So now we all know about Article 50. It has the character of a clause written on the assumption that it would never be invoked but with that prospect now ahead of us the consequences of its use are becoming apparent.

My view is that Article 50, when combined with UK Constitutional requirements and the careless drafting of the Brexit referendum question, creates a number of binds for the UK & the new PM. I've articulated these as follows:

Catch 22.

Article 50 cannot be triggered until the 'future relationship framework' has been established but that can't happen until Article 50 is triggered.

Catch 23.

The UK wishes to remain in the single market, so it has to accept the four pillars on which the EU is founded (freedom of movement for capital, goods, services & people) but the UK says freedom of movement is unacceptable, so it can't remain in the single market.

Catch 24.

A Prime Minister needs a mandate to take an executive decision on a matter of significant national importance such as leaving the single market. The Prime Minister has a mandate to leave the EU but not the single market so the Prime Minister cannot trigger Article 50 whose default is expulsion from the single market because she alone would be taking responsibility and would be open to legal action.

Catch 25.

In order to achieve a mandate for leaving the single market the UK must have a General Election with appropriate manifestos or set a referendum on 'remaining in the single market' but the Prime Minister has ruled out a General Election and a second referendum.

With these concerns in the background pressure is being put on the PM to trigger Article 50 by both the EU and Brexiteers who fear Article 50 never being invoked.

At the same time a raft of individuals and undertakings are determined to stall invocation of Article 50 perhaps indefinitely.

This leaves the UK in a limbo exacerbated by the constraint that until an Article 50 withdrawal agreement enters into force the UK is prohibited (as are all EU members) from entering into bilateral trade agreements.

It's fair to say that Article 50 is written to benefit the continuing EU members rather than the withdrawing nation.

So how is the sports community to make sense of this and chart a course which actually leads somewhere irrespective of the outcome of the wider negotiations and allowing for a rather indeterminate time-frame?

In my previous blogs I identified two main Brexit alternatives and I called them the 'Norway' and 'Russia' scenarios. I think they still hold as the two principle alternatives ahead.

The Norway alternative is necessarily the more constricting of the two because it is dependent upon maintaining membership of the European Economic Area, which comes with obligations.

Given this I would argue that it is the Norway option which should be the focus for those formulating UK Sports Policy as we move into the post Brexit world. Such a policy will be substantially appropriate for the less constrained Russia alternative.

In any case it's essential that any UK Sports Policy necessarily encompasses the EU virtues of harmonisation and fairness because how else can sport operate if competition is to occur outside national borders?

A question now arises as to whether a Sports Policy needs to be enshrined in legislation, perhaps in a Sport Act.

I would argue that it does because for the first time the Lisbon Treaty, whilst acknowledging the specificity of sport, incorporated competences in respect of sport into the TFEU. So to the extent that the UK will need to demonstrate reciprocity with the EU in the future it needs to mirror EU law in UK domestic law.

This is an issue shared by the complete spectrum of government and there is some discussion about a UK Brexit Act as a catch-all Act enshrining the majority of EU laws in UK law until such time as detailed domestic legislation can be passed.

My view is that the Minister for Sport should be much more pro-active than simply waiting for catch-all legislation and then fiddling at the margins subsequently. I believe that the Minister should get ahead of the inevitable log-jam and press forward with a White Paper intended to lead to a fully fledged Sport Act encompassing the TFEU competences but pushing ahead further anticipating issues to do with fair competition, access to competition, discrimination, free movement, State aid, reciprocity and so on. I've included a checklist of some other headline concerns below.

Such an Act would leave the UK in harmony with the EU and with the rest of the world.

Harmonisation

Fairness in competition

Movement of sports persons, services, capital and goods

State aid for sports undertakings in competition across borders

Tariffs and controls relating to sports equipment

Collective sale of sports rights

The promotion of local training of athletes

Solidarity arrangements

Status of competitors

Definitions for amateur and professional participation

Anti-doping provisions

Relationships with external undertakings such as IOC. IAAF, CAS, WADA, UEFA, FIFA etc.

National representation

Licensing

Financial fair play

Salary capping in professional sport

Agency

Gambling

Sports club ownership

Tax treatment of sports associations

Sports advertising and sponsorship

Grants to individuals and associations

The physical & moral integrity of sports persons

Sports injuries

Import/export restrictions on sports equipment

Visa restrictions & work permits for sports persons

Sports insurance

Non-interference in association and international federation rules

Steve Lawrence is an English architect and co-founder of a football data analytics and spatial development consultancy with clients including AFC Ajax, Amsterdam and Cruyff Football, Barcelona.