July and August 2025: Australian Sports Law Update

Like many sports, the world of sports law is also fast paced, so we’ve summarised some important updates over the last month or so that we think those involved in sport in Australia should be aware of, so that you can stay ahead of the game. 

Formula 1 – Australian Grand Prix Amendment Bill (VIC)

On 28 July 2025, the Victorian Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events, introduced proposed legislative changes to the Australian Formula 1 Grand Prix by way of the Australian Grand Prix Amendment Bill 2025 (VIC) (“Bill”).

The Bill was drafted with the intention of increasing safety and resources at Albert Park in Melbourne’s inner-city where the Formula 1 Grand Prix is held each year.

In summary, the Bill proposes to:

1. Extend the racing period from 7 to 21 days – this will allow essential works to be completed in a controlled environment to create a safer and more secure park during the race period.
2. Increase annual payments to Parks Victoria from $100,000 to $200,000 with further increases where necessary for the maintenance and upkeep of Albert Park.
3. Enable the Australia Grand Prix Corporation (AGPC) to host non-motor sport events at Albert Park during the race period.
4. Introduce a more current and detailed definition of ‘grand prix insignia’ and enhance AGPC’s rights to own, use and protect the same from unauthorised use.

A surge in Formula 1 popularity drew over 465,000 fans to the temporary track at Albert Park for the 2025 race. As the Minister stated, “[T]he event pumps more than $268 million into the Victorian economy every year, filling hotels, restaurants and bars while supporting more than 1,145 full time jobs.” As one of the oldest temporary tracks on the F1 circuit, the Minister compares the efforts each year to that of building “half the MCG in a week”.

Notably, the Victorian Government and Liberty Media (the owners of the F1) reached agreement in 2019 to keep the Australian Grand Prix in Melbourne until 2037. As part of the agreement, Albert Park has commenced major upgrades including 14 world-class garages, improved race control, upgraded hospitality facilities, a new media centre and improved non-motor sports facilities for the park such as indoor sports courts and clubrooms.

The Bill is another example of Australian legislation which supports event organisers in Australia, enhancing their prospects of winning competitive bids to host global sports events, and assisting them with retaining hosting rights on a long-term basis. There are already Major Events Acts in most States which streamline approval processes for event organisers and assist them with protecting against ambush marketing and ticket-scalping.

The Bill was due to be debated in the Victorian Legislative Council last week but was withdrawn by the Government after it failed to win enough support for the proposed extension to the race period. Debate on the Bill has now been adjourned to a later date.

Developments in Regulations for the female category in international sports

World Athletics and World Boxing have both issued new regulations on eligibility for the male and female categories in international competitions. 

On 23 July 2025, World Athletics approved new eligibility regulations (C3.3A and C3.5A in the Book of Rules) for competitors in the female category of international competitions. The regulations came into effect on 1 September 2025.

The new World Boxing Sex Eligibility Policy came into force on 20 August 2025.

Both federations now (i) regulate the female category in international competition based on biological sex and (ii) introduce a one off test to determine eligibility. The regulations are worth reading in full, but a few of the key articles are reproduced below:

(i) The World Athletics Regulations

Eligibility Rule 3.5 provides that when it comes to the Male and Female Categories, “‘biological male’ means someone with a Y chromosome and ‘biological female’ means someone with no Y chromosome, irrespective of their legal sex and/or gender identity”.

It then states as follows:

“3.5.2 Only the following Athletes may compete in the female category:

a. Biological females.

b. Biological females who have used testosterone as part of male gender-affirming treatment further to a Therapeutic Use Exemption granted in accordance with World Athletics’ Anti-Doping Rules may not compete in the female category until the passing of a period of time after their last use of testosterone (the period of time will be not shorter than four years and will be determined by World Athletics on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration all relevant factors including the timing, duration, dosages, and effects of the male gender-affirming treatment).

c. Biological males who have Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and therefore have not gone through male sexual development including any type of male puberty.

d. Biological males with a difference of sex development who satisfy the transitional provisions issued by World Athletics. […]

3.5.4 An Athlete must demonstrate their eligibility to compete in the female category by means of SRY testing (sex-determining region Y gene analysis) of an Athlete’s buccal cells (i.e., cheek swab testing) or blood sample.

a. If the SRY test is negative, the Athlete will be permitted to compete in the female category.

b. If the SRY test is positive, the Athlete will not be permitted to compete in the female category pending further medical assessment by World Athletics.

c. An Athlete who fails to undergo SRY testing as requested by World Athletics will not be eligible to compete in the female category.

3.5.5 Where the applicable rules permit biological males to compete in the female category at a competition that is not a World Rankings Competition, their results will not be recognised for the purposes of World Records and World Rankings, and will be listed separately by World Athletics”.

Eligibility Rule 3.5 is also accompanied by new Regulations which set out the approach in detail.

(ii) The World Boxing Regulations

The Executive Summary of World Boxing’s new regulations is as follows:

“This policy is designed to deliver a level playing field for men and women which ensures the safety of all participants, based on their sex as a key determinant in delivering competitive fairness and protecting the health and welfare of boxers.

As part of this policy, World Boxing will operate two categories as determined by sex: a men’s category and a women’s category.  To be eligible for the men’s category, a competitor must be male at birth. To be eligible for the women’s category, a competitor must be female at birth. 

To ensure this policy is implemented, World Boxing will introduce mandatory sex testing to determine the eligibility of female and male athletes that want to take part in its competitions. It means that all athletes over the age of 18 that want to participate in a World Boxing owned or sanctioned competition will need to undergo a, once-in-a lifetime, PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test or a functional medical equivalent genetic test to determine their sex at birth and their eligibility to compete”.

The World Boxing Regulations will shortly face their first test, with Algerian boxer Imane Khelif filing an appeal at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) concerning a World Boxing decision that disallows the athlete’s participation in upcoming World Boxing events without a preliminary genetic test. According to the media release from CAS, Imane Khelif’s request to suspend the execution of the decision by World Boxing until the case is heard was rejected, and the Parties are currently exchanging written submissions with a hearing to be scheduled.

This also comes at a time where it has been widely reported that the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC) as at 21 July 2025 has announced that transgender women will not be eligible to compete for the United States in the Olympic or Paralympic Games in the women’s category. It is understood that USOPC has amended its policy in line with Executive Order 14201, otherwise known as the “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports” order, introduced by the current US president in February this year.

RFC Seraing SA v FIFA (C-600/23) – ECJ decision on sports arbitration

On 1 August 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“ECJ”) delivered its much anticipated judgment addressing the finality of decisions from the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”). You can access the full judgment here or for those who prefer an overview, the ECJ’s media release can be found here.

Background:

In 2015, a Belgian football club (“RFC Seraing”) entered into agreements that were later found by CAS to be in violation of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. An appeal against the CAS decision was rejected by the Swiss Federal Tribunal.

Dissatisfied with the outcome, RFC Seraing brought an action before the Belgian courts, challenging the compatibility of FIFA rules with European Union (“EU”) laws and, later, its inability to obtain a review of the CAS award by an EU Member state court for its compatibility with EU law. As explained by the ECJ, the question asked of it was ‘whether, having regard to EU law, the national courts or tribunals may be prevented, pursuant to the principle of the authority of res judicata, from reviewing an arbitral award made by the CAS and upheld by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, namely a court of a third country that does not have the option open to it of referring a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling’.

ECJ Decision:

The ECJ essentially found that ‘the courts or tribunals of the Member States must be able to carry out an in-depth review of those awards for consistency with the fundamental rules of EU law’.

The decision and its ramifications will be discussed in detail by Prof Ulrich Haas at the ANZSLA conference in Brisbane on 21 to 23 October, but for now we leave you with the following extract from the ECJ summary:

In the field of football, as in many other sports, the submission of disputes to arbitration is generally not freely accepted but unilaterally imposed on athletes and on clubs by international associations, such as the Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA).

In those circumstances, it is essential that recourse to arbitration does not undermine the rights and freedoms that the fundamental rules of EU law guarantee athletes, clubs and, more broadly, any other person practising a professional sport or pursuing an economic activity linked to that sport. On those grounds, the Court of Justice rules today that the national courts or tribunals must be empowered to carry out, at the request of individuals or of the court’s or tribunal’s own motion, an in-depth judicial review as to whether arbitral awards made by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (the CAS) are consistent with EU public policy.

Furthermore, if national legislation or rules of a sports association prevent the national courts or tribunals from exercising their powers, those courts or tribunals are required to disapply that legislation or those rules.

First Nations group opposed to Brisbane Olympic Stadium at Victoria Park

Earlier this year, the Queensland Premier announced that a new 63,000-seat stadium would be built at Brisbane's Victoria Park for the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games – at an estimated cost of $3.8 billion.  The new stadium would host the opening and closing ceremonies, and the athletics.

More recently, in response to this announcement, the Yagara Magandjin Aboriginal Corporation (YMAC) has lodged an application with the Federal Environment and Water Minister for permanent legal protection of Victoria Park against major Olympic stadium and associated infrastructure developments.

The application was made pursuant to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Act 1984 (Cth) (‘Act’). Section 10 of the Act provides that where the Minister receives an application by or on behalf of a group of Aboriginals seeking the preservation or protection of a specified area from injury or desecration, the Minister has the power, by legislative instrument, to make a declaration in relation to the area.

As part of the application, the Minister will receive a report from a nominated person of their choosing which deals with the particular significance to Aboriginals, the nature and extent of threat or injury, the extent that the area should be protected, any prohibitions or restrictions to the area and the effectiveness of any remedies available under State laws. The Minister may also consider such other matters as they think relevant.

YMAC’s application refers to Victoria Park’s rich Indigenous history and claims that it contains culturally significant trees, artefacts and potential ancestral remains. It states that the plan to construct a 63,000 seat stadium at Victoria Park among other developments presents threats to the specified area.

There are State planning laws in Queensland (such as the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (QLD)) which provide avenues for the protection of culturally significant land. However, in May this year, the Queensland Parliament passed legislative changes to the Brisbane Olympic and Paralympic Games Arrangements Act 2021 which exempt the sporting facilities being constructed for the 2032 Brisbane Olympics from State planning laws. The purpose of these changes was to ensure that Olympic projects are not held up by potential legal challenges.

The exemption from State planning laws explains why YMAC chose to lodge an application under Federal law. The Queensland Government had been hoping to start work on the Victoria Park site very soon. YMAC’s application may now cause a delay which the exemption had been intended to prevent.