS has been deciding on disciplinary sanctions, transfer permits, and doping bans since 1984. Only if fundamental EU rights are violated will parties be able to appeal to ordinary EU courts in the future, according to the ECJ's intention.

© dpa-infocom, dpa:250801-930-865320/2
 
Agueroooooooooooo said:
Judgment on sports justice: “Significant day”: EU’s highest court restricts Cas
In legal disputes in the world of sports, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne normally has the final say. But now there's an important and momentous ruling
.
Athletes no longer have to accept decisions of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) as binding. With a landmark ruling in sports history, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has paved the way for them to appeal to ordinary EU courts. There, it can be reviewed whether CAS arbitration awards are compatible with public policy, i.e., with the fundamental legal principles of the European Union. This could have major implications for the CAS, which has so far largely had the final say in international sports justice.

"This is a significant day for sports arbitration," sports law expert Jan F. Orth of the University of Cologne told the German Press Agency. "Today, the ECJ has strengthened the rights of the structurally weaker, especially athletes and clubs. They can now increasingly obtain a national court's review of the compatibility of CAS arbitration awards with European public policy."

Antitrust law likely to be in focus in the future
The ruling in Luxembourg significantly limits the CAS – how much it will weaken it in the long run remains to be seen: Until now, the rulings of the Court of Arbitration for Sport have been largely final. Only the Swiss Federal Supreme Court has been able to overturn the decisions of the Lausanne-based arbitration tribunal – and then only in cases of procedural errors.

But that's now changing. "The courts of the Member States must be able to thoroughly review the compatibility of these arbitration awards with the fundamental rules of Union law," said the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Antitrust law is likely to be a key issue in this regard. Athletes and clubs repeatedly sue against rules often imposed on them by large federations.

In its initial reaction, the CAS expressed a decidedly calm attitude, pointing out that sports judges would already apply EU law "when necessary." CAS Director General Matthieu Reeb affirmed: "In the service of the international sports community, the CAS will continue to resolve disputes worldwide in a timely and expert manner."

Belgian club wins legal case against FIFA
In this specific case, the Belgian football club RFC Seraing has been in dispute with FIFA for more than ten years over the ban on so-called third-party ownership. This prohibition stipulates that players' economic rights may not be sold to investors. The ban is enshrined in the regulations of FIFA, the European Football Union (UEFA), and the national football associations.

FIFA therefore prohibited the club from allowing external investors to acquire player rights—and imposed a transfer ban and fine in 2015. The case ended up before CAS, which ruled in FIFA's favor. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court also found no objection.

to main content
The Tagesspiegel
Subscription
Main menu
menu
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has been weakened by a ruling from the European Court of Justice.
© Laurent Gillieron/KEYSTONE/dpa
Judgment on sports justice: “Significant day”: EU’s highest court restricts Cas
In legal disputes in the world of sports, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne normally has the final say. But now there's an important and momentous ruling.

Status:today, 2:12 pm


Athletes no longer have to accept decisions of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) as binding. With a landmark ruling in sports history, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has paved the way for them to appeal to ordinary EU courts. There, it can be reviewed whether CAS arbitration awards are compatible with public policy, i.e., with the fundamental legal principles of the European Union. This could have major implications for the CAS, which has so far largely had the final say in international sports justice.

"This is a significant day for sports arbitration," sports law expert Jan F. Orth of the University of Cologne told the German Press Agency. "Today, the ECJ has strengthened the rights of the structurally weaker, especially athletes and clubs. They can now increasingly obtain a national court's review of the compatibility of CAS arbitration awards with European public policy."

Antitrust law likely to be in focus in the future
The ruling in Luxembourg significantly limits the CAS – how much it will weaken it in the long run remains to be seen: Until now, the rulings of the Court of Arbitration for Sport have been largely final. Only the Swiss Federal Supreme Court has been able to overturn the decisions of the Lausanne-based arbitration tribunal – and then only in cases of procedural errors.

But that's now changing. "The courts of the Member States must be able to thoroughly review the compatibility of these arbitration awards with the fundamental rules of Union law," said the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Antitrust law is likely to be a key issue in this regard. Athletes and clubs repeatedly sue against rules often imposed on them by large federations.

In its initial reaction, the CAS expressed a decidedly calm attitude, pointing out that sports judges would already apply EU law "when necessary." CAS Director General Matthieu Reeb affirmed: "In the service of the international sports community, the CAS will continue to resolve disputes worldwide in a timely and expert manner."


Belgian club wins legal case against FIFA
In this specific case, the Belgian football club RFC Seraing has been in dispute with FIFA for more than ten years over the ban on so-called third-party ownership. This prohibition stipulates that players' economic rights may not be sold to investors. The ban is enshrined in the regulations of FIFA, the European Football Union (UEFA), and the national football associations.



FIFA therefore prohibited the club from allowing external investors to acquire player rights—and imposed a transfer ban and fine in 2015. The case ended up before CAS, which ruled in FIFA's favor. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court also found no objection.


Seraing then questioned the independence of the CAS, as it is funded by international associations. The club took the case to the Belgian courts. The ECJ ruling means the dispute can now continue there, giving RFC Seraing a new chance of a favorable outcome.

The club's lawyers welcomed the ruling: "In summary, the ECJ has put an end to the procedural fraud with which international sports federations attempted to circumvent the effective application of EU law by introducing mandatory arbitration outside the EU." The International Olympic Committee stated that it would read the ruling carefully.

Sports lawyer Orth: “Not the end of the Cas”
The ECJ ruling comes as no surprise – the Advocate General at the ECJ had already argued that national courts in the EU must be able to review arbitration awards made by sports arbitration tribunals based outside the EU. In her view, the jurisdiction of the CAS in football is being imposed on sports stakeholders.

But it doesn't mean the end of CAS," sports lawyer Orth clarified. "International sports arbitration remains important and useful, so that we have uniform standards worldwide when it comes to assessing sports court issues."

The CAS has been deciding on disciplinary sanctions, transfer permits, and doping bans since 1984. Only if fundamental EU rights are violated will parties be able to appeal to ordinary EU courts in the future, according to the ECJ's intention.

© dpa-infocom, dpa:250801-930-865320/2
Click to expand...
Twice is better than not at all!
 
Paladin said:
What about the PL rule that prevents clubs from even appealing to CAS?
Click to expand...

If I read it right. This new ruling just says CAS isn't the final arbiter. It never was, there was always the slimmest possibility of an appeal to the Swiss courts. Now, though, CAS awards can be appealed to EU courts if the reasoning doesn't comply with EU law. Doesn't change much, I don't think. As you can see from the City CAS awards, they were very careful to consider EU law in their reasoning.

PL cases will never get to CAS, and this doesn't change that, I don't think.
 
"...maybe those deals weren’t overvalued after all?”

This is a better a more balanced piece by The Guardian`s standards and makes a welcome change to read facts and quotes from credible, independent sources -

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ity-record-kit-contract-puma-football-finance

Manchester City’s record £1bn deal with Puma and the value beyond bottom line
The 10-year contract is worth £1bn but it has also opened the door to increase the club’s global profile with other lucrative partnerships
www.theguardian.com

The kit sponsorship with Puma could prove an extremely useful justification in relation to City`s ongoing challenge against amended Premier League `rules`.

Whilst Puma is not a related party transaction (RPT), this sponsorship partnership with Puma could have important and beneficial implications.

Points of note from the article referenced above -

“Puma are very disciplined about what they will pay for sponsorship deals so will not have overpaid, or at least not by more than they had to. They are very rigorous.”

“This is a huge deal for City, in terms of what it says about the size of the club and their ability to attract independent sponsors...”

As well as supporting City`s APT case, it could could also lead the way to other lucrative long term partnerships and contracts.
 
Bert Swift said:
"...maybe those deals weren’t overvalued after all?”

This is a better a more balanced piece by The Guardian`s standards and makes a welcome change to read facts and quotes from credible, independent sources -

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ity-record-kit-contract-puma-football-finance

Manchester City’s record £1bn deal with Puma and the value beyond bottom line
The 10-year contract is worth £1bn but it has also opened the door to increase the club’s global profile with other lucrative partnerships
www.theguardian.com

The kit sponsorship with Puma could prove an extremely useful justification in relation to City`s ongoing challenge against amended Premier League `rules`.

Whilst Puma is not a related party transaction (RPT), this sponsorship partnership with Puma could have important and beneficial implications.

Points of note from the article referenced above -

“Puma are very disciplined about what they will pay for sponsorship deals so will not have overpaid, or at least not by more than they had to. They are very rigorous.”

“This is a huge deal for City, in terms of what it says about the size of the club and their ability to attract independent sponsors...”

As well as supporting City`s APT case, it could could also lead the way to other lucrative long term partnerships and contracts.
Click to expand...

“Or at least not more than they had to”.

Author is a snide little **** no matter how you spin it.
 
Interesting article from 2020 about the appointment of Masters. By Rory Smith and Tariq Panja, but it does shed some light on the process.

The 'Dave Howe' part is interesting.

www.nytimes.com

The Long Search to Fill Soccer’s Biggest, Toughest Job (Published 2020)

Why did it take the Premier League more than a year to hire a chief executive? The answer might lie in who was given a say, and in a growing gap between the rich and the even richer.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
mattcity5 said:
Interesting article from 2020 about the appointment of Masters. By Rory Smith and Tariq Panja, but it does shed some light on the process.

The 'Dave Howe' part is interesting.

www.nytimes.com

The Long Search to Fill Soccer’s Biggest, Toughest Job (Published 2020)

Why did it take the Premier League more than a year to hire a chief executive? The answer might lie in who was given a say, and in a growing gap between the rich and the even richer.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...

We are actually he gift the premier league need, a club that showed a good Rag & Dipper team isn’t necessary for a successful & lucrative competition.
 
mattcity5 said:
Interesting article from 2020 about the appointment of Masters. By Rory Smith and Tariq Panja, but it does shed some light on the process.

The 'Dave Howe' part is interesting.

www.nytimes.com

The Long Search to Fill Soccer’s Biggest, Toughest Job (Published 2020)

Why did it take the Premier League more than a year to hire a chief executive? The answer might lie in who was given a say, and in a growing gap between the rich and the even richer.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...
Anyone able to make that available without a paywall/sign up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top