Search

The article discusses the European Court of Human Rights case Pechstein and Mutu v. Switzerland concerning the Court of Arbitration for Sport for the breach of contract. The court dismissed claims by two athletes of violations of the European Convention on Human Rights for exercise of a non-consensual, arbitral jurisdiction, contrary to conventional arbitral principles.

Violence amongst spectators of sporting events has a long history. Beginning in the 1960s and originating in England, a new type of organised, group violence began to be experienced, particularly amongst football spectators. This 'hooliganism' led to such infamous incidents as the 1985 Heysel disaster in Belgium, in which 39 spectators died as a consequence of violence between fans of English and Italian football clubs. Hooliganism led to a series of regulatory responses in England, including various legislative initiatives. This article analyses those regulatory responses, which have collectively become known as the English model for tackling hooliganism. It notes the apparent overall domestic success of these regulatory initiatives, while observing some analytical gaps that make definitive conclusions difficult. The influence of the English system abroad and its use in other countries as a model of good practice -- in particular France, Belgium, Italy, Germany and Switzerland -- is then critically examined. This article concludes with a summary of the situation in a non-European nation, Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]