Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Sports arbitration agreements under review: should they be considered invalid under English national law?

  • Article
  • Published:
The International Sports Law Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Arbitration agreements are currently an internationally much disputed topic. Especially the validity of sports arbitration agreements has been under review by academics in the aftermath of the Pechstein case in Germany. However, to date no English court has explicitly examined the validity of sports arbitration agreements on the grounds of the structural imbalance between athletes and sports federations. This article takes a step in that direction and considers whether principles of English law should render sports arbitration agreements invalid. It, therefore, analyses the legal doctrines of restraint of trade, duress, undue influence, unconscionable bargain and public policy. It concludes that none of these doctrines invalidate sports arbitration agreements per se. Nevertheless, other than the issues analysed in this article, English courts would also need to consider the particular arbitral tribunal’s procedural rules, as well as competition law and art. 6 ECHR.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This essay will only consider professional athletes, meaning those who make their living from their sport: van Vaerenbergh (2005), p.1.

  2. This essay will use the term athletes’ agreement for any sort of contract which athletes have to sign in order to compete in sports competitions. It is therefore synonymous with ‘entry clause’ or other similar terms used in this field.

  3. See for example: Australian Olympic Committee, Team Membership Agreement – Athletes: 2016 Olympic Games, http://aoc-rio2016.s3.amazonaws.com/files/dmfile/ATHLETES%20-%202016%20Australian%20Olympic%20Team%20Membership%20Agreement%20-%20FINAL%20w%20Schedules_201015.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2017, Section 18.

  4. Rule 61(2) Olympic Charter.

  5. Rule 40 Olympic Charter.

  6. Other words used for the same scenario are compulsory arbitration or forced arbitration.

  7. Wadham et al. (2015), paras 3.07, 3.59. 3.74–3.76.

  8. Wadham et al. (2015), paras 3.07, 3.59, 3.74–3.76; see also Section 6 Human Rights Act 1998.

  9. Wadham et al. (2015), paras 3.03, 3.05, 3.07.

  10. Compare: Lewis and Taylor (2014), para. E2.32.

  11. See: Lewis and Taylos 2014, paras E2.34–2.40.

  12. Gardiner (2012), pp. 138, 142, 144.

  13. See for example: Australian Olympic Committee, Team Membership Agreement – Athletes: 2016 Olympic Games, http://aoc-rio2016.s3.amazonaws.com/files/dmfile/ATHLETES%20-%202016%20Australian%20Olympic%20Team%20Membership%20Agreement%20-%20FINAL%20w%20Schedules_201015.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2017.

  14. van Kleef (2015), pp. 3, 4, 16.

  15. Regional Court of Munich I, Judgment of 26 February 2014, 37 O 28331/12, SchiedsVZ 2014, 100 – Pechstein I.

  16. Higher Regional Court of Munich, Judgment of 15 January, U 1110/14 Kart, SchiedsVZ 2015, 40 – Pechstein II.

  17. Federal Court of Justice, Judgement of 07 June 2016, KZR 6/15, SchiedsVZ 2016, 218 – Pechstein III.

  18. Regional Court of Munich I, Judgment of 26 February 2014, 37 O 28331/12, SchiedsVZ 2014, 100 – Pechstein I.

  19. Ibid., p. 100.

  20. Ibid., p. 101.

  21. Ibid., p. 101.

  22. Ibid., p. 102.

  23. Ibid., p.100.

  24. Ibid., p.102.

  25. Ibid., p. 103.

  26. Ibid., p. 105.

  27. Translated from: Ibid., p. 105.

  28. Ibid., p. 104.

  29. Higher Regional Court of Munich, Judgment of 15 January, U 1110/14 Kart, SchiedsVZ 2015, 40 – Pechstein II.

  30. Federal Court of Justice, Judgement of 07 June 2016, KZR 6/15, SchiedsVZ 2016, 218 – Pechstein III.

  31. Higher Regional Court of Munich, Judgment of 15 January, U 1110/14 Kart, SchiedsVZ 2015, 40, 43 – Pechstein II; Federal Court of Justice, Judgement of 07 June 2016, KZR 6/15, SchiedsVZ 2016, 218, 224 – Pechstein III.

  32. Ibid., p. 224.

  33. See: Rombach (2016), p. 274.

  34. Federal Court of Justice, Judgement of 07 June 2016, KZR 6/15, SchiedsVZ 2016, 218, 223 – Pechstein III.

  35. Jessica Silver-Greenberg, Robert Gebeloff, The New York Times, Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice, 31 October 2015. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitration-everywhere-stacking-the-deck-of-justice.html?_r=0. Accessed 24 May 2017; Hannah Summers, The Independent, Sharia courts review branded a ‘whitewash’ over appointment ‘bias’ concerns, 09 July 2016. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sharia-courts-review-branded-a-whitewash-over-appointment-bias-concerns-a7128706.html. Accessed 24 May 2017; Suzanne McGee, The Guardian, Sue your bank! Why it’s better to go to court than to arbitrate on the long run, 08 May 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2016/may/08/bank-fees-arbitration-new-rules. Accessed 24 May 2017.

  36. Bleistein and Degenhart 2015; Heermann 2014; Steiner 2013.

  37. Nick de Marco, Compelled Consent – Pechstein & the Dichotomy and Future of Sports Arbitration, 04 July 2016. https://www.blackstonechambers.com/news/analysis-compelled_consent_/. Accessed 24 May 2017; Naidoo and Sarin 2002.

  38. Different opinion: Ian Mill, Sports Arbitration: A Matter of Choice?, 25 March 2014. https://www.sportslawbulletin.org/sports-arbitration-a-matter-of-choice/. Accessed 24.05.2017.

  39. Section 1(b) ArbA.

  40. Stretford v Football Association Ltd & Another [2006] EWHC 479 (Ch) (17 March 2006).

  41. Stretford v The Football Association [2007] EWCA Civ 238 (21 March 2007), which takes the facts given in Stretford I as granted.

  42. Given the equality of the rulings, they will be dealt with together.

  43. Stretford v Football Association Ltd & Another [2006] EWHC 479 (Ch) (17 March 2006), paras 1, 3.

  44. Ibid., para. 1; Since the 01 April 2015 Rule A.2. of the FA Regulation on Working with Intermediaries prohibits players and clubs from paying “any person for Intermediary Activity unless that person is registered as an Intermediary”.

  45. Ibid., para. 5.

  46. Ibid., para. 5; The FA Regulation on Working with Intermediaries does not reference to other Regulations of the FA but says in Rule F.1. that the breach of the Regulation “shall be termined by a Regulatory Commission of the Association”. As the Regulatory Commission itself is an arbitral tribunal the FA Regulation on Working with Intermediaries inlcudes a MarbA and therefore does not deviate from the former solution.

  47. Ibid., para. 6.

  48. Ibid., paras 7a, b.

  49. Ibid., para. 9a.

  50. Ibid., para. 10b.

  51. Ibid., paras 11c, 39–50, 52; Stretford v The Football Association [2007] EWCA Civ 238 (21 March 2007), paras 11c, 33–67, 69.

  52. Ibid., paras 67, 68.

  53. Stretford v Football Association Ltd & Another [2006] EWHC 479 (Ch) (17 March 2006), para. 21; Stretford v The Football Association [2007] EWCA Civ 238 (21 March 2007), para. 45.

  54. Stretford v Football Association Ltd & Another [2006] EWHC 479 (Ch) (17 March 2006), para. 42.

  55. Ibid., para. 5.

  56. Ibid., para. 48; Stretford v The Football Association [2007] EWCA Civ 238 (21 March 2007), para. 53.

  57. Stretford v Football Association Ltd & Another [2006] EWHC 479 (Ch) (17 March 2006), para. 48; Stretford v The Football Association [2007] EWCA Civ 238 (21 March 2007), para. 52.

  58. Ibid., para. 43.

  59. Ibid., para. 49.

  60. Ibid., paras 66–67.

  61. Stretford v Football Association Ltd & Another [2006] EWHC 479 (Ch) (17 March 2006), para. 48; Stretford v The Football Association [2007] EWCA Civ 238 (21 March 2007), paras 43, 52–53.

  62. Smith and McDonnell v The British Boxing Board of Control [2015] Kluwer Arbitration A40LV002 (13 April 2015), para. 8.

  63. Ibid., para. 2–3.

  64. Ibid., para. 9.

  65. Ibid., para. 10.

  66. Ibid., paras 22.3, 27.

  67. Section 7 ArbAct.

  68. Also: Bitting (1998), p. 664.

  69. Chitty and Beale (2015), para 10.085.

  70. Naidoo and Sarin (2002), p. 505, who claim that is the most promising common law contract principle to question the validity of sports ArbA.

  71. Smith and McDonnell v The British Boxing Board of Control [2015] Kluwer Arbitration A40LV002 (13 April 2015), para. 10.

  72. Naidoo and Sarin (2002), para. 505.

  73. Mitchel v Reynolds [1711] 1 P. Wms. 181 (01 January 1711), p. 181.

  74. Chitty and Beale 2015, paras 16.087–16.088.

  75. Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Harper's Garage (Stourport) Ltd [1968] A.C. 269 (23 February 1967), p. 331.

  76. Blackaby et al. (2015), para. 2.13.

  77. Nagle v Feilden and others [1966] 2 QB 633 (22 February 1966); see for a comparable issue in the US: Rodenberg (2000).

  78. Nagle v Feilden and others [1966] 2 QB 633 (22 February 1966), p. 642.

  79. Ibid., p. 635.

  80. Ibid., p. 635.

  81. Ibid., p. 642.

  82. Ibid., p. 643.

  83. Ibid., p. 641.

  84. Ibid., p. 641.

  85. Ibid., p. 643, this statement is supported by Salmon LJ on p. 653.

  86. Ibid., p. 646, as well as Danckwerts LJ with a similar statement on p. 650.

  87. Ibid., p. 646.

  88. Ibid., p. 653.

  89. Ibid., pp. 653–655.

  90. Ibid., p. 653.

  91. Ibid., p. 647.

  92. Watson v Prager and Another [1991] I.C.R. 603 (15 March 1991).

  93. Bitting (1998), p. 671.

  94. Gardiner (2012), pp. 138, 142, 144.

  95. Gardiner (2012), pp. 138, 142, 144.

  96. Nagle v Feilden and others [1966] 2 QB 633 (22 February 1966), p. 653.

  97. See the practical case of Robert Harting with the denial of the DOSB: Sport 1, Pechstein kritisiert Harting, 07 December 2013, http://www.sport1.de/de/wintersport/win_eisschnelllauf/newspage_804472.html. Accessed 24 May 2017.

  98. Greig and Others v Insole and Others [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 (25 November 1977), p. 303.

  99. Ibid., p. 303.

  100. Ibid., p. 303.

  101. Ibid., p. 303.

  102. Ibid., p. 303.

  103. Ibid., p. 306.

  104. Ibid., p. 345.

  105. Ibid., p. 345.

  106. Eastham v Newcastle United Football Club Ltd and Others [1964] Ch. 413 (04 July 1963), pp. 429–430.

  107. Ibid., p. 414.

  108. Modahl v British Athletic Federation Ltd [2001] 1 W.L.R. 1192 (12 October 2001), p. 1192.

  109. Idid., p. 1192.

  110. Ibid., p. 1192.

  111. Ibid., p. 1192.

  112. Ibid., p. 1193; The curt stated nevertheless that such contract has probably been concluded but that the court is simply missing the relevant documents to base their decision on this.

  113. Ibid., p. 1208.

  114. Ibid., p. 1208.

  115. Ibid., p. 1208; Parker LJ supporting this opinion on p. 1222 by saying “The rules, in my view, contain a framework of rights and duties of sufficient certainty to be given contractual effect with regard to the athlete's entitlement and ability to compete. Consideration exists in the athlete's submission to the rules and to the defendant's jurisdiction, in the defendant's agreement to operate the rules and to permit the athlete to compete in accordance with them, and in both partie's agreement on the procedures for resolution of any disputes contained in the rules”.

  116. Ibid., p. 1209.

  117. Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Harper’s Garage (Stourport) Ltd [1968] A.C. 269 (23 February 1967), p. 331.

  118. Greig and Others v Insole and Others [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 (25 November 1977), p. 345.

  119. Adolphsen et al. (2010), p. 9.

  120. Different: Bitting who compares the situation to an employer-employee relationship: Bitting (1998), pp. 655–656.

  121. Furmston (2012), p. 507.

  122. Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Harper's Garage (Stourport) Ltd [1968] A.C. 269 (23 February 1967), p. 270.

  123. Ibid., p. 270.

  124. A. Schroeder Music Publishing Co. Ltd. v Macaulay (Formerly Instone) [1974] 1 W.L.R. 1308 (16 October 1974), p. 1308.

  125. Ibid., p. 1308.

  126. Proactive Sports Management Ltd v Rooney and others [2011] EWCA Civ 1444 (01 December 2011), paras H2, 60.

  127. Ibid., paras H4, H8.

  128. Ibid., paras 67, 92–95.

  129. Ibid., para. 71.

  130. Ibid., para. 94.

  131. Ibid., paras 93, 153.

  132. However, this could be different if one would analyse the competitions AthA as these regularly include rules about the athletes’ right to exploit his image rights.

  133. Bitting (1998), p. 666.

  134. Nagle v Feilden and others [1966] 2 QB 633 (22 February 1966), p. 635, as the Rules of Racing are private rules.

  135. Ibid., pp. 644, 646.

  136. Ibid., pp. 646, 654–655.

  137. Gardiner (2012), p. 219.

  138. See: Proactive Sports Management Ltd v Rooney and others [2011] EWCA Civ 1444 (01 December 2011), para. 153.

  139. Thorsten Nordenfelt (Pauper) Appellant v The Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Company [1894] A.C. 535 (31 July 1894), p. 565.

  140. Ibid., p. 565; in different words, but with the same meaning: Nagle v Feilden and others [1966] 2 QB 633 (22 February 1966), p. 653.

  141. Peel (2007), para. 11.079.

  142. Beloff et al. (1999), para 3.43.

  143. Thorsten Nordenfelt (Pauper) Appellant v The Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Company [1894] A.C. 535 (31 July 1894); Nagle v Feilden and others [1966] 2 QB 633 (22 February 1966).

  144. Lewis and Taylor (2014); Brandner and Kläger (2015).

  145. Beloff et al. (1999), para. 3.43.

  146. Lewis and Taylor (2014), para. I.1.27.

  147. Instead of others: Cavalieros and Kim (2015), p. 237.

  148. Antonio Rigozzi, Sébastien Besson, William McAuliffe, International Sports Arbitration, 2016. The European, Middle Eastern and African Arbitration Review. http://lk-k.com/wp-content/uploads/RIGOZZI-MCAULIFFE-GAR-Euro.-Middle-East.-and-Afr.-Arb.-Review-2013.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2017.

  149. Lewis and Taylor (2014), para. E.2.1.

  150. Adolphsen et al. (2010), para. 1032.

  151. Adolphsen et al. (2010), para. 1033; Fritzweiler (2014), p. 371.

  152. See for example: Article 18 Arbitration Rules applicable to the CAS Ad-Hoc Division for the Olympic Games.

  153. Antonio Rigozzi, Sébastien Besson, William McAuliffe, International Sports Arbitration, 2016. The European, Middle Eastern and African Arbitration Review. http://lk-k.com/wp-content/uploads/RIGOZZI-MCAULIFFE-GAR-Euro.-Middle-East.-and-Afr.-Arb.-Review-2013.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2017.

  154. Cavalieros and Kim (2015), p. 238.

  155. Exemplary: Rules of sports-related arbitration of the CAS: Rules 34, 37, 40.2, 41.3, 46, 49, 51, 53, 55, 59, 63; RFU Regulation of the English Rugby Football Union: Rules 19.3.2, 19.4.2, 19.11.29, 19.11.31, 19.12.9, 19.13.1, 19.14.1.

  156. Naidoo and Sarin (2002), p. 515.

  157. Which is why this issue arises with any arbitral tribunal.

  158. Generally for arbitral tribunals: Blackaby, paras 5.18–5.19.

  159. Gubi (2008), p. 1018.

  160. CAS 2013/A/3327, 3335, Cilic v. International Tennis Federation, Award of 11 April 2014.

  161. Practice Direction 32, Rule 32.7(1).

  162. Instead of others: Antonio Rigozzi, Sébastien Besson, William McAuliffe, International Sports Arbitration, 2016. The European, Middle Eastern and African Arbitration Review. http://lk-k.com/wp-content/uploads/RIGOZZI-MCAULIFFE-GAR-Euro.-Middle-East.-and-Afr.-Arb.-Review-2013.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2017.

  163. Steiner (2013), p. 19.

  164. In Switzerland: Article 393 Swiss Civil Procedure Code; Article 7, 190(2) Switzerland’s Federal Code on Private International Law; in England: Sections 67, 68, 69 ArbA.

  165. The author finds this the argument of cheap dispute resolution before sports arbitral tribunals at least for the CAS doubtful. According to Rule 64.4 of the CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration the final amount of the costs of arbitration includes (1) the CAS Court Office fee, (2) the administrative costs of the CAS, (3) the costs and fees of the arbitrators, (4) the fees of the ad hoc clerk – if needed –, (5) a contribution towards the expenses of the CAS, and (6) the costs of witnesses, experts and interpreters. The arbitral tribunal decides in the award in which proportions these costs will be split between the parties. Given that not all of these costs arise before a court, there is, at least, a great possibility that some arbitral proceedings before the CAS are more expensive than they would have been before the English courts. Compare without recourse to a particular countries court costs: Rigozzi 2005, paras 289–290; sceptical: Steiner (2013), p. 19.

  166. Adolphsen (2003), pp. 486–487.

  167. Antonio Rigozzi, Sébastien Besson, William McAuliffe, International Sports Arbitration, 2016. The European, Middle Eastern and African Arbitration Review. http://lk-k.com/wp-content/uploads/RIGOZZI-MCAULIFFE-GAR-Euro.-Middle-East.-and-Afr.-Arb.-Review-2013.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2017.

  168. Heermann (2014), pp. 75–76.

  169. Antonio Rigozzi, Sébastien Besson, William McAuliffe, International Sports Arbitration, 2016. The European, Middle Eastern and African Arbitration Review. http://lk-k.com/wp-content/uploads/RIGOZZI-MCAULIFFE-GAR-Euro.-Middle-East.-and-Afr.-Arb.-Review-2013.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2017.

  170. See: Richard McLaren, WADA Investigation of Sochi Allegations, 18 July 2016. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/doping-control-process/mclaren-independent-investigations-report-into-sochi-allegations. Accessed 24 May 2017.

  171. Duve and Rösch (2014), pp. 223–224.

  172. For a more accurate example see: Duve and Rösch (2014), pp. 223–224.

  173. Generally: Blackaby et al. (2015), para. 1.116; explicitly stated by the CAS: Anderson v IOC, paras 52–55.

  174. Explicitly stated by the CAS: CAS 2008/A/1545, Anderson v. IOC, Award of 16 July 2010, para. 55; Ioannidis (2016), p. 32, who argues that this effectively is a precedential system.

  175. Sceptical on this issue: Steiner (2013), p. 18.

  176. Regional Court of Munich I, Judgment of 26 February 2014, 37 O 28331/12, SchiedsVZ 2014, 100, 106 – Pechstein I; Heermann (2015), p. 88.

  177. See for example the Legal Aid guidelines of the CAS.

  178. Adolphsen et al. (2010), para. 1033; Fritzweiler (2014), p. 371.

  179. See: Sections 67, 68, 69 ArbAct.

  180. See as example: CAS, Rule 46 Code of Sports-related Arbitration, “the award […] shall be final and binding upon the parties”; Sports Resolution UK, Rule 6.6, “that decision shall be final”.

  181. Lewis and Taylor (2014), para. E.2.3.

  182. See as examples: Court of Arbitration for Sport, Rule 43 Code of Sports-related Arbitration; Sports Resolution UK, Rule 14.1 Arbitration Rules of Sports Resolution UK.

  183. See as example: CAS, Rule 43 Code of Sports-related Arbitration.

  184. See for example: Sports Resolution UK, Rule 14.2 Arbitration Rules of Sports Resolution UK.

  185. See as examples: CAS, http://www.tas-cas.org/en/jurisprudence/recent-decisions.html; Sport Resolution UK, https://www.sportresolutions.co.uk/decisions.

  186. Generally: Blackaby et al. (2015), para. 1.116; explicitly stated by the CAS: CAS 2008/A/1545, Anderson v. IOC, Award of 16 July 2010c, paras 52–55.

  187. Also: Duve and Rösch (2014), p. 227; John G. Ruggie, “For the Game. For the World.” FIFA & Human Rights. 28 November 2016. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/content/download/79736/1789834/version/1/file/Ruggie_humanrightsFIFA_reportApril2016.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2017; The author limits this conclusion to mandatory sports arbitration as a dispute resolution system without precedent to the analysis of a particular arbitral tribunals procedural rules.

  188. Exemplary: Higher Regional Court of Munich, Judgment of 15 January, U 1110/14 Kart, SchiedsVZ 2015, 40 – Pechstein II.

  189. See thereto: Greig and Others v Insole and Others [1978] 1 W.L.R. 302 (25 November 1977), p. 347: “The public interest in my judgment no less requires than the game should be properly organised and administered.”.

  190. Anson et al. (2010), p. 350.

  191. Anson et al. (2010), p. 350.

  192. Anson et al. (2010), p. 351.

  193. Alexander Barton Appellant v Alexander Ewan Armstrong and Others Respondents [1976] A.C. 104 (05 December 1973), p. 104; Vantage Navigation Corp v Suhail and Saud Bahwan Building Materials (The Alev) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 138 (22 April 1988); Pao on and Others Appellants v Lau Yiu Long and Others Respondents [1980] A.C. 614 (09 April 1979), p. 615.

  194. Bitting (1998), p. 671.

  195. Bitting (1998), p. 664.

  196. It should be noted that these requirements cannot necessarily be analysed autonomous but have to be seen as being regulated by the respective other. See: Chitty and Beale (2015), para. 8.022.

  197. Universe Tankships Inc of Monrovia Appellants v International Transport Workers Federation and Others Respondents [1983] 1 A.C. 366 (01 April 1982), p. 400.

  198. CTN Cash and Carry Limited v Gallaher Limited [1994] WL 895915 (22 May 1992), paras 3–4.

  199. Ibid., para. 1.

  200. Ibid., para. 2.

  201. Ibid., para. 1.

  202. Ibid., para. 2.

  203. Ibid., para. 2.

  204. Ibid., para. 2.

  205. Ibid., para. 4.

  206. Ibid., para. 3.

  207. Ibid., para. 3.

  208. Chitty and Beale (2015), para. 8.048.

  209. The Port Caledonia and the Anna [1903] P. 184, pp. 184, 187.

  210. Ibid., pp. 184–185, 189.

  211. Ibid., pp. 184, 188.

  212. Ibid., pp. 184–185, 189.

  213. Ibid., p. 184.

  214. Ibid., p. 185.

  215. Ibid., pp. 186, 190.

  216. Ibid., p. 189.

  217. Section 511(2) Merchant Shipping Act 1894.

  218. See: The Port Caledonia and the Anna [1903] P. 184, p. 189; today in Sections 232, 231 Merchant Shipping Act 1995.

  219. Compare Chitty and Beale (2015), para. 8.048; The Port Caledonia and the Anna [1903] P. 184, p. 188.

  220. Compare Chitty and Beale (2015), para. 8.048.

  221. See: Chitty and Beale (2015), para. 8.048.

  222. Chitty and Beale (2015), para. 8.048; See on the concept of illegitimate economic pressure through lawful behaviour: Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd v Tube City IMS LLC [2012] EWHC 273 (Comm).

  223. CTN Cash and Carry Limited v Gallaher Limited [1994] WL 1060887, p. 3.

  224. Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd v Tube City IMS LLC [2012] EWHC 273 (Comm), para. 29.

  225. Smith v William Charlick [1924] 34 CLR 38 (22 May 1924).

  226. Mitchell et al. (2011), para. 10.85.

  227. Macdonald and Atkins (2013), para. 14.17.

  228. Macdonald and Atkins (2013), para. 14.14.

  229. See a different opinion on the relationship between abuse of market power and economic duress: Akman (2012), pp. 170–172, footnote 155.

  230. Compare: Chitty and Beale (2015), para. 8.048; O’Sullivan and Hilliard (2016), p. 269; Even when the courts application follows – contrary to this essay’s view – the US rulings, MArbAs will not be invalidated as the relationship between athletes and sports federations is designed for particular sports events and can therefore not qualify as a long-lasting economic relationship.

  231. Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Etridge [2001] UKHL 44 (11 October 2001), para. 8.

  232. Anson et al. (2010), p. 259.

  233. Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Etridge [2001] UKHL 44 (11 October 2001), para. 6.

  234. Enonchong (2012), para. 7.003.

  235. Tate v Williamson [1866–67] L.R. 2 Ch. App. 55 (17 December 1866), p. 61.

  236. Enonchong (2012), para. 7.003.

  237. Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Etridge [2001] UKHL 44 (11 October 2001), para. 17.

  238. Chitty and Beale (2015), paras 8.066, 8.073.

  239. Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Etridge [2001] UKHL 44 (11 October 2001), p. 7; Enonchong (2012), para. 7.006.

  240. Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Etridge [2001] UKHL 44 (11 October 2001), para. 14.

  241. Ibid., para. 21.

  242. The requirement of (manifest) disadvantage has been abandoned due to its regular misunderstanding and application outside the intended meaning: Ibid., para. 26.

  243. Ibid., para. 10.

  244. Barclays Bank plc v Nicholas Edward O'Brien Bridget Mary O'Brien [1992] WL 895915 (22 May 1992), para. 22.

  245. Ibid., para. 22.

  246. Ibid., para. 22.

  247. Anson et al. (2010), p. 362.

  248. Enonchong (2012), para. 10.012.

  249. Enonchong (2012), paras 10.013–10.014.

  250. See for example: Australian Olympic Committee, Team Membership Agreement – Athletes: 2016 Olympic Games, http://aoc-rio2016.s3.amazonaws.com/files/dmfile/ATHLETES%20-%202016%20Australian%20Olympic%20Team%20Membership%20Agreement%20-%20FINAL%20w%20Schedules_201015.pdf. Access 24 May 2017, Section 2.

  251. See: Ibid., Section 17.

  252. Witting (2015), pp. 218–219.

  253. Compare the examples of relationships in which presumed undue influence is applicable in Chitty and Beale (2015), paras 8.078–8.081.

  254. Chitty and Beale (2015), para. 8.130; Mitchell et al. (2011), para. 10.82.

  255. Brian Strydom v Vendside Limited [2009] EWHC 2130 (QB) (18 August 2009).

  256. Ibid., para. 35, quoting Alec Lobb Garages Ltd v Total Oil Great Britain Ltd [1983] 1 W.L.R. 87 (24 June 1982), pp. 94–95.

  257. Alec Lobb Garages Ltd v Total Oil Great Britain Ltd [1983] 1 W.L.R. 87 (24 June 1982), p. 95.

  258. Brian Strydom v Vendside Limited [2009] EWHC 2130 (QB) (18 August 2009), para. 36.

  259. Chen-Wishart (2015), p. 365.

  260. Fry v Lane [1888] 40 Ch. D 312 (10 November 1888), p. 312.

  261. Creswell v Potter [1978] 1. W.L.R. (26 November 1968), p. 257.

  262. Hart v O’Connor [1985] A.C. 1000 (22 May 1985), p. 1007.

  263. Portman Building Society v Dusangh [2000] 80 P. & C.R. D20 (19 April 2000), p. D22, albeit the doctrine was finally not applied as the court did not find the transaction to be shocking to the court.

  264. Beale et al. (2008), p. 1069.

  265. Joseph (2015), para. 15.31, again, competition law will not be considered in this essay.

  266. Burrows (2013), para. 8.220.

  267. Leigh v National Union of Railwaymen and Another [1970] Ch. 326 (17 July 1969), p. 327; Chitty and Beale (2015), paras 16.053–16.056.

  268. Scott v Avery [1856] 10 E.R. 1121 (10 July 1856), p. 1122.

  269. See: Sections 32, 45, 67, 68, 69.

  270. Atlantic Shipping and Trading Company, Limited Appellants v Louis Dreyfus and Company Respondents [1922] 2 A.C. 250 (04 April 1922), pp. 225–256, 258–259.

  271. Articles 61, 353–399 Swiss Civil Procedure Code; Articles 7, 176–194 Switzerland’s Federal Code on Private International Law.

  272. Ian Mill, Sports Arbitration: A Matter of Choice?, 25 March 2014. https://www.sportslawbulletin.org/sports-arbitration-a-matter-of-choice/. Accessed 24 May 2017.

  273. Stretford v The Football Association [2007] EWCA Civ 238 (21 March 2007), paras 42, 52–53.

  274. As seen above, it is the court’s duty to interpret the common law in a way that it is compatible with the ECHR. However, the Stretford cases have shown that the English courts are of the opinion that MArbAs are compatible with Article 6(1) ECHR. Hence invalidating MArbAs as well as declaring them valid would be compatible with Article 6(1) ECHR. Consequently, courts will not have to rely on Stretford as a precedent when they review the validity of MArbAs.

  275. Lew et al. (2013), para. 10.23, who claim that competition law it the most promising challenge; Lewis and Taylos 2014, paras E2.34–2.40.

  276. Niedermaier (2014), p. 13.

References

  • Adolphsen J (2003) Internationale Dopingstrafen. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Adolphsen J, Nolte M, Lehner M, Gerlinger M (2010) Sportrecht in der Praxis. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Akman P (2012) The Concept of Abuse in EU Competition Law. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Anson WR, Beatson J, Burrows AS, Cartwright J (2010) Anson’s law of contract, 29th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Beale HG, Bishop WD, Furmston MP (2008) Contract: cases and materials, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Beloff MJ, Kerr T, Demetriou M (1999) Sports law. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitting MR (1998) Mandatory, binding arbitration for Olympic Athletes: is the process better or worse for “job security”? Fla State Univ Law Rev 25:655–678

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackaby N, Partasides C, Redfern A, Hunter M (2015) Redfern and Hunter on international arbitration, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleistein R, Degenhart C (2015) Sportschiedsgerichtsbarkeit und Verfassungsrecht: Schiedsvereinbarungen und Anti-Doping-Gesetzgebung auf dem Prüfstand. NJW 68:1353–1357

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandner G, Kläger R (2015) Ein Sieg über (oder für) das System der Sportschiedsgerichtsbarkeit? SchiedsVZ 13:112–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrows AS (2013) English private law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cavalieros P, Kim J (2015) Can the arbitral community learn from Sports Arbitration? J Int Arbitr 32:237–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen-Wishart M (2015) Contract law, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chitty J, Beale HG (2015) Chitty on contracts, 36th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Duve C, Rösch KO (2014) Der Fall Pechstein: Kein Startschuss für eine Neugestaltung der Sportschiedsgerichtsbarkeit. SchiedsVZ 12:216–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Enonchong N (2012) Duress, undue influence and unconscionable dealing, 2nd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritzweiler J (2014) Praxishandbuch Sportrecht, 3rd edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Furmston MP (2012) Cheshire, Fifoot & Furmston’s law of contract, 16th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner S (2012) Sports law, 4th edn. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gubi J (2008) The Olympic binding arbitration clause and the Court of Arbitration for Sport: an analysis of due process concerns. Fordham Intell Prop Media Ent Law J 18:997–1024

    Google Scholar 

  • Heermann PW (2014) Freiwilligkeit von Schiedsvereinbarungen in der Sportschiedsgerichtsbarkeit. SchiedsVZ 12:66–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Heermann PW (2015) Zukunft der Sportschiedsgerichtsbarkeit sowie entsprechender Schiedsvereinbarungen im Lichte des Pechstein-Verfahrens sowie des § 11 RegE-AntiDopG. Zeitschrift für Schiedsverfahren 13:78–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis G (2016) The Influence of Common Law Traditions on the Practice and Procedure Before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). In: Duval A, Rigozzi A (eds) Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration 2015. T. M. C Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Joseph D (2015) Jurisdiction and arbitration agreements and their enforcement, 3rd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lew JDM, Bor H, Fullelove G, Greenaway J (2013) Arbitration in England: with chapters on Scotland and Ireland. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis A, Taylor J (2014) Sport: law and practice, 3rd edn. Bloomsbury Professional, Haywards Heath

    Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald E, Atkins R (2013) Koffmann & Macdonald’s law of contract, 8th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell C, Mitchell P, Watterson S (2011) Goff & Jones: the law of unjust enrichment, 8th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Naidoo U, Sarin N (2002) Dispute Resolution at Games Time. Fordham Intell Prop Media Ent Law J 12:489–519

    Google Scholar 

  • Niedermaier T (2014) Arbitration agreements between parties of unequal bargaining power: balancing exercises on either side of the Atlantic. ZDAR 39:12–21

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan J, Hilliard J (2016) The law of contract, 7th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Peel E (2007) The law of contract, 12th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodenberg R (2000) Age eligibility rules in women’s professional tennis: necessary for the integrity, viability, and administration of the game or an unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of antitrust law? Sports Lawyers J 7:183–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Rombach A (2016) Pechstein v. International Skating Union, English Translation. SchiedsVZ 14:268–279

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner U (2013) Das Verhältnis von Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit und staatlicher Gerichtsbarkeit. SchiedsVZ 11:15–19

    Google Scholar 

  • van Kleef R (2015) Reviewing Disciplinary Sanctions in Sports. Camb J Int Comp Law 4:3–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Vaerenbergh A (2005) Regulatory Features and Administrative Law Dimensions of the Olympic Movement’s Anti-doping Regime. IIJL Working Paper No. 2005/11. Available at SSRN

  • Wadham J, Mountfield H, Prochaska E, Desai R (2015) Blackstone’s guide to the Human Rights Act 1998, 17th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Witting C (2015) Streets on Tort, 14th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Institut für Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht, Universitätsstraße 14–16, 48143, Münster, Germany

    Tim Hülskötter

Authors
  1. Tim Hülskötter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tim Hülskötter.

Additional information

Tim Hülskötter, LL. M. (University College London) is a research assistant at the Institute of International Business Law (Prof. Dr. Petra Pohlmann), University of Münster. This article is an amended version of his master thesis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hülskötter, T. Sports arbitration agreements under review: should they be considered invalid under English national law?. Int Sports Law J 17, 15–32 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-017-0110-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-017-0110-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation