Annual Review Of Restraint Laws And Regulations: Fill & Download for Free

The economy is doing fairly well and looks to have some better structural underpinnings for the future. Certainly, the business tax reductions have helped. Despite predictable resistance led by the chant, “Tax cuts for the rich,” the U.S. business tax rate is now in line with the world average. That makes the U.S. economy more competitive.Tax Cut Criticisms Grow More Incoherenthttps://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/tax-cut-criticisms-incoherent/The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) remains controversial, with public opinion evenly split and many Democrats campaigning on repeal. However, the Democratic critique of the tax cuts has grown increasingly incoherent.The party excoriates the "tax cuts for the rich" while trying to tilt them even further to the wealthy. Democrats slam the deficit effect of the tax cuts while working to worsen budget deficits.In addition, they erroneously describe the law as a "middle-class tax hike" while proposing policies that would truly raise middle-class taxes.Disingenuous Critique #1: "Tax Cuts for the Rich"The most aggressive liberal complaint was that the TCJA represented a giveaway to the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. In reality, the tax cuts nudged the distribution of federal taxes in a more progressive direction.Corporate Income Tax Rates around the World, 2016Corporate Income Tax Rates around the World, 2016 | Tax FoundationIt is well known that the United States has the highest corporate income tax rate among the 35 industrialized nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).Episode 387: The No-Brainer Economic Platformhttps://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=499490275… “SMITH: You are killing the voters here. So far we've got raised taxes on the middle class and eliminate taxes on corporations?BLUMBERG: Yeah. And those were the two most liberal members of our panel, Dean Baker and Robert Frank. And here's the reason that they and pretty much all our panelists hate the corporate income tax, which by the way is one of the highest in the world here in the United States at 35 percent.”Corporate Tax Rates Around the World, 2018Corporate Tax Rates Around the World, 2018 | Tax FoundationAll regions saw a net decline in average statutory rates between 1980 and 2018. The average declined the most in Europe, with the 1980 average of 40.5 percent dropping to 18.38 percent, representing almost a 55 percent rate reduction. South America has seen the smallest decline, with the average only decreasing by 29 percent from 39.66 percent in 1980 to 28.08 percent in 2018.Despite resistance, a reduction in business regulation has been beneficial in terms of world competitiveness:The U.S. Returns to Top 10 in World Economic Freedom Indexhttps://fee.org/articles/the-us-returns-to-top-10-in-world-economic-freedom-index/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw6rXeBRD3ARIsAD9ni9AvSSwe8T9Y6vAxUSyniMctqThjOvpvfFSdmUfAi-lWIMK6vRc8GlcaAgCuEALw_wcBAfter nearly two decades of declining economic freedom, the United States is now the 6th most economically free country in the world. …… In the aftermath of the financial crisis, the five broad areas of freedom that the report measures—size of government, legal system and property rights, monetary policy, trade openness, and regulation—saw falls in their U.S. scores that in recent years have begun to recover…… The top ten countries in order are: Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, Ireland, United States, Georgia, Mauritius, United Kingdom, and, tied at 10th place, Australia and Canada.I am still not happy about the federal reserve keeping interest rates artificially low for years. Hopefully, this does not lead to large “bubbles” such as a “housing bubble.” The business cycle continues and prolonged growth appears out of reach, at least at our current level of knowledge. Pick yer poison as to which economic schools best describe fluctuations in the business cycle. My current opinion, based on years of study, and over 30 books on economics (which is still not enough for a good understanding), is that the Austrians provide to best explanations, so far. Although economists are notoriously poor predictors of future events, here is a good review of the 1990’s bubble:Who Predicted the Bubble? Who Predicted the Crash?Mark ThorntonThe Independent Review a journal of political economyVolume IX, Number 1, Summer 2004http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_09_1_1_thornton.pdfI am displeased by tariffs and other trade barriers on principle. Sometimes they appear necessary, but my understanding of this is incomplete. It is certainly true that China has been a bad actor on the world trade stage for some time now. How does a country protect itself from predatory trade practices? Hopefully, the U.S. economy can withstand Trump’s tariffs while causing other countries to comply with stated world trade goals.The Basics of Tariffs And Trade Barriershttps://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/tariff-trade-barrier-basics.asp… Tariffs and Modern TradeThe role tariffs play in international trade has declined in modern times. One of the primary reasons for the decline is the introduction of international organizations designed to improve free trade, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO). Such organizations make it more difficult for a country to levy tariffs and taxes on imported goods, and can reduce the likelihood of retaliatory taxes. Because of this, countries have shifted to non-tariff barriers, such as quotas and export restraints. Organizations like the WTO attempt to reduce production and consumption distortions created by tariffs. These distortions are the result of domestic producers making goods due to inflated prices, and consumers purchasing fewer goods because prices have increased. (To learn about the WTO's efforts, read What Is The World Trade Organization?)China-U.S. Trade Issueshttps://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33536.pdfDespite growing commercial ties, the bilateral economic relationship has become increasingly complex and often fraught with tension. From the U.S. perspective, many trade tensions stem from China’s incomplete transition to a free market economy. While China has significantly liberalized it’s economic and trade regimes over the past three decades, it continues to maintain (or has recently imposed) a number of state-directed policies that appear to distort trade and investment flows. Major areas of concern expressed by U.S. policymakers and stakeholders include China’s alleged widespread cyber economic espionage against U.S. firms; relatively ineffective record of enforcing intellectual property rights (IPR); discriminatory innovation policies; mixed record on implementing its World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations; extensive use of industrial policies (such as subsidies and trade and investment barriers) to promote and protect industries favored by the government; and interventionist policies to influence the value of its currency. Many U.S. policymakers argue that such policies adversely impact U.S. economic interests and have contributed to U.S. job losses in some sectors.Testimony before the Senate Finance Committee Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness for a hearing on ‘Market Access Challenges in China’https://www.epi.org/publication/testimony-before-the-senate-finance-committee-subcommittee-on-international-trade-customs-and-global-competitiveness-for-a-hearing-on-market-access-challenges-in-china/As recently as 2001, the U.S. ran a global trade surplus in advanced technology products (ATP). ATP includes advanced elements of computers and electronics, as well as biotechnology, life sciences, aerospace, and nuclear technology, among others. ATP should be a strong suit for a wealthy, technologically savvy, high-skilled, capital-intensive country like the United States. However, roughly coincident with China’s entry into the WTO, the surplus turned to deficit and grew rapidly, hitting $136 billion in 2017. The U.S. ATP deficit with China is more than our entire global ATP trade deficit, which was $110 billion. This means that, excluding China, we actually have a trade surplus in ATP with the rest of the world. This statistic alone should be a signal that there are significant anomalies in the U.S. trade relationship with China that cannot be explained by market forces.European Union sued China before WTO for allegedly TRIPS Agreement infringementEuropean Union sued China before WTO for allegedly TRIPS Agreement infringement - OlarteMoure | Intellectual PropertyChina — Certain Measures on the Transfer of TechnologyWTO | dispute settlement - DS549: China — Certain Measures on the Transfer of TechnologyLowering European levies is the best answer to US protectionismQuid pro quo: Lowering European levies is the best answer to US protectionismThe system of agricultural protectionism in the EU has resulted in import duties of 69 percent on beef and 26 percent for pork.EU Sugar Policyhttp://sugarcane.org/global-policies/policies-in-the-european-union/eu-sugar-policyThe European Union (EU) is the third largest sugar producer and the second largest consumer in the world. EU sugar policy was first established in 1968 and regulates all aspects of the industry, ranging from production quotas and guaranteed prices, to exports subsidies and import restrictions.After a WTO panel found EU sugar policy not compliant with international trade rules, the EU undertook an extensive reform in 2006 that substantially reshaped its sugar market. In the few years that followed, the EU changed from being the world’s second largest sugar exporter to a net sugar importer.I would also like to see the U.S. live up to stated world trade goals.Chronological list of disputes casesdispute settlement - chronological list of disputes casesU.S. Sugar Policyhttp://sugarcane.org/global-policies/policies-in-the-united-states/sugar-in-the-united-statesThe United States (U.S.) is the fifth largest sugar producer and fifth largest consumer of sugar in the world. The U.S. sugar industry has enjoyed trade protection since 1789 when Congress enacted the first tariff against foreign-produced sugar. Since then, the U.S. government has continued to provide trade support and protection for its domestic sugar industry.The framework for the current U.S. sugar program has its roots in the so-called “Farm Bill” enacted in 1990. The farm bill is the primary vehicle for setting U.S. sugar policy and that policy is currently based on three main pillars: price support through preferential loan agreements, domestic market controls and tariff-rate quotas.As of now, GDP growth is much better than what we were told to expect by the previous administration:The 'new normal' was nothttps://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/30/the-united-states-is-doing-better-than-it-did-duri/The “new normal” is 2 percent economic growth as we were endlessly told by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supporters in the 2016 campaign. Unlike all previous administrations, economic growth never reached a 3 percent annual rate during the Obama years. Many economists who were Obama and Clinton supporters endlessly repeated the mantra that the age of great productivity growth was over and that Americans had to get used to a sluggish economy.The labor participation rate (unemployment is down) is up. Wages are increasing. Small business growth looks good.Small business owners are optimistic about 2019Poll: Small Business Owners Are Optimistic About 2019 OutlookThe economy is looking reasonably healthy today. How will it fare in the future? Get out your crystal balls. My current understanding leads me to believe that as long as we can keep the fascist/socialist intrusion of government into the private sector at bay, the economy should continue to remain healthy despite corrections in the business cycle. I believe that welfare states (especially the EU) are unsustainable. Whether those countries face major economic problems in my lifetime is uncertain. Humans tend to be adaptable. What effects will possible future problems around the world have on the U.S. economy? I am always open to observable empirical evidence.I am always fascinated by people whose economic knowledge comes from the media (and their chosen “experts”) and politicians. There is no shortage of people willing to expound on the certainties of economics from an ignorant point of view. I have no such certainty… but I am optimistic.

League and court battlesThe ownership of the badminton league is already being fought in court while in the Indian Super League (ISL), the football league faced a major controversy when the ISL regulatory commission banned popular club FC Goa for ‘indiscipline’ and imposed a hefty fine of US$ 1.6 million on the club owners. The club had boycotted the final prize distribution ceremony last year after some players had made allegations against the match officials.The FC Goa management had made adverse comments in the media disputing the result of league’s final last year. The team co-owner Dattaraj Salgaocar claimed that two penalties given against his team in the last five minutes changed everything. “It was a terrible referring, one-sided and it was already decided to give away the match to Chennai team,” he alleged.Amidst all this, India remains at a low 162nd spot in FIFA rankings. So much so that a nation with huge population pool to nurture talent is often beaten by much smaller nations like Nepal and war-struck Afghanistan.Interestingly, European and German clubs are far more popular in India than the Indian clubs. This is mainly due to live telecast of the FA Cup, the Bundesliga and other international fixtures. It has produced thousands of armchair football fans. But the sport has vanished from the masses. Most of the schools in India do not even have a playing field. And wherever there are fields they are dotted with cricket players. Hardly anyone plays football. The standard, therefore, remains low.During the league seasons, there is always a fight between clubs or franchises of the league and the national coaches. While the franchises want players for League fixtures, coaches demand that they be in a coaching camp for national duty. The fight goes on with the standard of the game static.Competition law and sportsWhile cricket is the king of sports in India, other team sports like football and hockey and recently even Formula 1 races are gaining popularity and viewership with large corporates evincing interest in sponsorship and willing to invest in building brands and some even acquiring popular overseas clubs that attract a young audience. IPL is now in its fifth season and its continued success has clearly demonstrated the commercial viability of franchisee, endorsement and broadcasting rights for club and league sports. The moot question therefore is whether league and club events can be held outside the National Sports Federation (NSF) and if yes, the real benefits of such events including increasing the popularity of such sports.Sports events worldwide are organized in a pyramid structure, where a particular sport is governed and regulated by a single International Federation (IF) with various NSFs affiliated to it. The IF governs the regulatory aspect i.e. laying down the rules of the sport, eligibility criteria and playing conditions. The IF also makes the annual calendar for that sport and conducts the world championship and other international level events. A corollary at the national level would be that the NSF would follow the regulations of the IF as a condition of its membership and have exclusive powers to make the annual calendar, develop grass-root level of sport and conduct tournaments and training camps in the country.The importance of the pyramid structure and the riskto the sports due to multiple sport federations have been recognized by IOC and have been addressed in the European Commission’s Helsinki Report and the White Paper on sport. Integrity, uniformity and strict control over regulations ensure that non-discriminatory uniform rules are applied to the sport worldwide and encourage growth of the sports across the globe. It includes sporting sanctions like disciplinary action, suspensions, fines and bans for behavior contrary to the spirit of sports which lie at the core of the sporting movement and can be applied only within the sporting structure.The directions of the Delhi High Court directing the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to undertake enquiry against the All India Chess Federation for preventing its players from taking part in a tournament outside its aegis, BCCI’s sanctions on the Indian Cricket League and the conduct of the World Series Hockey by the Indian Hockey Federation allegedly fall within the ambit of the IF/NSF trying to curb the advent of breakaway leagues through their rules.The IF/NSFs’ rules restricting rival tournaments and release of players for these tournaments (e.g. India) have come under the scanner of competition/anti-trust laws like abuse of dominant position and anticompetitive agreements leading to unreasonable restraint on trade. The sports industry is unique because the pyramid structure which ensures monopoly is essential in maintaining the integrity of sport and unlike other industries, the industry thrives on competition rather than from the lack of it. This reasoning gives birth to the exception of ‘Specificity of Sport’ i.e. certain sporting activities are excluded from the purview of the competition laws. The European courts while creating this exception have divided the IF/NSF activities into two parts. The first being pure sporting functions whereas the second being activities having a substantial economic impact.Pure sporting activities like laying down the rules of the sport, defining the size and weight of the ball and dimensions of the playing field are excluded from the ambit of competition laws. But activities of the IF/NSF having substantial economic impact are within the purview of the competition law.The regulatory power of the IF/NSF if used to gain commercial and financial advantage would fall within this ambit provided the following conditions are satisfied:That the agreements are not anti-competitive i.e. they do not attempt/cause appreciable adverse effect on competition; and/orThat they are not abusing their dominant position and are not imposing unfair or discriminatory conditions.The European courts have held that these conditions in the sporting sector are satisfied when a particular rule though restricting competition has a larger public objective and this objective can be achieved only by applying certain restrictive rules that are essential for the integrity, continuity, organization and conduct of the sport at national and international levels, and the rule is applied uniformly and transparently.The Competition Commission of India is faced with a similar task today to recognize the specificity of sport and carve out exceptions in the Indian scenario. The decision of the CCI will have a huge impact on the Indian sports industry as many a corporate await a chance to start their own breakaway leagues and commercially gain from the revenues generated from these leagues.Sports and Competition LawTwo teams playing against each other are like two corporate firms producing a single product. The product is the game, weighted by the revenues derived from its play. In one sense, the teams compete; in another, they combine in a single firm in which the success of each branch requires efficiency. Unequally distributed playing talent can produce “competitive imbalance”. Remuneration of the team members largely depends on the level of competition between the teams in the particular sports. sport is generally organized in a kind of a ‘pyramid’ structure, with a single governing body controlling most regulatory and commercial aspects of each sport, the governing body appears to be de facto ‘dominant’ and therefore claims relating to the abuse of monopoly.Sports governing bodies such as BCCI, often attempt to preserve for themselves the sole ability to regulate the sport and to organize events. In order to prevent the development of rival organizations, they have sought to tie players in by prohibiting them from competing in other events, on pain of exclusion from ‘official’ events, and such rules have been the subject of challenge under competition law.When the Zee launched Indian Cricket League, the BCCI sacked Kapil Dev as chairman of the National Cricket Academy for aligning with ICL and barred all the 44 defecting players from playing for India or at the domestic level. It made clear that any cricketer who aligns with ICL will be banned for life from playing for India. Such practice on part of the BCCI may attract liability under the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002. As per Section 4(2)(c) of the Act if any enterprise “indulges in practice or practices resulting in denial of market access in any manner”, then it shall be liable for abuse of dominant position. Thus, such practice of banning players from domestic tournaments on account of joining the rival leagues may prove expensive for the BCCI, which may face a challenge on grounds of abuse of dominant position.The denial of stadiums by the BCCI can attract liability for abuse of dominant position under s.4(2)(c) of the Competition Act, 2002 as by denying the use of essential facility under its control it raises the barriers to entry in the market for its competitors, resulting effectively in denial of market access. Operating from just one stadium in Panchkula (in Haryana near Chandigarh), the ICL clearly missed out on one of the integral aspects of leagues sports i.e. a fan base, since it is unable to capture home crowds for matches on account of non-access to the stadiums in the club’s cities.Sports Law and ArbitrationArbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a legal technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts, wherein the parties to a dispute refer it to one or more persons (the “arbitrators”, “arbiters” or “arbitral tribunal”), by whose decision (the “award”) they agree to be bound. It is a settlement technique in which a third party reviews the case and imposes a decision that is legally binding for both sides. Other forms of ADR include mediation (a form of settlement negotiation facilitated by a neutral third party) and non-binding resolution by experts. Arbitration in India is governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (“Indian Arbitration Act”), which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law. The Indian Arbitration Act is broadly divided into two parts. Part I applies to arbitrations held in India, whether domestic or international, and Part II applies to arbitrations held outside India. Part II, incorporates the rules related to international arbitrations governed by the New York or Geneva Conventions. In sports, the disputes are first referred to the federations that govern a particular sport and subsequently the international authorities that govern the sport. e.g. in hockey disputes are referred to the Indian Hockey Federation and after that the International Hockey Federation.At a time when sports are becoming more professional and the stakes are becoming higher than ever, dispute resolution takes on an increasingly important role. In many respects arbitration offers the most suitable solutions with regards to the rapidity, diversity, incontestability and professionalism of the decisions rendered. With regular increase in the number of sports-related disputes in the country, India requires an independent authority that specializes in sports-related problems and that is authorised to pronounce binding decisions. The disputes when referred to courts take a long time to come up with the final decision since the Indian courts are already piled up with a number of pending cases. There is a need to have an authority for sports that offers flexible, quick and inexpensive method of resolution of disputes. With the inauguration of India’s first arbitration centre in Delhi in 2009, India is recognizing the necessity of arbitration for quicker disposal of cases. The increasing use of arbitration in sport over the last decade has challenged the legal framework in which arbitration disputes are addressed in many jurisdictions.Court of Arbitration for SportArbitration exists in international sport through the Court of Arbitration for Sport. All international disputes relating to sports are referred to it. The most prominent sports dispute resolution forum is the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) which has its headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland. The CAS was created by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in 1983. It also has two permanent outposts in Sydney, Australia and New York, USA. It has a minimum of 150 arbitrators from 37 countries, who are specialists in arbitrations and sports law. They are appointed by the International Council of Arbitration for Sports (ICAS) for a four year renewable term and need to sign a ‘letter of independence’. The CAS also has a permanent President who is also the President of ICAS.The body was originally conceived by International Olympic Committee (IOC) President Juan Antonio Samaranch to deal with disputes arising during the Olympics. It was established as part of the IOC in 1984. However in a case decided by the CAS, an appealed was made to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland, challenging CAS impartiality. The Swiss court ruled that the CAS was a true court of arbitration, but drew attention to the numerous links which existed between the CAS and the IOC. The biggest change resulting from this reform was the creation of an “International Council of Arbitration for Sport” (ICAS) to look after the running and financing of the CAS, thereby taking the place of the IOC. CAS is placed under the administrative and financial authority of the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS).Almost all international sports federations or associations which are part of the Olympic Games require sports disputes arising between themselves and sportspersons to be decided by the CAS. Sporting federations whose sports are not part of the Olympics such as Formula I where the FIA which is the governing body of motor sports has its own dispute settlement tribunal. Even some sports which are included in the Olympics have their tribunals like football where its governing body FIFA has its own tribunal. For example, in 1993, a claim of bringing Formula I into disrepute was brought against former FI champion Alain Prost and the Williams Renault Team. The matter was however, satisfactorily resolved by the FIA resulting in Prost escaping a possible ban from competing in the remaining FI races of that particular season.A dispute may be submitted to the CAS only if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties which specifies recourse to the CAS. The language for the CAS is either French or English. In principle, two types of dispute may be submitted to the CAS:those of a commercial nature, andthose of a disciplinary nature.CommercialThe first category essentially involves disputes relating to the execution of contracts, such as those relating to sponsorship, the sale of television rights, the staging of sports events, player transfers and relations between players or coaches and clubs and/or agents (employment contracts and agency contracts). Disputes relating to civil liability issues also come under this category (e.g. an accident to an athlete during a sports competition). These so-called commercial disputes are handled by the CAS acting as a court of sole instance.DisciplinaryDisciplinary cases represent the second group of disputes submitted to the CAS, of which a large number are doping-related. In addition to doping cases, the CAS is called upon to rule on various disciplinary cases (violence on the field of play, abuse of a referee). Such disciplinary cases are generally dealt with in the first instance by the competent sports authorities, and subsequently become the subject of an appeal to the CAS, which then acts as a court of last instance.The CAS is governed by its own Statutes and Rules of Procedure namely the Statutes of the Bodies Working for the Settlement of Sports Related Disputes, Code of Sports Related Arbitration and Mediation Rules. According to Articles S12, S20, R27 and R47 of the Code, the Appeals Arbitration Procedure is open for the appeal against every decision rendered by a federation or club and not limited to disciplinary matters, especially doping cases. In addition, Article R57 empowers the CAS Panels not only to annul a certain decision, but also to replace a decision by a decision by a decision of the arbitrators, or to refer the case back to the issuing body. Moreover, Article R58 authorises the Panel to apply the ‘rule of law’ it deems most appropriate for the case. Thus the Panels may deviate from the laws of the country in which the federation is domiciled and reach a decision on the basis of laws of another country or other rules of law, such as general principles of law.The CAS acquires its jurisdiction in a particular case only through the mutual consent of the parties involved. Currently, all Olympic International Federations and many National Olympic Committees have recognised the jurisdiction of the CAS and included in their statutes an arbitration clause referring disputes to it. The CAS hears approximately 200 cases per year. While it was the international response to the rise in the use of performance-enhancing drugs and the resulting doping cases that fueled the creation of the CAS, the Court is called upon to assist in a wide range of sport conflicts, including sponsorship disputes, the eligibility of a particular athlete in accordance with a sport’s constitution, as well as the resolution of disagreements concerning competition results. The determination of issues arising in doping cases remains a significant portion of the CAS caseload.CAS and MediationIn addition to arbitration CAS also offers mediation services to any requesting parties of a sports dispute. Unlike arbitration, the mediation process is not binding—the mediator will provide recommendations, with solutions suggested, but these are not imposed as a result as in the case of arbitration. Mediations are designed to permit the adverse parties an opportunity to air their grievances in an atmosphere aimed at conciliation of the dispute.ADVANTAGES FOR REFERRING CASES TO CASExpertise in sports-related disciplines (there are more than 300 arbitrators from 87 countries qualified to hear CAS disputes) whereas a typical civil judge will not likely possess such sports-specific knowledge.Its arbitrators are all high level jurists and it is generally held in high regard in the international sports community.Procedure is flexible and informal.Expeditious proceeding as cases are heard and determined within a few months from the date of reference. During the Olympics, awards are required to be made within 24 hours.Lower legal cost to the participantsAlso provides mediation servicesCAS is a private procedure and therefore is conducted without the public or media interference. The arbitrators and CAS staff are obligated not to disclose any information connected with the dispute.IMPORTANT CAS RULINGSIn 2003, Canadian cross country skier Becky Scott successfully appealed to the CAS with respect to her claim that she be awarded the 2002 Olympic gold medal in the 5-km pursuit event. Russian skiers Olga Danilova and Larissa Lazutina finished first and second respectively in the competition, with Scott in third place, and each athlete passed their post-event doping test. Danilova and Lazutina each failed a subsequent doping test administered in relation to another Olympic cross-country event, when the presence of a prohibited blood doping agent, darbepoetin, was detected in each skier’s sample. Scott appealed her 5-km race result on the basis that both Russian skiers were engaged in ongoing doping practices. The Scott ruling was the first time in Olympic history that a gold medal had been awarded to an athlete as a result of a CAS ruling.In 2005, the CAS arbitration panel ruled that American sprinter Tim Montgomery be banned from international competition for two years as a result of doping, in spite of the fact that Montgomery had never failed a doping test. The CAS ruled that it could find a doping violation on the basis of the third party evidence called against Montgomery, most of which connected Montgomery to the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative (BALCO) athlete steroid scandal that had arisen in the United States in 2003.In February 2010 Five-time Olympic speedskating champion Claudia Pechstein lost her appeal against a two-year ban for blood doping. CAS dismissed the German’s appeal against a ban imposed by the International Skating Union.Setting aside proceedings against CAS arbitral awards may only be filed with the Swiss Supreme Court due to the seat of CAS tribunals being in Lausanne.Everything you need to know about sports legislations in IndiaPer se, there are no central or state legislation to regulate sports in India; the Ministry, which was set up by the government was responsible for achieving excellence in different sports events which were conducted in India and also to build a good infrastructure for sports. By and large, the administration of sports activities is in the hands of autonomous bodies, such as Sports Authority of India (SAI), Indian Olympic Association (IOA), Hockey India (HI) and Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).These governing bodies are recipients of government’s aid and are also registered under the Societies Registration’s Act of 1860.[3]THE FOLLOWING GOVERN THE WHOLE OF THE SPORTS LAWNational Sports Policy, 1984/2001The main objective behind enacting this was to raise the standard of sports for the reason that it was degrading due to corruption, betting, etc. It was later realized that the Bill of the year 1984 was incomplete, and its implementation was not complete, and in a bid to revise the bill the same was reformulated in the year 2001.The guidelines are three-fold:Firstly, to earmark the areas of responsibilities which different agencies have to undertake to develop and promote sports.To lay down the procedure to be followed by the autonomous bodies and federations to make the assistance and aid by the government available.And also identifying the sports federation that is eligible for coverage under these set guidelines.It was only after this policy that the lawmakers realized the importance of sports and therefore ‘Sports’ was included in the Constitution in the State list of the Seventh Schedule (Entry 33). The central government by the provisions of this policy aims to achieve excellence in sports on the national and global plane and collaborates with the state government and other agencies to achieve it.Sports Law and Welfare Association of IndiaIt is a non-profit national organization that aims to understand, and work for the advancement of ethical sports law in India for promoting sports. The primary task of the organization is to provide consultancy services on different matters like Indian sports policy, sports injuries, health and safety in sports, IP issues in sports, etc. It also provides a forum for legal practitioners who represent different people, to set up rules for ethics for sports persons.Sports Authority of IndiaThe Sports Authority of India (SAI) is an apex National Sports body set up in the year 1984 by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports for broad-basing and bringing excellence in sports across India as a whole. It is located across 9 regions at Bangalore, Gandhinagar, Chandigarh, Kolkata, Imphal, Guwahati, Bhopal, Lucknow and Sonepat; and two Academic institutions like Netaji Subhash National Institute of Sports (NSNIS), Patiala and Laxmibai National College of Physical Education. It also accounts for academic programs like coaching and physical education awareness programs.[4]The Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) ActThis Act was passed in the year 2007; its main objective was to provide access to listeners and viewers so as to encourage a larger audience. It shall cover the sporting events which are of national importance through mandatory sharing of sports broadcasting signals with Prasar Bharati and for matters related to it. The Act provides that no content right owner or holder or television or radio broadcasting service provider can carry out a live TV broadcast of important national sporting events. For doing this, it has to share its live broadcasting signal simultaneously (except advertisements) with the Prasar Bharati.Role of different stakeholdersMinistry of Youth Affairs and SportsTo lay down the conditions for eligibility of National Sports Federation to get recognitionThe conditions that have to be fulfilled by NSFs and other agencies if they wish to acquire government aid and support.To provide assistance to the NSFs if they carry out long-term development program.National Sports FederationThe responsibility for the complete management, direction, supervision and regulation of the discipline and promotion, development and sponsorship of the discipline is on National Sports Federation. They are expected to discharge these responsibilities in consonance with the principles laid down in the Olympic Charter or the Charter of the Indian Olympic Association in compliance with Government guidelines applicable to NSFs.SAIFor providing the necessary support to NSF for the identification, training, and coaching of sportspersons, also to improvise infrastructure, equipment, and such other facilities, the SAI plays a significant role. Further SAI will also be responsible for releasing funds to NSFs against proposals approved by the Government. The release of funds to IOA shall, however, continue to be made by the concerned Ministry.[5]National Anti-Doping AgencyThe centre has set up a National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) as an autonomous body. It consists of persons from government and non-government agencies, scientists as experts and also members from IOA. In the recent past, the controversy surrounding the intake of dope by sports persons is prevalent and in this light, NADA was set up. It shall carry out ‘in competition’ and ‘out of the competition’ testing on the sportsman. NADA helps in the regulation of sports activities so that it can be corruption-free and non-controversial.Sports law of United States of AmericaThe U.S.A. has a very systematic law for sports. They have not provided with single legislation, but have divided it into 3 categories-:Amateur sportsIt includes athletic activities from high school athletics to organize intercollegiate or international competitions which are often organized and managed by groups that make rules for eligibility and competition, and courts do not interfere with the actions of these groups as long as they abide by the rules. The Amateur Sports Act of 1978 created the Athletic Congress, a national body for governance of amateur athletes, which administers a fund that allows amateur athletes an option to get funds and sponsorship payments and also not lose their amateur status.Professional sportsIn the case of some professional sports activity, most sports leagues do have a standard player’s contract, and that shall be the guiding force behind a contract between players and owners.International sportsThe two main international sports events include the Olympics, sponsored by the International Olympic Committee, and the World Cup, which is sponsored by FIFA. The United States has done the charting of the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) in the year 1950.Some jurisdictions have passed separate legislation relating to sports. For example, in India sports information is in the Concurrent list of the Seventh Schedule (entry 33) of the Constitution on which both the union and state legislatures are proficient to put together laws. There are 3 States; Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, which have enacted laws on regulating sports activity including registration, regulation and recognition of Sports Associations (Uttar Pradesh has since repealed the Act).It is one of the main revenue generating industries of the world and with the propagation of the Internet and other forms of media, the sports industry is growing at a faster tempo. An industry of billions of dollars with an all-encompassing worldwide presence is bound to raise its own disputes. This has resulted in the growth and development of sports law as a separate regulation in its own right.

The Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“SCM Agreement”) addresses two separate but closely related topics:o Multilateral disciplines regulating the provision of subsidies, ando The use of countervailing measures to offset the injury caused by subsidized imports.AGREEMENT ON SUBSIDIES AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES (SCM) in WTO (WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION)Part I provides thato the SCM Agreement applies only to subsidies that are specifically provided to an enterprise or industry or group of enterprises or industries, ando defines both the term “SUBSIDY” and the concept of “SPECIFICITY.”Parts II and III divide all specific subsidies into one of two categories:o Prohibited and actionable, ando Establish certain rules and procedures with respect to each category.o The Agreement as it originally entered into force contained a third category — NON-ACTIONABLE SUBSIDIES. This category (along with a provision establishing a presumption of serious prejudice in respect of certain specified types of actionable subsidies) applied provisionally for five years ending 31 December 1999, and pursuant to Article 31 of the Agreement, could be extended by consensus of the SCM Committee. As of 31 December 1999, no such consensus had been reached.Part V establishes the substantive and procedural requirements that must be fulfilled before a Member may apply a countervailing measure against subsidized imports.Parts VI and VII establish the institutional structure and notification/surveillance modalities for implementation of the SCM Agreement.Part VIII contains special and differential treatment rules for various categories of developing country Members.Part IX contains transition rules for developed country and former centrally-planned economy Members.Parts X and XI contain dispute settlement and final provisions._____________________COVERAGE OF THE AGREEMENTPart I of the Agreement defines the coverage of the Agreement. Specifically, it establishes a definition of the term “subsidy” and an explanation of the concept of “specificity”. Only a measure which is a “specific subsidy” within the meaning of Part I is subject to multilateral disciplines and can be subject to countervailing measures.Definition of subsidy Unlike the Tokyo Round Subsidies Code, the WTO SCM Agreement contains a definition of the term “subsidy”. The definition contains three basic elements:(i) a financial contribution(ii) by a government or any public body within the territory of a Member(iii) which confers a benefit. All three of these elements must be satisfied in order for a subsidy to exist.The concept of “FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION” was included in the SCM Agreement only after a protracted negotiation. Some Members argued that there could be no subsidy unless there was a charge on the public account. Other Members considered that forms of government intervention that did not involve an expense to the government nevertheless distorted competition and should thus be considered to be subsidies. The SCM Agreement basically adopted the former approach. The Agreement requires a financial contribution and contains a list of the types of measures that represent a financial contribution, e.g., grants, loans, equity infusions, loan guarantees, fiscal incentives, the provision of goods or services, the purchase of goods.In order for a financial contribution to be a subsidy, it must be made by or at the direction of a government or any public body within the territory of a Member. Thus, the SCM Agreement applies not only to measures of national governments, but also to measures of sub-national governments and of such public bodies as state-owned companies.A financial contribution by a government is not a subsidy unless it confers a “benefit.” In many cases, as in the case of a cash grant, the existence of a benefit and its valuation will be clear. In some cases, however, the issue of benefit will be more complex. For example, when does a loan, an equity infusion or the purchase by a government of a good confer a benefit? Although the SCM Agreement does not provide complete guidance on these issues, the Appellate Body has ruled (Canada – Aircraft) that the existence of a benefit is to be determined by comparison with the market-place (i.e., on the basis of what the recipient could have received in the market). In the context of countervailing duties, Article 14 of the SCM Agreement provides some guidance with respect to determining whether certain types of measures confer a benefit. In the context of multilateral disciplines, however, the issue of the meaning of “benefit” is not fully resolved.Specificity. Assuming that a measure is a subsidy within the meaning of the SCM Agreement, it nevertheless is not subject to the SCM Agreement unless it has been specifically provided to an enterprise or industry or group of enterprises or industries. The basic principle is that a subsidy that distorts the allocation of resources within an economy should be subject to discipline. Where a subsidy is widely available within an economy, such a distortion in the allocation of resources is presumed not to occur. Thus, only “specific” subsidies are subject to the SCM Agreement disciplines. There are four types of “specificity” within the meaning of the SCM Agreement:o ENTERPRISE-SPECIFICITY. A government targets a particular company or companies for subsidization;o INDUSTRY-SPECIFICITY. A government targets a particular sector or sectors for subsidization.o REGIONAL SPECIFICITY. A government targets producers in specified parts of its territory for subsidization.o PROHIBITED SUBSIDIES. A government targets export goods or goods using domestic inputs for subsidization.CATEGORIES OF SUBSIDIESThe SCM Agreement creates two basic categories of subsidies: those that are prohibited, those that are actionable (i.e., subject to challenge in the WTO or to countervailing measures). All specific subsidies fall into one of these categories.PROHIBITED SUBSIDIESTwo categories of subsidies are prohibited by Article 3 of the SCM Agreement.o The first category consists of subsidies contingent, in law or in fact, whether wholly or as one of several conditions, on export performance (“export subsidies”). A detailed list of export subsidies is annexed to the SCM Agreement.o The second category consists of subsidies contingent, whether solely or as one of several other conditions, upon the use of domestic over imported goods (“local content subsidies”). These two categories of subsidies are prohibited because they are designed to directly affect trade and thus are most likely to have adverse effects on the interests of other Members.The scope of these prohibitions is relatively narrow. Developed countries had already accepted the prohibition on export subsidies under the Tokyo Round SCM Agreement, and local content subsidies of the type prohibited by the SCM Agreement were already inconsistent with Article III of the GATT 1947. What is most significant about the new Agreement in this area is the extension of the obligations to developing country Members subject to specified transition rules (see section below on special and differential treatment), as well as the creation in Article 4 of the SCM Agreement of a rapid (three-month) dispute settlement mechanism for complaints regarding prohibited subsidies.ACTIONABLE SUBSIDIESMost subsidies, such as production subsidies, fall in the “actionable” category. Actionable subsidies are not prohibited. However, they are subject to challenge, either through multilateral dispute settlement or through countervailing action, in the event that they cause adverse effects to the interests of another Member. There are three types of adverse effects.o First, there is injury to a domestic industry caused by subsidized imports in the territory of the complaining Member. This is the sole basis for countervailing action.o Second, there is serious prejudice. Serious prejudice usually arises as a result of adverse effects (e.g., export displacement) in the market of the subsidizing Member or in a third country market. Thus, unlike injury, it can serve as the basis for a complaint related to harm to a Member's export interests.o Finally, there is nullification or impairment of benefits accruing under the GATT 1994. Nullification or impairment arises most typically where the improved market access presumed to flow from a bound tariff reduction is undercut by subsidization.The creation of a system of multilateral remedies that allows Members to challenge subsidies which give rise to adverse effects represents a major advance over the pre-WTO regime. The difficulty, however, will remain the need in most cases for a complaining Member to demonstrate the adverse trade effects arising from subsidization, a fact-intensive analysis that panels may find difficult in some cases(2).AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDIESArticle 13 of the Agreement on Agriculture establishes, during the implementation period specified in that Agreement (until 1 January 2003), special rules regarding subsidies for agricultural products. Export subsidies which are in full conformity with the Agriculture Agreement are not prohibited by the SCM Agreement, although they remain countervailable. Domestic supports which are in full conformity with the Agriculture Agreement are not actionable multilaterally, although they also may be subject to countervailing duties. Finally, domestic supports within the “green box” of the Agriculture Agreement are not actionable multilaterally nor are they subject to countervailing measures. After the implementation period, the SCM Agreement shall apply to subsidies for agricultural products subject to the provisions of the Agreement on Agriculture, as set forth in its Article 21.COUNTERVAILING MEASURESPart V of the SCM Agreement sets forth certain substantive requirements that must be fulfilled in order to impose a countervailing measure, as well as in-depth procedural requirements regarding the conduct of a countervailing investigation and the imposition and maintenance in place of countervailing measures. A failure to respect either the substantive or procedural requirements of Part V can be taken to dispute settlement and may be the basis for invalidation of the measure.SUBSTANTIVE RULESA Member may not impose a countervailing measure unless it determines that there are subsidized imports, injury to a domestic industry, and a causal link between the subsidized imports and the injury. As previously noted, the existence of a specific subsidy must be determined in accordance with the criteria in Part I of the Agreement. However, the criteria regarding injury and causation are found in Part V. One significant development of the new SCM Agreement in this area is the explicit authorization of cumulation of the effects of subsidized imports from more than one Member where specified criteria are fulfilled. In addition, Part V contains rules regarding the determination of the existence and amount of a benefit.PROCEDURAL RULESPart V of the SCM Agreement contains detailed rules regarding the initiation and conduct of countervailing investigations, the imposition of preliminary and final measures, the use of undertakings, and the duration of measures. A key objective of these rules is to ensure that investigations are conducted in a transparent manner, that all interested parties have a full opportunity to defend their interests, and that investigating authorities adequately explain the bases for their determinations. A few of the more important innovations in the WTO SCM Agreement are identified below:o STANDING.The Agreement defines in numeric terms the circumstances under which there is sufficient support from a domestic industry to justify initiation of an investigation.o PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION.The Agreement ensures the conduct of a preliminary investigation before a preliminary measure can be imposed.o UNDERTAKINGS.The Agreement places limitations on the use of undertakings to settle CVD investigations, in order to avoid Voluntary Restraint Agreements or similar measures masquerading as undertakingso SUNSET.The Agreement requires that a countervailing measure be terminated after five years unless it is determined that continuation of the measure is necessary to avoid the continuation or recurrence of subsidization and injury.o JUDICIAL REVIEW.The Agreement requires that Members create an independent tribunal to review the consistency of determinations of the investigating authority with domestic law.TRANSITION RULES AND SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENTDeveloped countries Members not otherwise eligible for special and differential treatment are allowed three years from the date on which for them the SCM Agreement enters into force to phase out prohibited subsidies. Such subsidies must be notified within 90 days of the entry into force of the WTO Agreement for the notifying Member.DEVELOPING COUNTRIESThe SCM Agreement recognizes three categories of developing country Members:o Least-developed Members (“LDCs”),o Members with a GNP per capita of less than $1000 per year which are listed in Annex VII to the SCM Agreement, ando Other developing countries.The lower a Member's level of development, the more favourable the treatment it receives with respect to subsidies disciplines. Thus, for example, LDCs and Members with a GNP per capita of less than $1000 per year listed in Annex VII are exempted from the prohibition on export subsidies.OTHER DEVELOPING COUNTRY MEMBERS have an eight-year period to phase out their export subsidies (they cannot increase the level of their export subsidies during this period).With respect to IMPORT-SUBSTITUTION SUBSIDIES, LDCs have eight years and other developing country Members five years, to phase out such subsidies.There is also more favourable treatment with respect to ACTIONABLE SUBSIDIES. For example, certain subsidies related to developing country Members' privatization programmes are not actionable multilaterally.With respect to COUNTERVAILING MEASURES, developing country Members' exporters are entitled to more favourable treatment with respect to the termination of investigations where the level of subsidization or volume of imports is small.MEMBERS IN TRANSFORMATION TO A MARKET ECONOMYMembers in transformation to a market economy are given a seven-year period to phase out prohibited subsidies. These subsidies must, however, have been notified within two years of the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement (i.e., by 31 December 1996) in order to benefit from the special treatment. Members in transformation also receive preferential treatment with respect to actionable subsidies.NOTIFICATIONSSubsidies Article 25 of the SCM Agreement requires that Members notify all specific subsidies (at all levels of government and covering all goods sectors, including agriculture) to the SCM Committee. New and full notifications are due every three years with update notifications in intervening years. The notifications are the subject of extensive review and discussion by the SCM Committee.COUNTERVAILING LEGISLATION AND MEASURESAll Members are required to notify their countervailing duty laws and regulations to the SCM Committee pursuant to Article 32.6 of the SCM Agreement. Members are also required to notify all countervailing actions taken on a semi-annual basis, and preliminary and final countervailing actions at the time they are taken. Members also are required to notify which of their authorities are competent to initiate and conduct countervailing investigations.DISPUTE SETTLEMENTThe SCM Agreement generally relies on the dispute settlement rules of the DSU. However, the Agreement contains extensive special or additional dispute settlement rules and procedures providing, inter alia, for expedited procedures, particularly in the case of prohibited subsidy allegations. It also provides special mechanisms for the gathering of information necessary to assess the existence of serious prejudice in actionable subsidy cases.