In a recent speech to an audience of trainee sports reporters, the investigative journalist Andrew Jennings (the bête noire of Sepp Blatter and Fifa) castigated sports journalists for their supine acceptance of sports governing bodies’ agendas. He cited as a particular example the reluctance of the British press to report at all on the Swiss corruption trial of former ISL executives, two of whom have already admitted paying substantial commissions to acquire sports rights – a practice that is defended on the grounds that it is normal and therefore legal. Judgment will be delivered next month.

In Jennings’ view, journalists in the UK are exercising self censorship in reporting on governing bodies affairs for fear of losing privileged access to events and “off the record” briefings. Pretty much the same sentiment was expressed by former racing driver Jody Schechter recently. Commenting on the relatively easy ride given to Max Mosley by the motor racing press, he said that their attitude was not surprising in the circumstances.

If the Fourth Estate is hamstrung in its ability to scrutinise how sports governing bodies behave (something they would surely debate), it is important that courts and independent tribunals perform their role in a manner that inspires public confidence, whether the governing body ‘wins’ or not. It is also important that decisions are made public.

Last week, two independent tribunals in soccer and cricket had to adjudicate on positions taken by the Football League and the ECB respectively. The backgrounds to the cases are described in two recent e-alerts (“Leeds Lose 15 Point Appeal” and “Cricket’s fine new mess: What can the governing bodies learn from the debacle?”). Happily both tribunals passed the public confidence test with flying colours.

The first case was Leeds’ attempt to overturn a 15-point penalty that they agreed to accept from the Football League as a price for failing to comply with the Football League’s insolvency policy. In a clear judgment that is publicly available here, the Tribunal dismissed the application and restated the classic principle that any legal challenges must not put at risk the position of other clubs who start the season in the expectation that decisions will not be altered once play begins. It was this principle that was not respected by the decision to allow Cardiff to enter the UEFA cup should it win the FA Cup (See the article “Cardiff City's proposed entry to the UEFA Cup. Are the governing bodies making a rod for their own backs?”).

In contrast, the second decision which (regrettably) is not publicly available and which has therefore been subject to very much less comment, is an appeal brought by three players who were not allowed to play county cricket because they had played for the unsanctioned ICL competition.

The original self-styled ‘robust’ ECB decision was given generally positive press coverage when announced. However it was never legally justifiable. The appeal tribunal found for the players and refused to remit the issue to the ECB for re-consideration, as that body had requested. The players can start to ply their trade at once – an outcome that means that all the ICL players can now play county cricket irrespective of their particular situations.

On any view, this amounts to an important reverse for the ECB. It is a shame however that the reasoning of the appeal panel is not publicly available.

Whether Andrew Jennings and Jody Scheckter are right or not on press coverage, as long as there is the possibility that they might be, it is vital that legal procedures work and are seen to work. The days of self-regulation without some sort of scrutiny for sport governing bodies are well over; sport is too important for that.

© Davenport Lyons 2008. All rights reserved.
This document reflects the law and practice as at May 2008. It is general in nature, and does not purport in any way to be comprehensive or a substitute for specialist legal advice in individual circumstances.