In the mid nineties, as a very mature University student, my research for an assignment on the implications of European law on British life led me to a forthcoming hearing before the European Court of Justice of the case of Belgian footballer Jean-Marc Bosman. The case eventually led to an important decision on the free movement of labour and had a profound effect on the transfer of footballers within the EU. In 2003 the European Court of Justice ruling in favour of the Slovak handball player Maros Kolpak effectively extended the freedom of labour to any player from any nation which has an associate trading relationship with the EU. This has had a wide-ranging effect, especially in regard to English county cricket and British professional rugby.

Sport and the law used to be strangers, with sports being run according to their own rules and regulations. Problems and disputes, on or off the playing field, were settled by the appropriate governing body. This is no longer always so, as many disputes are resolved by court cases, affecting those who participate in or administer sport. Ian Hewitt, a sports law barrister and former Freshfields partner, as well as being a member of the management committee of the Wimbledon Championships and helping in the formation of the Premier League, has brought together some of the most important and readable cases in Sporting Justice — 101 Sporting Encounters with the Law (Sportsbooks). There is a star-studded cast. Eric Cantona’s kung-fu kick against the Crystal Palace supporter Matthew Simmons, for example, led to a charge of criminal assault and a jail sentence of two weeks (later reduced to 120 hours of community service). Other on field reckless tackles and punches have resulted in convictions. Bruce Grobbelaar’s occasionally eccentric performance in goal for Liverpool resulted in an eight-week trial for match fixing. He was acquitted but the judge was less than complimentary about his behaviour. Elsewhere champion jockey Kieren Fallon was acquitted of corruption, and South African cricket captain Hansie Cronje found guilty of it. An amateur rugby referee who was successfully sued for allowing a scrum to collapse, injuring a player, and an upset Leicester soccer fan who sued a referee for shock suffered as a result of the official’s penalty decision in the last minute of extra time in an FA Cup tie, are examples of the not so famous involved when sport has rubbed up against the law.

Sport in civilised societies should be about playing by the rules and it is a shame that so many sports have been forced into the legal arena. Nevertheless the temptation to go down the legal route is fraught with danger. As the illustrious trio of Ian Botham, Allan Lamb and JPR Williams would ruefully agree, suing for libel is ruinously expensive if you don’t win.

I went to Old Trafford the other day to watch Lancashire play Yorkshire in a pre season friendly (Yorkshire? friendly? – now there’s an oxymoron) and in particular to monitor Andrew Flintoff’s latest rehabilitation.

There I bumped into Max, a solicitor acquaintance of mine. Apart from the cricket, what was on his mind was the very real danger, as he sees it, of the UK adopting a system of plea bargaining very similar to the United States. His immediate cause for alarm is the recent issue of a consultation document by the Attorney General proposing that fraudsters be able to negotiate lower sentences if they admit their crimes. This was one of the key recommendations adopted by the Government in its response to the Fraud Review in March 2007. It argues that the option to negotiate an early plea could mean a reduction in long, expensive fraud trials, less strain to victims and witnesses, caused by delays and potential savings to prosecution and legal aid resources.

The consultation document proposes that prosecutors would be allowed to negotiate a plea agreement with the defence based on the defendant’s level of culpability and possible sentence in return for a guilty plea. The agreement would then be presented to the judge for approval, who could accept or reject it, defer his decision or simply give an indication on maximum sentence.

Lady Scotland was at great pains to point out that this will be plea negotiation, stating that this “is not about mirroring the United States’ system of ‘plea bargaining’. Clearly the US system would not work within our own legal system, but I believe the framework this group has produced could show us exactly how we might achieve early pleas and shorter, less expensive fraud trials”.

Max is not convinced and sees this as the not very thin end of a very large wedge. The arguments about long and expensive trials can also be applied to many criminal and to most terrorism trials. He intends to make his views known. If you wish to do so, or obtain a copy of the consultation document, then go to www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk or contact the Attorney General’s Office at 20 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NF.

As to the really serious business of the day, unfortunately the Manchester weather had the last say. An untimely and torrential downpour put paid to any prospects of play, leaving us to go home early in what was by then mockingly glorious sunshine.