스포츠법상 규제에 대한 현대적 변화

In Sports Law Government can not regulate modern Society and prosperous Market only with traditional Regulation so called Command-and-Control Regulation. Sport has a wide range of aspects that include not only the movement itself but also the commercial environment and socio-cultural behavior. So it is difficult to draw a general definition about sports. It also has many characteristics that distinguish it from other fields that are subject to regulation, such as self-aim commerciality, and cultural norms etc. The functions of sports are various in education, health, society, culture, and entertainment etc. The regulation of sports law has a dual role both regulatory role and constructive role. Therefore, in the Sports Industry Promotion Act, it is necessary to clearly and systematically legislate various new regulations such as self-regulation and regulated self-regulation as well as existing high level regulation so called command-and- control. In addition to positive regulation, systematic legislation should be developed for negative regulation and comprehensive negative regulation. In recent years, administrative acts, which occupied the throne of high-level regulation, are now being replaced or supplemented by the use of various contracts or delegations. Of course, there should also be a device that complements the limitations of self-regulation or regulated self-regulation. It should now be transformed into legitimate regulation based on sports law theory. The purpose of regulation must be justified, and both procedural justice and contentual justification of regulation should be provided. Justification of the method of regulation is also required. These regulations should simultaneously achieve performance in the sports field. Now, the subject of regulation is changing to the age in which not only the administrative agency but also the private self or the public administration and the private sector jointly become the subject. Microscopic changes in the types of these regulations are becoming a fundamental background of changes in the macro-national state of the Guarantee State, the Steering State, and the Cultural state. Philosophically, it must be a regulation that harmonizes liberty and equality in accordance with the justice of Rawls, and it should be a regulation that can meet the distributional criteria that justify relative equality.