Doping is not a criminal offence in the Philippines. However, the use of WADA-designated Substances of Abuse is a criminal offence. The possession, use, sale, and trafficking of cocaine, heroin, methylenedioxymethamphetamine, and tetrahydrocannabinol (cannabis/marijuana) are prohibited under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of the Philippines. On a related matter, doping may be argued to be prohibited under Presidential Decree No 483, which criminalises any fraudulent, deceitful, unfair or dishonest means, method, or practice employed to influence the result of any sports contest – as doping can be seen as a dishonest means or method employed to influence the result of any sports contest.

The National Anti-Doping Organisation in the Philippines is the Philippine National Anti-Doping Organization (PHI-NADO). WADA has accredited the PHI-NADO. The purpose of PHI-NADO is to implement the WADA Code and spread awareness about anti-doping, which it does through educational programmes and co-ordinating with the local national sports associations (NSAs). The Philippine Olympic Committee and the NSAs are responsible for implementing anti-doping measures in their respective sports.

Some recent noteworthy anti-doping cases involved basketball player Kiefer Ravena during a FIBA Basketball tournament in 2018 (methylhexaneamine, DMBA, and higenamine), cyclist Ariana Dormitorio during the Asian Games in 2023 (erythropoietin), and basketball player Justin Brownlee (Carboxy-THC).

Presidential Decree No 483 (P.D. 483) criminalises game-fixing, match-fixing, point-shaving, and game machination in the Philippines. These offences are punishable with imprisonment for a period of up to six years. The sports governing bodies or the NSAs deal with integrity issues through their own internal disciplinary mechanisms and sanctions, without any prejudice to criminal prosecution by the state under P.D. 483. The Games and Amusements Board (GAB) is also tasked to investigate game-fixing in professional sports and mete out sanctions against erring players and coaches.

Recent cases involve alleged game-fixing by players of a collegiate basketball team in 2019 and players in a professional basketball tournament in 2021. After investigation, the GAB revoked the professional basketball licences of the players involved in the 2021 incident.

Sports betting is legal in the Philippines, as long as the sports betting activity or operation is registered with the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR). Established by Presidential Decree No 1869, as amended by Republic Act No 9487, PAGCOR is a government-owned and controlled corporation which regulates gambling and sports betting. Would-be sports betting operators must secure a PAGCOR-licence before starting their activities. Those who operate without a licence face sanctions and penalties.

The sports governing bodies or the national sports associations typically follow the betting-related rules and guidelines of their respective international federations as regards betting-related offences of athletes. At the time of writing, there have not been any noteworthy betting cases in sports involving athletes and their sports governing body.

The sports governing bodies or the national sports associations have their own respective internal mechanisms and procedures for disciplinary proceedings against their athletes. The rules and guidelines governing these internal procedures are often difficult to secure, even by the athletes facing disciplinary sanctions themselves. However, as a minimum requirement by law, due process must be afforded the athlete in the form of a written notice and the chance to be heard. Unfortunately, there have been cases where an athlete has been penalised even without the benefit of a notice and a chance to be heard.

Notable sports-related commercial rights include the usual rights under the Intellectual Property Code such as trade mark and copyright. On the tax side, athletes have a right to tax exemption for any prizes and awards they win in local and international sports tournaments sanctioned by their respective sports organisations. National athletes are also granted commercial benefits in the form of 20% discounts on purchases of food, sports equipment, and medicine. This 20% discount extends to lodging and transportation expenses.

Rights-holders and event organisers have commercial rights over merchandising and ticketing profits as well. To protect rights-holders from the proliferation of counterfeit merchandise and the unauthorised use of marks, the Intellectual Property Code and local ordinances provide remedies ranging from criminal conviction to immediate forfeiture of goods. And while there is no national law that deals with and punishes ticket touts and scalping, cities that normally host sports events have their own local ordinances that criminalise ticket touting and scalping. These ordinances were used to great effect during the FIBA 2023 Basketball World Cup to combat the illegal sale of tickets.

One major way sponsors use sports is to own a team in a professional league, such as the Philippine Basketball Association (PBA) and the Premier Volleyball League (PVL), which adopt a franchise system. For example, teams in the PBA include the Rain or Shine Elastopainters, named after a brand of paint, and the Barangay Ginebra San Miguel, named after a brand of gin. In the PVL, there are teams named after a chocolate snack, Choco Mucho Flying Titans, and after a media company, Cignal HD Spikers. Brands, therefore, get exposure through team names, logo exposure in arenas, and logo placement on jerseys.

Companies, both those that own teams in professional leagues and those that do not, use athletes as models for their print advert materials and as influencers. For example, former professional basketball player Chris Tiu has been posed for skincare adverts, and current professional player Kiefer Ravena is the brand ambassador of the Jordan Brand in Asia. As influencers, professional athletes such as Alyssa Valdez and Jia Morado de Guzman and national athletes like Junna Tsukii and Maxine Esteban are examples of influencers who use Instagram to promote brands they partner with.

Professional and collegiate athletes in the Philippines are treated as celebrities. Therefore, product launches, store openings, and other launches will have athletes in their guest list.

Sports rights-holders attract sponsor investments through airtime adverts during live events, in-arena bannering and advertising, logo placements in pre-game and game uniforms, and sponsorship of key events, highlights, and promotions during the games.

Typical sponsorship contracts will include the terms and obligations on social media engagement (what to post, when to post, how frequently to post, etc), the schedule of photo or video shoots, the compensation, and a lockdown/non-compete exclusivity clause that may last two to three years beyond the term of the contract.

In the Philippines, broadcasting rights for the televised leagues are awarded through bidding. A memorandum of agreement contains how much the deal is worth, how many years or seasons the contract would be live for, whether the broadcasting rights are exclusive, among other terms. Once broadcasting rights are granted to a media company, they have the right to choose which of the TV or radio stations the company owns will air the games. Media companies may also bundle these rights with the right to stream through YouTube or other online streaming services.

For leagues with multiple sports, such as the popular University Athletics Association of the Philippines (UAAP), the media company also decides which sports to air. The media company must also promote the games they air.

One way in which sports organisations attract broadcaster investment is through the marketing of rivalry games. For example, demand for tickets for rivalry games in the UAAP is higher than for any other game, even if the game is not a play-off or final four match. Likewise, viewership on TV is also higher when the game is between rivals Ateneo de Manila University and De La Salle University. This is the same case for Philippine Basketball Association games. The rivalry between Magnolia and Ginebra has been known as Manila Classico, and games featuring these teams generate a higher viewership than other regular games.

Lastly, sports associations may also allow the filming of athletes off the court for certain promotional videos, such as clips of them saying “only here on [insert media company name]” or through clips of them answering short personal questions for the entertainment of fans, to be aired during commercial breaks.

According to the Intellectual Property Code, broadcasts are protected by copyright law for a period of 20 years from the date the broadcast. Rights of broadcasting organisations can be found in Chapter XIV of the Code.

Sports events are typically organised and managed by a professional league (such as the Philippine Basketball Association) or a college or university athletic association (such as the University Athletics Association of the Philippines). For international events in the Philippines, these are normally organised by a local organising committee set up for that particular event (such as the South East Asian Games) or the sports governing body for that specific sport.

As rights-holders, these sports organisers have proprietary rights in sports events, based on both copyright and trade mark laws under the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. Sports organisers control these rights through the enforcement of contracts and with the help of local law enforcement. Organisers also co-ordinate with social media platforms to immediately remove illegal live streaming of sports events. Commercial participation in such events is typically governed by sponsorship, licensing, and broadcasting contracts. Hence, the Civil Code of the Philippines also serves as supplemental legislation because of the chain of contracts which generally characterise sports events.

Duty of care in sports is governed by provisions of the Philippine Civil Code, particularly Article 2176 which obligates one who causes damage to another, either by fault or negligence, to pay for the damage done, and Article 1173 which sets the general duty of care as the diligence of a good father. Sports event organisers fall under this general standard of care. When minors are involved, the standard is stricter, as seen in a Supreme Court case wherein a sports organiser was held liable for the death of a teenage mini-marathon runner. Clear and unequivocal waivers may be used to limit liability, but liability arising from intentional harm, future fraud, and gross negligence may not be excluded. The assumption of risk doctrine may also be invoked by sports organisers, as long as the risks are reasonably foreseeable. To keep sporting events safe, organisers often contract security agencies. For larger events, organisers co-ordinate with the local government and local police to maintain peace and order both inside and outside the venues.

The same duty of care applies to athletes’ liability to spectators. However, athletes are protected if the injury to a spectator is a foreseeable event, based on the assumption of risk. Hence, an athlete may be held liable for spectator injury if these were intentional (as was seen in a basketball incident where an athlete attacked a fan).

Professional sports clubs are commonly stock corporations registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). As professional sports clubs exist with a view for profit, stock corporations are adopted as these allow the owners to earn profits via dividends as stockholders. Adopting a different structure would prevent investors from receiving dividends.

Non-professional sports clubs and sports governing bodies or national sports associations (NSAs) are commonly non-stock non-profit corporations, also registered with the SEC. Non-stock corporations are established and operated by their members who are not allowed to receive any dividends. As amateur clubs exist more to develop camaraderie among their members and not to earn profits, these clubs adopt a non-stock non-profit structure which has tax benefits. Sports governing bodies or NSAs are required to adopt a non-stock non-profit structure in order to apply for membership and recognition with both the Philippine Olympic Committee and Philippine Sports Commission.

There are no sport-specific corporate governance codes, except the provisions found in Republic Act No 6847 which created the Philippine Sports Commission. These provisions govern the sports governing bodies or national sports associations (NSAs) of each sport. Among these are the requirements that these NSAs are autonomous and that no team, school, club, organisation or entity shall be admitted as a voting member of the NSA unless 60% of the athletes comprising the team school, club, organisation or entity are Filipino citizens.

Owner and directors’ tests, such as tests on self-dealing directors, may be found in the general law on corporations (The Revised Corporation Code) which apply to these sports governing bodies or NSAs.

The PSC is the main governmental funding source for Philippine sports. Congress allocates PSC’s funds from the Annual General Appropriations Act. To augment the budget allocated by Congress, the PSC also receives a legally mandated portion of the gross income of PAGCOR, the government-owned and controlled corporation in charge of regulating gambling and casinos. PSC’s funds are pooled into the National Sports Development Fund (NSDF), which finances the sports events in which the Philippines participates.

As for distributing these funds to the NSAs, the PSC has discretion to decide which NSA receives a portion of the NSDF and how much. Factors that influence the distribution and allocation of funds include the prestige of the sport and also the chances of securing Olympic medals for a particular sport. Once the NSA receives the money, it is then held accountable by the PSC and is subject to audit. 

Private funds being allocated for sports is a recent trend in the Philippines to help boost sports. Seeing the success of corporate sponsorships and investments in sports, both for-profit companies and non-profit foundations have funnelled funds to various sports. The range of private involvement in Philippine sports varies, from top companies owning sports teams for marketing purposes to multi-million-peso sponsorships of top college and professional athletes to sports foundations (organised by wealthy philanthropists and businessmen) spending on Olympic athletes. Private funding has been considered one of the reasons why the Philippines has improved in international sports, as government funding is normally unsustainable to finance prolonged training and development required by high-level international athletes.

Trade marks may be registered online with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO). Trade mark owners only get the rights in a mark through registration. Generally, only a registered trade mark is protected by law. Hence, once registered, third parties may not use it without the owner’s consent.

The law prohibits the registration of a mark which:

• is immoral, deceptive, or scandalous;
• disparages or falsely suggests a connection with a person (whether living or dead), institutions, beliefs, or national symbols;
• brings contempt or disrepute to another;
• has the Philippine flag (or flag of another country) on it;
• includes the name, portrait, or signature of a living person, except with their consent;
• uses the portrait of a dead president, during the life of their spouse, except with the latter’s consent;
• is misleading as to nature, quality, characteristic, or geographical origin; 
• is generic or simply identifies the product it will be used on;
• is simply descriptive of the product; or
• is contrary to public order or morals.

Notable registered sports trade marks involve collegiate teams, where the numerous marks associated to a college or university are all registered with the IPO, and the respective brands of sports teams and the companies which own them.

The law on copyright is found in Part IV of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (“the Code”). Under the Code, literary and artistic works are considered original intellectual creations, and are protected from the moment of their creation. Common defences include fair use, the fact that the work is a non-copyrightable work, private reproduction in a single copy for use in study or research, and personal use.

As regards the existence of a legal database right, the law on copyright protects the creation of such database, as it might be considered as derivative work or as a compilation of data and other materials. To establish such claim, it must be proven that the process of creating the database (such as the selection, coordination, and arrangement of the compiled information and data) is original to the maker.

Image rights in the Philippines generally equate to the right of publicity; a right recognised in the United States. While the right of publicity has yet to explicitly find its way into Philippine jurisprudence or in express provisions of law, aggrieved parties may use Section 169.1 of the Intellectual Property Code for relief. This section refers to false designations of origin or false description or representation.

World Champion Boxer Manny Pacquiao has used Section 169.1 to sue a videoke product-maker for making use of his name image without his consent. He won the case in the Court of Appeals in 2009, with the Court of Appeals stating that Pacquiao’s image should be protected from unauthorised endorsements under Section 169.1.

Sports bodies and athletes monetise their IP and image rights through both licensing and endorsement contracts. In terms of assigning IP rights to third parties, the assignment must be in writing and filed in the Intellectual Property Office. If the assignment is not registered, it is void as to third parties; however, it is still binding between the parties. 

The use of athlete and spectator data is not as extensive in the Philippines as compared to other jurisdictions. However, there has been a push to commercialise and monetise sports data in live sports events to further enhance fan experience. The recent legalisation of sports betting has opened up opportunities for monetising sports data, but it still has to comply with any data-sharing regulations under the Data Privacy Act of 2012.

The Data Privacy Act of 2012 (DPA) is the main law which governs data protection in the Philippines. It is supplemented by the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) issued by the National Privacy Commission (NPC), which is the government agency tasked to implement the DPA. The DPA protects any personal information, defined as any information in which the identity of an individual is apparent or can be reasonably and directly ascertained by the entity holding the information, or when put together with other information would directly and certainly identify an individual.

The DPA protects sensitive information to a greater and stricter extent. Sensitive personal information pertains to a person’s race, education, criminal record, and religion, among others. Processing and sharing of sensitive personal information requires prior consent at all times. This is an important consideration in collegiate sports, especially as student-athletes must give their prior consent to the sharing of their transcript of records when they transfer from one school to another.

The role of national courts in dealing with sports disputes differs on the type of sports dispute.

For field-of-play calls, the Supreme Court, in a 1995 case, has set a policy of refusing to resolve field-of-play call disputes. Unless there is an arbitrary and brazen violation of sports rules by the sports officials and organisers, national courts will leave things as they are.

For sports disputes involving the application of local laws within the sports context, parties may immediately seek redress in the national court system, unless there is a provision between the parties mandating recourse through alternative modes of dispute resolution or via the internal processes of a sports governing body. Examples of these sports disputes are those involving sports injuries and employment claims.

For sports disputes involving the interpretation of the rules of sports governing bodies (such as on eligibility matters and disciplinary issues), parties must generally exhaust the internal mechanisms of the sports governing body before national courts can be tasked to rule on the matter. This is based on the analogous doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. However, if there is a human rights element or the act of the sports governing body is oppressive or arbitrary, immediate recourse to a local court may be possible.

The Philippines currently does not have any set mode of dispute resolution specific for sports. Parties who wish to use alternative modes of dispute resolution (ADR) may do so under the aegis of Republic Act No 9285, the ADR Act of the Philippines. Private dispute resolution providers, such as the Philippine Dispute Resolution Centre, Inc, have drafted their own sports mediation and arbitration rules, which may be used by sports governing bodies if they choose to do so.

Sports governing bodies may enforce sanctions on their players and members either through their own internal rules (as long as minimum due process requirements of prior notice and the chance to be heard are met) or through the court system (with contract law principles and remedies as a basis).

Parties who wish to challenge decisions of governing bodies will have to exhaust the internal mechanisms first. This will generally involve requesting reconsideration of an assailed decision and thereafter elevating it to the international federation with jurisdiction over the local governing body. If the decision is wantonly arbitrary and oppressive, local courts may also be an avenue of redress.

The governing law for labour and employment in the Philippines is the Labor Code of the Philippines. To determine whether an employer-employee relationship exists between parties, the Supreme Court has repeatedly used the fourfold test employing the four elements: first, the selection and engagement of the employee; second, the payment of wages; third, the power of dismissal over the employee; and fourth, the employer’s power to control the employee’s conduct. Despite the presence of all four elements in the relationship between professional teams and their players, and a 2012 Supreme Court case involving the illegal dismissal of a player-employee by his professional team, professional sports teams have still treated their players as mere independent contractors in practice. This is in clear contrast to what is written in the law, the nature of the relationship, and the international trend that considers players employees of their professional teams. This leads to both tax and employment law complications, and removes protections that should have been afforded a player if they were to be considered an employee in the first place.

The Philippine Basketball Association, the longest-running professional basketball league in the Philippines, employs both a standard contract for its players and a salary cap. Other professional leagues leave it up to their teams to have their own contracts with their players.

Despite the employer-employee nature of the relationship between the professional team and its players, legal precedence, and international trend, the rules on employer-employee rights are rarely applied or followed in professional leagues in the Philippines. Hence, professional athletes who are illegally removed or dismissed from their teams are often left in quandary on the proper legal course of action to take. Should they file with the Labour Arbiter (as employees) or with the regular courts (as independent contractors)? While the answer should be with the Labour Arbiter, the practice in the Philippines of considering professional athletes as mere independent contractors has given erring employees the additional defence of lack of jurisdiction whenever a case is filed with the Labour Arbiter.

A noteworthy case is the 2012 Supreme Court Case of Negros Slasher, Inc v Alvin Teng, where the Supreme Court ruled that a player-employee was illegally dismissed by his professional basketball team after he had refused to play a championship game. The Supreme Court recognised the player as an employee and that his dismissal was too harsh a penalty.

There are no specific laws capping the number of foreign athletes competing in a sport tournament or competition, as these “caps” are normally set by the league or association conducting the competition. There are, however, visa, immigration, and labour law considerations that foreign athletes or coaches must consider before playing or working in the Philippines. In a nutshell, foreign athletes or coaches must secure a pre-arranged employee commercial visa (9g visa) and an alien employment permit (AEP) before working in the Philippines.

One of the substantial conditions to secure an AEP is the prior determination of the non-availability of a person in the Philippines who is competent, able, and willing to perform the same services which the foreigner will be engaged to do. This was the main issue in a 1991 Supreme Court case involving an American basketball coach employed by a professional basketball team. In that case, the Supreme Court ended up cancelling the American’s AEP after it found that there were other local coaches who could have done the same job.

Esports is extremely popular in the Philippines. Its rise from the early 2000s to the present has been exponential. It is predominantly mobile-based, with the Mobile Legends: Bang Bang being the most popular game with more than 25 million monthly active users in 2020. Professional esports players ranked within the world’s top 20 for aggregate earnings in 2023, bolstered by a popularity brought forth by successes in international esports events (both held in the Philippines and abroad) and the near-celebrity status of players and gaming influencers sponsored by gaming companies. Notable deals include the launch of a gaming platform by esports gaming company Mineski Global on apps such as GCash, LYKA, and Viber. The popularity of esports has also spilled into the academe, with the Lyceum of the Philippines University recently launching a four-year undergraduate course specialising in Esports Management and Game Design and Development. 

The Philippine sports landscape has historically been male-dominated and basketball-centric. However, recent trends have swayed the pendulum towards women’s sports. Collegiate and professional women’s volleyball bring in crowds of nearly 25,000 to big games, whcih is significantly more than the attendance numbers of a typical professional basketball game. The success of women athletes on the international stage has also shone a well-deserved light on women’s sports. Olympic Gold Medalist Hidilyn Diaz leveraged her success by starting a weightlifting academy for children and signing lucrative endorsement deals. The Philippine National Women’s Football Team made waves in its first appearance in the FIFA World Cup, with their success pushing for more grassroots development throughout the country, and also earning them an enviable kit deal with Adidas. International athletes such as Maxine Esteban and Junna Tsukii have also found success in other sports such as fencing and karate.

The Philippine Sports Commission has since created a Gender and Development Program to hold tournaments, and share updates and news about women’s sports and female athletes. Other private organisations, such as Girls Got Game, have also popped up to bolster different sports in the youth sector.

A few athletes ventured into the world of NFTs in late 2020 and 2021 to start various NFT projects. A notable athlete actually started an NFT project to help fund a certain national team, but this was later scrapped after negotiations fell through and the NFT bubble popped in late 2021. While the NFT market in the sports sector in the Philippines is currently and virtually non-existent, there are still opportunities for those who seek an alternate mode of funding and are brave enough to face the risks of such a volatile environment.

Player movement outside the Philippines has been a recent trend and issue. Filipino professional basketball, football, and volleyball players have found employment in neighbouring countries such as Korea, Japan, and Thailand. This comes with legal requirements that foreign team-employers have found surprising and burdensome.

Every Filipino worker who has employment abroad, such as a professional Filipino athlete of a team abroad, must register as an overseas foreign worker with the Department of Migrant Workers (DMW) before leaving the Philippines. The law requires mandatory registration in order to protect Filipinos working abroad and to prevent human trafficking. Upon registration, the DMW will issue the OFW an overseas employment certificate (OEC). Without the OEC, there is a risk that the airport immigration officials will not allow the players to leave the Philippines.

There is no key AI legislation and regulations in the Philippines. At most, general laws concerning intellectual property and data protection will apply to AI in the field of sports. Both intellectual property and data protection will also be most affected by AI, as there are inherent risks of infringement and leaks of personal data with AI and sports.

The Philippines has always been a country known for its internet use and social media engagement, with data showing that sponsors can reach up to 69% of the country’s population through Facebook and nearly 50% through YouTube. Hence, the application and use of the Metaverse in Philippine sports holds great opportunities for sports stakeholders, despite the adoption rate of the Metaverse still remaining quite low compared to traditional internet use.

Stakeholders can use the Metaverse to further boost individual and corporate brands, enhance the reputation of personal coaches and athletes through more access to highlight videos and teaching seminars, and give sponsors a new platform to increase brand recognition.

However, those who wish to make the jump into the Metaverse must recognise the natural risks of data breaches and manipulation, intellectual property violations, and the proliferation of bots and troll accounts. Enforcing the underlying laws will also be an issue, given the already ephemeral nature of the internet and the easy anonymity that comes with it.