Summer of Women’s Sport: Protecting the Welfare of Female Athletes and Tackling Abuse

By Katie Smith and Lucy Webster on June 27, 2025 Posted in UK, Women in Sport

A big UK summer of women’s sport is upon us. Tennis kicked things off, with Tatjana Maria becoming the first woman since 1973 to be crowned champion at the illustrious Queen’s Club. Wimbledon is about to begin, quickly followed by the Women’s Euros, the home Women’s Rugby World Cup, and the Cricket World Cup, amongst other domestic and international sporting fixtures.

As excitement is building for the performances to come, expectation mounts for the potential impact this long sporting summer can have on the growth of women’s sport. While the increased spotlight on women’s sport is welcome, we are also reminded of the all-too familiar toxicity that must be navigated in the pursuit of these objectives. Fans of women’s sport have grown accustomed to greater access and insight into the lives of female athletes, many of whom use social media to raise their personal profile and that of their respective sport (and, in turn, to generate supplemental income). But such increased attention heightens the risk of targeted abuse, which often appears to be rooted in sexism and misogyny.

In the past few weeks alone, we have seen the threatening messages tennis that star Katie Boulter regularly receives[1] and heard from England’s Lioness players who are choosing to avoid social media during the Euros due to damaging online abuse becoming the norm.[2] World Rugby has announced that it is stepping up protection of female players, including by tackling abuse that has already been detected ahead of the World Cup.[3] There are also many examples of female family members (and children) of male athletes being the targets of similar abuse.[4].

Sadly, abuse is not confined to the online realm, as the recent chilling experiences of Emma Raducanu exemplify. Security provisions for the forthcoming Wimbledon Championships reportedly have come into sharper focus this year, and have already blocked from the public ballot a man who was given a restraining order for stalking Ms Raducanu. An estimated 1,000 personnel are expected to support security efforts across the Championships, including police and military personnel, fixated threat specialists and behavioural experts who are trained to spot strange behaviour.[5]

In this context, we reflect on the discussion and learnings from the panel discussion on Protecting the Welfare of Female Athletes and Confronting Misogyny at the second Squire Patton Boggs Women’s Sport Symposium, which took place earlier this year. The panel focussed on the themes of safeguarding, welfare, misogyny and abuse in women’s sport, providing insight from expert speakers Yvonne Nolan (General Counsel, World Rugby), Dr. Emma Kavanagh (Associate Professor in Sport Psychology and Safe Sport, Bournemouth University), Gary Bye (Former Safeguarding and Player Care Manager, International Tennis Federation) and Georgia Relf (Sports Account Manager, Signify), moderated by Dr. Katie Smith (Associate, Squire Patton Boggs).

Courtside With Women’s Sports: NIL, Women’s Collegiate Athletes, And The Law

By Sarah Rathke on June 25, 2025 Posted in Basketball, College Sport, Intellectual Property, Law, Name Image Likeness (NIL), Player contracts, Transfers, US, US Sport, Women in Sport

I’ve been listening to Deja Kelly’s fascinating podcast, NILosophy. Kelly is a lights-out women’s basketball player, and a talented broadcaster. She and her guests – often but not exclusively young women – discuss the changing college sports world under NIL. And many times during these interviews, I have been struck by how quickly these young athletes have to grow up, and the sophisticated adult decisions they are called upon to make.

Many of these decisions have legal implications, but very few collegiate athletes have any legal training. Therefore, I wanted to use this post to highlight some common scenarios where athletes may benefit from legal advice in a NIL collegiate world.

Case Spotlight – Exclusive Surrey golf club forced to “take a Mulligan” over treatment of allegedly cheating member

By Ian Debbage on April 24, 2025 Posted in Case review, Discipline, Golf, Governance, Law, Litigation, UK

Being a keen club golfer (although not one with any actual skill), a case that caught my eye in the last few weeks was the case of Rohilla v The Members of Royal Mid Surrey Golf Course. As well as being a very detailed insight into the workings of an exclusive Surrey golf club, the case provides a few useful lessons on how, and more importantly how not to, remove someone from a membership who (allegedly) broke the rules and/or was quite unpopular.

Skating on Thin Ice: The CAS re-affirms the Field of Play doctrine in the ‘Kyiv Capitals’ case

By Jonathan Mason on April 17, 2025 Posted in CAS, Case review, Court of Arbitration for Sport, Discipline, Dispute Resolution, Europe, Governance, Ice Hockey, Law, Rules and regulations, Sports Policy, Uncategorized

What is the Field of Play Doctrine?

Regardless of the sport or the level of competition, refereeing decisions are inevitably the subject of question and complaint. Players, managers, clubs, fans, commentators, pundits and casual observers may all criticise the merits of officiating decisions – something undoubtedly made all the more prevalent by the multitude of camera angles, slow-motion replays and technology that define modern broadcast sport.

The “Field of Play” doctrine, a concept enshrined in the so-called lex sportiva and consistently applied by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”), is based on the belief that the rules of the game, in the strict sense of the term, are not subject to judicial control. The rationale behind this “qualified immunity”[1] is twofold: (1) to ensure that match officials have the requisite authority and autonomy to make decisions, and (2) that sporting contests will be completed and thus deliver a result.

As per the 2017 CAS case of Japan Triathlon Union v International Triathlon Union[2], for the doctrine to apply, the following two conditions are needed:

“that a decision at stake was made on the playing field by judges, referees, umpires and other officials, who are responsible for applying the rules of a particular game” and
“that the effects of the decision are limited to the field of play.”[3]

Nonetheless, the doctrine is not absolute, meaning that field of play decisions may be disputed in narrow circumstances relating to integrity. These include instances where there is evidence of bad faith, malicious intent, fraud, bias, prejudice, arbitrariness and corruption.[4]

NCAA Student-Athlete Settlement Pushing Madness Past Tournament

By Sarah Rathke on April 1, 2025 Posted in Athletics, Case review, College Sport, Intellectual Property, Law, Name Image Likeness (NIL), Player contracts, Rules and regulations, Sports Policy, US, US Sport

The NCAA and student-athletes are expected to settle their long-running name, image, and likeness dispute next month. But the proposed settlement likely will leave several questions about the NIL landscape unanswered. Squire Patton Boggs partner and co-lead of the firm’s US Sports & Entertainment Group Sarah Rathke explains why a proposed NCAA settlement with college athletes won’t bring much clarity to name, image, and likeness rights issues.

This article appeared first in Bloomberg Law, where you can read the full version.

“Glass ceilings have been shattered”: Analysing the impact of Kirsty Coventry’s election as the next IOC President

By Henry Goldschmidt on March 28, 2025 Posted in Governance, Olympics

“Seismic”, “groundbreaking”, “landmark”. These are all words that have been used to describe Kirsty Coventry’s appointment as the next IOC President, after she swept to victory in the leadership election on 20 March 2025, winning more votes than the other six male candidates combined. The 41-year-old Zimbabwean will become the second youngest[1], first female and first African to hold the role in the IOC’s 130-year history.

“I hope that this vote will be an inspiration to many people… Glass ceilings have been shattered today, and I am fully aware of my responsibilities as a role model.”

(Kirsty Coventry, 20 March 2025)

The reaction of the global sports community to Ms Coventry’s election has largely been positive, with her rivals magnanimous in defeat. However, as outlined below, there are some commentators who point to the alleged airbrushing of political controversies, and others who say that her appointment will ensure a “continuation of the same” given that Ms Coventry is already on the IOC Executive Board[2] and was acknowledged as the favoured candidate of outgoing President Thomas Bach.

In this article I will examine:

Why Ms Coventry’s electoral success has divided opinion in some quarters;
The bases on which she campaigned, and how her manifesto differed to those of her rivals;
The potential impact of her appointment on a practical level; and
What Ms Coventry’s immediate challenges may be when she formally takes up the IOC Presidency in June.

No Ifs or Buts: Supreme Court holds the line on Unauthorised Profits

By Katie Smith on March 25, 2025 Posted in Case review, Funding, Governance, Law, Litigation, Rules and regulations, UK

In Rukhadze and others v Recovery Partners GP Ltd and another [2025] UKSC 10, the Supreme Court had the task of deciding whether a change was needed to the law on equitable obligations and liabilities of fiduciaries.

The duty under the microscope was the so-called “profit rule”, i.e. that a fiduciary must account to his principal for any profit derived from or made out of the fiduciary relationship, save where the principal has provided his informed consent to the fiduciary retaining that profit. Such profit has long been treated in equity as held on constructive trust for the principal from the moment it is made.

In Rukhadze, the Court re-examined whether it needed to apply a common law “but for” causation test before granting an account of profits in such circumstances. Was the Court required to ask whether the fiduciary would have made the profit but for its breach, for example because the principal would have consented to it or because the fiduciary could have terminated the relationship before he gained the opportunity and would have made the same profit anyway?

Women’s March Madness remains undervalued

By Sarah Rathke on March 17, 2025 Posted in Basketball, College Sport, US, US Sport, Women in Sport

Earlier this month, Sarah K. Rathke, co-lead of the firm’s US Sports & Entertainment Group shared her views with Sports Business Journal on the disparity between the Men’s and Women’s March Madness basketball tournament.

In this article Sarah explains that even now, with things heading in the right direction as the Women’s tournament now compensates their athletes, there is still more that can be done to bring the popular Women’s game in line with the Men.

View the full piece on sportsbusinessjournal.com.

Paralympic Games: Olympic Rings Tattoos Now Allowed

By Catherine Muyl and Marion Cavalier on September 3, 2024 Posted in Brand protection, Copyright, Intellectual Property, Marketing, Olympics, Paralympics, Rules and regulations, Trademarks

Original article published 30 August 2024 on our French sister blog La Revue.

On your marks, get set, go!

At the Paralympic Games, athletes were previously required to cover their Olympic rings tattoos or face disqualification. The International Paralympic Committee has decided to lift this ban for the Paris 2024 Games. In this blog we present our explanations and thoughts as intellectual property specialists.

After the Olympic Games comes the time of the Paralympic Games which are legally totally distinct from the Olympic Games. While the International Olympic Committee (IOC) governs the Olympic Games, the Paralympic Games are governed by the International Paralympic Committee (IPC). The IOC was created in 1894 and is headquartered in Lausanne while the IPC was created in 1989 and is headquartered in Bonn. The games each have their own brand, owned by each Committee and a source of significant revenue, with many partnerships and derivative products.

Update on the Review of the Gambling Act 2005: Financial Risk Checks, Age Verification Processes and More to Follow

By Mike Llewellyn on August 30, 2024 Posted in Betting/Gambling, Gambling, Governance, Government, Law, Rules and regulations, UK

As commented on earlier this week by the Gambling Commission (“GC”) in its blog post, today sees the introduction of the requirement for online gambling operators to introduce what it describes as “light-touch” financial vulnerability checks and also the introduction of a pilot scheme on additional financial risk assessments for the largest online gambling operators. The GC has also published a follow-up blog post earlier this week on its approach to the pilot scheme for additional financial risk assessments.

The introduction of the requirement for remote gambling operators to conduct financial risk assessments / affordability checks on their customers has been one of the most hotly debated areas of reform considered as part of the previous Government’s review of the Gambling Act 2005 and the White Paper published in light of that review.

The GC’s latest blog also highlights the amendments to the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (“LCCP”) which are intended to strengthen age verification processes and procedures in physical gambling premises.