Editorial Sports Law & Taxation, Issue 2 of 2025, June 2025
It is with much pleasure that we welcome readers to the June 2025 edition (citation: SLT 2025/2) of our ground-breaking journal Sports Law and Taxation (SLT) and online database https://sportslawandtaxation.com.
The need for financial regulation of football clubs is an ongoing imperative, especially as association football is not only the world’s favourite sport but continues to be the most lucrative one globally.
In particular, at the national, regional and international levels, not only must football clubs compete fairly on the field of play, but they must also compete fairly off the field of play from a financial point of view, bearing in mind the eye-watering sums that regularly now figure in player transfer deals. For example, Chelsea FC have recently completed the double signing of Sporting Lisbon FC midfielders, Geovany Quenda and Dario Essugo, for a reported £ 62.4 million (around € 74.5 million).
For example, there is a particular need for the financial regulation of football clubs in Türkiye, where football is something of a religion, so we asked one of our regular contributors, Bezen & Partners of Istanbul, to provide the following review of the current situation and to point out some improvements that need to be made to the present system of financial regulation of football in Türkiye.
“Türkiye: financial regulation of football clubs
General overview
Financial monitoring of professional football clubs is under scrutiny as these operate in a commercialised and competitive environment. In Türkiye, the need to ensure and maintain fiscal discipline and long-term financial sustainability has prompted substantial legal and regulatory reforms.
This review focuses on key legal frameworks, monitoring and compliance challenges in Turkish football.
Key legal and regulatory frameworks
Sports clubs and sports federations Law No. 7405
The key legislation governing financial regulation in Turkish professional sports is the Sports Clubs and Sports Federations Law numbered 7405 (the “Law”). Art. 20 of the Law requires clubs, amongst others, to record all income and expenditures on a consolidated basis, using the accounting period of the branch with the highest expenses.
To enhance fiscal discipline, the Law requires the adoption of a balanced budget and prohibits the existence of overdue debts to public institutions. Furthermore, financial transactions involving board members and their relatives, such as borrowing and guarantees, are strictly prohibited. Financial transactions must be executed through authorised institutions. Any non-compliance is considered legally invalid.
Moreover, the Law imposes personal liability for board members for breaches, particularly when exceeding borrowing limits or failing to meet transparency obligations. Overall, this legal framework represents a significant step towards institutional financial governance in Turkish football clubs.
Turkish Football Federation regulations and capital markets integration
In addition to the Law, the Turkish Football Federation (“TFF”) mandates that Super League clubs must submit their audited annual financial statements to both the TFF and the relevant public authorities. In this context, publicly traded clubs must also comply with regulations set by the Capital Markets Board (in Turkish: Sermaye Piyasası Kurulu) (“SPK”), subjecting these to a two-layered financial monitoring system.
This model is supported by professional bodies such as the Union of Chambers of Certified Public Accountants of Türkiye (in Turkish: Türkiye Serbest Muhasebeci Mali Müşavirler ve Yeminli Mali Müşavirler Odalar Birliği) (“TÜRMOB”), ensuring consistency with national accounting and taxation standards. The Regulation on Procedures and Principles regarding Exemptions from Borrowing Limitations further enforces compliance with capital markets legislation for publicly held sports joint stock companies.
UEFA Financial Fair Play regulations
At the international level, the UEFA Financial Fair Play (“FFP”) regulations serve as a benchmark for financial control, transparency and sustainability. These Regulations apply to Turkish football clubs competing at the European level, requiring them to maintain break-even performance, implement cost-control mechanisms and engage in long-term strategic planning.
The FFP regulations are particularly important for Turkish football clubs, which have historically experienced structural weaknesses, such as high debt levels, overreliance on transfer markets and inadequate budgeting practices. UEFA promotes financial accountability and institutional reform through regular audits and enforcement actions.
However, despite these regulations, clubs continue to face financial struggles despite these financial regulations providing tools to improve the financial management of football clubs.
Financial regulation practices in major Turkish football clubs
The effectiveness of Financial Regulations in Turkish football clubs has been inconsistent. Whilst the legal and regulatory frameworks aim to encourage fiscal discipline, top-tier teams continue facing financial issues (for example, financial struggles, structural weaknesses, and so on). The following case studies of Beşiktaş, Fenerbahçe and Trabzonspor offer critical insights into the effectiveness of regulatory enforcement and the extent to which these clubs have embraced or resisted the shift towards sustainable financial governance.
Beşiktaş
Beşiktaş faced significant financial challenges in the early 2010s, resulting in a one-year suspension from European competitions due to late payments and misreporting. This was followed by a settlement agreement with UEFA, imposing operational restrictions, such as salary caps and transfer restrictions.
Despite these reforms, Beşiktaş continued to face break-even shortfalls which resulted in governance issues. Beşiktaş’ experience underscores the importance of strategic planning, transparency and institutional commitment to financial sustainability.
Fenerbahçe and Trabzonspor
Both Fenerbahçe and Trabzonspor entered into settlement agreements with UEFA following breaches of the FFP Regulations. However, neither club succeeded in fulfilling its respective financial commitments due to, mainly, high player salaries and the lack of structural reforms.
Trabzonspor failed to meet any break-even targets during its three-year monitoring period, whilst Fenerbahçe struggled with compliance matters despite its increased revenues. The UEFA flexible monitoring approach provided opportunities for recovery but the clubs’ continued reliance on foreign player transfers and external borrowings deepened financial instability.
These cases reflect a systematic prioritisation of short-term success over long-term fiscal prudence. Accordingly, the need for tighter financial controls and a shift towards youth investment and sustainable development models became obvious.
Recommendations for structural reforms
To strengthen the financial stability of Turkish football clubs, several institutional reforms might be helpful.
Structural change
A fundamental impediment to financial strength in Turkish football clubs lies in the legal structuring of clubs. Some prominent clubs have adopted corporate forms, such as joint stock companies, but many others still operate as traditional associations. This latter model, originally designed for amateur sports administration, does not meet the requirements of professional football clubs, which require financial accountability, transparency and adherence to corporate governance principles.
Although the Law allows for the voluntary transformation of sports clubs into joint stock companies, no sports club makes use of such possibility as this is only optional. Hence, it is imperative that this structural transformation becomes mandatory for all professional football clubs. Corporate structures would ensure internal controls, meet regulatory obligations and attract investments.
Tight financial monitoring
Long-term financial sustainability in Turkish football clubs requires tight fiscal oversight through disciplined budgeting, coordinated auditing and controlled borrowing principles. Clubs should be legally required to base their annual budgets solely on realised revenues and not speculative income. This would prevent structural deficits and provide visibility over expenditures, matching actual financial capacity. In this respect, the TFF must establish and strictly enforce seasonal spending limits linked to documented earnings.
Transparency and accountability also depend upon regular and reliable independent audits. At a minimum, audits should be conducted quarterly and coordinated by the SPK, the TFF and TÜRMOB. A unified audit system would support compliance with both sports-specific and general financial standards.
Moreover, borrowing by clubs should be subject to specific requirements. Borrowings should not be used for short-term objectives like expensive player transfers. Instead, borrowings should only be permitted for long-term investments, such as infrastructure or youth development projects, encouraging a more strategic and sustainable financial culture within Turkish football clubs.
Professionalisation of club management
The long-term financial sustainability of football clubs in Türkiye is linked to the professionalisation of their management structures. One of the most critical steps in this direction is the adoption of merit-based appointment processes for executive positions. Rather than relying on traditional networks or club politics, clubs should prioritise the recruitment of professionals with demonstrated expertise in finance, law, sports management and marketing. In line with the governance practices established by the SPK, the inclusion of independent board members must be actively encouraged to ensure impartial oversight and reduce the influence of internal interest groups on key decisions.
Equally important is the enforcement of legal and financial accountability mechanisms for club executives. The Law provides a legal basis for holding executives personally liable for financial mismanagement. However, these provisions require consistent enforcement. To further strengthen governance continuity and financial transparency, clubs should institutionalise mandatory post-tenure audits. These audits would serve not only to evaluate the financial integrity of departing administrations but also create a culture of responsibility and institutional memory within club management. Through these reforms, Turkish football can move closer to a governance model that prioritises professionalism, accountability and long-term strategic planning over short-term gains.
Conclusions
Efforts to reform Financial Regulations in professional football in Türkiye through the Law, TFF Regulations and the UEFA FFP model marks a significant step towards institutional integrity and fiscal discipline. However, ongoing problems with governance, transparency and compliance continue to threaten the sustainability of the financial regulation of Turkish football clubs.
Case studies of leading clubs reveal mismanagement, such as inefficient financial planning and use of resources. These problems necessitate a comprehensive reform that prioritises corporate governance, financial transparency and long-term planning.
Ultimately, the alignment of Turkish football clubs with international financial governance standards is not merely a regulatory necessity but a strategic imperative. By institutionalising best practices and encouraging financial management, Turkish football clubs may place themselves in a stronger and more competitive position both locally and internationally.
Bibliography
– A. Sevim and S. Bülbül, “UEFA finansal fair play (FFP) kriterleri kapsamında Türk futbolunda finansal raporlamanın önemi ve bir sistem gerekliliği”, in: Kara Harp Okulu Bilim Dergisi, 27(2) (2017), p. 187-212.
– S. Demirci, “Spor anonim şirketleri özelinde sporda şirketleşme“, in: Dicle Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 29(50) (2024), p. 299-360.
– S. Mutlu, „Futbolda finansal sürdürülebilirlik kapsamında “finansal fair play başa baş kuralı” ve Beşiktaş futbol kulübü üzerinde bir uygulama“, in: Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi (2016).
– G. Terci, „Futbol kulüplerinin UEFA finansal fair play mali kriterleri kapsamında denk hesap şartı ve mali yapılarının rasyo analizi yöntemiyle incelenmesi: Fenerbahçe A.Ş. ve Trabzonspor A.Ş. örneği“, in: Muhasebe ve Finans İncelemeleri Dergisi (2019).
– Y. Evren, “Politics of football debt and financial fair play in Turkey”, in: Y. Evren and M. Öztürk (eds.), Routledge handbook of Turkish politics (Routledge 2021), p. 393-405).
– Y.A. Dağlı Ekmekçi, Institutionalization of Turkish Sport Sector: Example of Football Clubs, Uluslararası Avrasya Ekonomileri Konferansı (2015).”
Financial fair play in football in the United Kingdom
Likewise, some recent financial fair play issues in association football in the United Kingdom are also worthy of our attention, namely the Burnley/Everton and the Manchester City cases.
Burnley/Everton case
It has been reported that Burnley Football Club (“Burnley”) has lodged a claim in court against Everton Football Club (“Everton”) to recover alleged financial losses incurred by Burnley resulting from breaches by Everton of the English Premier League (“Premier League”) Profit and Sustainability Rules (“the PSR Rules”).
The PSR Rules enable football clubs to seek compensation from one another in the event that rule-breaking causes loss and Burnley argue that breaches by Everton resulted in their relegation during the 2021-2022 football season.
This case will set a precedent as to how football clubs can laterally litigate breaches of the rules. In particular, how will liability be established and who will have jurisdiction to pursue claims of this kind?
A similar high-profile dispute heard in 2008 involved Sheffield United Football Club, who brought a court claim against West Ham United Football Club relating to the club’s breach of the Premier League Third-party Player Ownership (”ATP”) Rules. Carlos Tevez, who was the subject of this breach, scored the goals that saved West Ham from relegation towards the end of the 2006-2007 season. The claimant successfully argued that this breach was at their expense, as they were relegated that same season. The dispute was settled out of court to assess the amount of damages and was a landmark case on the effect of breaches of the Premier League ATP Rules.
The PSR Rules were introduced in 2015 to cap the financial losses that football clubs can incur within a specified period and to ensure that clubs are financially healthy and do not live beyond their means.
The aim of the PSR Rules is to prevent owners negligently managing the business side of historic football clubs that are followed by fans around the world. In broad terms, clubs are permitted to make a loss of up to £ 105 million (around € 125 million) over a three-year period. In the event that the PSR Rules are breached, offending clubs can face penalties, which include fines, points deductions or even relegation. Alleged breaches are referred by the English Premier League to an independent commission, before which a hearing takes place to determine liability and the sanctions to be imposed.
Everton 2023-2024 points deductions
Everton managed to avoid relegation from English football’s top-flight last season despite being deducted a total of eight points due to breaches of the PSR Rules. The club were deducted six points, reduced on appeal from an initial ten-point deduction, during the 2023-2024 Premier League season for breaching the PSR Rules in the three-year period to 2021-2022. Everton were around £ 20 million (€ 23.8 million) over the loss-permitting allowance and the Independent Commission found that this was largely due to overspending on incoming players and debts incurred in relation to the development of their new stadium. Later in the season, Everton had a further two points deducted from the club as they were found to be £ 16.6 million (€ 19.8 million) over the loss-permitting allowance during the three-year period ending in the period 2022-2023.
Despite these deductions, Everton managed to avoid relegation from the Premier League.
Burnley 2021-2022 relegation
However, in the 2021-2022 football season, Burnley were relegated to the second-tier Championship League from the Premier League, being only three points away from safety. It only became clear during the 2023-2024 season that, during this earlier season, Everton had been breaching the PSR Rules, for which it was later penalised. The 2021-2022 season found Everton safe from relegation by only four points, being two points less than the six-point deduction the club later received for its rule-breaking during the season. When these breaches came to light, needless to say, Burnley felt aggrieved that the matter was not dealt with earlier so that Everton’s points deductions could have been incurred during the relevant season, thereby saving Burnley from relegation and its negative financial effects.
When a club is relegated, it receives so-called “parachute payments” from the Premier League in order to protect it in the adjustment period when its income is substantially lower. However, the financial rewards for playing in the Premier League, most notably the broadcasting and sponsorship revenue, are reportedly far in excess of these payments. Accordingly, Burnley are seeking compensation from Everton for the losses the club incurred as a result of the PSR breaches by Everton and its relegation in the 2021-2022 season.
Implications of the Burnley/Everton case
It is expected that the Burnley/Everton litigation will not go to trial but will be settled out of court. In any event, the case raises the legal issue of cause and effect, and, of course, the proof of proximate financial loss, and, no doubt, these issues will loom large in the negotiations in agreeing on the amount of compensation. This may be expected to exceed the amount of £ 20 million (around € 23.8 million) believed to have been agreed in the earlier Sheffield United/West Ham United case, bearing in mind the current 2025-2029 Premier League broadcasting rights deal of £ 6.7 billion (€ 7.98 billion)! Of course, the actual amount is likely to be kept confidential.
Also, the outcome of the Burnley/Everton claim is expected to have an impact on interclub disputes in other PSR related cases.
Manchester City case
Furthermore, depending upon the outcome, which is expected soon, the pending Manchester City Football Club case involving 115 breaches of the Premier League PSR Rules may give rise to claims from other football clubs, for example, for failing to qualify for the coveted four places in the lucrative UEFA Champions League as a result of such breaches.
In such cases, issues of legal causality and quantifying the corresponding financial losses will again need to be addressed, apart from the thorny and controversial issue of retroactive legal liability.
Articles in this issue
We now turn our attention to some of the articles, which we publish in this issue of SLT.
On the sports law side, we would draw the particular attention of our readers to the personal and impactful article on the need for safeguarding in sport by Nicola Minichiello, who is the Safeguarding Officer of the International Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation, headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland.
In the introduction to her article, she makes the following remarks:
“In elite sport, where triumph is revered and winning is idolised, a deeply rooted contradiction lies at the heart of athlete welfare: the clash between safeguarding principles and the elite athlete mentality. This mentality, forged in the crucible of high performance, champions grit, sacrifice, and resilience above all else. Yet, as our understanding of psychological health advances, it becomes increasingly clear that this culture often facilitates – even glorifies – toxic stress.
In the wake of high-profile athlete abuse scandals, many global sports communities have reaffirmed their commitment to safeguarding athletes. From the U.S. Center for SafeSport to the UK Code for Sports Governance, safeguarding policies are being rapidly reformed and implemented to protect athletes’ welfare.
Yet, beneath these well-intentioned efforts lies an uncomfortable contradiction: the same environments that proclaim protection often perpetuate a culture of normalised toxic stress – a culture essentialised in the very mentality that we praise in elite athletes.
This article explores the tension between safeguarding obligations and the elite athlete mentality, especially the normalisation of toxic stress and the often-overlooked issue of athlete grooming. It unpacks how the pursuit of performance can blur ethical boundaries and even create conditions where abuse is more easily concealed, rationalised, or overlooked.”
And she concludes her article as follows:
“The contradiction between safeguarding and the elite athlete mentality is not just theoretical – it manifests itself in the bodies and minds of athletes who are taught to endure rather than to speak, to obey rather than to question, and to perform rather than to protect themselves.
If sport is to be truly safe, then we must reimagine excellence not just as the ability to survive abuse, but as the capacity to thrive within supportive, respectful environments. Legal frameworks must go beyond the prevention of obvious abuse and tackle the subtler, systemic dynamics that make harm both invisible and inevitable.
The normalisation of toxic stress and the quiet mechanics of grooming are not anomalies: they are endemic symptoms of a culture that must change.
As the law continues to evolve in the domain of sport, it must do so with the courage to confront not just the predators or the systems, but also the practices that enable them.”
Much food for thought indeed!
On the sports tax side we would particularly mention an update article on “The UK tax regime for sportspersons” by Kevin Offer, one of our regular contributors and a sports tax expert,.
He introduces the subject as follows:
“As part of a survey of special income tax regimes, the UK tax regime for sportspersons was included in a previous issue of this journal.
Since then, the UK tax regime has changed significantly, particularly for international athletes coming to and becoming resident in the UK. The purpose of this article is to provide an update of the new regime which came into effect from 6 April 2025.
The treatment of sportspersons in the UK follows the usual tax treatment that applies to other individuals. There are some special tax rules for overseas individuals coming to live and work in the UK, but the benefits were reduced from 6 April 2025 when the UK remittance basis regime for non-domiciled individuals was abolished. There are, however, some rules that will enable sportspersons to reduce their exposure to UK taxation.”
He concludes his article as follows:
“The restrictions on the availability for the new FIG regime may be viewed as a deliberate attempt to scale back the use of overseas image rights structures by footballers moving to the English Premier League. The UK tax authorities have long been looking at such structures and challenging them where they can. If, going forward, the income received from the exploitation of image rights will be taxed whether brought into the UK or not and whether received directly by the player or by an overseas company, then there would seem little point in maintaining such structures. The use of a UK company for the exploitation of image rights may be preferable.
However, as the shares of the company would remain an overseas asset, the protection from UK inheritance tax for up to 10 years may remain beneficial. In any event, a review of such structures should be undertaken – if not already undertaken – and careful consideration needs to be given to the tax position when negotiating a move to the UK, such as in the summer transfer window.
Sportspersons should review their tax status with their advisers. Consideration should be given to their personal, business and investment activities, their plans and objectives for the future and how the new regime will impact them. Consideration of whether any benefits can be obtained from the application of double tax treaties may be more beneficial in the future. Where the previous regime has been relied upon, then the impact of the changes should be carefully considered, if not already, and any changes implemented, as soon as possible.”
Whilst on the subject of tax and sportspersons, it is worth reproducing the following timely remarks of Marianna Kazazi of The Sports Financial Literacy Academy, Nicosia, Cyprus in her recent post published on the SLT website:
“Athletes and Off-Season Spending: Avoiding Common Pitfalls
For many individuals and businesses, the off-season is a time to regroup, reflect, and plan for the future.
Whether you are an athlete recovering from a demanding season, a business navigating the lull before peak months, or a traveller enjoying life between busy periods, how you handle off-season spending can significantly impact your long-term financial well-being.
The freedom and lower demands of this time of year often lead to impulsive or ill-considered spending.
In this Post, we will explore the most common pitfalls of off-season spending – and how to avoid them.
The temptation of the off-season
The off-season often brings a sense of relief. Without the pressure of ongoing competitions, tight work deadlines, or fully booked calendars, people feel free to relax – and spend. The issue is not relaxing; it is the tendency to overlook long-term financial priorities in favour of short-term comfort.
Some examples:
– Athletes might splurge on luxury travel, designer fashion, or expensive gadgets.
– Small business owners may invest in unnecessary upgrades without analysing ROI.
– Travellers could fall into the trap of frequent getaways without budgeting properly.
This mindset – “I deserve it after all the hard work” – is quite understandable. But without awareness, off-season indulgences can lead to cash flow problems or missed investment opportunities in future.
Pitfall 1: overspending on lifestyle upgrades
One of the most common off-season traps is lifestyle inflation. After a successful season or a financial high point, it is tempting to reward yourself with higher-end purchases. That might mean switching to first-class flights, staying in luxury resorts, buying a new car, or upgrading your tech devices.
Why it is a problem: These expenses often become recurring rather than one-time splurges. You may start expecting the same level of comfort all year round, even when your income drops or becomes irregular and will not support them.
What to do instead: Set a “reward budget”. Give yourself permission to enjoy the off-season but cap your spending. You can still enjoy experiences – just within realistic boundaries. Even better, align your spending with long-term goals like skills development, wellness, or building your brand.
Pitfall 2: investing without a clear plan
Another mistake is making large investments during the off-season – either personal, like home renovations or professional, like expanding a business – without doing enough research.
Why it is a problem: These investments may feel productive or visionary, but they can quickly become liabilities if they are rushed or based on emotion rather than data. You may find yourself locked into expenses that offer little return or drain resources when your income slows down.
What to do instead: Use the off-season for planning, not rushing into investments. Review your goals. Research thoroughly. Consult advisors. Delay major financial moves until you are confident that they align with your long-term strategy.
Pitfall 3: ignoring budgetary discipline
Many people abandon budgeting in the off-season. This is especially true for those whose income is seasonal or varies throughout the year. Without regular payments coming in, it can be easy to ignore or delay expense tracking, assuming that it will all balance out later.
Why it is a problem: Without tracking your off-season spending, you risk misjudging how much cash you have – and what you will need to get through the slow months. This often results in a spending hangover when the peak season returns, and debts or obligations catch up with you.
What to do instead: Stick to your budget. In fact, the off-season is the best time to double down on your finances. Set weekly check-ins with yourself, or with a financial advisor, to monitor your spending. If you receive large seasonal payments, create a cash flow plan that spreads them out across the entire year.
Pitfall 4: neglecting emergency savings
If you have had a great season – whether that is business profits, prize money, or a big contract – it is easy to assume that things will keep on going up. But off-seasons are unpredictable. Injuries, market shifts, or unexpected life events can turn a quiet season into a crisis.
Why it is a problem: Without an emergency fund, any unexpected event can push you into debt or force you to sell assets.
What to do instead: Build or replenish your emergency fund during the off-season. A good target is 6-12 months of essential living expenses. That way, you will have a safety net no matter what the future brings.
Pitfall 5: forgetting to plan for the next season
Sometimes, the off-season is treated as a complete mental and financial break from the work ahead. That is healthy in moderation – but if it leads to ignoring preparation for the upcoming season, it can harm performance and finances later.
Why it is a problem: The return to action will come fast, and if you have not saved or invested in the tools and training that you will need, you may start the next season at a financial disadvantage.
What to do instead: Use your off-season to prepare intentionally. Allocate part of your budget towards next season’s needs. This might include renewing certifications, upgrading your gear, investing in personal branding and keeping your health and fitness in check.
Final thoughts: the key is intentionality
Off-season spending is not inherently bad. In fact, when done with intention, it can improve your life, reduce stress, and position you for future success. The real danger lies in spending impulsively – without a plan, a budget, or a goal.
Ask yourself, therefore, these three questions before making any off-season expenditure:
1 Is this purchase helping me rest, grow, or prepare?
2 Will I regret this in three months’ time when the busy season starts?
3 Have I accounted for upcoming costs and saved for unexpected ones?
If the answer aligns with your values and goals, go ahead.
But if not, take a step back and reconsider.
The off-season is a precious time – do not let short-term spending compromise your long-term success.”
Good advice on tax mitigation indeed!
We also report, from time to time, on the SLT website on unusual sports and would reproduce our recent report on Crazy Golf as follows:
“The individual World Crazy Golf Championships took place on 7 and 8 June 2025.
250 players competed in this annual tournament, which was held at Hastings Adventure Golf, East Sussex, England.
Competitors from several countries, including the USA and New Zealand, took part and the winner received £ 1,250 (around € 1,483) in prize money and a further £ 2,500 (around € 2,966) was shared between players, who finished in second to eighth places.
Competitors played six qualifying rounds before the top-scoring 18 players took part in the final.
There were also junior and novice categories.
The Championships have been held for the last twenty-two years.
For the uninitiated, Crazy Golf is a form of golf but involves putting only.
See, for example, the 18 Hole Congo River Adventure Crazy Golf Course at www.blabygolfcentre.co.uk/adventure-golf.“
As you will see from the Table of Contents of this issue, we include, in addition to the articles highlighted above, a wide range of topical sports law and sports tax articles, which, we believe, will, once again, engage our readers’ attention and provide them with much “food for thought”.
As always, we would welcome and value our readers’ contributions in the form of articles and topical case notes and commentaries for our journal and also for posting on the SLT dedicated website https://sportslawandtaxation.com, which continues to go from strength to strength and covers important sports legal and tax developments and issues.
So, now read on and enjoy the June 2025 edition of SLT.
Dr. Rijkele Betten (Managing Editor)
Prof. Dr. Ian S. Blackshaw (Consulting Editor)
June 2025
