The wheels of international sports justice turn slowly, but sometimes they gather remarkable momentum—such was the case in the recent reinstatement of bribery convictions against a former Fox executive and an Argentine sports marketing company in the ongoing saga of global soccer corruption. This decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals not only underscores the complexities of cross-border financial crime, but also signals the willingness of U.S. authorities to take on some of the world’s most powerful sporting institutions in their pursuit of transparency and accountability. As we dissect this landmark ruling, it is essential to appreciate both the historical context and the implications it has for the future of soccer governance and media rights.
The story begins in 2015, when the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) unveiled sweeping charges against high-ranking officials in FIFA—soccer’s world governing body—and associated business executives. The allegations centered on a vast conspiracy to exchange bribes for broadcasting and marketing rights related to major international tournaments such as the Copa Libertadores and the FIFA World Cup.
Out of more than 40 individuals and entities charged in the DOJ’s probe, at least 31 quickly pleaded guilty. Others, including Hernan Lopez, a former chief executive of Fox International Channels, and Full Play Group, an Argentine sports marketing firm, decided to fight the accusations in court. Their legal battles, however, would prove both dramatic and instructive.
Prosecutors alleged that these schemes gave Fox and its affiliates a critical edge over competitors, skewing the supposedly fair market for broadcasting contracts and funneling millions in off-the-books payments to soccer officials—many of whom would later admit guilt or turn state's witness.
At first glance, this ruling threatened to narrow the scope of the DOJ’s ability to police global sports corruption, especially given the increasingly international nature of executive decisions, business operations, and cash flows.
Critically, Walker addressed Judge Chen’s concern about whether the statute could reach foreign bribery. He pointed out that the bribery in question was not, in fact, entirely foreign: both Lopez and Fox had substantial U.S. bases, and the organizations harmed by the bribery (including soccer federations with immense U.S. business interests) maintained significant ties to the United States. By this logic, the scheme "presumptively" fell within the jurisdiction of U.S. law.
The appeals court remanded the case back to Judge Chen, instructing her to consider whether prosecutors had sufficiently shown a conspiracy to deceive victims like CONMEBOL.
The statute, designed to penalize schemes that deprive another of the “intangible right of honest services,” has typically been applied to domestic public officials and private sector cases involving clear violations of duty. The key question raised was whether the law should also apply to foreign commercial bribery, especially when the only victim is a non-U.S. private entity. Judge Chen argued it should not, but the appeals court disagreed, offering a reading that could expand U.S. enforcement powers.
If upheld at higher courts, this broad interpretation could set a significant precedent, essentially putting global corporate executives and sports marketers on notice: if your actions cheat organizations with U.S. connections—and use the U.S. financial system—you may fall under the jurisdiction of U.S. criminal law, regardless of where the bribes are exchanged.
Legal experts remain divided on this interpretation. Supporters argue it arms prosecutors with needed tools for tackling sophisticated transnational fraud. Detractors counter that it risks transforming the United States into a global economic policeman, with all the diplomatic and legal headaches that entails. The defense team for Lopez appears likely to challenge the decision at the U.S. Supreme Court, hopeful that justices will revisit the contours of the honest services law.
Because South American tournaments like Copa Libertadores occupy prime slots on international calendars—and feature matches with global stars—they represent a goldmine for media companies. The temptation for under-the-table dealing is self-evident; controlling broadcasting rights opens the path to advertising deals, subscriber growth, and international partnership opportunities.
Fox International Channels, through its U.S. affiliates and partners, aggressively pursued these opportunities. Prosecutors allege that the company’s willingness to break the rules for commercial gain allowed it to shut out competitors and corrupt the mechanisms of open competition.
FIFA, under significant public pressure, has launched reforms such as new bidding processes for tournaments, independent ethics committees, and revamped oversight of marketing agreements. These efforts have been lauded by some transparency advocates, though many remain skeptical about their effectiveness absent rigorous outside scrutiny.
However, the risks are equally apparent. Critics warn that aggressive U.S. prosecution could alienate foreign partners or lead to diplomatic pushback. Some legal analysts argue that extraterritorial application of U.S. fraud laws—especially involving private international actors—risks unpredictable results and compliance confusion for multinational firms.
Additionally, legal teams for both Lopez and Full Play have promised to continue the fight. John Gleeson, Lopez’s lawyer, suggested that the Supreme Court appeal would focus squarely on the reach of the honest-services statute, expressing confidence in his client’s eventual vindication.
Meanwhile, the business of soccer broadcasting continues to evolve at breakneck pace. Major streaming platforms, traditional TV networks, and technology companies are all angling for slices of the pie, sometimes forging alliances with local partners of questionable repute. The temptation to bend the rules—especially in regions with less robust oversight—remains persistent.
What sets the U.S. prosecutions in the soccer case apart is both their scope and their willingness to target not just corrupt officials, but also the corporate actors who drive—and benefit from—illegality behind the scenes. The willingness of U.S. courts to reinterpret laws like the honest services statute in service of a cleaner, more transparent sporting environment may yet prove a turning point, provided broader international cooperation follows.
The U.S. approach, while lauded by some transparency advocates, is still evolving. If the Supreme Court upholds the appellate court’s broad reading, look for other countries to face pressure—both domestic and international—to ratchet up their own enforcement regimes. If not, multinational firms may simply route sensitive operations away from U.S. banks and markets, dulling the impact of reform efforts.
Next steps in the Lopez and Full Play saga will likely hinge on Supreme Court review and the subsequent retrial or remand proceedings ordered by the appellate court. In parallel, stakeholders in the world of sports broadcast rights—be they major networks, streaming services, federations, or fans—continue to watch with keen interest, aware that the margins between fair play and unfair advantage remain razor-thin.
At the heart of this trial is a simple question: Can any system, however global, resist the temptations that come with immense money and influence? The answer, for now, appears to be yes—but only so long as global authorities, encouraged by high-profile successes, continue to adapt, cooperate, and uphold the values that make sport worth playing—and watching—in the first place.
Source: The Straits Times Two soccer bribery convictions reinstated by US appeals court
The FIFA Corruption Scandal: A Continuing Saga
The story begins in 2015, when the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) unveiled sweeping charges against high-ranking officials in FIFA—soccer’s world governing body—and associated business executives. The allegations centered on a vast conspiracy to exchange bribes for broadcasting and marketing rights related to major international tournaments such as the Copa Libertadores and the FIFA World Cup.Out of more than 40 individuals and entities charged in the DOJ’s probe, at least 31 quickly pleaded guilty. Others, including Hernan Lopez, a former chief executive of Fox International Channels, and Full Play Group, an Argentine sports marketing firm, decided to fight the accusations in court. Their legal battles, however, would prove both dramatic and instructive.
Key Players and Allegations
Hernan Lopez is no anonymous figure; as a senior executive at 21st Century Fox, his responsibilities reached deeply into the company’s global media strategies. Full Play Group, meanwhile, occupied a powerful niche in the business of negotiating and reselling media rights for South American soccer competitions. The crux of the DOJ’s case was that both Lopez and Full Play schemed to bribe officials at CONMEBOL (the South American soccer federation) and, in Full Play's case, also at CONCACAF (the North American federation) to secure lucrative broadcasting rights. These tournaments, particularly the Copa Libertadores, command massive viewerships and, by extension, cash flows in the billions.Prosecutors alleged that these schemes gave Fox and its affiliates a critical edge over competitors, skewing the supposedly fair market for broadcasting contracts and funneling millions in off-the-books payments to soccer officials—many of whom would later admit guilt or turn state's witness.
Convictions and Legal Twist
In March 2023, a Brooklyn jury found Lopez and Full Play both guilty of conspiracy and money laundering, spotlighting the use of U.S. financial institutions to mask illicit transactions. Yet, months later, U.S. District Judge Pamela Chen threw out the convictions. She ruled that the federal law covering honest-services wire fraud—the linchpin of the prosecution’s case—did not reach alleged foreign commercial bribery. Chen’s decision also vacated related money laundering counts, as those convictions were contingent on the fraud charges.At first glance, this ruling threatened to narrow the scope of the DOJ’s ability to police global sports corruption, especially given the increasingly international nature of executive decisions, business operations, and cash flows.
Appeals Court Turns the Tables
In July, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decisive 3-0 ruling reinstating the convictions against Lopez and Full Play Group. Writing for the court, Circuit Judge John Walker explained that the honest-services wire fraud statute was indeed intended to capture such schemes—particularly when the "character of the relationship between the bribed officials and their organizations" involved a clear duty of loyalty, as in employer-employee ties.Critically, Walker addressed Judge Chen’s concern about whether the statute could reach foreign bribery. He pointed out that the bribery in question was not, in fact, entirely foreign: both Lopez and Fox had substantial U.S. bases, and the organizations harmed by the bribery (including soccer federations with immense U.S. business interests) maintained significant ties to the United States. By this logic, the scheme "presumptively" fell within the jurisdiction of U.S. law.
The appeals court remanded the case back to Judge Chen, instructing her to consider whether prosecutors had sufficiently shown a conspiracy to deceive victims like CONMEBOL.
Legal Precedent and the Honest Services Wire Fraud Law
At the heart of this legal back-and-forth lies a complex interpretation of the honest-services wire fraud statute—an area that has given rise to fierce legal debate in recent years.The statute, designed to penalize schemes that deprive another of the “intangible right of honest services,” has typically been applied to domestic public officials and private sector cases involving clear violations of duty. The key question raised was whether the law should also apply to foreign commercial bribery, especially when the only victim is a non-U.S. private entity. Judge Chen argued it should not, but the appeals court disagreed, offering a reading that could expand U.S. enforcement powers.
If upheld at higher courts, this broad interpretation could set a significant precedent, essentially putting global corporate executives and sports marketers on notice: if your actions cheat organizations with U.S. connections—and use the U.S. financial system—you may fall under the jurisdiction of U.S. criminal law, regardless of where the bribes are exchanged.
Legal experts remain divided on this interpretation. Supporters argue it arms prosecutors with needed tools for tackling sophisticated transnational fraud. Detractors counter that it risks transforming the United States into a global economic policeman, with all the diplomatic and legal headaches that entails. The defense team for Lopez appears likely to challenge the decision at the U.S. Supreme Court, hopeful that justices will revisit the contours of the honest services law.
Broadcast Rights and the Business of Soccer
Beyond the legal intricacies, the case draws attention to the extraordinary financial stakes in global soccer broadcasting. In an age in which top clubs and tournaments are multimedia brands with followings in the hundreds of millions, snagging the right to show these competitions can mean billions in revenue.Because South American tournaments like Copa Libertadores occupy prime slots on international calendars—and feature matches with global stars—they represent a goldmine for media companies. The temptation for under-the-table dealing is self-evident; controlling broadcasting rights opens the path to advertising deals, subscriber growth, and international partnership opportunities.
Fox International Channels, through its U.S. affiliates and partners, aggressively pursued these opportunities. Prosecutors allege that the company’s willingness to break the rules for commercial gain allowed it to shut out competitors and corrupt the mechanisms of open competition.
Global Fight Against Sports Corruption: Strengths and Shortfalls
The revived convictions serve as a test case for the global fight against corruption in sports. On one hand, the U.S. government’s willingness to pursue international actors—even when alleged wrongdoing involves foreign-turf organizations—sends a warning to anyone inclined to cheat the system. The deterrent value of such prosecutions is real: since the original 2015 indictments, soccer federations and broadcasters like FIFA and UEFA have introduced and strengthened compliance protocols.FIFA, under significant public pressure, has launched reforms such as new bidding processes for tournaments, independent ethics committees, and revamped oversight of marketing agreements. These efforts have been lauded by some transparency advocates, though many remain skeptical about their effectiveness absent rigorous outside scrutiny.
However, the risks are equally apparent. Critics warn that aggressive U.S. prosecution could alienate foreign partners or lead to diplomatic pushback. Some legal analysts argue that extraterritorial application of U.S. fraud laws—especially involving private international actors—risks unpredictable results and compliance confusion for multinational firms.
Open Questions and Future Implications
Several questions remain outstanding. The most obvious is whether the U.S. Supreme Court, if it takes up the appeal, will endorse or limit the logic of the 2nd Circuit’s ruling. The Supreme Court has, in recent years, expressed skepticism about broad applications of federal wire fraud statutes, especially where the law’s outer boundaries appear undefined.Additionally, legal teams for both Lopez and Full Play have promised to continue the fight. John Gleeson, Lopez’s lawyer, suggested that the Supreme Court appeal would focus squarely on the reach of the honest-services statute, expressing confidence in his client’s eventual vindication.
Meanwhile, the business of soccer broadcasting continues to evolve at breakneck pace. Major streaming platforms, traditional TV networks, and technology companies are all angling for slices of the pie, sometimes forging alliances with local partners of questionable repute. The temptation to bend the rules—especially in regions with less robust oversight—remains persistent.
A Broader Context: Corruption in Global Sport
The saga of Lopez and Full Play is not isolated. Corruption scandals have dogged virtually every major international sport, from the Olympics to cricket, cycling, and tennis. In nearly every case, the ingredients are familiar: high stakes, cultures of secrecy, and institutional resistance to oversight.What sets the U.S. prosecutions in the soccer case apart is both their scope and their willingness to target not just corrupt officials, but also the corporate actors who drive—and benefit from—illegality behind the scenes. The willingness of U.S. courts to reinterpret laws like the honest services statute in service of a cleaner, more transparent sporting environment may yet prove a turning point, provided broader international cooperation follows.
Critical Analysis: Achievements and Risks
Notable Strengths
- Effective Deterrence: The prosecutions have visibly chilled flagrant bribery among soccer marketers, if only temporarily, while sending a strong message to all actors operating within the U.S. financial system or with significant market presence in the States.
- Legal Innovation: Expanding the use of honest-services wire fraud to foreign private-sector relationships could give prosecutors powerful new tools to address transnational white-collar crime. This is a significant development in the world of global compliance and anti-bribery enforcement.
- Raising the Compliance Bar: The case has underlined the need for serious, enforceable compliance programs at multinational firms, particularly those in media and sports.
Potential Risks
- Diplomatic Fallout: Foreign entities may bristle at the perceived overreach of U.S. law, with governments or corporate lobbies arguing that local actions should be policed by local authorities. This could lead to pushback or even retaliatory measures.
- Legal Uncertainty: Should the Supreme Court narrow the statute’s reach, significant cases built on honest services wire fraud could unravel, causing unpredictability for ongoing and future prosecutions.
- Compliance Complexity: The global business community might face new legal uncertainties as the contours of U.S. compliance obligations grow murkier in the wake of broad extraterritorial readings of the law.
Comparative Perspective: U.S. vs. International Enforcement
It is instructive to note that the United States is virtually alone among major powers in using its own fraud statutes to tackle foreign commercial bribery, especially when private actors or non-U.S. victims are involved. Most other countries focus enforcement on domestic actors and public officials, leaving private-sector crimes, especially those involving foreign interests, largely to local regulators.The U.S. approach, while lauded by some transparency advocates, is still evolving. If the Supreme Court upholds the appellate court’s broad reading, look for other countries to face pressure—both domestic and international—to ratchet up their own enforcement regimes. If not, multinational firms may simply route sensitive operations away from U.S. banks and markets, dulling the impact of reform efforts.
The Road Ahead: Reforms and Realities
The machinery of international sports governance moves slowly, often only in response to external pressure. The U.S. Department of Justice’s sports corruption prosecutions have provided precisely such a jolt, driving internal reforms and raising the risks for executive wrongdoing. Whether these changes are lasting remains an open question.Next steps in the Lopez and Full Play saga will likely hinge on Supreme Court review and the subsequent retrial or remand proceedings ordered by the appellate court. In parallel, stakeholders in the world of sports broadcast rights—be they major networks, streaming services, federations, or fans—continue to watch with keen interest, aware that the margins between fair play and unfair advantage remain razor-thin.
Conclusion: Lasting Impact or Temporary Setback?
The reinstatement of convictions in this high-profile case marks not just a turning point in a long-running legal battle, but a moment of reflection for soccer’s global future. With billions at stake and reputations on the line, only robust, credible enforcement—supported by international collaboration—can hope to root out the systemic corruption that has haunted the world’s biggest sport.At the heart of this trial is a simple question: Can any system, however global, resist the temptations that come with immense money and influence? The answer, for now, appears to be yes—but only so long as global authorities, encouraged by high-profile successes, continue to adapt, cooperate, and uphold the values that make sport worth playing—and watching—in the first place.
Source: The Straits Times Two soccer bribery convictions reinstated by US appeals court
