Decision-Making and Player Representation Dr Leanne O’Leary “Very often it is not what people seek to achieve but the way in which they go about it that creates the most tension”

Categories Regulatory e.g. executive, codes of conduct, regulations Commercial e.g. corporate team/committee, sponsorship/broadcast contracts Disciplinary e.g. judicial bodies, offences and sanctions

“Some disputes relate to the adverse effects of specific rules that restrict free movement, rules that restrict a player’s capacity to earn a living or create working conditions that athletes consider unfair. Some disputes arise because of the way in which the rules are determined: either there has been an absence of the players’ interests being taken into account in the decision-making process or the players’ interests have been subjugated to the economic interests of the federation or league in circumstances characterized by an imbalance of power or a conflict of interest.”

Decision-Making Substance v Procedure Substance – may harm individual rights e.g. right to work, earn a living, economic harm Procedure – procedurally unfair e.g. not consulted, poor consultation, conflicts of interest, Power imbalance

Relevant laws National level: employment law, labour relations law, administrative law, common law doctrine of restraint of trade, contract law, EU law International level: national law in which entity based or which applies to the contractual rules, political constraints

National Level - USA Private entities/no obligation to amateur game Transnational leagues Unionised National Labour Relations Act 1935 Obligation to bargain over “wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment” Rule of Law = Collective Bargaining Agreement

National Level - USA Commissioner empowered to discipline athletes/make “best interests” decisions Decision-making processes constrained by labour relations law, general obligation to act within limits of authority, procedural fairness Arbitration/Courts

Labour arbitration Arbitrator interprets/applies agreement in accordance with the “industrial common law of the shop”

National Level – England/Wales Typically organised within pyramid regulatory model/obligation to amateur game Usually not transnational (ex rugby league) Players associations TULRCA 1992 – very different labour relations regime Collective agreements – not legally binding Decision-making – private league/regulator

National Level – England/Wales Premier League unique player rep/consultative structure Commission on Industrial Relations 1974 Professional Football Negotiating and Consultative Committee (PFNCC) Independent representation through PFNCC

International Level – World Cups/Championships Controlling private regulatory power more problematic Extra level – national federations Conflicts of interest No global employment/administrative law Negotiation on commercial model, meaningful consultation on regulatory matters, problematic Commercial model: favours party in stronger bargaining position

International Level – World Cups/Championships World Players’ Association, FIFPRO, IRPA etc. Athletes’ Commissions Power disparities, different dynamic between union/regulator Pressure (national/international), voluntary memorandums of understanding

Conclusion Athletes’ Commission – World Rugby example Share regulatory decision-making power Strengthen political/national legal controls Social regulation through ILO International framework agreements, social responsibility programmes Multi-stakeholder initiatives– Sport and Human Rights Centre