Consultation on the Draft FIDE Live Moves Broadcasting Policy

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Chris Goodall
Posts: 361
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Consultation on the Draft FIDE Live Moves Broadcasting Policy

Post by Chris Goodall » Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:33 pm

Ian Thompson wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 12:39 pm
|I agree FIDE can't enforce rules that apply to everybody, but it can make up whatever rules it likes for its members (assuming it can get its members to agree to the necessary rule changes). So banning someone from playing chess is not possible, but banning them from playing in FIDE organised events, FIDE rated events, or anything else with which FIDE has some involvement is possible.
Yes. This. The document makes no mention of legal sanctions, but for some reason we can't get the idea of legal sanctions out of our heads. The argument that "if FIDE could make any rules it wanted, the Agon case wouldn't have gone to court" is nonsense. Agon went to court to try to enforce a legal right (a legal right which they didn't have, and no-one is suggesting otherwise). But FIDE is not trying to assert any legal rights in this document!

I don't know why this is difficult to grasp. Let's say FIDE gave me a 1 year ban from chess for hiding the Pocket Guide to Endgames in the toilet. I'm not breaking any law by doing that. FIDE's case against me isn't based on the Helpful Publications (Hidden in Toilets) Act 2004. It's based on the rules that they're entitled to make up because they're the governing body.
Chris Goodall, formerly known as Chris Wardle. Northumbria League hand-cranker; ECF Grader for Bernicia and the NCCU.
Newcastle is not in Scotland!

User avatar
Paolo Casaschi
Posts: 1089
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:46 am

Re: Consultation on the Draft FIDE Live Moves Broadcasting Policy

Post by Paolo Casaschi » Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:37 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:27 pm
Roger de Coverly wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:25 pm
The ECF International Director has come out in public in favour of unrestricted distribution ...
Do you happen to know the link?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=gHxeI33cjJQ

Speaking as grand chess tour organiser rather than as ECF director.
Last edited by Paolo Casaschi on Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 6459
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Consultation on the Draft FIDE Live Moves Broadcasting Policy

Post by JustinHorton » Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:40 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 12:42 pm
They know that very well, and are trying to discover whether the chess public would like them to push their rights as far as they will go. I have said no, and so far I am still in a minority of one. That is a position to which I am well used, but I didn't expect it to be the case on this issue and on this forum.
I don't think it is, is it?
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 6459
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Consultation on the Draft FIDE Live Moves Broadcasting Policy

Post by JustinHorton » Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:52 pm

Chris Wardle wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:33 pm
Ian Thompson wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 12:39 pm
|I agree FIDE can't enforce rules that apply to everybody, but it can make up whatever rules it likes for its members (assuming it can get its members to agree to the necessary rule changes). So banning someone from playing chess is not possible, but banning them from playing in FIDE organised events, FIDE rated events, or anything else with which FIDE has some involvement is possible.
Yes. This. The document makes no mention of legal sanctions, but for some reason we can't get the idea of legal sanctions out of our heads. The argument that "if FIDE could make any rules it wanted, the Agon case wouldn't have gone to court" is nonsense. Agon went to to try to enforce a legal right (a legal right which they didn't have, and no-one is suggesting otherwise).
However, had they been confident that their position could be enforced extra-legally, they would have not needed to waste time and money on their lost legal cause. They could have started with threats of fines and bans.
Chris Wardle wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:33 pm

Let's say FIDE gave me a 1 year ban from chess for hiding the Pocket Guide to Endgames in the toilet. I'm not breaking any law by doing that. FIDE's case against me isn't based on the Helpful Publications (Hidden in Toilets) Act 2004. It's based on the rules that they're entitled to make up because they're the governing body.
However, contra Ian, governing bodies cannot just make up any rules they like, and I can think of at least two examples in my lifetime where governing bodies in the UK have fallen foul of the law in their attempts to do so.

Take for instance MCC's attempt to exclude cricketers from Test cricket because they had taken part in Kerry Packer's competition, or the Football Association's attempt to exclude Tottenham Hotspur from the FA Cup. In each instance legal action established that the ban was unlawful.

In neither instance was it claimed that the governing bodies had no right to exclude teams, or competitors, and other teams and competitors have been excluded before and since. But they did, and do, have to have reasonable grounds. Their rights over their competitions and affiliates are not absolute.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

User avatar
Paolo Casaschi
Posts: 1089
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:46 am

Re: Consultation on the Draft FIDE Live Moves Broadcasting Policy

Post by Paolo Casaschi » Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:53 pm

Chris Wardle wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:33 pm
Ian Thompson wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 12:39 pm
|I agree FIDE can't enforce rules that apply to everybody, but it can make up whatever rules it likes for its members (assuming it can get its members to agree to the necessary rule changes). So banning someone from playing chess is not possible, but banning them from playing in FIDE organised events, FIDE rated events, or anything else with which FIDE has some involvement is possible.
Yes. This. The document makes no mention of legal sanctions, but for some reason we can't get the idea of legal sanctions out of our heads. The argument that "if FIDE could make any rules it wanted, the Agon case wouldn't have gone to court" is nonsense. Agon went to court to try to enforce a legal right (a legal right which they didn't have, and no-one is suggesting otherwise). But FIDE is not trying to assert any legal rights in this document!

I don't know why this is difficult to grasp. Let's say FIDE gave me a 1 year ban from chess for hiding the Pocket Guide to Endgames in the toilet. I'm not breaking any law by doing that. FIDE's case against me isn't based on the Helpful Publications (Hidden in Toilets) Act 2004. It's based on the rules that they're entitled to make up because they're the governing body.
FIDE can make any rule they want but those can still be challenged in courts of law.

I don’t know why this is difficult to grasp, but an organisation like FIDE is not exempt from the scrutiny of the law, even for the rules that apply to their members only.

For example, do you remember when the European football associations tried to limit the number of foreign players in their teams, including the ones from other EU countries? They tried adding such a rule for their members, they were challenged in court, they lost.

If FIDE were to ban Peter Svidler from any FIDE rated tournament for commentating on chess24 during the next world championship, would that ban hold a legal challenge?

More importantly though, would banning Peter Svidler from commentating on chess24 during the next world championship, would that be good for chess?

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18102
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Consultation on the Draft FIDE Live Moves Broadcasting Policy

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Mar 18, 2018 2:06 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:27 pm

Do you happen to know the link?
I don't think there's one link, rather statements made about and during the Grand Chess Tour, the London Chess Classic, the Saudi event and his editorials in the magazine paint a picture. The approach from the very first London Classic which had multiple ways of watching the games live contrasted with the attitude adopted by the organisers of the Staunton series of tournaments who wanted to restrict access to a single pay to view channel.

NickFaulks
Posts: 5088
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Consultation on the Draft FIDE Live Moves Broadcasting Policy

Post by NickFaulks » Sun Mar 18, 2018 2:19 pm

JustinHorton wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:40 pm
I don't think it is, is it?
Why, who agrees with me? The popular view here seems to be a hope that FIDE will act as unreasonably as possible, so there can be a nice juicy fight.

Brian Towers
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:23 pm

Re: Consultation on the Draft FIDE Live Moves Broadcasting Policy

Post by Brian Towers » Sun Mar 18, 2018 2:27 pm

Paolo Casaschi wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:37 pm
David Sedgwick wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:27 pm
Roger de Coverly wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:25 pm
The ECF International Director has come out in public in favour of unrestricted distribution ...
Do you happen to know the link?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=gHxeI33cjJQ

Speaking as grand chess tour organiser rather than as ECF director.
Malcolm Pein makes some excellent points in this video.
Anybody interested in this topic would do well to start by watching it and seeing what he has to say.
Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now.

User avatar
Chris Goodall
Posts: 361
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Consultation on the Draft FIDE Live Moves Broadcasting Policy

Post by Chris Goodall » Sun Mar 18, 2018 2:48 pm

JustinHorton wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:52 pm
However, had they been confident that their position could be enforced extra-legally, they would have not needed to waste time and money on their lost legal cause. They could have started with threats of fines and bans.
We could speculate endlessly about what was in Agon's heads. We've no way of knowing.
JustinHorton wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:52 pm
Take for instance MCC's attempt to exclude cricketers from Test cricket because they had taken part in Kerry Packer's competition, or the Football Association's attempt to exclude Tottenham Hotspur from the FA Cup. In each instance legal action established that the ban was unlawful.

In neither instance was it claimed that the governing bodies had no right to exclude teams, or competitors, and other teams and competitors have been excluded before and since. But they did, and do, have to have reasonable grounds. Their rights over their competitions and affiliates are not absolute.
You're leaving out some crucial details from both examples. The issue in the World Series Cricket war was inducement to breach of contract, which is a serious legal matter. Tottenham Hotspur had broken the law of the land by concealing payments, and the ban was never determined to be unlawful, and in exchange for overturning the ban the FA increased their fine to £1.5 million. Making it a brilliant example of how the governing body can in fact exercise absolute rights over their competitions and affiliates.
Chris Goodall, formerly known as Chris Wardle. Northumbria League hand-cranker; ECF Grader for Bernicia and the NCCU.
Newcastle is not in Scotland!

User avatar
Chris Goodall
Posts: 361
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Consultation on the Draft FIDE Live Moves Broadcasting Policy

Post by Chris Goodall » Sun Mar 18, 2018 2:55 pm

Paolo Casaschi wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:53 pm
For example, do you remember when the European football associations tried to limit the number of foreign players in their teams, including the ones from other EU countries? They tried adding such a rule for their members, they were challenged in court, they lost.
And that's why we don't have a rule any more that clubs must include 8 home-grown players in their 25-man squad... oh wait, yes we do.
Chris Goodall, formerly known as Chris Wardle. Northumbria League hand-cranker; ECF Grader for Bernicia and the NCCU.
Newcastle is not in Scotland!

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18102
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Consultation on the Draft FIDE Live Moves Broadcasting Policy

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Mar 18, 2018 3:02 pm

Chris Wardle wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:33 pm
Let's say FIDE gave me a 1 year ban from chess for hiding the Pocket Guide to Endgames in the toilet. I'm not breaking any law by doing that.
Actually you might be. I was thinking of the grounds for prosecution in the Millionaire coughing case. Pecuniary advantage by deception was it not?

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 6459
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Consultation on the Draft FIDE Live Moves Broadcasting Policy

Post by JustinHorton » Sun Mar 18, 2018 3:04 pm

Chris Wardle wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 2:48 pm
You're leaving out some crucial details from both examples.
I am not however leaving out the major pertinent detail, which is that decisions by sporting federations can be and are successfully challenged in the courts.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

David Sedgwick
Posts: 3464
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Consultation on the Draft FIDE Live Moves Broadcasting Policy

Post by David Sedgwick » Sun Mar 18, 2018 3:18 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 2:06 pm
David Sedgwick wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:27 pm

Do you happen to know the link?
I don't think there's one link, rather statements made about and during the Grand Chess Tour, the London Chess Classic, the Saudi event and his editorials in the magazine paint a picture. The approach from the very first London Classic which had multiple ways of watching the games live contrasted with the attitude adopted by the organisers of the Staunton series of tournaments who wanted to restrict access to a single pay to view channel.
Paolo kindly provided the link which I was seeking.

Thanks, Paolo

User avatar
Chris Goodall
Posts: 361
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Consultation on the Draft FIDE Live Moves Broadcasting Policy

Post by Chris Goodall » Sun Mar 18, 2018 3:20 pm

JustinHorton wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 3:04 pm
Chris Wardle wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 2:48 pm
You're leaving out some crucial details from both examples.
I am not however leaving out the major pertinent detail, which is that decisions by sporting federations can be and are successfully challenged in the courts.
When the issue at stake is illegal behaviour, like defrauding the public purse or inducing an employee to break a contract, yes.

If FIDE punished me for touching a piece and not moving it by punching me in the face, I could complain to the courts, on the basis that "decisions by sporting federations" can't be illegal decisions. But banning chess players from rated tournaments isn't an illegal decision, is it.
Chris Goodall, formerly known as Chris Wardle. Northumbria League hand-cranker; ECF Grader for Bernicia and the NCCU.
Newcastle is not in Scotland!

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 6459
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Consultation on the Draft FIDE Live Moves Broadcasting Policy

Post by JustinHorton » Sun Mar 18, 2018 3:29 pm

Chris Wardle wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 3:20 pm

If FIDE punished me for touching a piece and not moving it by punching me in the face, I could complain to the courts, on the basis that "decisions by sporting federations" can't be illegal decisions. But banning chess players from rated tournaments isn't an illegal decision, is it.
Yes, it very well might be. When cricketers were banned from consideration for Test cricket, they had no right as such to play at that level, but the ban was ruled illegal nonetheless.

I think you may find (and the matter may have been discussed on the International forum, when we have discussed cheating in chess and the possible consequences of issuing bans) that preventing people from participating in lawful activities is not necessarily trivial. A federation may have to demonstrate not only that a rule has been broken, but that it was proper to have that rule in the first place. I wonder if they would necessarily succeed, where the function of the rule is to prevent people from playing chess and its purpose is to protect a monopoly that does not exist in law.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Post Reply