What point has the sports law reform reached?

Roberto Ninno - Partner

Lorenzo Joel Terranova - Associate

What point has the sports law reform reached?

For more than forty years, L. 23/03/1981, No. 91 bearing "Norms concerning relations between companies and athletes" has been the industry benchmark for legal interpreters. A regulation from yesteryear one could argue, at least in light of its "longevity," which, however, is heading for repeal. In fact, the revolution of the discipline began in 2019 when the Delegated Law 8/8/2019, No. 86 (entitled "Delegations to the Government and other provisions on sports organization, sports professions as well as simplification") was approved.

The Parliament, outlining the principles and guiding criteria with which the new legislation must comply, therefore instructed the Government to adopt "one or more legislative decrees" aimed at reorganizing the discipline of the sector with reference to both the organization of the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI) and the sports professions reserving, in the end, a chapter on the simplification of administrative procedures and safety in the sports field.

Analyzing the guidelines dictated by Parliament to the executive, it seems that the legislature was moved by the animus proper to a "champion of the values of sport" with the aim of leading the sports system back to its atavistic (and lost?) values, in line with the dictates of the Constitutional Charter.

Thus, it is not surprising that among the key-words found in the text of the Delegated Law stand out: "organization," "homogeneity of the regulatory framework," "promotion," "women's participation," "social and preventive-health character of sporting activity," "equal opportunities," "health and safety of minors" (who play sports) and even "protection and welfare of animals used in sporting activities."

Deadline for the adoption of the decrees? 12 months from the entry into force of the Delegated Law. Then the pandemic, and ... then what?

Are there today these legislative decrees? What has already changed and what will change?

To the first question we can answer positively: they exist.

Between March 18 and 19, 2021, five legislative decrees implementing Articles No. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the enabling act were published in the Official Gazette:

• Legislative Decree No. 36 of Feb. 28, 2021 "reorganizing and reforming the provisions on professional and amateur sports bodies as well as sports labor";
• Legislative Decree No. 37 of Feb. 28, 2021 "on measures regarding the representation relationships of athletes and sports clubs and access to and exercise of the profession of sports agent";
• Legislative Decree No. 38 of Feb. 28, 2021 "on measures on the reorganization and reform of the safety for the construction and operation of sports facilities and regulations on the modernization or construction of sports facilities";
• Legislative Decree No. 39 of February 28, 2021 "on simplification of requirements for sports bodies";
• Legislative Decree No. 40 of Feb. 28, 2021 "on safety measures in winter sports disciplines".

Coming to the second question, what has changed and what will change?

The reorganization process has suffered a setback due to the intervention of Decree-Law No. 41 of March 22, 2021, converted into law, with amendments, by Law No. 69 of May 21, 2021, better known as the "Supports Decree," which in Art. 30, co. 7, provided for the modification of the deadlines for the measures contained in the implementing decrees by postponing them.

It is not over.

A further change is due, most recently, to the entry into force of Decree-Law No. 73 of May 25, 2021, converted, with amendments, by Law No. 106 of July 23, 2021 (the so-called "supports bis decree"): it is in the light of this last discipline that we can finally draw conclusions and answer the second question. There are three different terms of application of the provisions contained in the reform, rectius in the No. 5 implementing decrees: January 1, 2022, August 31, 2022 and January 1, 2023. Specifically, as a result of the provision in Article 10, para. 13-quater of the aforementioned Decree-Law, the following apply:

1. as of January 1, 2022, the (only) provisions of Articles 10, 39 and 40 and Title VI of Legislative Decree No. 36 of February 28, 2021, as well as those of Legislative Decree No. 40 of February 28, 2021, which, specifically, concern:

• modalities for the recognition of amateur sports associations and clubs;
• the Fund for transition to professionalism and the extension of labor protections in women's sports;
• the promotion of gender equality at all levels and in every structure; iv. safety measures in winter sports disciplines.

2. As of Aug. 31, 2022, the provisions set forth in Legislative Decree No. 39 of Feb. 28, 2021, "simplification of fulfillments related to sports bodies" concerning the simplification of administrative burdens on sports bodies as well as in the area of combating and preventing gender-based violence.

   The text of the decree in question is thus among the most emblematic of the inspiring rationale behind the reform, which, as anticipated, aimed to ensure that the practices of the (new) sports world were marked by a model that was, in concrete terms, guaranteeing constitutional principles. It is no coincidence that the aforementioned decree, in addition to providing the establishment of the National Register of Amateur Sports Activities (which is essential for the purpose of recognizing the legal personality of amateur sports associations), includes provisions aimed at the protection of minors, the prevention of harassment and gender-based violence as well as other discriminatory cases relating to:

• ethnicity;
• religion;
• personal beliefs;
• age;

• sexual orientation.

  All of which delegates to both National Sports Federations and Amateur Sports Associations and Societies and Professional Sports Societies the task of adopting the relevant codes of conduct and organizational models functional to this end.

3. As of January 1, 2023, all regulations (except those effective as of January 1, 2022, see point no. 1 above) referred to in:

• Legislative Decree No. 36 of February 28, 2021 "Reorganization and reform of the provisions on professional and amateur sports bodies as well as sports labor";
• Legislative Decree No. 37 of Feb. 28, 2021 "Measures on the representation relationships of athletes and sports clubs and access to and exercise of the profession of sports agent";
• Legislative Decree No. 38 of Feb. 28, 2021 "measures on the reorganization and reform of safety regulations for the construction and operation of sports facilities and regulations on the modernization or construction of sports facilities".

A clarification needs to be made. The central point of the reform, if only in terms of its concrete scope of application, is probably to be found in the provisions contained in these last three decrees.

The innovative character is dictated by the fact that the legislature has, in fact, dismantled (so much so as to provide for its abrogation in toto) the past codification of L. 23/03/1981, no. 91, going so far as to reformulate ex novo the labor law principles that had hitherto been applied in the interpretation of "sports" labor relations.

The novelty is not insignificant, especially taking into consideration the difficult issues inherent in the so-called "sports bond," a punctum dolens that has not failed to generate tensions, and this even before the actual entry into force of the text.

Coming to the details of the main novelties, it is enough to consider the domains of application of the new provisions of which the topics of greatest interest are listed below:

• discipline of amateur and professional sports entities;
• discipline of individuals (membership, minor athletes, technicians, sports managers and match directors);
• provisions for the protection of animals in sports disciplines involving their use;
• provisions on sports labor;
• provisions on equal opportunities for persons with disabilities in access to military and civil corps sports groups of the state.

Reconnecting with the incipit of the article, consider that the rules dictated here not only provide for the repeal of the discipline that for more than forty years has been the reference for interpreters of the law, but even overturns past assumptions, betting on the modernity of the sports system.

Taking into account the complexity and breadth of the reform, Clovers decided to devote a special focus to the various implementing decrees so as to ensure a careful examination of the new provisions and, at the same time, not to exhaust the many insights and analysis offered by the innovative nature of the new legislative framework. Clovers intends to follow the evolution of the reform step by step, and to this end, for the analysis of the individual decrees and the respective novelties contained therein, it makes an appointment for all readers to the next episode.

Italian version

• Sports Law

WHO OWNS ROGER FEDERER'S RF LOGO?

In July 2018, Federer made the surprise switch from Nike to Uniqlo in a deal worth a reported $300million over 10 years. Speculation quickly rose surrounding Federer’s signature “RF” logo that appeared on his Nike products. The 37-year-old athlete previously claimed the logo was his, and it was expected that Uniqlo would adopt the “RF” branding.

Roger Federer is insisted to take back his famous logo because it’s his symbol but the problem is Nike was registered the “RF” Logo as a trademark and owned the rights to it Nike had already stopped selling Federer’s clothing in their stores all over the world for now.

Lately Uniqlo spokesman Aldo Liguori revealed that the apparel company has “no plans” to acquire the logo from Nike, even though the deal lapsed earlier this year in March, despite what Federer had told his fans last year. The departure from the classic “RF” logo might come to the disappointment of many long-standing followers of the eight-time Wimbledon champion.

So, what could Federer have done to avoid the issue and what are the key lessons for athletes?

Register the trade mark in your name - The most obvious solution would have been to ensure that the trade mark was registered in his name (or his company's name). He could have then, as part of his sponsorship agreement with Nike, granted Nike a licence to use the RF logo for the duration of the sponsorship agreement. Indeed, it is slightly surprising Federer did not register the RF logo in his own name given he is the registered proprietor of several trade marks, including an EU trade mark for "Roger Federer."

Use an assignment clause - Alternatively, if Nike had insisted on owning the RF Logo trade mark, the sponsorship agreement should have included an automatic assignment provision so that, once the sponsorship deal expired or if it were terminated by either party, the rights in trade mark are assigned to Federer.

The 1935 Agreement between Ferrari and Tazio Nuvolari.

A 1935 agreement between Tazio Nuvolari and Alfa Romeo - through the Scuderia Ferrari - was recently found.

The most striking thing concerning the agreement is the extreme concision of the agreement, perhaps one of the most important sports law agreements of the 30's is a one page letter through which Nuvolari makes his services available to Scuderia Ferrari (which the time it ran and prepared Alfa Romeo cars).
   
It is estimated that Nuvolari could gain between salary, bonuses and prizes, almost half a million lire a year. A very high figure for the era, far more than mathematics makes sense since a middle class worker usually earned one thousand lire per month. 

Another curiosity is the value of injury and life insurance, equal to almost 10% of the value of the wound.

The other interesting thing remains the breakdown of prizes. At a time when media rights did not exist, one of the main sources of revenue for a racing équipe were prizes awarded by the organizers. The deal reveals a fairly favorable breakdown for Nuvolari: over half of the prizes went to the driver.