Intervention or Interference? Examining the UK Government’s Shifting Role in Sports Governance

Introduction

Sport and politics have long been considered “uneasy bedfellows”, which might explain why the regulation of sport in this country has traditionally been left in the hands of sports governing bodies (“SGBs”) rather than the UK Government. There has, however, been a gradual shift from strict non-interventionism to a more “involved” approach to sports governance through a combination of regulation, reform and investment. This has, in turn, led to a more intertwined and complex relationship between central Government and SGBs.

Perhaps the most obvious example of the UK Government intervening in the sports sector is the landmark Football Governance Act 2025 (the “FGA”)[1], which recently became law after receiving royal ascent on 21 July 2025. Among other things, the FGA establishes an Independent Football Regulator (“IFR”) to oversee the top five tiers of English football, implementing one of the core recommendations from the 2021 Fan-Led Review of Football Governance. The response of the football industry (and wider public) to the FGA has been very polarising and raised several broader questions about potential long-term consequences of state regulation, as well as whether Parliament has sufficient oversight and expertise to dictate sports policy.

This article examines (i) how and why the UK Government intervenes in sport, (ii) whether there is a limit to such intervention, and (iii) what the future might hold in this area considering recent trends.

Sport on Steroids: Walking the ethical and legal tightrope of The Enhanced Games

By Henry Goldschmidt on July 16, 2025 Posted in Anti-doping, Athletics, Competition, Funding, Governance, Health & Wellbeing, Rules and regulations, Sports Policy, Swimming, Weightlifting

There has been a raft of so-called “disruptor” competitions – backed by private equity – entering the sports and entertainment market in recent years. However, I am not sure that any have been as controversial, polarising and daring as The Enhanced Games (“TEG”), where the use of performance-enhancing drugs (“PEDs”) will be permitted.

The organisers of TEG have recently announced the inaugural competition will take place in Las Vegas in May 2026. It has been marketed as bold stand for scientific freedom and personal choice – one that challenges the status quo and embraces “superhumanity” through pharmaceutical and technological innovation. Needless to say, it has attracted intense criticism from much of the sporting establishment, with the IOC describing TEG as “a joke, unfair and unsafe”.[1]

The prevailing view on TEG seems to be one of overwhelming concern, rather than seeing it as a visionary breakthrough. Nevertheless, it has undeniably forced a broader conversation about the limits of human potential and the costs of surpassing them. In this article, I will examine the perspectives on both sides of the fence, as well as the potential legal issues that may arise.

Approved NCAA v. House Settlement Leaves Open Ended Legal Questions

By Jose Martin, Sarah Rathke and Zachary Rodier on July 14, 2025 Posted in Athletics, Case review, College Sport, Governance, Name Image Likeness (NIL), Women in Sport

After five years of litigation and negotiations, an antitrust settlement between the NCAA, the Power Five Conferences (Pac-12, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, and ACC), and current and former Division I student-athletes has been approved by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken. The landmark agreement reshapes the collegiate sports world as it completes the NCAA’s transition away from amateurism and sets the terms on how student-athletes can be compensated.

While the settlement resolves many of the issues raised in litigation, the agreement creates a host of potential legal ambiguities, and its implementation poses serious challenges that will need to be resolved in the future.

A back-to-school guide on revenue-sharing for female collegiate athletes

By Sarah Rathke on July 10, 2025 Posted in American Football, American Soccer, Baseball, Basketball, Case review, College Sport, Governance, Intellectual Property, Law, Litigation, Media Rights, Name Image Likeness (NIL), Player contracts, Rules and regulations, Sponsorship, US, US Sport, Women in Sport

Sarah Rathke recently published a piece with Cleveland.com about the NCAA’s new “House” settlement. Effective July 1, 2025, this will allow colleges to share revenue with student-athletes, but it leaves unresolved questions about gender equity, especially under Title IX. While Power 5 schools and most Division I programs have opted in, early data shows a vast majority of funds going to men’s sports, raising concerns about fairness and legal compliance.

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?