The trouble with Roy Keane

This article analyses the potential legal actions that could arise out of Roy Keane's challenge on Alf-Inge Haaland in the light of the comments attributed to Keane in his recently published autobiography. This challenge becomes all the more interesting because of these comments as it raises the possibility that every cause of action that has ever been used in this country in respect of an incident of participator violence may come into play. Throughout, the implications for contact sports of this kind of legal intervention and the ever-present argument over the need for the law to be used in these circumstances will be referred to. The incident is used as a reference point for the application of the law to disputes arising out of football matches and to highlight the public policy arguments for and against bringing the various causes of legal action

Liability for professional athletes' injuries: a comparative analysis of where the risk lies

Over the past 20 years, there has been an unprecedented increase in sports labour migration, international competition and litigation arising from sports injuries. As athletes move between jurisdictions and play abroad more frequently, the legal norms that they encounter are often radically different from those with which they may be familiar in their home country. This paper examines the similarities and differences in approach to cases of sporting negligence in England and Wales and France. In particular, it focuses on the substantive law applicable to such sports torts and the problems that are faced by an injured professional athlete who is seeking compensation because of the different approach to the burden of risk in these jurisdictions. The paper begins by outlining this increased internationalisation of sports employment before comparing the applicable law of England and Wales with that of France. It concludes by examining whether these fundamental differences in the burden of risk should lead to a more sports-specific approach to this field of dispute resolution

Football banning orders: analysing their use in court

In the months prior to the 2006 FIFA World Cup in Germany, the government funded a number of targeted policing operations aimed at securing Football Banning Orders against known or suspected football hooligans. This article is based on court observations and associated interviews carried out in early 2006 in and around Manchester. It evaluates the application process, the legal tests applied and the quality of the evidence relied on by courts when determining whether the imposition of a Football Banning Order is neces-sary to prevent future football-related disorder being committed by the respondent. In particular, the analysis focuses on whether the use of a civil procedure can continue to be justified in the light of the punitive length of and conditions attached to these Orders, whether the correct standard of proof is being applied by the court at all stages of the application and whether policing tactics are focused too narrowly on the securing of Football Banning Orders

Player violence or violent players? Vicarious liability for sports participants

This article analyses two recent English cases concerning the law on vicarious liability for acts of violence and considers their significance in respect of on-field acts of violence in contact sports. It provides an overview of how the law of negligence has developed in the specific context of sports injuries (including the application of the defence of volenti) and critiques the application of vicarious liability to sports cases. This is followed by a consideration of the wider law on vicarious liability for violent employees through a review of Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22 and a deeper consideration of Mattis v Pollock [2003] EWCA Civ 887. The article continues with an analysis of how those decisions have changed the legal landscape in respect of violent sports participants, looking in particular at reported cases from three jurisdictions in which that issue has been raised

The social and community value of football - Are there any regulatory requirements for football clubs to report against social and environment impacts?

It is often claimed that because professional football clubs are at the centre of, integral to and essential for the communities in which they are based, the pattern of regulation affecting them should be different from that which is imposed on other businesses of a similar size. Such claims are used to justify the need for the differential treatment of football clubs in many different contexts from planning and licensing applications, to calls for the more effective regulation of football clubs from supporter groups, to the rule providing for the primacy of football creditors. Despite this claim of difference, however, neither the football authorities, domestic UK law nor EU law require football clubs to submit to any social accounting procedures. The result of this lack of a framework for measuring the social and community impact of a football club is that there is very little evidence that can be relied on by either the governing bodies of football, their constituent member clubs or their fans to justify the differential treatment that is often sought. Further, this lack of evidence makes it almost impossible to justify to clubs why it could be beneficial for them to engage with their communities more proactively than might otherwise be the case

The Premier League: European Commission broadcasting negotiations

This intervention analyses the new arrangements for the sale of live television rights to FA Premier League (FAPL) games. The new procedures have been produced as a result of ongoing discussions between the FAPL and the European Commission. To ensure compliance with European Union competition legislation, the Premier League has accepted the Commission’s calls for an end to its exclusive distribution of live broadcast rights, bringing to an end BSkyB’s 15-year monopoly of its main subscription driver (Buck and Terazono, 2005). Here, we examine the aims of the European Commission in pursuing the FAPL’s exclusive deal with BSkyB (Sky) and consider whether the deal that has been brokered provides any tangible benefits to the consumer

Consuming the Olympics: the fan, the rights holder and the law

The London Olympic Games and Paralympics Act 2006 (the Act) received its Royal Assent on 30 March 2006, well over six years before the Games themselves are due to begin. The early passing of this Act is partly to ensure that the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) has sufficient time to organise the Games, and partly to ensure that Parliament has sufficient legislative time to implement the legal framework necessary to stage a modern Games to the satisfaction of the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The Act as a whole covers a variety of issues from the creation of the ODA and the defining of its role and powers in respect of planning and transport to the creation of several new criminal offences. Within the Act are certain key areas worthy of socio-legal investigation. Indeed, many of the provisions are emblematic of how the law maps the cultural and commercial tensions that we have identified elsewhere (James and Osborn, 2009 and Greenfield and Osborn, 2001). These tensions are particularly pronounced with respect to an event such as the Olympics, where the historically entrenched cultural values and identity of the Olympic movement must now be read alongside the commercial imperative of maximising income (Tomlinson, 2005)

Entertainment — The painful process of rethinking consent

The principal focus of this article will be upon an area of activity that has over the past decade seen a significant amount of growth in popularity, namely, the infliction of pain and/or injury for the purposes of entertainment, as pioneered by the US TV series and spin-off films Jackass and widely copied in the UK by, for example, Dirty Sanchez and the double act ‘The Pain Men’ on Channel 4’s programme, Balls of Steel. Until recently, and despite its popularity, this type of entertainment has attracted minimal comment from academics or practitioners on the legality of such conduct. However, a campaign begun by Mediawatch in 2010 has brought to prominence some interesting and potentially difficult questions about the ability of a person to consent to injuries caused in the name of entertainment. As the parameters of legally valid consent are both unstable and contested, it is unclear whether the types of conduct under discussion here are capable of being consented to and whether the associated reasons for inflicting the pain and sometimes injury provide any justification for what might otherwise be criminal behaviour. In analysing the application of the criminal law to instances of what is referred to here as ‘painful entertainment’ this article challenges traditional approaches to the categorisation of consensual activities and proposes a rethinking of how the law of offences against the person could be applied to novel situations

Being Stalked: A Psychiatrist\u27s Perspective

It is only recently that stalking has been criminalized after some highly publicized forensic cases. Psychiatric focus has been on erotomania, and in this article we primarily highlight stalking as a separate entity with psychiatric and legal implications. The case reports reveal our vulnerability as therapists, and we hope will raise our awareness of stalking as a potentially dangerous situation. The legal statutes vary in different states, but our recommendations may provide guidelines towards formulating policies and procedures for the safety of healthcare providers