WEEK 12 – articles (14/15.12.17: EFFECT OF BREXIT ON SPORT IN THE UK)

##

DAILY TELEGRAPH:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2016/06/23/how-would-british-sport-be-affected-by-a-brexit/

** Just about every area of British public life will be affected by the Leave vote. And sport in the United Kingdom will be no exception.

The freedom of movement principle allows sportsmen and women from the EU to ply their trade in the UK without needing a work permit that the majority of non-EU citizens require. This is particularly significant in relation to English football. Using the Home Office’s current criteria for non-EU players, which require players to have played in a certain percentage of their national team’s matches, more than 100 Premier League players would have failed to have gained a work permit.

That would include players such as N’Golo Kante and Anthony Martial, none of whom were established internationals when they joined the Premier League last summer. South American footballers such as Philippe Coutinho have also been able to bypass the work permit process by gaining European citizenship before coming to England.

Leading football agent Jonathan Barnett has told The Daily Telegraph that Brexit would compromise the competitiveness of the Premier League. “It is important that if we want the best league in the world then we remain in the EU,” He said. Hence, it was little surprise that Richard Scudamore, the Premier League executive chairman together will all 20 Premier League clubs, came out in favour of Remain.

As with much else in the Brexit debate, a lot of guesswork is involved in extrapolating the range and depth of the potential changes. All we know for certain is that the landscape will be different.

“What will happen is that all our sporting bodies will have to sit down, look at all their rules and decide whether to emulate what they already have in relation to European nationals, i.e. Give them preferential treatment, or do we fit the European nationals into the rules we currently have in the UK or do we want to write completely new rules?” Maria Patsalos, a Sports Immigration Partner at Mishcon de Reya LLP, said.

“It is unlikely in football for instance that European nationals will have the same freedom as they have now if Britain votes to leave the EU.”

In that scenario, Premier League clubs could be forced to pay more as Dr Babatunde Buraimo, a senior lecturer in sports economics at the University of Liverpool, argues. “Clubs will be limited to hiring higher-calibre players from highly Fifa-ranked EU countries,” he said. “If the Premier League is limited to these players, this will increase the values, in terms of transfer fees and wages, of acquiring proven and established EU players. Missing out on rising talent [such as Kante] will be one of the drawbacks.”

However, as Patsalos makes clear, it is highly unlikely those European players who are currently here, or who were signed during the negotiation period, will be forced to leave. “Historically the Home Office does not generally impose legislation retrospectively,” Patsalos said.

Yet there are some who believe that a Leave vote will enhance English football by curbing the number of foreign footballers in the top leagues. Introducing quotas for English footballers has long been a dream of various FA chairmen, but made impossible by EU law.

“Whether they will be able to put that in place in the Premier League is probably unlikely but there is no reason why post Brexit they could not put nationality restrictions in say the FA Cup,” Daniel Geey, a partner at sports law firm Sheridans, said.

It is not just football that will be affected. Under the terms of the Cotonou Agreement and the Kolpak Ruling in 2003, sportsmen from Africa, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) enjoy the same rights as EU players.

This particularly applies to cricket and rugby union, where many players from South Africa, Caribbean and the Pacific Islands have come to play in the English domestic leagues.

Several have gone to represent England. For 11 years between 2004 and 2015 encompassing 139 Tests, England started a match with a South African-born player in their team such as Andrew Strauss and Kevin Pietersen.

The English rugby union team, too, has come to rely upon a large percentage of foreign-born players, from Mike Catt through to Manu Tuilagi.

Leaving the EU will render the Kolpak agreement void meaning future imports from such countries will count as foreign players. Again arguments can be put forward that this will encourage the development of homegrown players, but Christian Abt, a director at the Essentially sports management group, believes that the presence of more than 70 Kolpak players has enhanced the Premiership.

“The Premiership will suffer as a result because it has such a cosmopolitan flavour to it which makes it such attractive to viewers and sponsors,” Abt said. “As a product the best model is having international players playing alongside local and homegrown players.”

And what of London’s status as the sporting capital of Europe, if not the world?

It is the go-to destination for major sporting championships and for American sports looking to expand their audience. Although the NFL declined to comment, Patsalos believes Brexit will endanger the current London international series of games. “The way the NFL view it is that London is a gateway to Europe,” Patsalos said. “My view is that (because) we pull out of Europe then they will reconsider that deal.”

Three players who would not have qualified under the FA’s criteria for non-EU players

Cristiano Ronaldo: Signed alongside Eric Djemba-Djemba, David Bellion and Kleberson in the summer of 2003, Ronaldo had only just made his debut for Portugal as an 18-year-old.

Thierry Henry: Although Henry had broken through into the French national team by the time he joined Arsenal from Juventus in 1999, he had not played enough games to have qualified for a work permit.

David Ginola: Again his sporadic appearances for France would have precluded another dose of Gallic flair entering the Premier League.

##

THE GUARDIAN

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/24/brexit-vote-what-does-it-mean-professional-sport-eu

** What could Brexit mean for professional sport in the United Kingdom?

Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union establishes the procedures for a member state to withdraw from the EU. Once that is invoked, Britain will have a two-year window in which to negotiate a new treaty to replace the terms of EU membership.

According to Paul Shapiro, an associate at law firm Charles Russell Speechlys, that means the real effects could take some time to filter through, although he predicts a significant impact on various issues from the increased cost of transfers to problems with work permits for players from EU countries.

“While the focus of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union is likely to be on the impact on the City and migration, the impact on the sports world could be significant,” said Shapiro.

“However, we will not know how significant this will be until we have a clearer idea of the terms the UK negotiates for its continued relationship with the EU. If the agreement with the EU includes broad free movement obligations, such as those currently in place with EEA members, the current position regarding the movement of players between the continent and the UK will most likely continue.

“If, instead, an agreement is reached which includes restrictions on the movement of persons and services, the impact on the sports world would be more significant. Firstly, English players may not be able to move to the continent freely and EU nationals could be subject to entry restrictions when seeking to play in England, if post- Brexit they are treated in the same way as current non-EU nationals.”

The Premier League has played down concerns that the competition could be adversely affected by the developments.

“The Premier League is a hugely successful sporting competition that has strong domestic and global appeal. This will continue to be the case regardless of the referendum result,” read an initial statement after the referendum result.

“Given the uncertain nature of what the political and regulatory landscape might be following the ‘Leave’ vote, there is little point second-guessing the implications until there is greater clarity. Clearly, we will continue to work with government and other bodies whatever the outcome of any process.”

Yet it may not take for those implications to become clear. At the last count, there were more than 400 players plying their trade in the top two divisions in England and Scotland, with the vast majority unlikely to pass the stringent work permit requirements introduced by the Football Association in March 2015. Previously, in order to qualify to play in the UK, players needed to have played in at least 75% of their country’s senior international matches over the previous two years.

The new requirements state that non-EEA (European Economic Area) players will have to meet a minimum percentage of international matches played for their country over the previous 24-month period, as determined by that country’s Fifa world ranking – a model that is now likely to be extended to include players from EU countries as well.

Freedom of movement, a principle central to the European project, has previously allowed players to earn a living in the UK without the need for a complicated work permit process.

“There’s been a lot of talk about work permits and what is going to happen to Anthony Martial and some of these promising academy players,” said Jake Cohen, a sports lawyer at Mills & Reeve.

“But the reality is it seems very unlikely that current contracts will be affected immediately because it could still be two years before the UK leaves the EU.”

Under the current rules, for example, Anthony Martial, Morgan Schneiderlin, Yohan Cabaye and N’Golo Kanté would no longer have been eligible for a work permit having not featured in more than 45% of France’s matches since June 2014.

However, of more immediate concern for Premier League clubs is the fact that Brexit could also spell the end of the influx of teenage players from the European Union, who were previously considered as “homegrown” players who, irrespective of nationality or age, have been “registered with any club affiliated to the Football Association or the Football Association of Wales for a period, continuous or not, of three entire seasons or 36 months prior to his 21st birthday”.

Current Premier League rules state that clubs must include eight such players out of a squad of 25, with Chelsea’s Cesc Fàbregas among those whose status would change.

“British football clubs may find themselves only able to sign foreign players over the age of 18 as, outside the EU/EEA, they would no longer be able to benefit from the exception under the current Fifa regulations given for transfers involving 16 and 17 year old footballers within the EU/EEA,” said Shapiro.

“If EU law ceases to apply in the UK, the organisers of sports competitions may be able to more effectively restrict the number of foreign players that feature in matchday squads as they could potentially include EU nationals and Kolpak players within any foreign player quota. Some governing bodies may see this as advantageous in that it would allow them to discriminate in favour of the development of English-qualified players to the potential advantage of the national team whereas it could be damaging to leagues/clubs who would be less competitive in their ability to attract the best players from across the continent.”

Cohen added: “When Paul Pogba came over to Manchester United from Le Havre that was only made possible because of the EU/EEA exception. There’s always been tension between the FA and the Premier League about the number of England-qualified players in the national team over that issue so it will be interesting to see how this effects that. Fifa are not going to negotiate a UK-specific rule as a result of the decision to leave the European Union.

“There are more than 70 kids currently playing for Premier League Under-18 teams. Some of these guys will end up being top players, and the loss of the Article 19 exemption would put Premier League clubs at a significant disadvantage over their European counterparts. Investing heavily in youth is football’s ultimate low-risk, high-reward talent acquisition strategy, and having to wait an extra two years to sign these players would be a blow to a talent pipeline that has been absolutely fundamental to Premier League clubs.

“Then there are some players whose contracts are negotiated in euros – they certainly look a little better today.”

Last season, less than a third of players in the Premier League were qualified to play for England and James Cross, a football and cricket agent for HIX Management Group and Mondial Sports Management, believes one benefit of Brexit could be an increase in the pool of talent available for British national teams.

“The short term effect could be that some of the younger British players who currently find their pathway to the first team is blocked by foreign players get more opportunities,” he said.

“But that could also mean that the price of British players becomes vastly inflated as clubs try to meet the requirements of having enough homegrown representation in their squads. Raheem Sterling cost Manchester City a British record £49m despite only having played two seasons in the Premier League and that premium is likely to increase.”

But it is not just the football industry that could feel the pinch. The Kolpak agreement of 2003 opened a can of worms for the England and Wales Cricket Board.

From a situation where there was a sensible restriction on overseas players, county cricket became flooded with largely cheap cricketers from South Africa in particular, but also Zimbabwe and a number of Caribbean islands, all part of the African,Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group of states. That group signed the Conotou Agreement with EU in 2000. By 2008 there were 60 Kolpak players registered to play county cricket.

Since then ECB has tried hard to find measures to reduce the influx. They were helped by a Conotou clarification, that said the agreement should apply to the movement of trade and services rather than labour. There was an attempt effectively to fine the counties by charging them for fielding non-England-qualified players. Finally, the Home Office brought in a ruling stating that any Kolpak player had to have a valid work visa for a four year period to qualify as an EU citizen.

As with other sports, Brexit will mean that Kolpak ruling no longer applies to cricket and the flow of players will have to stop. There is certain to be a moratorium however. The impact is unlikely to be immediate.

##

CITY AM

http://www.cityam.com/261875/article-50-and-sport-triggering-brexit-process-could-mean

Article 50 and sport: What triggering of Brexit process could mean for Britain’s sport industry, from player transfers to stadium projects and intellectual propert by Simon Leaf, a managing associate at Mishcon de Reya specialising in sport and technology

**  One of the main issues that dominated the Brexit campaign and its aftermath has been the impact of migration on the economy. The government appears to have made curtailing the free movement of people a priority in the forthcoming negotiations and this will undoubtedly have an impact on the sports industry.

In particular, professional football, cricket and rugby union, our three most popular sports, rely heavily on EU migrants both on and off the pitch, as evidenced by the fact that over 400 European players were registered to play in the Premier League last season.

There is even a specific exception in Fifa’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players allowing international transfers of youth players within the EU – further encouraging the cross-border European movement of talent.

While there are stricter rules for non-EU professionals, many are able to rely on specific EU-wide arrangements, such as the Cotonou Agreement and the Kolpak ruling, to ply their trade in the UK.

Going forwards, if the same more stringent rules for non-EU migrants applied to EU sport professionals, some of the biggest names in the Premier League in recent years, such as Cesc Fabregas and N’Golo Kante, would almost certainly have been denied entry.

On the other hand, this could encourage top clubs to invest more in domestic players, hopefully leading to an improvement in domestic talent and performance on the international stage.

There is much EU-specific legislation that presently impacts UK sport and it remains to be seen whether this will continue to apply in the long term.

Take EU state aid legislation, for example. This is one of the key pillars of EU competition law and essentially prohibits a member state from distorting competition by favouring one market participant over another.

In the sports sector, this has come up in the context of stadium developments, such as the allegation that the licensing of the Olympic Stadium to West Ham constituted unlawful state assistance.

Last year, the European Commission clawed back €18.4m from Real Madrid after the city’s council transferred land to the club at a significant undervalue, while six other Spanish clubs were also found to be involved in similar breaches.

Given that there is currently no equivalent domestic law, this could be one of the first areas of legislation to be scrutinised. If removed, this would potentially allow public bodies to subsidise more stadium developments and other major sporting infrastructure projects.

Uncertainty as to the legal and regulatory framework that will exist after Brexit in March 2019 has led to volatility in the currency markets, with predictions that sterling may fall further.

The immediate commercial impact of this has been dramatic. For example, earlier this month Tottenham director Donna-Maria Cullen declared that Brexit had added around 20 per cent to the cost of their new stadium.

As a result, there will be a desire for more flexible contractual relationships. Those involved in sport will look for shorter-term contracts with the kind of sophisticated price adjustment provisions and clauses dealing with material adverse changes in the commercial environment typically found in lengthy facility and construction agreements rather than sports contracts.

The fall in the pound has also led to many UK sports businesses becoming more attractive to foreign investors. There has been an increase in US and Chinese interest in iconic UK sporting brands, such as the recent acquisitions of Aston Villa and West Brom by Tony Xia and Lai Guochuan respectively.

A large amount of the value attributed to British sport comes from our leading brands. From a legal perspective, this value is secured by putting in place intellectual property (IP) protections and licences.

At a basic level, those involved in international sporting trade will be keen to ensure that their business models are not disrupted by Brexit.

For example, many UK sporting licensees rely on licences restricting them to the EU or provide them with rights in respect of EU Trade Marks, which may not be as easy to obtain for UK organisations as it seems unlikely that businesses will continue to be able to obtain EU-wide trade mark protection from a single application to the EU’s trade mark office.

However, the element of copyright law that is important to the big UK sporting professional leagues when it comes to selling broadcast rights is likely to remain unaffected by Brexit, which if anything may help these leagues, as they may be able to put in place stronger measures to prevent UK customers from accessing content intended for the rest of the EU.

The transfer of personal data is fundamental to many successful UK sporting companies, yet it remains to be seen whether these organisations will need to put in place additional burdensome measures to continue transferring data in the same way as before.

While many of these organisations are gearing up for the new EU General Data Protection Regulation, which the government has confirmed will come into force in May 2018 – part-way through the two-year negotiation period – much will depend on whether the UK can prove adequacy – in other words, that we will protect EU citizens’ personal data as stringently as other EU countries.

##

INDEPENDENT

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/international/eu-referendum-how-will-brexit-effect-british-football-and-what-can-be-done-to-limit-the-cost-a7099946.html

** Calculating the consequences on sport also presents difficulties.

Karren Brady, West Ham United’s vice-chairman, had written to the chairmen of every senior professional club in England, Scotland and Wales before the referendum, claiming the UK “cutting ourselves off from Europe would have devastating consequences”.

Freedom of movement, a principle central to the European project, has allowed sportsmen and women to earn a living in the UK without the need for a complicated work permit process.

Non-EU citizens, on the other hand, usually have to meet Home Office registration criteria. Football players in particular have to play a specific number of matches for their national sides in order to qualify for a move to the Premier League. Anthony Martial and N’Golo Kante would almost certainly have been refused entry if not for EU-specific regulations.

Of course, the British government may decide to replicate these criteria in future and indeed expand its canvas beyond EU countries. If not, however, British clubs will be forced to pursue established internationals, increasing already astronomical transfer fees as European clubs take advantage of the situation.

In February, Daniel Geey, a partner at sports and media law firm Sheridans, suggested to The Independent that a new policy would be developed. “I don’t think the same standards would be applied to players from the EU as they currently are to non-EU players,” said Geey. “Arranging bilateral regulations for footballers won’t be the first thing on governments’ minds so the FA and Home Office will need to have new work-permit rules.”

There are naturally those, including the Professional Footballers’ Association chairman, Gordon Taylor, who may believe Brexit will enhance English football, making it easier for clubs to develop home-grown talent.

One of the most common grievances with millennial Premier League football has been the influx of foreign talent swamping the English game and pushing young, locally-based talent down the pecking order.

The thoughts of Paul Shapiro, an associate at law firm Charles Russell Speechlys, add fuel to this theory of thought but he does offer an alternative.

He said: “In addition, British football clubs may find themselves only able to sign foreign players over the age of 18 as, outside the EU/ EEA, they would no longer be able to benefit from the exception under the current Fifa regulations given for transfers involving 16 and 17 year old footballers within the EU/EEA.

“Secondly, if EU law ceases to apply in the UK, the organisers of sports competitions may be able to more effectively restrict the number of foreign players that feature in match day squads as they could potentially include EU nationals and Kolpak players within any foreign player quota.

“Some governing bodies may see this as advantageous in that it would allow them to discriminate in favour of the development of English qualified players to the potential advantage of the national team whereas it could be damaging to leagues/clubs who would be less competitive in their ability to attract the best players from across the continent.”

Additionally, Brexit presents the possibility that the Premier League may struggle to attract the sort of television rights revenue of yesteryear. Next season, £5bn is set to flood through the English game but leaving the EU presents problems going forward.

Geey added: “They are happy with things as they are, but they could be affected by future legislation when it comes to selling rights to EU countries if the commission feels there are competition issues for EU citizens.”

ends