Does the law discriminate against trans athletes?

The legislation surrounding the regulation of transgender athletes in sport is of fascination to me, as an athlete myself. It is particularly concerning how the law has arguably facilitated the discrimination of transgender athletes. As we live in an increasingly more inclusive, gender-fluid society it is interesting to witness how the law may change in the future.

Social background of trans athletes

Public university sporting bodies have the ability to exclude transgender athletes from participating in sporting competition, if it is found necessary to ensure fair competition and the safety of competitors.[1] The term ‘transgender’ is used to refer to people whose gender identity is different from the gender they were at birth.[2]

Though there has been a lack of thorough scientific research in the area, the biological attributes associated with the male sex, in relation to the female sex, include ‘decreased body fat, increased heart and lung size – all of which adds up to strength and performance advantages’.[3] Therefore, one may conclude that exclusion is necessary as transgender female athletes have a clear biological advantage. However, some specialists have pointed out that such research is not ‘direct or consistent’ and fails to show that individuals have an athletic advantage over women at any stage of their (gender) transition.[4]

UPenn transgender swimmer Lia Thomas competing at the NCAAs (ABC News)

It is a common theme of media discussion that we live in an age of gender fluidity, especially in matters of sex.[5] Society is becoming increasingly aware and arguably more supportive of the transgender and intersex community. Arguably in light of this, the International Olympic Committee created a new transgender framework which outlines ten principles, including inclusion, non-discrimination and fairness, reflecting overall on a more inclusive society, where different abilities and characteristics are valued.[6]

Legal background

All forms of discrimination (direct, combined and indirect) are prohibited by the Equality Act.[7] However, the Act has an exemption whereby transgender and intersex athletes can be excluded from ‘gender-affected’ sporting participation, if it is proven necessary to (a) ensure fairness and (b) the safety of competitors.[8] For pre-pubescent transgender female athletes, the requirement of a ‘gender-affected activity’ is not needed as their exclusion is not necessary to ensure fair competition and the safety of competitors.[9] The exclusion clause only concerns post-pubertal transgender female athletes. At present, restrictions on participation are permitted to the extent they are ‘necessary and proportionate’ to the achievement of that objective.[10]

An example where the sport exemption in UK anti-discrimination legislation was used was by the IOC in their Stockholm consensus, in 2003, which incorporated a requirement of genital surgery.[11] The policy raised human rights issues of respect for individual dignity, privacy and bodily integrity. Meanwhile, there has also been a growing recognition of the importance of autonomy in choice of gender identity in society.[12] The policy has since been antiquated. However, it did appear to have breached the ‘right to privacy and work’ which is guaranteed under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and has been incorporated into UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). The term “privacy” has a broad scope of interpretation, where individuals are entitled to be ‘left alone’[13] to develop their personality autonomously and safely.[14] Individuals are expected to enjoy a ‘reasonable’ level of privacy[15] and therefore, any form of surgery or mandatory intake of testosterone suppressants arguably amounts to a breach of this human right, violating their bodily integrity and autonomy.

A requirement of surgery could also breach the right to enjoy the fundamental human rights without discrimination on any ground, such as sex.[16] The transgender policies in sport are arguably examples of indirect discrimination, this is where there is a policy or rule that applies to everyone but puts individuals with a specific protected characteristic, such as sex, at a particular disadvantage.[17]

Public authorities, like UK Sport, are obliged to take appropriate measures to protect people’s human rights. They must adopt reasonable and suitable measures to protect the rights of the individual.[18] States, such as the United Kingdom, are required to undertake positive obligations to “ensure the equal rights of men and women” to enjoy and realise the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.[19] The ECHR contain positive obligations that oblige states to protect those within their state.[20] The ‘equality duty’ was developed, in regard to the ECHR, by the Equality Act 2010.[21] This duty refers to the equality of opportunity and can be applied, in sporting contexts, as the chance to participate and not be excluded. By applying human rights frameworks to determine the scope of protection of intersex and transgender female athletes, one is able to examine the legitimacy and legality of eligibility regulations.[22]

Social history

Transgender and intersex people have often faced discrimination (both direct and indirect) due to the fact that their bodies do not conform to people’s binary expectations about sex and gender.[23] Historically, in sporting contexts, female athletes were made to undergo unnecessary medical examinations over fears that males would masquerade as females in order to gain a competitive advantage.[24] In the early 1960s, female athletes underwent sex testing where they stood before a committee of experts, in what became known as the ‘nude parade’.[25] Such examinations sparked resentment by female athletes due to the test’s intrusive nature and have since been removed by sporting federations.

In 2004, the IOC introduced the Stockholm Consensus, which allowed transgender (male to female, transitioning after puberty) athletes to compete at the Olympics. Sex reassignment surgery or hormonal therapy was made mandatory in order to ‘minimise gender-related advantages in sport competitions.[26] More recently, in 2015, the IOC ruled that suppression of blood testosterone levels through the use of hormones and/or other medication would be required for transgender women.[27] Developments such as these do not indicate an overall increase in the acceptance of gender variance in the world of sport; rather, there has been ongoing resistance to inclusive gender policies in mainstream sport organizations.[28] It is argued that this resistance is based on anxieties about the instability of the male/female gender binary.[29]

Legal history

The ECHR established positive obligations on States to protect the fundamental rights of individual human beings[30]. For example, in accordance with Article 14, States must secure non-discrimination. Such convention rights are now directly enforceable, as the HRA incorporated the ECHR into UK law.[31]

Recently, in 2016, The House of Commons Women and Equality Committee recommended that the government work with Sport England to help highlight that the instances where exclusion of intersex and transgender athletes can be justified are extremely rare.[32] This indicates that the government needs to actively provide support as such policies make transgender athletes more vulnerable to direct and indirect discrimination.   

Indian sprinter Dutee Chand launched a case against the International Amateur Athletic Association, now known as World Athletics (The Guardian)

Despite not falling within the UK jurisdiction, the outcome of the case of Chand v AFI and IAAF[33] was significant as it explained how regulatory rules should be in place to promote fair competition and the protection of women in sport. But more importantly, it outlined that to avoid discrimination, if not eligible for female events, the athlete must be eligible to compete in male events. This judgment was significant as it outlined a means to actively avoid discrimination, giving transgender athletes the choice and the right to compete. As a result, it prevents transgender athletes having their right to compete taken away from them due to their sex, which essentially is discrimination.[34]

This post is a literature review, supporting the research question of whether the sport exception in UK anti-discrimination legislation is in violation with the Human Rights Act. I completed my law dissertation on this subject matter, attaining a first class honours on this module and winning the CPS Award for Best Overall Dissertation at Leeds Law School 2022.

---

[1] Part 15, 195(2) Equality Act 2010 c.15

[2] ‘Frequently Asked Questions about Transgender People’ (National Center for Transgender Equality, 9 July 2016) <www.transequality.org/issues/resources/frequently-asked-questions-about-transgender-people> accessed 27 Nov. 21

[3] Erzincem, ‘Sports Scientist on BBC: Yes, Trans Athletes have Advantages over Women.’ (Xennial Times, 30 August 2021) <www.xennialtimes.net/sports-scientist-on-bbc-yes-trans-athletes-have-advantages-over-women/> accessed 30 November 2021

[4] Bethany Alice Jones, Jon Arcelus, Walter Pierre Bouman and Emma Haycraft ‘Sport and Transgender People: A Systematic Review of the Literature Relating to Sport Participation and Competitive Sport Policies’ (Sports Med, 2017) 47(4): 701-716

[5] Michael Beloff, ‘Editorial’ [2016] I.S.R. 1, 1-2

[6] IOC Framework on fairness, inclusion and non-discrimination on the basis of gender and sex variations (2)(3)

[7] Part 2, Chapter 2, s13-19 Equality Act 2010 c. 15

[8] Part 15, 195(2) Equality Act 2010 c.15

[9] ibid

[10] International Policy Review 2021(SCEG Project for Review and Redraft of Guidance for Transgender Inclusion in Domestic Sport 2020, Carbmill Consulting) Transgender Guidelines (d) 4 <www.equalityinsport.org/docs/300921/Transgender%20International%20Policy%20Review%202021.pdf> accessed 11 Dec. 21

[11] IOC News, ‘IOC approves consensus with regard to athletes who have changed sex’ (International Olympic Committee, 17 May 2004) <www.olympics.com/ioc/news/ioc-approves-consensus-with-regard-to-athletes-who-have-changed-sex/> accessed 1 Dec. 21

[12] Michael Beloff, ‘Editorial’ [2016] I.S.R. 1, 1-2

[13] Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis, “The Right to Privacy” (1890) 4 Harvard Law Review 193

[14] Von Hannover v Germany App Nos 40660/08 and 60641/08 (ECHR, 7 February 2012) at [95]

[15] ‘Article 8: Respect for your private and family life’ (Equality and Human Rights Commission, 24 June 2021) <www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-8-respect-your-private-and-family-life> accessed 1 December 2021

[16] The Human Rights Act 1998, Article 14

[17] Equality Act 2010, s19

[18] López-Ostra v Spain (Application no.16798/90)

[19] Chui Ling Goh and Bjorn Hessert, ‘The intersection of gender fluidity and sports’ ISLR [2021] 2, 25

[20] Andrew Clapham, ‘Non-state actors’ (International Human Rights Law, 3^rd edn, 2018) 

[21] Part 11, Chapter 1, s149 Equality Act 2010

[22] Chui Ling Goh and Bjorn Hessert, ‘The intersection of gender fluidity and sports’ ISLR [2021] 2, 25

[23] Sykes, H., ‘Transsexual and transgender policies in sport’ Women in Sport & Physical Activity Journal (2006) 15(1), p.3.

[24] Louis J. Elsas, Arne Ljungqvist, Malcolm A. Ferguson-Smith, Joe Leigh Simpson, Myron Genel, Alison S. Carlson, Elizabeth Ferris, Albert de la Chapelle and Anke A. Ehrhardt, ‘Gender verification of female athletes’ [2000] Vol.2, No.4; 1

[25] Ritchie R, Reynard J, Lewis T. Intersex and the Olympic Games. J R Soc Med 2008;101(8):395-399

[26] IOC News, ‘IOC approves consensus with regard to athletes who have changed sex’ (International Olympic Committee, 17 May 2004) <www.olympics.com/ioc/news/ioc-approves-consensus-with-regard-to-athletes-who-have-changed-sex/> accessed 1 December 2021

[27] UK Sports Council Equality Group, ‘Guidance for Transgender Inclusion in Domestic Sport 2021’ <www.equalityinsport.org/docs/300921/Guidance%20for%20Transgender%20Inclusion%20in%20Domestic%20Sport%202021.pdf> accessed 1 December 2021

[28] Sykes, H., ‘Transsexual and transgender policies in sport’ Women in Sport & Physical Activity Journal (2006) 15(1), p.3.

[29] ibid

[30] Austria v Italy (Pfunders Case) (1961) 4 YB 116, 138

[31] Human Rights Law Concentrate: Law Revision and Study Guide (4^th edn) 22

[32] Michael Beloff, ‘Editorial’ [2016] I.S.R. 1, 1-2

[33] CAS 2014/A/3759 Chand v AFI and IAAF

[34] The Human Rights Act 1998, Article 14

Are NCAA athletes finally going to get paid?

It may be as soon as the 2021-22 academic year when NCAA student-athletes will be able to profit from their image, name and likeness.

Currently, the only form of financial support student-athletes are given are athletic scholarships by their college, despite the NCAA generating a revenue of $14 billion a year, according to Forbes. Student-athletes’ college fees are heavily subsidised, but they cannot earn a salary from their sporting efforts under the existing statute. The NCAA state that their Division I and II schools provide more than $2.9 billion in athletic scholarships annually to more than 150,000 student-athletes. But more crucially, under the NCAA’s current contractual terms and conditions, athletes are prohibited from monetizing their brand image, in spite of the fact that 86% of college athletes are living below the poverty line and fewer than 2% go on to be professional athletes.

At present, NCAA athletes cannot profit from:

• Third-party endorsement deals
• Autograph signings
• Personal businesses
• Social media advertisement

However, this looks certain to change.

In October 2019, California passed the law which would make it illegal for NCAA schools in the state to prohibit college athletes from capitalizing off their name, image and likeness. The reform bill is set to be enacted in 2023.

Regarding the NCAA’s stance on the matter, the organisation have undergone a lengthy revaluation process. Originally, they were firmly opposed to athletes capitalizing off their image, but now they thoroughly support the new legislation to modernize their rules.

This revision of NCAA regulations began in 2019 when the reform bill was signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom, who called for the former rules to be disrupted as it was a model that “puts institutions ahead of the students they are supposed to serve.” Since then, a bipartisan push in Congress to enact the Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act has given student-athletes a glimmer of hope that this new legislation will soon come into force.

Northwestern University student-athletes protesting against NCAA rules prohibiting them from profiting off their name, image and likeliness.

The new bill in the U.S. House of Representatives was introduced by two former student-athletes: Anthony Gonzalez, a Republican representative from Ohio, and Emanuel Cleaver, a Democratic representative from Missouri. Both Congressmen played football at Ohio State University and Murray State University, respectively, and fully understand the significance of the bill on athletes’ civil rights.

The supportive and persistent effort in the House of Representatives from both Democrats and Republicans highlights how Congress will be able to find a way to reach an agreement, with the future looking hopeful for NCAA athletes.

Although the Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act is yet to be enacted, at present, the new rules are expected to go into effect as of the 2021-22 academic year, thus college athletes will be able to capitalize off their image.

The intricacies, loopholes and technicalities of player contracts in football

Intricacies, loopholes and technicalities. Footballers’ contracts are never straightforward.

Top league footballers have a number of contracts with sponsors, their club and third parties. On the surface they may appear as simple agreements where a fee is agreed between clubs, players and agents, and then that’s that, however that is far from the truth.

Today, the focus is on the existing contract that Lionel Messi has with FC Barcelona and revealing why he was not legally allowed to leave the football club.

Lionel Messi’s failed exit from Barcelona in summer 2020 transfer window due to release clause

The fatal clause

Messi has a clause in his contract that allows him to leave for free by May 31 of every year with his current deal with Barcelona. In August 2020, the Argentine triggered his release clause, with plans to move to Manchester City, but he was too late. 3 months too late…

Despite it looking like a move to Manchester is unlikely at the moment, Messi has invoked that same clause to leave Barcelona.

So, what does that mean?

Barcelona’s lawyers will examine the legality of the late request by Messi before making any comment. But, if Barcelona refuse Messi’s exit plan then he will submit a transfer request.

From Manchester City’s perspective, this scenario is financially worse in the short term as the buyout clause in his contract comes with a hefty EUR 700 million price tag. However colossal that price point sounds, the blues could potentially afford that sum for the megastar or negotiate terms to decrease the amount. But, as Messi’s contract is due to expire June 30, 2021, Barcelona face the problem of him potentially running out his contract and leaving on a free transfer. This means that Barcelona will essentially lose out on EUR 700 million.

Barcelona face the dilemma: devastate fans by losing their star player and gain EUR 700 million or keep him for a few more months and receive nothing.

The Spanish club need to try and rebuild their fractured relationship, otherwise they face losing Lionel Messi on the worst of terms.

The Messi-Barcelona saga will continue to highlight the intricacies of footballers’ contracts and the complex relationship between the law and the ever-changing game that is football.

The importance for reform of Athlete Safeguarding policies in preventing systemic abuse

Amidst broad physical and psychological abuse, sporting governing bodies such as USA Gymnastics have prioritised their public image in order to maintain strong financial status, rather than protecting their athletes from horrific abuse.

Following the revelations in 2016 of the Larry Nassar sexual abuse scandal, serious questions were raised over the sporting governing body’s dismissal of complaints over such abuse. By prioritising their spotless image to ensure future financial stability and Olympic success; they failed to protect their athletes.

Since the discovery of Nasser’s abuse and USAG’s lack of safeguarding action, the governing body filed for Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. in December 2018. Undergoing a leadership overhaul, it was important that there was reform to eradicate any form of systematic corruption.

The harrowing abuse and trauma the US gymnasts have suffered in this case, and others globally is sickening. Yet, what make this shocking scandal worse was the lack of support and protection provided by USA Gymnastics (USAG).

Rio 2016 Olympic Gold Medalists Simone Biles, Gabrielle Douglas, Lauren Hernandez, Madison Kocian and Alexandra Raisman of the United States. (Photo by Laurence Griffiths/Getty Images)

Athlete safety is top priority.

According to the LA Times, in January 2020, when the USAG outlined their plans to end bankruptcy they vowed to continue focusing on athlete safety, in which USAG president Li Li Leung characterised as their “top priority”.

The law acknowledges the risk of child abuse in sports such as gymnastics where the athlete is of young, adolescent age and how the coach-athlete relationship can be exploited by the individual in power. Edward Grayson outlines in the third edition of Sport and the Law how “the greatest potential danger stems … from the insidious risks from child and sexual abuse available to sports coaches working in the closest possible physical relationship with vulnerable younger participants”.

Supportive, yet firm athlete safeguarding policies need to be enforced by USAG and all sporting governing bodies over the world to protect athletes’ mental health and to ensure they are safe from any form of abuse.

In fact, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) created the ‘Safeguarding Toolkit’ in 2017 to assist National Olympic Committees (NOCs) and International Federations (IFs) in reviewing their safeguarding processes to see if/where change is needed. The IOC also helps NOCs and IFs to develop their capacity of dealing with safeguarding issues. This initiative is comprehensive as it aims to educate and protect all individuals involved in sport. Easily accessible online, this toolkit provides a starting precedent in what needs to be built in order to prevent abuse and harassment within sport.

Athlete safety is paramount to the legacy of sport

Athlete safety needs to be priority to ensure that any form of abuse and harassment is eradicated from sport. ‘Safe havens’ (people/safeguarding services whom sufferers can reach out to and trust) need to be continually modified (with the involvement of athletes), easily accessible and reinvested so abuse is minimal and athletes’ mental and physical health is top-notch.

Functional safeguarding support is a necessity in sport.

IOC Safeguarding Toolkit: https://www.olympic.org/athlete365/safeguarding/

The impact of COVID-19 on broadcasting and commercial deals

The Coronavirus pandemic has disrupted the 2020 sports calendar, with the Australian Grand Prix cancelled, the postponing of the Olympic Games and the delayed restart of the English Premier League.

The virus has undoubtedly created contractual problems between major sporting competitions and their stakeholders.

Despite the English Premier League (EPL) being one of the lucky exceptions to a halted sporting calendar, play was suspended from 19 March until the restart on 17 June. Clubs earn the majority of their income from the broadcasting deals that are sold to a variety of pay TV channels, with the most recent exclusive rights being reportedly sold for £9.2bn over a three-year period. This begs the question:

• ‘Is the EPL in breach of its contract and if so, do they have to pay money to the broadcasting companies to compensate for any loss?’

Technically, yes, they are in breach of their contract. However, commercial contracts such as this foresee circumstances such as pandemics and natural disasters in the form of a force majeure clause. Such clauses anticipate events beyond the control of the parties and outline that a party (EPL in this case) is obliged to mitigate its losses, i.e. postpone, rather than cancel matches. Therefore, the EPL are not duty-bound to pay any form compensation to broadcasting companies, of whom they are in a contract.

Sky customers can pause their Sky Sports package due to COVID-19

• Broadcasting and commercial deals with companies such as Barclays, EA Sports and Nike contribute to the £4.9m paid to each individual Premier League club.

Regardless, no contractual clause could have foreseen the impact of the pandemic, as stated by Professor Jack Anderson of Melbourne Law School when discussing the sporting ramifications of COVID-19.

Despite the sports industry having an estimated market value of $481bn in 2018, the uncertainty that looms over the coronavirus pandemic and a potential second wave may hinder further commercial opportunities with investors and future growth as investment is perceived as a risk.

A vaccine for COVID-19 would be instrumental to ensure continual growth of all sports and their events’ proceedings. But for now, can the sports industry survive the coronavirus shutdown?

The Olympic Doping Dynasty

Why has it taken hundreds of years to disclose and ban drug cheats in sport?

Ever since the Olympics’ inception in Ancient Greece 1896, doping has plagued the Olympics Games. Most notably by the East Germans in the 1970s, followed by Russia’s dominance from the Moscow Games 1980 until London 2012.

Moscow Olympics 1980, also known as the “Chemists’ Games”.

Originating from 1896, historically, athletes were known to drink ‘magic’ potions and eat exotic meals in hopes of giving them an edge on their competition. Since then, doping strategies have alarmingly advanced with the growth of amphetamine, anabolic steroids and EPO, amongst other prohibited drugs.

Russia’s statewide doping system has plagued sport for decades, dating back to the 1980 Olympics, but how did they get away with it?

That is exactly how. Russia had a systemic doping system which enabled doping and encouraged doping in athletics, amongst other sports. Athletes were allegedly supplied banned substances by Russian officials in exchange for 5% of an athlete’s earnings. Such officials would also falsify tests in cooperation with doping control officers, so athletes would not be flagged up as cheats.

The doping discovery

Russian doping whistle-blowers, Vitaly and Yuliya Stepanova were the first individuals to reveal pivotal information that led to the discovery of deep-rooted state-sponsored doping in Russia. The first revelation was made in 2010 by an employee at the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA), Vitaly Stepanova, who started sending information alleging that RUSADA was enabling statewide doping in athletics to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). However, WADA failed to open an enquiry into the matter and instead forwarded the email to Russian sports officials, according to The New York Times.

State-sponsored doping has tarnished Russia’s name in athletics.

Due to thorough investigative reporting, in 2014, came the ARD documentary; “The Doping Secret: ‘How Russia Creates its Champions” which exposed the truth of the Russian state-sponsored doping system and included covert doping conversations. In response to the documentary, the All-Russian Athletic Federation President (ARAF) resigned from his role as treasurer of the IAAF.

Bribes, bugging and bans.

WADA then launched their own independent investigation in 2015, which reported statewide doping and cover-ups. Its findings stated that the Federal Security Service had regularly instructed laboratory staff not to communicate with the WADA investigation. In fact, two staff members suspected that offices and telephones were bugged.

On 13 November 2015, the IAAF council voted in favour of prohibiting Russia from world track and field with immediate effect. The same month saw a French criminal investigation into former IAAF president Lamine alleging that in 2011 he accepted a EUR 1 million bribe from the All-Russia Athletic Federation to cover up positive doping tests for six Russian athletes.

On 18 July 2016, Canadian attorney Richard McLaren who was employed by WADA to investigate Rodchenkov, the former head of ARAF, published his report. The report concluded that it was shown ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that a range of Russian sports authorities and the FSS had operated a state-sponsored doping system by utilising bribes, misinformation and “the disappearing positive test methodology”. The McLaren report showed that over 1,000 athletes in 30 different sports were involved in systematic doping.

Damning findings of the McLaren report

Subsequently, WADA held that RUSADA had acted with disrespect by not complying with the World Anti-Doping Code, suggesting to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) that Russia should not be allowed to compete in the 2016 Olympic Games. The IOC decided to decline accreditation requests for officials for the 2016 Olympics.

In response, the Russian Olympic Committee filed an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which was rejected. CAS stated that since the IOC was not a party in the arbitrations, it had no jurisdiction to determine whether the IOC is entitled to allow Russian athletes to participate at the 2016 Olympic Games. Similarly, for the same reason, CAS could not determine whether Russian athletes could participate as “neutral athletes”.

The Russian flag won’t be seen at Tokyo 2021

At the present, for the Tokyo 2021 Olympic Games, a limited number of Russian athletes will be able to compete under a neutral flag. For athletics, the number is no more than 10.

RUSADA, ARAF and Russian athlete’s systematic doping plagued Olympic Games for decades. Their performances were once perceived as astonishing, now the extent of corruption and systemic scandal is astonishing. How will Russian athletes be able to reclaim their image and leave their tarnished name in the past?

Man City vs UEFA: The Verdict

Today, The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) announced the verdict of Manchester City’s appeal ban against UEFA.

9.30am – CAS’ Media Release disclosed that Manchester City Football Club had won their ban appeal against UEFA.

The Swiss court declared that Manchester City FC did not disguise equity funding as sponsorship contributions, but did fail to cooperate with the UEFA authorities.

Man City win UEFA ban appeal at CAS

The appeal ban was filed Man City on 14 February 2020 in response to the decision of the Adjudicatory Chamber of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body who deemed the club to have contravened UEFA’s club licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations (FFP). As a result, Manchester City were sanctioned with exclusion from participation in UEFA club competitions, such as the UCL. The blues were also fined EUR 30 million.

Illegally obtained emails by German magazine Der Spiegel brought the alleged issue to light, as the leaked documents claimed that City had hidden £30,000,000 from UEFA in order to bypass FFP rules. However, CAS’ ruling has erased any question of a supposed breach.

David Pannick QC: one of City’s lawyers, costing £20,000-a-day

Sports law experts agree that the main arguments that Man City disputed is that UEFA’s announcement of the club’s ban was a “prejudicial process” because it was solely judged by UEFA, which creates doubts over the lack of impartiality and independent review from an external body. In addition, City’s lawyers will likely argue that the punishment the club is proposed to face is disproportionate to previous cases with other notable clubs, such as Paris Saint-Germain.

The result of the verdict

• Man City are allowed to participate in UEFA club competitions, such as the Champions League.
• Man City shall pay a reduced fine of EUR 10 million to UEFA.

Manchester City Football Club are innocent of any wrong-doing, as proven by CAS and as they have always stated profusely. Some may question their innocence as they are fined EUR 10 million, however this is due to their lack of cooperation with UEFA authorities and not regarding any form of breach.

Man City can breathe a sigh of relief approaching the UCL 2nd leg last 16 tie against Real Madrid, knowing that their place in European football is safe for the foreseeable future. Similarly, to Guardiola and players such as Kevin De Bruyne, whose future at the club was uncertain as the Champions League trophy is a prized possession that everyone wants to get their hands on.

Man City will hope to have a successful UCL campaign, approaching their 2nd leg last 16 match against Real Madrid in August with confidence.