1. 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”

2. 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

3. “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.”

4. 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

5. 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

7. 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

8. 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

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

11. 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

12. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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