Sports arbitration and dispute resolution will often be governed by specific rules of the relevant sports federation or association. This Practice Note therefore first sets out an overview of the structural organisation of sports regulation and governance, before going on to a high level overview of sports arbitration procedures. Structural organisation of sport regulation and governance Sports are typically regulated by federations and associations. Each association or federation will have governing body structures and rules by which they are organized and which will very often include provisions for the resolution of disputes arising within that sport. Certain sports form part of the Olympic Games and the Olympic Movement. The Olympic Movement is the term used to describe ‘all organisations, athletes and other persons who agree to be guided by the Olympic Charter’ (Olympic Charter, 2015, Rule 1.1). The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is the body which oversees the Olympic Movement and generally acts as the supreme governing body of all individuals and entities which come within the Olympic Movement. Among other things, adoption of

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 13/06/2014; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline OFT Article 101 TFEU/Chapter I investigation into DB Apparel UK Limited (DBA) and three department stores for fixing resale prices of a sports bras. Latest developments On 13 June 2014, the CMA has concluded there are

Law360, London: Four of the UK's biggest sports production and broadcasting companies were fined more than £4m for colluding on pay rates for freelance workers, the Competition and Markets Authority said 21 March 2025.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the final decision of 21 March 2025; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline CMA Chapter I investigation into the exchange of commercially sensitive information between five undertakings involved in the production and broadcasting of sports content. Latest development On 21 March 2025, the CMA issued its infringement decision and imposed fines totalling €4,240,356 on four companies. Total fines imposed on each party were as follows:• BT (6 infringements between August 2014 and September 2021)—£1,738,453 (including a 15% leniency discount and a 20% settlement discount) • IMG (6 infringements between April 2016

Law360: The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has rejected appeals filed by the Russian figure skating team challenging the ranking in the team event during the 2022 Olympic Games in Beijing, a decision that means the US team members will finally be able to collect their Beijing gold medals.

CASE HUB (NOTE—appeal lodged before the CAT in Ping Europe Limited v CMA (1279/1/12/17), see Ping Europe v CMA) ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 24 August 2017; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline CMA Article 101 TFEU/Chapter I CA98 investigation into allegedly anti-competitive arrangements in the sports equipment sector involving an online sales ban in relation to golf clubs. Latest developments On 24 August 2017, the CMA issued its infringement decision against Ping Europe Limited (Ping) and imposed a fine of £1.45m for preventing 2 UK retailers from selling Ping golf clubs online (on the retailers’ websites). The decision requires Ping to bring the online sales ban to an end and refrain from imposing the same or equivalent terms on other retailers The CMA notes that while Ping must allow retailers to sell online, it may require them to meet certain conditions before doing so as long as these

This Practice Note contains practical guidance on the commercial and contractual aspects of sports media and broadcasting, focusing in particular on the creation, protection and exploitation of sports media rights. It examines what sports media rights are under English law, how footage of a sports event is produced and delivered, and the principal terms of a typical sports media rights contract. It is common to hear or see commentators in the media refer to ‘media rights’ or ‘broadcast rights’ to a sports event, particularly where huge sums of money are paid for these ‘rights’ as with the FA Premier League. The purpose of this Practice Note is to examine and explain the key elements underpinning the creation, exploitation and protection of these rights from both commercial and contractual standpoints. Court of Justice judgments This Practice Note refers to Court of Justice judgments. For guidance on whether judgments of the Court of Justice are binding on UK courts, see Practice Note: Assimilated law. What are sports media rights? Many

The courts, when dealing with claims arising from participation in sport, recognise to a certain extent the acceptance by participants of some degree of risk, especially in contact sports. That is not to say however, that the defence of ‘volenti non fit injuria’ (the willing assumption of risk) has a broad application in the context of claims in negligence. A rugby player is not said to have voluntarily assumed the risk of injury by another player’s negligence simply by taking to the field. See Practice Notes: Assumption of risk in sports and leisure claims and Did the claimant consent to the risk of injury? Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006—the deterrent effect Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006 (ComA 2006) provides: ‘1 Deterrent effect of potential liability A court considering a claim in negligence or breach of statutory duty may, in determining whether the defendant should have taken particular steps to meet a standard of care (whether by taking precautions against a risk or otherwise), have regard to whether a requirement to take

Spot month describes, in commodities and other exchange‑traded derivatives, the contract month currently in or nearest to expiry-typically the delivery month for a physically settled futures contract, or the settlement month for a cash‑settled contract. It is the front expiring contract against which delivery obligations, last trading day and final settlement occur.The term is a market expression rather than a single statutory definition. Its precise meaning is set by exchange contract specifications and rulebooks (for example, ICE Futures Europe and Euronext; the LME uses daily prompt dates, where the nearest deliverable period performs the same role). In Ireland, MiFID II/MiFIR and related standards have historically imposed stricter position limits in the spot month; in the UK, post‑Brexit reforms place greater reliance on exchange‑set position management controls, which commonly include tighter spot‑month limits.Legal significance includes: determining applicable position limits and accountability thresholds; delivery and nomination windows; eligibility for hedging exemptions; margin and concentration add‑ons; and assessing squeeze/corner and market abuse risk. Compliance teams should track spot‑month exposures and notifications to the FCA or Central Bank of Ireland where relevant.Usage is broadly consistent across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, subject to the contract‑specific definition in the relevant rulebook.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 5 March 2014; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into a cartel by two leading spot power exchanges (COMP/39.952). Latest developments On 5 March 2014 the Commission issued its enforcement decision and it was announced that EPEX and NPS had settled with the Commission. The total fine imposed was €5.979m—EPEX was fined €3.651m and NPS was fined €2.328m. Both companies received a 10% reduction in their fines

The price of an asset when payment of the purchase price and delivery of the asset are essentially immediate (in contrast to the forward price).

Spotlight on Corruption has reported that the UK government has prevailed in two high-profile cases, Dalston Projects Limited and others v The Secretary of State for Transport (SoST) and Shvidler v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, both relating to the Russian sanctions regime. Shvidler challenged a High Court decision which upheld his sanctions designation on the grounds of his ‘close business links’ to Roman Abramovich and his previous role at Evraz. In Dalston Projects Limited v SoST, Sergei Georgievich Naumenko challenged a High Court decision which upheld the SOST’s detention of his superyacht docked in Canary Wharf. Both cases were unanimously dismissed by the Court of Appeal (CoA). Spotlight on Corruption has noted that these rulings confirm the government’s wide remit for designations and other Russian sanctions however Spotlight has recognised that there is 'a noticeable lack of follow through in enforcement of sanctions breaches' and that there must be 'proper scrutiny and oversight of the sanctions regime'.