New Term for Head of FLF

Welcome back to our football law news blog. Chris Farnell is a sports lawyer from Hale in Altringham. He owns the firm IPS Law, that represents major players, organisation and club, not just in football but other sports also. In this unofficial blog we keep up on the latest news at the head of the game. 

Paul Philipp has been re-elected as president of the Luxembourg Football Federation (FLF), the umbrella organisation for football clubs in Luxembourg, for a further four years. Philipp, who has been at the helm of Luxembourg’s association for the past 18 years, was confirmed in office at the FLF’s 104th Congress in Strassen on the 15th of this month. 

Mr Paul Philipp was reelected President of the Luxembourg Football Federation (FLF) for an additional four-year term until 2026. He obtained more votes than Luxembourgish global fund and asset management industry professional Mr Claude Kremer. 

Mr Paul Philipp first took office in 2004 and will serve another four-year term after being reelected on 15 October at the FLF’s 104th Congress held in the central Luxembourgish commune of Strasse.

"We will take care of football," Philipp said after his re-election in thanking delegates for their trust. "We're going to try to do everything a little better, and to be available all the time.”

We will try to be attentive,” he added, while emphasising the need for firm decision-making for the good of football in the Grand Duchy. “This is why we are respected, and sometimes criticised,“ he reflected.

Philipp was first elected as FLF president in 2004. Previously, he had played 54 matches for Luxembourg’s national team between 1968 and 1982, before going on to coach the national team from 1985 to 2001. The Luxembourg Football Federation is the governing body of football in Luxembourg. It organises the Luxembourg Football League and the Luxembourg national football team. It is based in Mondercange, to the south of Luxembourg City.

For more football and sports law news make sure you check back soon for more posts. Find more about Chris Farnell Charlton here. For more sports news read the Chris Farnell IPS Law blog also. Make sure you subscribe and leave your comments below. More to come soon! 

Read more about the latest news regarding footballers contracts on Chris Farnell blog here 

On 30 January, an decision was made by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) which FIFPro, the European professional footballers' union, has already said will be the most significant case to impact upon the football transfer system since Bosman. This case was related to  Andrew Webster, formerly of Heart of Midlothian FC (Hearts), who independently, terminated his contract under article 17 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players  in May 2006, and then signed for Wigan Athletic FC (Wigan). Andrew Webster joined Hearts in March 2001 for a transfer fee of £75,000 on a four-and-a-half-year contract. He then signed a new four-year contract in July 2003.

Hearts were unhappy so disputed with  FIFA in November 2006, and in April 2007 FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) ordered Webster and Wigan to pay Hearts £625,000.

In May 2007, Andrew Webster, Wigan and Hearts, who were all unhappy with the DRC's verdict, appealed to CAS. Hearts requested a payment of £4.6 million in contractual damages, including a claim of £4 million in respect of the alleged replacement value of  Andrew Webster and the loss of opportunity to transfer him. Wigan and  Andrew Webster requested that the compensation be fixed at an amount representing no more than the residual value of his contract - his total salary over the remaining term of the contract.

In its findings, CAS stated that the nature of professional sport required  a reasonable balance between the needs of contractual stability on the one hand and the free movement of players on the other, to find solutions that found to be  the good of football by reconciling in a fair manner the various and sometimes contradictory interests of clubs and players.

CAS found that any alleged estimated value of a player on the transfer market cannot be considered because that form of compensation is not clearly agreed upon contractually, and to impose it by regulation would simultaneously cause the club to be enriched and the player to be punished.

CAS also decided that Hearts did not have the right to claim reimbursement of any portion of the transfer fee paid for Andrew Webster because the fee must be reduced over the term of the contract, and Webster had remained with Hearts for longer than the agreed term of four and a half years under his first contract.

The CAS found that , beyond the protected period, it would be admissible for a club to reclaim a portion of the transfer fee as compensation for unilateral termination, unless such a form of compensation was agreed between the parties and stipulated in the employment contract.

It was discovered that the most appropriate criterion of article 17 to apply and determine the level of compensation due to Hearts was the remuneration remaining due to the player under the employment contract upon its date of termination, which was £150,000, plus interest from the date of termination of the contract. This is significantly less that the £4.6 million claimed by Hearts and is also much lower than the £625,000 that the DRC ordered Andrew Webster and Wigan to pay to Hearts under the original petition to FIFA. In addition, CAS found that  Andrews Webster and Wigan were jointly and severally liable to Hearts for the sum on a strict liability basis. They also considered aggravating factors like if conduct of the player, agent or club (current or future) - was left open in this case because there was no evidence of such factors. Such factors may therefore be relevant in future matters.

In Summary the decision although criticised by FIFA, has to be taken at this stage to represent the legal framework within which the football industry must now operate. Clubs must consider how they can protect themselves in the light of this legal framework, this will include careful drafting of players' contracts and more frequent contract renegotiation. Players will also be able to use this decision to pressure clubs into more regular renegotiations of contracts. The likely inflationary effects on wages and destabilisation of contractual stability for clubs will no doubt frustrate FIFA and others within the football industry.

Chris Farnell advises leading Premier League and Football League Clubs, leading sporting and media agents and a number of high profile sporting individuals on a wide variety of matters. Learn more about Chris Farnell Charlton here. 

 Chris Farnell Interview on Facebook about Charlton

Former Charlton director Chris Farnell has been cleared for football club ownership by the EFL. The solicitor had his role as the club solicitor at The Valley terminated in August. He was informed today that his Disqualification Condition has been lifted after successfully appealing to an independent League Arbitration Panel.

The Panel heard that, an inadvertent mistake had been made during the initial Owners and Directors Test application, and that there was no dishonest or deliberate attempt to provide false or misleading information. Chris Farnell advises leading Premier League and Football League Clubs, leading sporting and media agents and a number of high profile sporting individuals on a wide variety of matters.

The decision means Mr Farnell is now free to reapply, under the EFLs OADT, if he wished to do so without prejudice or restriction.A spokesman for Mr Farnell, said: “Following a hearing on Tuesday October 28 2020, before an independent League Arbitration Panel, Mr Farnell succeeded in his Review Application of the EFL’s decision to impose a ‘Disqualifying Condition’ upon him under the EFL’s Owners’ and Directors Test.”

Chris’ practice areas include: Sports, Media & Entertainment. He specialises in image rights, third party ownership issues, player transfers, intellectual property contracts, contract re-negotiations, sponsorship and endorsement contracts, defamation, sports dispute resolution, footballer and agent disputes, doping hearings, regulatory issues, and both contentious and non-contentious intellectual property law.

Farnell was initially appointed by Tahnoon Nimer as a boardroom battle kicked off with Matt Southall and Jonathan Heller. Watch this video to find out more about Chris Farnell and his involvement with Chris Farnell Charlton Althletic football club. Here is an interview from Facebook with Chris. Make sure to leave your comments below and follow our football blog. Here is the Chris Farnell Charlton video.

 Sports Injury Claims

Welcome to the Chris Farnell blog. Most sports injury claims consist of a traumatic injury, as opposed to an overuse-type injury. This is due to the fact that you cannot expect to hold another person liable for injuries that happen due to overexertion over time. However, if a sport’s participant causes injury to another participant, it may form the basis of a civil lawsuit. Sports law encompasses legal issues involving both amateur and professional sports. Claims often overlap with labor law, contract law, antitrust law, and tort law. 

Some examples of the most common sports injuries include, but may not be limited to broken bones; head injuries; concussions; hip flexor strains; hamstring strains; acl strains and/or tears; pulled muscles, especially groin pulls; shin splints; sciatica; tennis or golf elbow, which is due to the overuse of forearm tendons; and/or shoulder and knee injuries.

Although a person may assume the risk of injury when participating in a sport, there are some exclusions to the assumption of risk doctrine. How these legal theories may be applied depend on the nature of the sport. Some exclusions to assumption of risk doctrine include Negligence Standard: If a player’s negligence causes another player’s injury, they may be held liable for damages. Asserting negligence requires proof that the defendant breached the duty of care they owed to the plaintiff, and this breach of duty caused the plaintiff’s injury. An example of this would be if a player fails to abide by safety rules of the game; Defective or Faulty Equipment: If the sports equipment used was somehow faulty or defective, and those faults or defects were not anticipated when you voluntarily played the game, you could have a claim against the owner of the property or equipment manufacturer. This may only apply if you were injured as a direct result of the equipment being defective or faulty.

It is imperative to remember that under the assumption of risk doctrine, you cannot generally sue a defendant for your injuries if you signed a contract stating that you would not sue them. A waiver form would be the most common example of such a contract. The purpose of assumption of the risk is to prevent defendant liability, as well as deter an injured party from bringing a lawsuit.

However, expressing assumption of risk is a defense based in contract law. As such, there are a few things to consider The contract may not be in violation of public policy if the contract cannot cover intentional acts. What this means is that if a race car track owner intentionally leaves a wheel in the road with the intention of hurting the plaintiff, the assumption defense will not work; and the plaintiff did not have the capacity to understand the contract. 

If you wish to file a sports injury lawsuit, you should absolutely consult with an attorney like Chris Farnell.

Our experienced lawyers represent many professional sportsmen, sportswomen and teams. Visit the Chris Farnell IPS Law website today to find out how we can provide legal advice for your needs. Learn more about Chris Farnell Lawyer  on his about.me page here. You can also read the latest Chris Farnell Charlton news here. 

 Esports

Welcome to the Chris Farnell blog. The UK Gambling Commission has stated that video games can be construed as gambling where prizes are available, that these prizes are the equivalent of money or money’s worth, and the game mechanics are such that winning a prize involves a greater degree of chance than skill. However, on the basis that esports, rather than video games, involve sufficient skill to avoid this, the main link between esports and gambling is the ability of individuals to bet on the result of match-ups and competitions as they would on any other sport.

As one of the only sports that can be conducted remotely, esports and gambling on esports saw substantial growth at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. This is reflected by UK gross gambling yield (GGY) rising from just £0.05million in March 2019 to £3.39million in April 2020. Although customers now can return to betting on their usual preferred sports, the introduction of many bettors to esports is likely to have increased awareness and knowledge that will accelerate growth more quickly than without the pandemic.

Two main issues are being discussed when it comes to gambling on esports – gambling integrity, and gambling advertising:

On integrity, there is an unfortunate track record of players “throwing” a match or using “cheat” software to gain an advantage over an opponent, otherwise known as “edoping”. There have been several instances of match-fixing, particularly in Asia, and there remains no overarching esports regulator to monitor and enforce as you would find in other sports. The industry has started to self-regulate, including the formation of the esports Integrity Commission (ESIC) in 2016.

Gambling operators spend substantial resources advertising through traditional sports. In esports, where children constitute a significant proportion of the target market, this therefore poses a dilemma. Regulation is limited to that already in force, for example, the UK Advertising Standards Authority prohibition of gambling advertising where there is a reasonable expectation that the majority of a user base are underage. However, outside of those circumstances, operators are free to advertise, provided players in the ecosystem permit it.

Sports & Media Law

Welcome to the Chris Farnell blog. As a sports and media lawyer, you will be providing advice on business agreements, contracts of performance, financial transactions, litigation and employee management and benefits. Lawyers will handle cases on defamation, libel, slander, encroachment on privacy, unsubstantiated allegations or declarations against individuals.

Entertainment law covers radio, music, television, films, art, theatre, books, websites and magazines. Your work will usually consist of providing advice on commercial contracts, intellectual property matters, content standards and employee management. 

Sports lawyers can represent players, clubs, sports agents, regulatory associations or sponsorship companies. Sport is a seriously big business and, as a legal professional in this industry, you will need to be on the ball. You will often have to work on several areas of law; from telecommunications, finance and intellectual property, to negligence and privacy.

The working atmosphere in most places where media and sports law is practised is very informal, modern and friendly. This does not mean that work is not to be taken seriously though, as cases and deals will usually involve huge sums of money. Despite this, sports and media lawyers tend to receive smaller salaries than those who work in large firms where corporate, banking and finance rule the roost. Nevertheless, it is still a very attractive area of law.

Chris Farnell provides quick, creative and simple solutions to clients’ problems and thoroughly know the ins and outs of the sporting area you are involved in. Find out more about Chris Farnell on his IPS Law website  here. Connect with Chris Farnell Lawyer on Linkedin here. Alternatively, you can read the latest Chris Farnell Charlton news here.

Esports

Welcome to the Chris Farnell blog. The esports gaming industry is expected to continue to grow over the next few years and consequently, as seen with the sports industry and gambling, so is the demand for esports betting services. This enthusiasm for esports betting services is occurring. Just as with traditional sports, fans follow teams, watch matches and even attend cup finals, cheering on their favourite stars from around the world and the professionalisation of esports continues to accelerate at a blistering pace. 

In 2020, European giants Fanatic secured a $10m investment before going on to successfully close a £2m crowdfunding round. Similarly, fellow UK team Excel Esports continued their professional evolution by securing a groundbreaking partnership with a non-endemic sponsor, BT.  

Excel also brought in new leadership, including the former director of global marketing at Adidas, to help further their aim of becoming a leading household brand. However, it is not only esports teams that are looking to professionalise. As demonstrated by the number of disputes, there’s been a real increase in esports players seeking to protect themselves by appointing their own legal advisors.

Sports regulators also around the world seem to be gearing up for a year of introducing tougher rules.

For instance, following high-public defeats for the English Football League and Uefa in landmark judgments opposite Derby County and Manchester City respectively, we are likely to see changes to the regulatory regime that football clubs are subject to. 

In particular, this could mean the introduction of salary caps in the Championship to replace the existing financial fair play rules. 

Fans of several clubs will be hoping that the regulators take a sensible approach to enforcement, though, ultimately recognising diminution in value of club’s assets and revenues that were completely unforeseen and have impacted even the best run clubs. 

We are also likely to see the imposition of stronger rules, including caps on fees, for agents. 

Such measures will be hotly contested, though, and ironically, in light of Brexit, may be stopped in their tracks by legislation that originates from Brussels. 

booming demand for esports betting services has created commercial opportunities for players in the esports industry. Indeed, the esports betting industry appears to be primed for quick growth. However, the extent of this growth will depend on, among other things, how consumers, legislators, and industry stakeholders work together to ensure that the various stakeholders’ concerns and perspectives are adequately represented. We will continue to monitor how the esports betting industry continues to adapt and grow.

Check back soon for more!

Chris Farnell has experience advising on sports matters. You can follow Chris Farnell Lawyer on Twitter, where we frequently share our recent advice on sports law. Visit the Chris Farnell IPS Law website here for the latest big sports issues here. You might be interested reading the Chris Farnell Charlton news here.

Third Party Ownership

Welcome to the Chris Farnell Lawyer blog. The issue of Third Party Ownership in football remains a live one, despite FIFA’s outright prohibition in 2015. Any analysis of the current landscape needs to start with an understanding of what is meant by Third Party Ownership, or TPO for short. It reflects the practice, previously widespread in large parts of world football, whereby an investor, the third party, would invest in a player, a club or an academy, usually by way of a loan, in return for a right to a percentage of the future transfer fee or fees that the player who is the subject of the investment attracts.

TPO was a common practice in many parts of the world before FIFA banned it – in particular in Latin America and in Spain, Portugal and Italy. It allowed many smaller clubs to compete with bigger clubs by being able to purchase players for less than they would do had there not been third party investors holding some of the rights of the player. 

The main problem with TPO, however, was the risk of Third Party Influence, that is the risk of third party investors influencing the playing or trading polices of the engaging club. Third Party Influence leads to a number of other problems – potentially undermining the integrity of football, especially where a third party has an interest in a number of players in the same competition, and undermining team stability where third parties are incentivised to force multiple transfers for economic and not football reasons.

So, for example, a loan from a bank to a football club securitized against a 20% assignment of the future fee the club might receive from a transfer of its best player is prohibited. A club’s right to a “sell-on fee” from a second club to which it has sold a player (something not prohibited, because the first club is not a “third party”) cannot be assigned to another party. Imagine Club A sells Player X to Club B for GBP  1  million (approx. EUR 1.17 million) and there is a 25% sell-on fee; three years later Player B’s value has increased to GBP 4 million (approx. EUR 4.7 million), Club A shall receive GBP 1 million when Club B sells the Player for GBP 4 million to Club C. But Club A cannot assign the right to that future sell-on fee, even though there is little real risk in Club A (as a third party) assigning the right or indeed interfering in the ability of Club B to decide whether or not to sell Player X.

In light of all these factors, while governing bodies and regulators will face the harder task of monitoring players (in addition to clubs), if they intend to ensure effectiveness of the ban (which remains) in place under art.18-ter of the FIFA Regulations.

Sports law

Welcome to the Chris Farnell Lawyer blog. While there may not have been as much action on the pitch in 2020, this year has been an eventful one. Esports it’s no longer just a game. The professionalisation of esports continues to accelerate at a blistering pace. 

In 2020, European giants Fnatic secured a $10m investment before going on to successfully close a £2m crowdfunding round. Similarly, fellow UK team Excel Esports continued their professional evolution by securing a groundbreaking partnership with a non-endemic sponsor, BT. As demonstrated by the number of disputes, there’s been a real increase in esports players seeking to protect themselves by appointing their own legal advisors. 

The Premier League TV times. The next auction for domestic broadcast rights to show the Premier League from 2022-23 is set to conclude in 2021. The headline last time around was the entrance of Amazon, which secured 20 Premier League matches a season for its Prime Video platform. 

However, given the rise of other streaming platforms such as DAZN, which splashed onto the scene in 2018 signing the first ever $1bn boxing deal with Matchroom Boxing, having been advised by Mishcon, we could still see a challenge to the dominance of traditional broadcasters Sky and BT. Either way, the legal terms will certainly be pored over. If the Premier League does pursue this route, it could constitute a transformative shift.

Rather than taking a softer approach in light of the pandemic, sports regulators around the world seem to be gearing up for a year of introducing tougher rules and ans of several clubs will be hoping that the regulators take a sensible approach to enforcement, though, ultimately recognising diminution in value of club’s assets and revenues that were completely unforeseen and have impacted even the best run clubs. 

We are also likely to see the imposition of stronger rules, including caps on fees, for agents.  Such measures will be hotly contested, though, and ironically, in light of Brexit, may be stopped in their tracks by legislation that originates from Brussels. 

Our experienced lawyers represent many professional sportsmen, sportswomen and teams. Visit the Chris Farnell IPS Law website today to find out how we can provide legal advice for your needs. Follow Chris Farnell Lawyer on instagram here. You can also read the latest Chris Farnell Charlton news here. 

Commercial Contracts

Welcome to the Chris Farnell blog. With the potential financial rewards available in professional sport, and the importance of protecting rights and the revenue generated, it’s not surprising that individuals involved in sport often look to solicitors to protect their interests.

The employment of sports professionals is legally no different to other employment situations. A good contract should always prevent disputes and encourage business performance, which is why it is necessary to choose experienced solicitors when drafting your commercial contracts. Lawyers who represent athletes have generally been trained in the fundamentals of contracts and should be familiar with the current market value of their client relative to other athletes within the same sport. 

Our experienced solicitors at the IPS Law prepare contracts and understand everything about getting a deal done, but equally important getting the terms of the deal right.

We make sure that we understand the nature of the commercial issues that face our clients. It is from this understanding that we identify how to resolve them. We understand that the needs of each client and the circumstances of each deal are never the same and where each agreement needs to address the specific commercial challenges.. 

Chris Farnell is passionate about sports law, and is dedicated to helping all players and stakeholders in this evolving industry to focus on what they do best. Contact Chris Farnell IPS Law online and  speak to one of our dedicated sports law solicitors. Follow Chris Farnell on his Medium page here. You can also read the latest Chris Farnell Charlton news here.

 Sports and IP

Welcome to the Chris Farnell blog. Sports is an Intellectual Property rich industry. Recent trends have shown that elite sportspersons are afforded increasing protection of their image rights. Examples include images of sportspersons in advertising, television and computer gaming. If your image has been used by another person or company in order for them to make financial gain, you are entitled to a proportion of the gain that your image generated. 

   Sports and Health

Welcome to the Chris Farnell blog. In England Article 185 of the Data Protection Act 2018 nulls any contract that requires a person to give information regarding their own health. Moreover, throughout the legal text, it is established that the only people capable of dealing with the medical history of an employee are the competent doctors and the individual concerned. 

The Premier League believes that health data has to be protected and the disclosure of this kind of data is stricter than other types of information. There is an inherent conflict of interests as the club, media and sponsors want to know about the condition of the player who may well want to keep the information confidential. Therefore, confidentiality is not absolute and players often waive their right to confidentiality in their employment contract with their club. 

Another way that clubs access medical data is by the coaches and managers pressuring the player to disclose their medical information. Divulging medical data can also be a conundrum for the medical team. On one hand, they have to respect the privacy of the player, but on the other, they work for the club. The most common way medical data is shared is that players give consent to the doctor to provide an injury report to the clubs’ managers and coaches.

As we can see, disclosure of medical data is a question of confidentiality and ethics.

Chris Farnell is a senior partner in IPS Law, a legal firm based in Hale. Connect with Chris Farnell and IPS Law online. Follow Chris Farnell on Twitter here. Read the latest Chris Farnell Charlton news here.