Sports Newsletter - May/June/July

Earlier this month, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment on the FIFA Football Agent Regulations (Agent Regulations).

This judgment has been long anticipated, following the opinion from the Advocate General of the CJEU, delivered in May last year (mentioned in our May 2025 Sports Newsletter). In its judgment, the CJEU held that key elements of the Agent Regulations, including the licensing requirement for agents, the service fee cap, the prohibition of multiple representation, the client pays rule and the pro rata payment rule, can be justified. FIFA has indicated that it will now invite agent representatives to a meeting with the aim of reaching a consensual solution.

The full text of the decision is available here, and FIFA's statement is available here.

Premier League Plus to launch in Singapore

The 'Premflix' question has been around for some time now. That is, should the Premier League - the most watched sports league in the world - launch its own Netflix-style direct-to-consumer service for the broadcast of Premier League matches?

There would seem to be a compelling financial case to do so based on some very rough numbers. For the current 2025-28 media rights cycle, the Premier League receives USD 15.3 billion in rights fees from domestic and international broadcasters - roughly USD 3.8 billion per year. It is understood that roughly 600 million viewers around the world tune in to watch Premier League matches each weekend. Even if only a small proportion of these viewers paid a monthly subscription to a Premflix service, there would be an opportunity to significantly outgrow the current levels of media rights revenue.

The 2026/27 Premier League season kicks off next month. Fans will be able to watch matches in almost 200 countries around the world. In Singapore, the Premier League will, for the first time, deploy the direct-to-consumer model and launch its own streaming service. The service will be called 'Premier League Plus' - a digital and mobile app on which fans will be able to watch all 380 PL matches live and on demand, as well as having access to replays, highlights, magazine shows and other PL content.

This is clearly a significant development. For the first time, the Premier League will have its own customers. It will have to deal with pricing, subscription tiers and customer churn. It will need to implement the right strategies for marketing and promoting the service and develop a deep understanding of technology and data. It will need to ensure it complies with the complex co-regulatory system which usually applies to streaming services, and which is constantly evolving.

The fact that Premier League Plus is being launched in only one country shows that the Premier League is aware of the potential challenges of engaging the direct-to-consumer model for the first time. It is also notable that PL+ is being launched with the support of the PL's broadcaster in Singapore, Starhub. The Premier League has publicly stated that it will use Singapore as a test market before considering whether to roll out PL+ in other countries. Broadcasters and other sports leagues will be watching this with interest.

At the same time as it launches PL+, the Premier League will establish a new in-house media operations business. For the 2026/27 season, the production and distribution of all Premier League content for overseas audiences will be managed by the Premier League from a new production facility in Olympia in London, ending a long and successful production partnership between the Premier League and IMG. This will provide the Premier League with full control over its content and all the flexibility it needs to further develop a direct-to-consumer platform. After a long discussion of the Premflix question, it now seems clear that the Premier League is giving this question some careful consideration.

Gambling Advertising Reforms

In our March/April 2026 Newsletter, we discussed the Federal Government's proposed reforms to gambling advertising and the significant impact they will have on sports organisations (amongst others). The draft legislation to enact these reforms was introduced to Parliament earlier this month and is currently before the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. The committee is due to hold public hearings to discuss the draft bills on 3 and 4 August and to report back on 17 August. We will issue an update shortly after the committee publishes its report.

Australian Basketball Dispute goes to CAS

We've previously discussed the NSW Supreme Court proceedings between the National Basketball League (NBL) and two of its clubs, the Illawarra Hawks and South East Melbourne Phoenix. The NSW Supreme Court matter considered the enforceability of a CAS arbitration agreement in the clubs' licence agreements, after a preliminary discovery application was filed by the clubs in connection with a potential dispute between the parties.

Whilst the NSW Supreme Court proceedings were stayed, it appears that the underlying dispute is yet to be resolved, with the NBL commencing proceedings at CAS.

It's not particularly common for a commercial dispute within an Australian sport to find its way to CAS, with local courts or arbitration being the more common forum for dispute resolution. There is merit in Australian sporting organisations referring commercial disputes to CAS, as a confidential and sports-specific forum.

Sports Integrity Australia - ADHD medication warning

Sports Integrity Australia has published a warning to athletes using medication for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) without a formal diagnosis or without the medication having been prescribed to them.

Sports Integrity Australia notes that stimulant medications such as methylphenidate (for example, Ritalin and Concerta) or dexamphetamine-based treatments (for example, Adderall and Vyvanse) are relied on by many athletes but are listed on the World Anti-Doping Agency's Prohibited List (S6 Stimulants) due to their potential performance-enhancing effects.

ADHD medication can generally be used in sports if the athlete has a medical diagnosis and the use is part of a legitimate medical treatment, permitted under a Therapeutic Use Exemption.

The warning is a timely reminder for athletes after a number of recent anti-doping rule violations involving ADHD medication, including that of NSW Waratahs player Henry O'Donnell.

National Sports Tribunal Update - Selection Disputes

Commonwealth Games

The lead up to the Commonwealth Games has seen several selection disputes come before the National Sports Tribunal. Most of these are in relation to Australian Athletics' discretionary nominations for the upcoming Commonwealth Games. These athletics cases contain a good summary of the principles that NST panels have espoused when exercising discretion in selection decisions, including that (i) absolute discretion in selection policies is often informed to a considerable extent by the objectives of the policies, (ii) absolute discretion is not unfettered and must be exercised reasonably, and (iii) if a selection committee comes to one decision when exercising its discretion, that there is an alternative decision which the selection committee could have come to is not sufficient to overturn a selection decision. The Panel noted that these principles regarding discretion leave 'an athlete with a high bar to jump to successfully challenge a selection decision in the context of a matter where the Selection Committee has broad discretion. That is not to say that such a height can never be cleared by an Athlete.'

In each of the athletics selection cases, however, the Panel found that the Selection Committee had exercised its discretion reasonably, in good faith, and in accordance with the relevant selection policy, and that there was a material basis for the non-nomination of the appellant athlete. The challenges to the non-nominations were therefore not successful.

The relevant decisions are available here:

Rowing World Championships

In Athlete v Rowing Australia NST-E26-611, the athlete appealed against their non-selection for the 2026 World Rowing Cup III in Lucerne, Switzerland. The appellant challenged the non-selection on the ground that they were not afforded a reasonable opportunity to satisfy the relevant selection policy, as they were not informed of the weightings that would be attributed to each of the selection activities until after the selection decisions had been made. The appeal was denied, for reasons including that there was no requirement to disclose weightings in advance, and each of the matters relied upon by the Athlete as things they would have done differently if they had known the specific weightings, did not establish that the Athlete was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to satisfy the Selection Policy.

Kaynak: Bird & Bird. Telif hakkı kaynak yayına aittir; buradaki metin özet/atıftır.

Orijinal haber: https://www.twobirds.com/en/insights/2026/australia/sports-newsletter---mayjunejuly