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.
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:
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]
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.
“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:
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?
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.
Original article published 30 August 2024 on our French sister blog La Revue.
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.
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.
Last month, both the English football industry and British horseracing industry published codes of conduct which address sponsorship arrangements between stakeholders in each of those sports and betting companies. These codes of conduct have been prepared following the 2020 Gambling Act 2005 Review, and the subsequent release of the White Paper ‘High Stakes: Gambling Reform for the Digital Age’ (the “White Paper”), which called on sports governing bodies to agree a set of guiding principles to help shape a gambling sponsorship code of conduct for sport.
As the Summer 2024 Olympics in Paris commences, the United States Olympic & Paralympics Committee (USOPC) is vigilant against unauthorized use of its trademarks. The USOPC filed a lawsuit against a U.S. beverage company, alleging the use of Olympic-related terms like “OLYMPIC” and “TEAM USA” without permission. These trademarks are vital for the USOPC’s funding efforts, and under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, it holds exclusive rights to commercially exploit them in the U.S.
Check out the full post: U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee Suing U.S. Beverage Company Over Trademark Infringement | Global IP & Technology Law Blog (iptechblog.com)
