Match-fixing is one of the most serious threats to professional football. As noted in one of the decisions of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), CAS 2014/A/3628, "… the protection of the integrity of the competitions is absolutely essential for UEFA, as match fixing is considered to be the biggest threat to sport because it touches at the very essence of the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship". In this article CAS decisions for the period 2009-2014 on cases related to the liability of clubs for match-fixing by officials or players are systematically introduced into scientific circulation. For this purpose, the authors consider the arguments of the parties and CAS in disputes and make the following conclusions. First, the arbitration is not inclined to impose a conditional sanction or reduce the size of the sanction on the basis of proportionality. Secondly, CAS considers an administrative measure to be different in nature from sanctions and therefore not subject to the principle of proportionality. Thirdly, the application of the principle of strict liability allows to hold the clubs that participated in match-fixing activities liable without proving the existence of the club's consent to illegal actions. Fourthly, in order to protect the integrity of sport CAS accepts the use of a wide range of evidence to confirm the fact of match-fixing, including the evidence, the application of which is deemed unacceptable in national legal systems.

he right of football clubs to establish local bans (the so-called “blacklists”) depends on a number of reasons. A local ban on visiting football matches can act as a measure to combat the unlawful behaviour of viewers, thus complementing the administrative responsibility of the spectators. In Russian law it is not possible to impose a ban on the sale of tickets to football matches by football clubs. The current wording of the rules of spectators’ behaviour during official sporting events does not, by default, allow supporter identity checks when entering the stadium. That also complicates the identification of spectators for being on the “blacklist”. The practice of civil suits brought by football clubs against supporters, as one of the few legal tools to influence supporters, is currently not widespread. As a result, there are no uniform approaches to resolve these disputes: the courts motivate refusals by various arguments, the validity of which can be reasonably criticised.

The authors refer to the exceptional circumstances surrounding Sun Yang’s violation. The athlete intervened in the doping control procedure in several ways. First, he questioned the proper accreditation of the IDTM’s (The company “International Doping Tests and Management”) Samples Collection Personnel, one of which photographed him. This officer was suspended from urine sampling, but there was no longer a male specialist on the IDTM’s Samples Collection Personnel. Therefore, the collection of urine samples did not take place due to the athlete’s actions. A general distrust of IDTM’s Samples Collection Personnel due to inappropriate photographing was the catalyst for follow-up action. Secondly, the athlete required IDTM’s Samples Collection Personnel to confirm his credentials (accreditation) from the anti-doping organization, despite the submission of documents by IDTM’s Samples Collection Personnel following the International Standard for Testing and Investigations. Not having received the additional and, in the opinion of the athlete, necessary documents, he refused to participate in the doping control procedure as a whole, tearing up his previously given written consent. Finally, the athlete took part in the destruction of blood samples with a hammer, but his role in this process was controversial. A prerequisite for the destruction process of the samples was the assistance of the IDTM’s Samples Collection Personnel, who handed them over to the athlete in response to insistent demands. The listed circumstances, which are exceptional, however, could not affect the reduction of Sun Yang’s period of ineligibility, since the FINA (International Swimming Federation) Doping Control Rules, based on WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) Code 2015, do not imply such a basis. The new WADA Code 2021 offers a more flexible concept of liability and takes into account exceptional circumstances that in subsequent disputes about tampering can be established based on the example of the dispute CAS 2019/A/6148.

The clubs legal responsibility for the behavior of supporters is used by UEFA to in-fluence the content of sports competitions, ideally abstracted from demonstrating by spectators any non-football ideas. Nevertheless, the regulation of the national associa-tions-members of UEFA also assumes the responsibility of the clubs and, sometimes, the supporters themselves for the unacceptable behavior of the latter. The experience of regulation this issue by the Austrian Football Association demonstrates mentioned approach. Therefore, it is interesting to make a comparison: how much the regulated responsibility of supporters affects to the regulation by the association a strict liability of clubs for the behavior of fans. Using the practice of CAS, we may see a presumptive approach on the basis of an assessment of the situation by “a reasonable and objective observer” for the objective resolution of a dispute.

The practice of concluding employment contracts by professional football players and coaches, assistant coaches with clubs from China demonstrates some usual business practices encountered in football related to the conscientious and negligent performance of these contracts by the parties. To identify them, let us turn to the available appeal practice of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (hereinafter-CAS, arbitration) regarding the decisions of the FIFA Committee on the status of players (hereinafter-the Committee). In this article, we turn to all disputes involving clubs from the PRC, considered by arbitration, and united by the question of applying "just cause" for termination of an employment contract by one of the parties. Keywords: employment contracts with football players, employment contracts with coaches and assistant of coaches, termination of an employment contract with a football player, "just cause", practice of FIFA Committee on the status of players, Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), practice of CAS, football clubs from the PRC.