The integrity of competitive sports hinges on the principle of a level playing field, where all participants have an equal opportunity to succeed based on their talent, effort, and strategy. However, two forms of cheating have persistently undermined this principle: the well-known use of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) and the lesser-known use of financial doping. Both practices confer unfair advantages, distort competition, and erode public trust in sports.

‍
‍Performance-Enhancing Drugs: The Case of Ben Johnson, Marion Jones and Lance Armstrong

Performance-enhancing drugs have long been a blight on athletics. PEDs enhance physical capabilities beyond natural limits, providing users with an artificial edge over their competitors. This was glaringly evident in the cases of sprinters Ben Johnson and Marion Jones.

Ben Johnson, a Canadian sprinter, made headlines at the 1988 Seoul Olympics when he won the 100 meters in a then-world record time of 9.79 seconds. However, his glory was short-lived as he tested positive for the anabolic steroid stanozolol and was subsequently stripped of his gold medal. Johnson’s case highlighted the lengths to which athletes might go to secure victory, and the severe repercussions when they are caught.

Similarly, Marion Jones, once a celebrated American track and field athlete, saw her career crumble due to PED use. After winning five medals at the 2000 Sydney Olympics, Jones admitted in 2007 to using steroids provided by the infamous Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative (BALCO). She was stripped of her medals and sentenced to prison for perjury, reflecting the severe consequences of cheating not only for the sport but also for the athletes themselves.

In another sport littered with doping offences, cyclist Lance Armstrong's career, marked by seven consecutive Tour de France victories from 1999 to 2005, was long under suspicion due to allegations of doping. Despite repeated denials and numerous tests showing no evidence of PEDs, suspicions persisted, fuelled by testimonies from former teammates and associates.  

In 2010, the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) initiated a comprehensive investigation into Armstrong's activities. The investigation culminated in a detailed report released in October 2012, which provided overwhelming evidence that Armstrong had engaged in a sophisticated and prolonged doping scheme. The report included testimonies from 26 individuals, including 11 former teammates, and documented Armstrong's use of substances such as erythropoietin (EPO), blood transfusions, testosterone, and cortisone.

Following the release of the USADA report, Armstrong faced immediate and severe legal consequences. USADA stripped him of his seven Tour de France titles and imposed a lifetime ban from professional cycling and all other sports that adhere to the World Anti-Doping Code. This sanction effectively ended Armstrong's athletic career.

In addition to the sporting sanctions, Armstrong faced numerous civil lawsuits. The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) intervened in a whistleblower lawsuit originally filed by Floyd Landis, a former teammate, under the False Claims Act. The lawsuit alleged that Armstrong had defrauded the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), which sponsored his team, by using taxpayer money to fund a team that was engaged in doping. In April 2018, Armstrong agreed to settle the lawsuit for $5 million, a fraction of the potential $100 million in damages.

The fallout from the doping scandal severely damaged Armstrong's reputation and financial standing. Sponsors, including Nike, Anheuser-Busch, and Trek Bicycle Corporation, terminated their endorsement deals, resulting in a significant loss of income. Armstrong also resigned from his role as chairman of the Livestrong Foundation, a cancer charity he founded, to distance the organization from the controversy.

These cases underscore how doping creates an uneven playing field, undermine the spirit of fair competition, and result in severe penalties for those involved. The damage to the athletes' reputations and the disillusionment among fans further highlight the corrosive effects of doping on sports.

‍Financial Doping: The Case of Manchester City and Paris St Germain

While PEDs involve individual athletes, financial doping refers to clubs or teams gaining an unfair competitive edge through disproportionate financial support, often from wealthy owners or inflated sponsorship deals. Manchester City in the English Premier League (EPL) is one prime example.

Since being acquired by the Abu Dhabi United Group in 2008, Manchester City has benefited from substantial financial investments, transforming the club into a dominant force in English and European football. This financial muscle has enabled City to attract top-tier talent and achieve unprecedented success, including multiple Premier League titles. However, this success has come under scrutiny due to allegations of financial irregularities.

Manchester City was accused of breaching UEFA's Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations, which are designed to prevent clubs from spending beyond their means and to promote financial stability. In February 2020, UEFA banned City from European competitions for two seasons and imposed a €30 million fine, citing serious breaches of FFP regulations. However, in July 2020, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) overturned the ban, reducing the fine to €10 million, citing insufficient evidence.

This outcome led to widespread speculation about possible corruption at the highest levels of football governance. Critics argue that the clearing of Manchester City by UEFA and CAS reflects the power and influence of wealthy club owners, undermining the credibility of regulatory bodies and the fairness of competition. The decision also raised concerns about the effectiveness of FFP regulations in curbing financial doping.

Paris St Germain has also been under investigation for similar reasons. In 2018, UEFA reopened an investigation into the club’s financial activities, particularly scrutinizing their sponsorship deals with Qatari entities. Although the investigation did not result in significant sanctions, it highlighted ongoing concerns about the financial practices of clubs with wealthy ownership structures.

Indian Premier League – it’s Just Not Cricket

‍

The Indian Premier League (IPL), one of the most lucrative and popular cricket leagues globally, has not been immune to allegations of financial doping. Financial doping in the IPL typically involves teams engaging in practices that circumvent financial regulations to gain an unfair competitive advantage. These practices include manipulating player contracts, inflating sponsorship deals, and engaging in illicit financial activities. This article explores notable instances of financial doping in the IPL, the legal repercussions, and the measures taken to curb these practices.

In 2013, the IPL was rocked by a significant scandal involving two prominent teams, the Chennai Super Kings (CSK) and the Rajasthan Royals (RR). Both teams were implicated in illegal betting and match-fixing activities. Key officials from both franchises were found to be involved in placing illegal bets on matches, leading to questions about the financial integrity of the teams. Following an extensive investigation by the Supreme Court-appointed Justice Lodha Committee, CSK and RR were suspended from the IPL for two seasons (2016 and 2017). This case highlighted how financial malpractice and illicit activities could undermine the league's credibility and competitive fairness.

The IPL operates under a salary cap system to ensure financial parity among teams. However, there have been instances where teams have allegedly manipulated player contracts to circumvent these caps. For example, "under-the-table" payments to players or inflated endorsement deals that do not count towards the salary cap have been rumoured. Such practices, if proven, could constitute financial doping by enabling teams to assemble stronger squads than permitted under the salary cap regulations.

To combat financial doping, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), which governs the IPL, has implemented several regulatory measures:

1. Salary Cap Enforcement

The BCCI enforces strict salary cap regulations, which mandate that each team must operate within a fixed budget for player salaries. Any violations of these caps can result in penalties, including fines and loss of draft picks.

2. Player Contract Audits

The BCCI conducts regular audits of player contracts to ensure compliance with salary cap regulations. These audits aim to detect any discrepancies or attempts to circumvent financial rules.

3. Transparency in Sponsorship Deals

Teams are required to disclose detailed information about their sponsorship deals. This transparency helps to prevent the inflation of sponsorship revenues as a means to bypass salary caps.

The legal implications of financial doping in the IPL are significant. Teams found guilty of financial malpractices face severe penalties, including suspensions, fines, and other sanctions. Moreover, individuals involved in illegal betting and match-fixing can face criminal charges under Indian law, as seen in the cases involving CSK and RR officials.

The Impact of Financial Doping on Smaller Clubs and Fans

The disproportionate financial power of clubs like Manchester City, Paris St Germain and some IPL clubs creates an uneven playing field, making it nearly impossible for smaller clubs to compete. This financial disparity not only skews competition but also diminishes the excitement and unpredictability that are integral to sports. Fans of smaller clubs are left disillusioned, as the chances of their teams achieving success diminish in the face of financially doped giants.

A striking example is the comparison between the sponsorship deals of Manchester City and Arsenal. Arsenal's Emirates sponsorship is substantial but pales in comparison to Manchester City's Etihad deal. The Etihad sponsorship, closely tied to the club's owners, has raised questions about its fairness and the potential for inflating financial support beyond legitimate commercial value.

Financial Doping in Other Sports: The Case of LIV Golf and F1

‍

Financial doping is not confined to football or cricket. In recent years, the emergence of LIV Golf, backed by Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, has sparked debates about sportswashing and financial doping in golf. LIV Golf's substantial financial incentives have lured top golfers away from established tours, raising concerns about the integrity and future of the sport.

Similarly, Formula 1 has seen instances of financial doping, with teams backed by wealthy owners or nations enjoying significant advantages. The lavish spending by some teams undermines the competitiveness of the sport, leading to calls for stricter financial regulations to ensure a level playing field.

Conclusion

Both performance-enhancing drugs and financial doping undermine the fundamental principles of fair competition in sports. There is no difference with a drug is injected or an amount is paid. The cases of Ben Johnson, Marion Jones, Lance Armstrong on the one hand, and Manchester City, Paris St Germain and the IPL on the other, illustrate how these practices confer unfair advantages, distort competition, and erode public trust. The clearing of Manchester City by UEFA and CAS highlights the potential for corruption at the highest levels of sports governance, further undermining the credibility of regulatory frameworks.

To preserve the integrity of sports, it is imperative to enforce the same stringent regulations against both PEDs and financial doping. This includes robust and transparent financial oversight, strict adherence to FFP regulations, and severe penalties for violations. Only by addressing these issues can we ensure a level playing field and restore faith in the fairness and integrity of sports.

‍