Abstract
Athletes are bound not simply on the basis of their individual agreement with their club, but also by a variety of rules and regulations imposed by national and international sport governing bodies (SGB or SGBs). These rules and regulations become part of the original agreement as part of the obligations of the club towards these entities. The athlete’s acceptance of the myriad of rules and regulations is simply notional, given their complexity even for legal experts. Even so, this type of sporting agreement does not possess the attributes of adhesion contracts that protect the weaker party through a variety of contractual guarantees. The absence of a common intention is a distinctive feature of these agreements. While claims by athletes are not common, this does not suggest that pertinent qualms do not exist in practice. In many cases, the lack of constitutional and human rights guarantees and access to effective justice in these contracts culminates in the restraint of trade. While such an outcome would render the contract illegal or unenforceable under domestic laws, this is not the case with sporting contracts before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Sport contracts are not grounded in modern notions of contract law because of their paternalistic and unilateral nature, in the sense that one of the parties unilaterally decides on matters that ordinarily require the consent of both parties. In dissecting the anatomy of these agreements, it is wise not to subject them to the regime of private law at all. A better way of looking at them should be through the lens of formal regulation, albeit the remedies typically associated with legal action against administrative authorities are missing.
Recommended Citation
Bantekas, Ilias,
HIGH VALUE TRANSNATIONAL ADHESION CONTRACTS: AGREEMENTS WITH SPORT GOVERNING BODIES AND THEIR FUNDAMENTAL DEFECTS,
23 Santa Clara J. Int'l L.
1
(2025).
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/scujil/vol23/iss2/1
