When rules of sport fall short
- Thursday, 31 July 2025
The image is powerful: five men leaving a courthouse, surrounded by flashes and microphones, acquitted, but not entirely free. Their lives have not returned, and will not return, to what they once were, despite the innocence granted by their country’s judicial system after a long, highly-covered and exhausting legal process.
The scene took place last week in Ontario, Canada, where Judge Maria Carroccia found the former members of the national junior team not guilty of sexual assault. The verdict was clear: there was insufficient evidence to convict them under Canadian criminal law. However, that decision was not enough to restore their sporting status. The National Hockey League, just as Hockey Canada had done previously, opted to uphold the provisional suspension, even after the not guilty ruling.
This reasoning is nothing new in professional sport: a behaviour might not constitute a criminal offence but could still breach internal disciplinary regulations. Criminal law demands certainty for a conviction; sporting justice operates on a different logic, where it is enough to demonstrate misconduct without having to prove guilt to the same standard.
In this case, the NHL cited ethical grounds and institutional reputation to justify its stance, despite the court's ruling. This approach exposes once more the occasional dissent between the legal sovereignty of nation states and the regulatory autonomy of organised sport, both nationally and internationally.
While the former is bound by constitutional principles like the presumption of innocence or the in dubio pro reo principle, sports federations apply their own regulations, contractual clauses and codes of conduct. These are often applied under broader criteria and with fewer procedural safeguards.
This is not necessarily a contradiction. Sporting bodies have the right to uphold their values, protect their image and answer to sponsors. But when they continue to sanction individuals who have been exonerated by ordinary courts, the matter takes on another dimension. To what extent can that power be exercised without infringing on fundamental rights?
This is where potential civil liability comes into play. In jurisdictions like Canada, and in many others governed by civil law or common law traditions, athletes may consider legal action for moral damages, loss of earnings, direct harm or loss of opportunity. Internal regulations are not being questioned per se, but rather the legality of their application once the judiciary has intervened. Rules cannot be used as an excuse to cause harm without consequence.
Despite the acquittal, Michael McLeod, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dubé, Carter Hart and Cal Foote remain suspended. The league argued that, regardless of the criminal outcome, the behaviour in question remained 'unacceptable'. The National Hockey League Players' Association strongly opposed the decision, claiming it violated the current collective bargaining agreement.
This type of conflict is not exclusive to ice hockey. Clashes between public law (criminal, civil or administrative) and sports law, at all levels and in all jurisdictions, are persistent. High-performance sport operates with its own legal frameworks, quasi-judicial structures and disciplinary committees which, although autonomous, often lack the legal training or procedural rigour of state courts. Those who judge are not always judges, and those who sanction do not always rely on solid evidence.
Legally speaking, an athlete can breach a federation's regulation, whether from the NHL, FIFA, the International Olympic Committee or any other body, without committing a criminal offence. Conversely, they can engage in criminally reprehensible conduct without facing disciplinary action from their federation. There are also cases where a final conviction exists, yet internal rules fail to contemplate a specific response. There is no obligation for both systems, the state judiciary and associative sporting bodies, to be symmetrical.
The difference in standards is the core issue. Criminal law requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, as recognised not only by Canada's Constitution but by most democratic legal systems. In contrast, sport tends to act on plausibility, institutional perception or mere reputational judgement. Decisions are often made by individuals with no legal background, unfamiliar with the procedural guarantees required in an ordinary court.
This raises important questions: can a federation uphold a sanction when the courts have acquitted the accused? Where does sporting autonomy end and institutional arbitrariness begin? And what happens to the athlete's rights when the body imposing the sanction is not subject to judicial oversight?
In many countries, the answer lies in civil action. If a sanction is maintained without sufficient factual support—even after a judicial acquittal—the athlete may seek compensation for the harm suffered: reputation, income, career prospects. The fact that a behaviour was not criminal does not prevent institutional censure, but that does not exempt it from legal consequences. Any sanction causing unjustified harm can be subject to judicial review.
Furthermore, if it can be shown that an institution acted with abuse of power or without sufficient evidence, even ordinary courts could intervene. No matter how autonomous, disciplinary power is not above the law.
The Canadian case is not unique. We have seen athletes suspended for doping without criminal conviction; coaches sanctioned for "loss of confidence" without due process; clubs excluded from competitions for contractual reasons that never reached a civil court. The history of sport is filled with poorly resolved frictions between these two worlds that coexist, but do not always understand each other.
A country's law is an expression of its sovereignty. Neither the NHL, nor FIFA, nor the IOC, nor any other sporting association, no matter their political or economic clout, stands above it. Even if they sometimes behave as though they do, as in cases where federations or athletes are sanctioned merely for going to ordinary courts, accused of breaching 'sporting autonomy', a valuable concept bordering on institutional impunity.
When that autonomy ceases to be a tool for self-regulation and becomes a shield to impose unchecked sanctions, the danger is not just legal, but becomes ethical, institutional and democratic.
The creation of a comprehensive universal disciplinary code, establishing minimum standards of procedure, guarantees and proportionality for all sporting bodies worldwide, would undoubtedly represent structural progress. A common framework to guide ethical and disciplinary disputes, ensuring shared legal principles regardless of sport, country or competitive level. Yet for now, that remains a utopia.
To bring it to life, each federation, especially the more powerful, would need to relinquish part of its internal rule-making authority. In practical terms, that means ceding autonomy, giving up degrees of control and accepting external oversight. An unlikely gesture, though it could provide global sport with the legal coherence and institutional legitimacy it seems to urgently need, hopefully benefiting athletes, society and the very structures it aims to protect.
As sport balances its need for values and clear rules, the demand for solid, credible institutions that accept limits remains. In the absence of all that, the show may go on… without noticing who's been left on the sidelines.
https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1154441/when-the-rules-of-sport-fall-short
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Cuando las reglas del deporte fallan
Por Raúl Daffunchio Picazo, jueves 31 de julio de 2025
Cuando las reglas del deporte fallan. GETTY IMAGES
Cinco jugadores canadienses de hockey sobre hielo fueron declarados inocentes recientemente por los tribunales, pero permanecen apartados de sus ligas mientras el caso reabre un debate de larga data: ¿qué sucede cuando la justicia legal y la deportiva ya no concuerdan? Una profunda incursión en el poder, los derechos y los límites de la autonomía institucional.
La imagen es impactante: cinco hombres saliendo de un juzgado, rodeados de flashes y micrófonos, absueltos, pero no completamente libres. Sus vidas no han vuelto, ni volverán, a ser lo que fueron, a pesar de la inocencia otorgada por el sistema judicial de su país tras un largo, encubierto y agotador proceso legal.
La escena tuvo lugar la semana pasada en Ontario, Canadá, donde la jueza Maria Carroccia declaró a los exmiembros de la selección nacional juvenil inocentes de agresión sexual. El veredicto fue claro: no había pruebas suficientes para condenarlos según la legislación penal canadiense. Sin embargo, esa decisión no fue suficiente para restablecer su estatus deportivo. La Liga Nacional de Hockey (NHL), al igual que Hockey Canada lo había hecho anteriormente, optó por mantener la suspensión provisional, incluso después del fallo de inocencia.
Este razonamiento no es nuevo en el deporte profesional: una conducta puede no constituir un delito penal, pero aun así podría infringir las normas disciplinarias internas. El derecho penal exige certeza para una condena; la justicia deportiva opera con una lógica diferente, donde basta con demostrar la mala conducta sin tener que probar la culpabilidad con el mismo criterio.
En este caso, la NHL alegó motivos éticos y reputación institucional para justificar su postura, a pesar del fallo del tribunal. Este enfoque expone una vez más la disidencia ocasional entre la soberanía legal de los estados nacionales y la autonomía regulatoria del deporte organizado, tanto a nivel nacional como internacional.
Dubé abandona el tribunal canadiense tras su absolución. GETTY IMAGES
Mientras que el primero se rige por principios constitucionales como la presunción de inocencia o el principio in dubio pro reo, las federaciones deportivas aplican sus propios reglamentos, cláusulas contractuales y códigos de conducta. Estos suelen aplicarse con criterios más amplios y menos garantías procesales.
Esto no es necesariamente una contradicción. Los organismos deportivos tienen derecho a defender sus valores, proteger su imagen y responder ante los patrocinadores. Pero cuando continúan sancionando a personas que han sido exoneradas por los tribunales ordinarios, el asunto adquiere otra dimensión. ¿Hasta qué punto puede ejercerse esa facultad sin vulnerar derechos fundamentales?
Aquí es donde entra en juego la posible responsabilidad civil. En jurisdicciones como Canadá, y en muchas otras regidas por el derecho civil o el derecho consuetudinario, los atletas pueden considerar emprender acciones legales por daños morales, lucro cesante, daño directo o pérdida de oportunidades. No se cuestionan los reglamentos internos en sí, sino la legalidad de su aplicación una vez que el poder judicial ha intervenido. Las normas no pueden utilizarse como excusa para causar daños sin consecuencias.
A pesar de la absolución, Michael McLeod, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dubé, Carter Hart y Cal Foote permanecen suspendidos. La liga argumentó que, independientemente del resultado penal, la conducta en cuestión seguía siendo "inaceptable". La Asociación de Jugadores de la Liga Nacional de Hockey (NHL) se opuso firmemente a la decisión, alegando que violaba el convenio colectivo vigente.
Alex Formenton comparece ante el Tribunal Superior de Ontario. GETTY IMAGES
Este tipo de conflicto no es exclusivo del hockey sobre hielo. Los conflictos entre el derecho público (penal, civil o administrativo) y el derecho deportivo, en todos los niveles y en todas las jurisdicciones, son persistentes. El deporte de alto rendimiento opera con sus propios marcos legales, estructuras cuasijudiciales y comités disciplinarios que, aunque autónomos, a menudo carecen de la formación jurídica o el rigor procesal de los tribunales estatales. Quienes juzgan no siempre son jueces, y quienes sancionan no siempre se basan en pruebas sólidas.
Legalmente hablando, un atleta puede infringir el reglamento de una federación, ya sea de la NHL, la FIFA, el Comité Olímpico Internacional o cualquier otro organismo, sin cometer un delito penal. Por el contrario, puede incurrir en una conducta penalmente reprobable sin enfrentarse a medidas disciplinarias por parte de su federación. También existen casos en los que existe una condena firme, pero las normas internas no contemplan una respuesta específica. No existe la obligación de que ambos sistemas, el poder judicial estatal y los organismos deportivos asociativos, sean simétricos.
La diferencia de estándares es la cuestión central. El derecho penal exige pruebas más allá de toda duda razonable, como lo reconoce no solo la Constitución de Canadá, sino también la mayoría de los sistemas jurídicos democráticos. En cambio, el deporte tiende a actuar basándose en la verosimilitud, la percepción institucional o la mera reputación.
