The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Published by Enhelion, 2019-11-25 01:15:30

ISL_Module 11

ISL_Module 11



In today’s modern social order, sport has come to play a vital role in the lives of enthusiasts.
Sports law or ‘lex sportiva’ is now dealing with issues that arise with respect to sports or even
the organisation and preparation of sports events or amongst the persons related to this
upcoming field.

Assuming that the sports industry is estimated to account for between 3 and 6 per cent of total
world trade,1 it is of no surprise that it has become the arena of legal disputes. Tailing along
the recent developments in the legal field of sports, dispute resolution has become inevitable.
Taking into the interest of the international arbitration community, it is an observed fact that
arbitration is now the firmly established means of dispute resolution method of choice all
through the sports industry.2

Numerous choices have been envisaged as methods to resolving sports disputes which has
rooted from the concept of Alternative Dispute Resolution which was brought into the sports
pitch. However, there exists a dilemma in opting for the right choice in the right situation
considering the discrepancies which includes the lack of understanding the alternative
resolutions. Furthermore, there have been hinderances in some countries as to the
applicability of the right dispute resolution option. Thus, to curtail these obstacles the
necessity of sports dispute resolution has been emphasized.


In the pre-modern era, sports were restricted to games for recreation and leisure. Over the
years, it has been regulated and extended to be made professional among the contestants.

Sporting Disputes cover a wide range of queries, namely eligibility, doping, personal injuries,
sponsorship, endorsement, licensing, merchandising, image rights, broadcasting
arrangements, etc. The subject matter in these areas are neither being completely commercial
nor contractual. Hence, having the required stringent norms, rules and regulations to govern

1 See among many others lan Blackshaw, TV Rights and Sport, TMC Asser Press (2009); José Luis Arnaut,
Independent European Sports Review (2006); Presentation of the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP), (November 2004).
2 Antonio Rigozzi, Sports Arbitration, ResearchGate (January 2013),

every sports dispute is regarded complicated due to the involvement of multiple rules and
regulations. In addition to the existing stance is the challenge that sports persons are of
different nationalities and are constantly moving across national boundaries which in turn
includes the international sports organizations or federations or those authorities in the
sporting fraternity.

The continuing success in the field has clearly demonstrated the commercial viability of the
franchisee, endorsement and broadcasting rights for the respective club and league sports. In
the same view, other sports like tennis, football, hockey etc. are also gaining importance.
Therefore, taking into consideration the involvement of money in sports, disputes are deemed
to be at the doorstep. For example, in the UK, about 19 million sports injuries occur each year
costing around £500 million for the reason of treatment and absence from work.3


There exists various dispute resolution choices or feasible alternatives to choose from. The
disputants are often faced with a confusion in making a choice as to which method of
resolution is better in light of the given situation. The understanding of the repercussions of
the different approaches paints a better picture as to the viability of each option.The
following are the dispute resolution options available.


Litigation is a traditional process of having court proceedings before a bench or a judge. It
involves two parties and has a mandatory legal norm to accord with the judgement given by
the court. This process does protect the rights and interests of the parties in a fair and just
manner. The judgement has the final effect and is enforceable. The decisions can also be
challenged in the higher courts or be retried to serve justice. Litigation is the most expensive
and lengthiest option considering the attorney and legal fees. This mode has the features of
strictness, normativity and integrity in the disposal of the cases. On the other hand, dearth of
specialized courts is one of the primary concerns in sport disputes. These disputes in
professional sports are particular and technical in nature and the bench or the judge may not
be aware with rules and regulations that the sport is governed by. It has been observed that
the mode of litigation has resulted in huge damages to the careers of many athletes due to the

3 Kevan T, Adamson D, Cottrell S., Sports Personal Injury: Law and Practice London (2002).

long waiting period whereby they lose out on their career in the game. Therefore, litigation
has a greater negative impact on the sportsperson’s career and reputation.


Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution which involves two parties facing a
dispute settle peacefully without knocking the doors of the court via a third party, a neutral
person called the mediator who provides assistance in the dispute resolution. This mode of
dispute settlement has its perks as the whole process is kept confidential and certain
inuendoes are also given for an amicable settlement. The settlement is detailed in mediation
agreement which is based on the consensus of both parties thus negating any difficulties. The
selection of the mediator is based on the experience, expertise and efficiency of the mediator
alongside his reputation in the particular field of sport, in case of sports disputes is

In the Court of Arbitration for Sports Mediation Rules, the CAS defines mediation as: “a non-
binding and informal procedure, based on an agreement to mediate in which each party
undertakes to attempt in good faith to negotiate with the other party with a view to settling a
sports-related dispute. The parties are assisted in their negotiations by a CAS mediator.”4

It may be noted that in a landmark ruling in the case of Cable & Wireless PLC v. IBM United
Kingdom5, Mr. Justice Colman held that an agreement to refer disputes to mediation is
contractually binding. In this case, Cable & Wireless was called upon by IBM to mediate a
dispute that had arisen under a contract in which the parties had agreed to mediate future
disputes. Cable & Wireless refused the same and claimed that the reference to mediation in
the contract was legally unenforceable because it lacked certainty and was like an
unenforceable agreement to negotiate. But the Court held that the agreement to try and
resolve a dispute, with identification of the procedure to be used, was sufficient to give
certainty and thus, legal effect to the clause and was legally enforceable. In England, there are
also new rules requiring parties to disputes to attempt to settle them by mediation at an early
stage in the litigation process. Parties who refuse to do so may be denied their legal costs if
ultimately successful in the litigation, contrary to the normal rule that ‘costs follow the

4 CAS. (n.d.). CAS Mediation Rules. Retrieved from: http://www.tas-
5 See Cable & Wireless PLC v. IBM United Kingdom5 [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 1041

event’. This outcome was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in the case of Susan Dunnett v.
Railtrack PLC6 where the Court also recognised the value of mediation and mediators and
said that:

“Skilled mediators are now able to achieve results satisfactory to both parties in
many cases which are quite beyond the power of lawyers and courts to achieve. This
court has knowledge of cases where intense feelings have arisen, for instance in
relation to clinical negligence claims. But when the parties are brought together on
neutral soil with a skilled mediator to help them resolve their differences, it may very
well be that the mediator is able to achieve a result by which the parties shake hands
at the end and feel that they have gone away having settled the dispute on terms with
which they are happy to live. A mediator may be able to provide solutions which are
beyond the powers of the court to provide. Occasions are known to the court in claims
against the police, which can give rise to as much passion as a claim of this kind
where a claimant’s precious horses are killed on a railway line, by which an apology
from a very senior police officer is all that the claimant is really seeking and the
money side of the matter falls away.”

Most of the international and national sports federations now include specific provisions for
mediation of appropriate sports disputes in their statutes and constitutions. The legal validity
of the CAS arbitration or mediation clause can be duly ascertained with reference to such
Statutes and Constitutions. In the case of N. v. Federation Equestre Internationale,7 the Swiss
Federal Tribunal as on 31 October 1996, held that by agreeing to abide by the rules of the
Federation, which included a provision to refer all disputes exclusively to the CAS, the sports
person concerned was bound to submit the dispute to the CAS, even though he had not
expressly agreed to CAS arbitration or mediation.

The process of mediation is quick, cost-effective and flexible. The one back drop in this
mode of dispute resolution is that either of the parties can stop the procedure at any time
which would lead to uncertainty in the stance of the parties and the finality of the mediation
agreement is not compulsive. At the same time, mediation can be effective as it helps the
parties to vent out their feelings and also completely explore their grievances and options.8

6 See Susan Dunnett v. Railtrack PLC [2002] EWCA Civ 302
7 N. / Int’l Equestrian Fed’n, BGer, Oct. 31, 1996, (Switz.), translated in CAS, DIGEST OF CAS AWARDS
8 Qianhang Fang, Dispute Resolution in Professional Sports, PM World Journal (May 2018),


Like mediation, conciliation is voluntary, flexible, confidential and reckons the interest of the
parties. It is voluntary proceeding where two parties reconcile their differences and arrive at
an amicable settlement with the assistance of a neutral third party called conciliator. It is an
alternative out-of-court dispute resolution channel. The parties are free to agree and disagree
to resolve the dispute in hand. This process ensures autonomy amongst the parties and the
parties are free to select the conciliator based upon the criteria such as; experience,
professional and / or personal expertise, availability, language and cultural skills. The
mediator and the conciliator in the respective dispute resolution processes have to be
impartial and independent. These proceedings also maintain strict confidentiality as to the
subject matter in dispute and the interests of the parties. The ultimate outcome of the
settlement is left at the option of the parties and are settled discretely.

The Himachal Pradesh High court under took the project of disposing of the pending cases by
conciliation & insisting on pretrial conciliation in fresh cases. The said project had great
success in Himachal Pradesh. The Law commission of India in its various reports (77th &
13th) has appreciated the project in Himachal Pradesh and recommended the other States to
follow same path.9


Avoidance is one of the ways which has come to be common in sport-related disputes. This is
a passive mode of dispute resolution which is relied upon when the other modes of dispute
redressals are exhausted. Avoidance may incur a huge cost as the possibility of a negotiation
is off the table. This manner of resolution can be understood with an example of a real case:

In the year 2003, Ariel Ortega, an Argentine football star, fell into a contractual dispute with
his football club, Fenerbahçe Spor Kulübü and thus left the team without permission. The
football club, Fenerbahçe instituted an arbitration proceeding against him before the
respective authority, FIFA Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC), who then rendered a
decision issued on 6 June 2003 by Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Player's Status
Committee that Ortega shall be suspended was thus ordered to pay USD 11,000,000 (eleven

9 Ujwala Shinde, ‘Conciliation as an Effective Mode of Alternate Dispute Resolution System’ (IOSR Journal of
Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 4, Issue 3)
issue3/A0430107.pdf accessed on 19th May 2019.

million American dollars) to Fenerbahçe Spor Kulübü. On account of this, Ortega served a 4-
month suspension from that day. Though a smart move, avoidance does not promise
confidentiality and can harm the reputation of the sportspersons as seen in this case.10

Negotiation is one method which is cost efficient and time-saving. This may be reversed
based on the circumstances at hand. The effectiveness of negotiations is not with finality and
that opens the doors to any new disputes during the course of execution of the agreement.
Nevertheless, a successful negotiation will keep tight the relationships between the involved
parties which is an added advantage to negotiations along with the protection of relative
confidentiality. Moreover, the reputation of the parties is usually not damaged because of a
For example, in 2011, there was a ‘lockout’ in NBA as a result of a failed negotiation. The
negotiation was between the NBA league and the player union about the Collective
Bargaining Agreement that had started in 2005. The time period of this negotiation was 2
years. Negotiation here was not a failure and a settlement were reached after 161 days’
lockout. Negotiation as a dispute resolution may be an appropriate mode for complicated
sports disputes.11
Consequently, can be accorded that the process of dispute resolution should be fair, cost-
efficient, time saving and should hold a finality in its decisions alongside the conformity from
the parties. Moreover, the process and the result should have as less impact on the sports
career of athletes and the result should not damage the reputation of the involved parties and
the relationship between them. So, an appropriate fit for such a dispute resolution is
arbitration and it is considered a feasible alternative for sports-related disputes.


10 Arbitration CAS 2003/O/482 Ariel Ortega v/ Fenerbahçe & Fédération Internationale de Football Association
(FIFA), award of 5 November 2002
11 Supra 8.


Arbitration is a form of an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) which is a legal technique for
the resolution of disputes outside the courts, wherein the parties to the dispute refer it to one
or more persons called the ‘arbitrators’ or ‘arbiters’ who are chosen individually by each of
the parties or the ‘arbitral tribunal’. The appointed arbitrators from each side resolve the
dispute and come to a decision i.e. the award to which the parties agree and are thereby
legally bound by it. In some cases, the two arbiters may appoint a third arbitrator, who acts as
an umpire to facilitate the settlement.


In light of the emergence of sports law, the options for dispute resolution have been plenty.
The resort to litigation has been deemed to be viewed as expensive, inflexible and a dilatory
method of dispute settlement. In consideration of these factors, litigation is the last recourse
sought by sportsmen and their organizations. Arbitration is viewed to be the perfect fit for
sports dispute resolution as it minimises the cost and helps save the sports enthusiasts from
arduous and extremely lengthy litigation process. Consequently, this legal technique is a
better choice than traditional court proceedings as it befits the need of the sportsmen to have a
speedy disposal of the dispute in question as they have short-lived professional lives in the
sporting field. Arbitration is more appealing to the sportsmen as the process does not compel
them to appear for court proceedings and that they would not have to undergo the tedious
manoeuvre of litigation. The time constraint being neglected has resulted in the pendency of
cases over a period of time.

In this form of dispute resolution persons or arbitrators chosen are per se people with
expertise in their particular fields which acts as an added advantage as they can apprehend the
case better and also faster in comparison to litigation. When such persons are chosen from
specific sports as that of the subject matter and who are having in depth knowledge of the
rules and regulations of the particular sport along with prior experience with sports law cases
will only make the process of delivering justice fair and easier. The Supreme Court of India
has also interpreted and observed that “an arbitrator is a judge appointed by the parties and as
such an award passed by him is not to be lightly interfered with.”12 But, in the interest of both
parties, the conclusive decisions rendered by the arbitrators are open to be challenged in the
court of law by way of appeal which makes it even more dependable.

12 Indu Engg & Textiles Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority, (2001) 5 SCC 691.

Another significant factor is the privacy and confidentiality of the issue. This can hinder the
reputation of the sportspersons which is well maintained in this mode of redressal and also
helps in the preservation of goodwill of the sportspersons which is another lacuna in the
traditional method as the court proceedings are to be documented as public records.13
Arbitration is also beneficial as it provides a neutral forum for resolving sport disputes
through a single procedure.

In the field of sports, there are several arbitral institutions like the Court of Arbitration for
Sports (CAS) and UK sports Resolution (UKSR) which consist of sports experts. In
comparison to litigation, it is clear that sports arbitration is more suitable for resolving sports
dispute as for having an expertise in sports. The very first feature of arbitration is promptness
whereby unnecessary stages to resolve a dispute can avoided and the matter can be
determined efficiently. In this way, involved parties can reduce their time and energy
consumption, thus saving costs but will have to pay the necessary fees. Secondly, once an
arbitral award is made, a finality is reached which is legally binding on both the parties. If
one of the parties does not execute the award, the other party has the right to sue that party.14


There are various sports arbitral bodies under different federations that have been set up to
settle sports disputes through Alternate Dispute Resolution.15 Certain specific institutions
were formed for the arbitration of sport disputes like the Court of Arbitration for Sports
(CAS) and International Council for Arbitration for Sports (ICAS) which are being
increasingly identified as the trusted bodies in the field of sports arbitrations.

In the past, the resolution of sports disputes was inconsistent and often ineffective.
Historically, until the late 1990s it could be argued that there existed a degree of disorder
which reigned, as an overlapping yet unrelated array of international, national, governmental
and non-governmental institutions attempted to resolve disputes in sport with little regard for
the consistency of outcome from one case to another, however similar the circumstances.16

13 Manvi Bhandari, Arbitration in Sports Dispute Resolution in India, International Journal of Research in
Engineering, Science and Management (September 2018),
14 Qianhang Fang, Dispute Resolution in Professional Sports, PM World Journal (May 2018),
15 The IABA, the World Governing Body of Amateur Boxing, for instance, established its own Arbitral
16 Graeme Mew and Mary Jane Richards, More than just a game: Resolving disputes in Modern Sport,

The rights of the athletes, the principles of natural justice as well as the due process, were
often ignored. The parties to proceedings, especially unrepresented athletes, found
themselves facing their federation or organization which would play the dual role of an
adversary and an adjudicator.17 In the last decade, sporting federations and games organizers
alike have recognized that this abundance of processes with lack of regulations for dealing
with disputes has done more harm to the sporting community than help it which has resulted
in the amounts of time, money and energy being expended, as well as the loss of focus on
sport itself. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), an international authority for the
resolution of sports disputes established by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), has
emerged as a leader in developing fair and consistent procedures, rules and regulations for
dealing with sport disputes.18


The Court of Arbitration for Sport is situated in Lausanne, Switzerland and is existent as an
international institution. The CAS is colloquially referred to as an Apex Court for sports
disputes and has a wide evidence influence throughout the sporting world. It is an authority
which is independent of other sports organizations that provides services in order to facilitate
the settlement of sports-related disputes by way of arbitration or mediation or other modes by
means of procedural rules and regulations adapted to the specific needs of the sports world.
CAS was established in 1984 and is placed under the administrative and financial authority of
the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS). The CAS has nearly 300 arbitrators
from 87 countries, chosen for their specialist knowledge of arbitration and expertise in sports
law. The CAS has registered approximately 2,700 separate arbitration proceedings and attend
to round 300 cases every year.19 Almost all sports organizations as well as the International
Sports Federations including the Olympic Movement require sports disputes arising between
themselves and sportspersons to be settled by the CAS.20 FUNCTIONING OF CAS: KINDS OF DISPUTES

Any dispute encountered may be submitted to the CAS only if there is an arbitration
agreement between the parties which specifies that recourse is to be sought before the CAS.

17 James H. Carter, The Law of International Sports Disputes (Lecture presented to the Annual Meeting of the

Indian Society of International Law) (November 2004),
18 Supra 11.
19 Tribunal Arbitral DU Sport, Court of Arbitration for Sport, Legal Aid Guidelines, https://www.tas-
20 Simon Gardiner, Sports Law (3rd ed., Cavendish Publishing Limited, Sydney, London, 2006).

The language used before the CAS is either French or English. The functioning of the CAS in
relation to any dispute arising directly or indirectly from sports, in principle includes
Commercial Disputes and Disciplinary Disputes. Thus, any natural or a legal person may
refer a sports dispute to the CAS.21 CAS is governed by its own set of rules, laws and
procedure wherein the operative law is the Swiss law unless otherwise agreed upon by the

• Commercial Disputes – The first category of disputes essentially involves those
disputes relating to the execution of contracts, such as those relating to sponsorship,
the sale of television rights, the staging of sports events, transfers of players and the
relationships between players or coaches and clubs and/or their agents such as
employment contracts and agency contracts. Any other disputes which invokes any
civil liability also come under this category (e.g. an accident to an athlete during a
sports event). These are handled by the CAS which acts as a court of sole instance.

• Disciplinary Disputes – These cases represent the second category of disputes of
which a large number of instances are doping related. The second most common type
of disputes before the CAS are appeals against disciplinary sanctions wherein the
largest subsection within this group is appeals against sanctions for anti-doping rule
violations. The anti-doping rules and regulations are provided in the World Anti-
Doping Code which provides that any decisions concerning an anti-doping rule
infraction may be appealed exclusively to CAS in accordance with the provisions
applicable for those disputes involving International-Level Athletes or cases arising
from participation in International Events. In addition to the doping cases, CAS is
called upon to rule on various disciplinary cases which comprises of violence on the
field of play, abuse of a referee, etc. Such disciplinary cases are generally dealt by the
competent sports authorities in the first instance and subsequently become the subject
of an appeal to the CAS. In many cases, the subject matter of appeals will be that of
an appellant who is a sportsperson, appealing against a suspension imposed upon him
or her in a doping case or sports organisations or clubs or federations requesting for
the sanction against a particular sportsperson to be increased. The case of Triple
Olympic champion Sun Yan (regarding doping) is sought to be dealt by CAS in
September 2019.

21 CAS can also hear and settle disputes over sponsorship contracts, for instance.

• Football employment disputes – One of the most common disputes are those that arise
before the CAS as appeals from the decisions of FIFA DRC, which is the world
governing body for football having its own internal judicial system. Usually, these
disputes arise from issues like termination of the employment contracts of players or
coaches, or the movement of players between clubs or transfers. As a consequence of
such change, remuneration is generally payable to the player’s previous clubs either
pursuant to contractual agreements between the parties or according to the complex
series of regulations that apply to football transfers, both as governed in the national
and international context.22 The best example is how the CAS recently rendered a
decision in which a football player had to initiate proceedings against his former club
based on wrongful termination.23

• Match-fixing and ethical disputes – CAS recently confirmed Strict Liability Principle
in Match-Fixing.24 These kinds of disputes are an evolving trend of cases in the area
of match fixing and corruption in recent years. The number of cases in this area has
seen a likely growth which in turn increases the workload of CAS. One problem faced
by CAS is its ability to adjudicate upon non - ethnical activities is the difficulty faced
by parties in gathering sufficient evidence those persons involved leave no trace of
their wrongdoing and will seek to use evasive means to ensure that they conceal the
matter in question.25 This is an area of fear as to the ability of sports bodies to
effectively fight corruption is impaired. In India, Central laws like The Lotteries
(Regulation) Act, 1998, Indian Penal Code, 186, Prize Competition Act, 1955, the
Indian Contract Act, 1872, The Public Gambling Act, 1867 etc. have been enacted to
keep a check on ethical disputes in sports. Entry 34 deals with betting and gambling
as under List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, 1950.

The disputes so resolved by the CAS are extremely diverse in nature and can vary between
straightforward commercial disputes to very sport-specific disputes concerning actions or
incidents arising on the field of play or non - ethical activities undertaken. ORGANIZATION OF CAS

22 See, for example, the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.

wrongful-termination-achieved accessed on 21st July 2019.
25 CAS 2010/A/2172, UEFA v. Oriekhov (para 54).

The CAS headquarters is located in Lausanne in addition to which there are two
‘decentralised offices’ in Sydney and New York. There is a recent development in the
number of alternative hearing centres in Kuala Lumpur, Shanghai, Abu Dhabi and Cairo as a
result of individual partnership arrangement deals struck by CAS. All the four of CAS’s new
partners are officially alternative venues for cases and were considered by the court to fulfil
the requirements and to represent regions where professional sport is developing quickly.

The CAS provides for four separate and distinct dispute resolution services and they are the
Ordinary Arbitration, Appeals Arbitration, Ad Hoc expedited Arbitration and Mediation. A
president heads the divisions in the Ordinary and Appeals Arbitration. The president can take
charge of the initial procedures in an arbitration before the arbitral tribunal is appointed for
adjudicating the matter. The CAS Ordinary Division is a classic arbitration service which is
emmeshed in resolving commercial disputes. The general structure and workings will be
familiar the practitioners with an experience of the ICC, AAA or other commercial arbitration
institutions. The arbitrations which take place under the CAS’s Ordinary Arbitration Rules
are those that have been referred to the CAS in the first instance, which is usually pursuant to
an arbitration agreement contained in a commercial contract, such as sponsorship or licensing
agreements. The CAS Ordinary Division also receives a certain number of political disputes
pursuant to an arbitration clause in the statutes or regulations of a sporting body or any
disputes between the members of the body. The subject matter of these disputes is often
concerned with election results or appointments within an organisation.

The CAS is governed by its own Statutes and Rules of Procedure such as the Statutes of the
Bodies Working for the Settlement of Sports Related Disputes, Code of Sports Related
Arbitration and Mediation Rules. According to the Code, the Appeals Arbitration Procedure
is open for appeal against every decision rendered by a federation or club and is not only
limited to disciplinary matters, especially doping cases. Ordinary CAS Arbitration
proceedings usually consist of two rounds where the written submissions are followed by an
oral hearing. Appeals arbitration is a common place in the sporting world and is somewhat of
a novelty for other arbitration practitioners. The appeals before the Appeals arbitration are
filed against the decisions typically issued by either national sports arbitration bodies or the
internal disciplinary or judicial bodies of the international sports federations. The CAS also
has a wing of mediation service through which certain sporting stakeholders can request a

legal opinion from the CAS. In addition, the CAS has established an expedited arbitration
service during major sporting events, which is referred to as the CAS Ad Hoc Division.

According to the CAS Code, the seat of the CAS and of each Arbitration Panel (Panel) is in
Lausanne, Switzerland and the same provision applies to the arbitral tribunals of the CAS Ad
Hoc Divisions sitting. The legal seat of the arbitration has no consequence on the location of
the hearing and remains in Lausanne.26 All the CAS proceedings are subject to the provisions
of Switzerland’s Private International Law Act (PILA) as each CAS panel constitutes an
international arbitral tribunal seated in Switzerland, which ensures procedural consistency
between all CAS cases. The PILA is widely regarded to be ‘arbitration-friendly’.27 The CAS
awards have finality upon communication to the parties and can only be challenged on very
limited grounds before the Swiss Supreme Court.28 The Swiss Supreme Court has made it
very clear that any advance waivers of the right to challenge the awards pursuant to PILA are
in principle unenforceable in sports arbitrations as the athletes purported consent to such
exclusion agreements does not rest on a free will and is therefore ‘tainted ab ovo’.29 The
procedure before the Appeals Arbitration Division is governed by the General Provisions and
the Special Provisions Applicable to the Appeals Arbitration Proceedings of the CAS Code.

In addition, the CAS Panels are not only empowered to annul a certain decision, but also to
replace a decision by the arbitrators or to refer the case back to the issuing body. Moreover,
the Panel is authorised to apply the ‘rule of law’ it deems most appropriate for the case. CRITICISM: INDEPENDENCE

Criticisms referring to the lack of independence of the CAS from the International Olympic
Committee (IOC), which founded the CAS in 1984 have come to be discerned both in the
media and in academic journals. The following landmark case before the Swiss Supreme

26 Angela Raguz v. Rebecca Sullivan & Ors. [2000] NSWA 240, at para 97, ASA Bull. 2001, p335, 349,
underscoring the ‘vital distinction between the so-called place (or seat) of arbitration and the place or places
where the arbitrators may hold hearings, consultations or other meetings.’ Moreover, referring to the unqualified
choice of Lausanne as the ‘seat’ of all CAS arbitrations’ provided by the CAS Code, the Court held that, despite
the range of factors connecting it to Australia, the CAS arbitration in Raguz was not a ‘domestic arbitration’ but
an ‘arbitration in a country other than Australia.’
27 See Elmar Gundel v. Fédération Équestre Internationale: Decision by the Swiss Supreme Court 4P.217/1992

of 15 March 1993, reported in ATF 119 II 271; ASA Bull. 1993, p398. An English translation is reported in
CAS Digest I, p545. See also Mealey’s International Arbitration Report, Vol. 8 Issue 10 October 1993, p12,

with a note by Jan Paulsson.
28 Antonio Rigozzi, Challenging Awards of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, Journal of International Dispute

Settlement, Vol. 1, No. 1 (2010), pp217-254, cgi/reprint/1/1/217.
29 See decision by the Swiss Supreme Court X, Guillermo Canas v. ATP Tour [& TAS], 4P.172/2006 of 22

March 2007, reported in ATF 133 III 235, 244.

Court case in 199330 has delivered a number of reforms to the CAS structure which were put
in place and also sought to insulate the CAS from any potential or perceived lack of
independence. The most eloquent example of the independence of CAS in relation to the IOC
was also observed in the case of USOC v. IOC.31 In this case, CAS held an IOC decision
invalid and unenforceable which prohibited athletes from participating in the next Olympic
Games following the expiry of their suspension for an anti-doping rule violation for more
than six months. JURISDICTION

The CAS has a wide jurisdiction within the field of sports law to adjudicate and settle
disputes between parties who have agreed to submit to its jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of
CAS only provides for arbitration “only in so far as the statues or regulations of the said
sports bodies or a specific agreement”. An important jurisprudential principle arose from the
Sydney Olympics (1999) as to the jurisdiction of the CAS via the decision of the Australian
Courts in the case of Raguz v. Sullivan.32 In this case, an award by the CAS was challenged
by one of the two Australian ‘Judokas’ involved in arbitration in the New South Wales Court
of Appeal where the court refused to exercise its powers for the reason of lack of jurisdiction.
It stated that CAS Agreement for Arbitration form signed by the parties was a foreign one
and not a ‘domestic arbitration agreement’ within the Commercial Arbitration Act 1984.33
Hence, the court made a distinction between the physical (Sydney, Australia) and the legal
(as expressly stipulated by the agreement Lausanne, Switzerland- the seat of CAS) place of
arbitration and declared the jurisdiction to be outside the Australian Courts. CAS APPEALS PROCEDURE

The most frequently used procedure within the CAS is the Appeals Arbitration Procedure as
it provides a distinctive framework for sports arbitration. It is a de novo procedure as the
arbitral tribunal has the ‘full power to review the facts and the law’.34

30 See Elmar Gundel v. Fédération Équestre Internationale. Decision by the Swiss Supreme Court 4P.217/1992

of 15 March 1993, reported in ATF 119 II 271.
31 See CAS Award in CAS 2011/O/2422 USOC v. IOC.
32 Raguz v. Sullivan, NSWCA 290 (2000).
33 Commercial Arbitration Act, 1984 No. 160, as amended by the Act 1990 No. 100,
34 For an analysis of the CAS Ordinary Proceedings, see Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler, Philippe Bärtsch, The

Ordinary Arbitration Procedure of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, in Robert Siekmann et al. (eds), The Court

of Arbitration for sport 1984-2004, The Hague (2006), pp134-159. For a comprehensive review and analysis of

Appeals are submitted to the arbitration tribunal composed of three arbitrators unless the
appellant establishes that the parties have agreed to a Panel composed of a sole arbitrator or
that a sole arbitrator would be more appropriate due in the Statement of Appeal. The
arbitrator is to appointed by the president of the Appeals Arbitration Division where the
appeal is to be heard by a sole arbitrator. The applicant nominates an arbitrator in the
Statement of Appeal in case a three-member tribunal is to hear the appeal.

Within 10 days of receiving the Statement of Appeal, the president of the Appeals Division
nominates the president of the arbitration tribunal and the respondent as such nominates an
arbitrator.35 It is only after the confirmation from the president of the Division that each
arbitrator is independent of the parties, that the constitution of the tribunal becomes final.

The CAS originally comprised of members, but now enlists approximately 280 arbitrators,
each appointed for a renewable period of four years. All the arbitrators must be appointed
from this list as this list is a closed list. ng to which ‘CAS arbitrators and mediators may not
act as counsel for a party before the CAS’. With regard to the applicable substantive law in
CAS arbitrations, the CAS Code provides that the arbitral tribunal shall decide the dispute
according to the applicable rules and regulations of law chosen by the parties, or, in the
absence of such a choice, according to the law of the country in which the federation,
association or sports-body that has issued the challenged decision is domiciled or according
to the rules of law, the application of which the Panel deems appropriate which is to be
reasoned by the Panel. In practice, Swiss law is applied as the substantive law in the majority
of cases before the CAS as most international sports federations are domiciled in

The Panels may sometimes deviate from the laws of the country in which the federation is
domiciled and reach a decision on the basis of laws of other countries or rules of law or the
general principles of law. The CAS acquires its jurisdiction in respective cases only through
the mutual consent of the parties involved. The determination of issues arising in doping
cases remains a significant portion of the CAS caseload as it was the international response to

the CAS Ad Hoc Division for the Olympic Games, see Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler, Arbitration at the
35 It is important to emphasise that, contrary to what has often been written (see for instance Michael Straubel,
‘Enhancing the Performance of the Doping Court: How the Court of Arbitration for Sport Can Do Its Job
Better’, 36 Loy. U. Chic. L.J. (2005) p1228), the president of the Appeals Division does not consult with the
parties before appointing the president of the panel.
36 Antonio Rigozzi, Sports Arbitration, ResearchGate (January 2013),

the rise in the use of performance-enhancing drugs and the resulting doping cases that fuelled
the creation of the CAS. There are few circumstances under which such an award may be

• When there is an irregular designation of sole arbitrator or arbitral tribunal
• When the tribunal has made an error with regard to its own jurisdiction
• When the tribunal has ruled on matters beyond its claims or left out a claim without

• When the principle of equality is not followed
• When the award goes against Public Policy.37 COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORTS (CAS): IMPORTANT


• In 2003, Beckie Scott, a Canadian cross-country skier, successfully appealed to the
CAS with respect to her claim that she be awarded the 2002 Olympic gold medal in
the 5-km pursuit event in which Russian skiers Olga Danilova and Larissa Lazutina
finished first and second respectively. Scott was awarded the third place in the
competition and each athlete had passed their post-event doping test. But it was
observed that Danilova and Lazutina had failed a subsequent doping test administered
in relation to another Olympic cross-country event, where the presence of a prohibited
blood doping agent, darbepoetin, was detected in each of the skier’s sample. Based on
this, Scott appealed her 5-km race result stating that both Russian skiers were engaged
in ongoing doping practices. The CAS ruling in the Scott case was the first time in
Olympic history that a gold medal had been awarded to an athlete in such an

• In 2005, American sprinter Tim Montgomery was banned from international
competition for two years as a result of doping by the CAS arbitration panel, in spite
of Montgomery failing the doping test. The CAS ruled that it had placed its findings

37 http://www.tas -information/frequently - asked -questions.html
38 Beckie Scott v. IOC, TAS 2002/O/373 COC & Scott v/IOC

for a doping violation on the basis of the third-party evidence called against

Montgomery. This was connected to the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative (BALCO)
athlete steroid scandal that had arisen in the United States in 2003.39

• On of the well-known cases would be of Floyd Landis who was facing allegations of

doping during a stage in the Tour De France. He was popular as he chose to post all

the facts of his case online and make it a public and transparent proceeding which has
now come to be popularly known as the Wiki Defence.40

• The material issue was doping In Sandra Gasser's case where, Gasser's advocates

argued on the legal aspect that a ban on doping amounted to restraint of trade. The

Courts had no difficulty in dismissing the argument of the IAAF was centred around

arguing that Gasser, as an "amateur" athlete, did not have any trade and thus, there

could not be any restraint and the Courts had no difficulty in dismissing this

argument. The Courts held that there could not be any amateurism and because Gasser

is a sportsperson, any action that infringed her right to compete amounts to a restraint
of trade.41
• In Renold’s case42, regardless of the facts, the issues that arose interestingly were the

absolute disregard of IAAF for the Court process, where IAAF had remarked that

Courts create a lot of hindrance in the anti-doping work and that the IAAF doesn't
care the least for what the Courts say.43 It was observed that the rules of IAAF are
supreme and IAAF will follow their rules.44

• In the case, Richard Gasquet v. ITF,45 Richard Gasquet, a 23-year-old French tennis

player, committed a Doping Offence wherein a sample provided by Mr. Gasquet on

28 March 2009 at an event in Miami, USA, contained benzoylecgonine, a metabolite

of cocaine which was a banned substance. The tribunal found that Mr. Gasquet had

ingested cocaine inadvertently. It also found that he was at fault for putting himself at

39 USADA v. Montgomery,
40 Floyd Landis v. USADA,
41 Sandra Gasser v. Henry Robert Hunter Stinson and John Bryan Holt (Unreported, High Court of Justice
Chancery Division, Scott J, 15 June 1988).
42 Reynolds v. International Amateur Athletic Federation, No. C-2- 92-452, 1992 U.S. Dist. Lexis 8625 (S.D.
Ohio June 19, 1992).
43 Joseph De Pencier, Law and Athlete Drug Testing in Canada, Marquette Sports Law Review (December 31,
44 Kanishka Pandey, Court of arbitration for sports (CAS): An efficient mechanism for resolving sports related
disputes, International Journal of Law (November 2017),
45 International Tennis Federation (ITF) v. Richard Gasquet CAS 2009/A/1926; WADA v. ITF & Richard
Gasquet CAS 2009/A/1930.

risk of such contamination, but imposed a period of ineligibility of two months and
fifteen days, rather than the 12-month sanction that is the minimum required under the
World Anti-Doping Code for No Significant Fault or Negligence cases.
The CAS on this matter, rejected the ITF’s and WADA’s appeal on the basis that Mr.
Gasquet’s claim of inadvertent contamination was correct. The CAS further ruled that
Mr. Gasquet bore No Fault or Negligence for that contamination and that no period of
ineligibility should be imposed on him.
• In the case of World Anti-Doping Agency v. Narsingh Yadav & National Anti-
Doping Agency,46 Narsingh Yadav who is an Indian wrestler, was subjected to two
out-of-competition doping control tests on 25 June and 5 July 2016 respectively.
These tests separately confirmed the presence of certain metabolites of the exogenous
androgenic steroid methandienone, which was a non-specified substance under Article
1.1a of the Prohibited Substances List. On 16 July 2016, Mr. Yadav was provisionally
suspended from competition and subsequently filed a complaint with the police
alleging that his energy drink had been spiked with the prohibited substance by Mr.
Jitesh, an associate of one of Mr. Yadav’s rivals in competition. On 1 August 2016
India’s National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel
(NADA Disciplinary Panel) determined that Mr. Yadav was a victim of sabotage,
bearing no fault or negligence for the presence of the substance in his body. The
NADA Disciplinary Panel decided that there was no violation of NADA’s Anti-
Doping Rules. WADA filed an application with the CAS Ad Hoc Division on 13
August 2016. The applicable law included Article 17 of the CAS Ad Hoc Rules which
provides that the dispute must be decided pursuant to the Olympic Charter and the
applicable regulations, general principles of law and the rules of law. The proceedings
in this case were governed by the CAS Ad Hoc Rules as enacted by the International
Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS). Mr. Narsingh Yadav was sanctioned with a
4-year ineligibility period and all competitive results obtained by him were
disqualified including forfeiture of medals and prizes. INTERACTION WITH NATIONAL COURTS AND CAS

46 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Narsingh Yadav & National Anti-Doping Agency CAS OG 16/25

Under the ambit of Sports Arbitration, it is perceived that the orders of the national courts

have no binding authority upon non-national parties but are binding upon parties who fall
under the jurisdiction of the courts.47 Such forays of the national courts in awards are
reflected in the case of Samoa NOC v. IWF,48 where an interim award precluding the
enforcement of a decision by the National Level Weightlifting Federation was granted by the
Samoan Courts, the CAS ultimately set aside the International Weightlifting Federations’
decision and effect of invalidating was observed. This occurred because the National
Federation’s decision was the keystone to the IWF’s. Thus, this indicates that International
Tribunals, such as the CAS, is subject to the exercise of jurisdiction by national courts in case

of the finality of awards. THE INDIAN CONTEXT: CAS49

When it comes down to India, the international forum provided by CAS has been scarcely
utilized. Until recently, the relevance of CAS as a global forum for sports dispute resolution
was realized in the case of four athletes, Ashwini A.C., Sini Jose, Priyanka Panwar and Tiana

Mary Thomas. These athletes are those who represented India at the CWG and the Asian
Games and were thereafter suspended for a period of one year by the National Anti-Doping
Disciplinary Panel (“NAADP”) for steroid violations in December, 2011.50 The World Anti-
doping agency (“WADA”) cited several rulings of the CAS while arguing for a more
stringent punishment during the appeal before NAADP.51 In this case, Ms. Ashwini, Ms.
Panwar, Ms. Mary Thomas and Ms. Jose were declared ineligible for a period of two-years
and all their competitive results obtained by them were to be disqualified, with all resulting
consequences, in accordance with IAAF Rules.52 Supplementary to this, in case of an

unsatisfactory ruling, either party can approach the CAS in appeal when the dissatisfied party
has exhausted all the remedies at the national level.53

47 Richard H. McLaren, Sports Law Arbitration by CAS: Is It the Same as International Arbitration, Pepperdine
Law Review, 29 PEPP. L. REV., (2001-2002).
48 Samoa NOC v. IWF, Arbitration CAS ad hoc Division (O.G. Sydney 2000) 002, awards of Sept 12, 2000.
49 Devyani Jain, Judicial Trend of Intervention in Sports Arbitration and its Future in India, Indian Journal of
Arbitration Law,
50 K.P. Mohan, Athletes' lawyer rebuts WADA's contentions, http://www.
51 K.P. Mohan, Athletes' lawyer rebuts WADA's contentions, http://www.
52 IAAF v. AFI & Akkunji Ashwini, Priyanka Panwar, Tiana Mary Thomas & Sini Jose CAS 2012/A/2763.
53 WADA seeks two-year ban on Ashwini& Co., available at http://timesofindia.indiatimes. com/sports/more-
sports/others/WADA-seeks-two-year-ban-on-Ashwini-Co- /articleshow/11815497.cms.

Preserving and affirming the jurisdiction of the CAS, it has been established as a global
dispute resolution body as observed in the decision of the Australian Court in case of Raguz
v. Sullivan54 and also other similar cases. However, the finality of the decisions of
international arbitration institutions such as the CAS, in the Indian context, is doubtful after
the Indian Supreme Court’s decision in the Venture Global case55 wherein, the court held that
the Indian courts could exercise their jurisdiction and also set aside foreign arbitral awards in
pursuance of the ratio of Bhatia International case.56 The International Olympic Association
(IOA) as directed by the International Olympic Committee established an Indian Court of
Arbitration for Sports (“ICAS”) which is said to consist of 8 retired Judges of the higher
judiciary. All the disputes arising in relation to sports will be decided by the ICAS. The
Indian Court of Arbitration for Sports (ICAS) is deemed to the governing body to resolve all
the sports related disputes in India which was set up in 2011 under the Chairmanship of Dr.
AR. Lakshmanan, who is the former Supreme Court judge and also the former Law
Commission Chairman comprising of another 7 members of the ICAS, are Justices M.R.
Culla, R.S. Sodhi, B.A. Khan, Usha Mehra, J.K. Mehra, Lokeshwar Prasad and S.N. Sapra.
This development has promised to be effective in resolving disputes at the earliest. But this
body is currently not operational.


The International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS) was brought into force to look after
the running and financing of the CAS which was the biggest change in the reform of the
time.57 ICAS was formed in the year 1994 as the body to oversee CAS as the Court’s working
was mainly focused on the arbitrations of the sport related disputes on which a check did not

ICAS, by means of the Paris Agreement in 1994 was formed as a response to the Swiss
federal tribunal, the highest court in Switzerland, which did not vacate an arbitral award but

54 Raguz v. Sullivan, 2000 NSWCA 290, Also See Raducan, Arbitration CAS Ad Hoc Division (O.G. Sydney

2000) 011.
55 Venture Global Engineering v. Satyam Computers Services Ltd., 25 (4) J INT. ARB 507 (2008).
56 Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S. A. & Anr., (2003) 5 SCC (Jour) 22.
57 Nishita Medha, Alternative Dispute Resolution in India,

raised problems. One aspect that is critically important in the history of ICAS was that the
commentators or other people involved in ICAS disregarded was the Ad hoc panel in Atlanta.

The members of the ICAS tend to be diplomats and it is important to understand the
composition of those who serve on ICAS. It is composed of about 20 members who are well-
acquainted with sports law as well as the arbitration procedures and issues. In addition, they
are high level jurists. The Cabinet level officials of France, Syria and Egypt, the President as
well as the former judges of the International Court of Justice at the Hague, two Presidents of
the ICC Court of Arbitration, which is supposedly the premier international arbitration body,
two United States Court judges, the President of the Constitutional Court for Bosnia
Herzegovina, the Presidents of the Supreme Courts of India and Switzerland who are
important and also the President of the U.S. who run the Claims tribunal at the Hague
encompass the ICAS.58 ICAS: A NARRATIVE

The ICAS is considered to be the supreme organ of the CAS and the main task that it is
entitled to is to safeguard the independence of the arbitral body and also the rights of the
parties. It is in charge of the administration and financing of the CAS. The members of the
ICAS should sign a declaration upon their appointment undertaking to exercise their
functions in their own personal capacity. This signifies that a member in no circumstances
play the part, either as an arbitrator or as a counsel to the party in any proceedings before the
CAS except with their independence and objectivity. The ICAS exercises different functions
as enlisted under the Code either by itself or through an intermediary of its Board which is
made up of the ICAS President along with two Vice- Presidents and two Presidents of the
CAS Division who are elected by the ICAS itself. The ICAS also appoints the CAS
arbitrators and alongside approves the accounts and budget of the CAS. A full meeting of the
ICAS is to be held with all its members and if any changes are required in the Code, it can be

58 Michael Lenard, The Future of Sports Dispute Resolution, Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal (2009)

done so specifically with a majority of two-thirds of its members and at least half the ICAS
members are to be present when the decision is taken.


Many international sports federations and organisations appoint tribunals for the resolution of
disputes arising in their sport as they have their own system of dispute resolution. However,
these systems of dispute resolution could not be accurately described as independent
arbitration in the majority of the instances, due to the fact that these tribunals were
responsible for their constitution and thus not being sufficiently independent from the sports
organisation. An example for this arbitration system is the one which was set up by the world
governing body for basketball (FIBA) for the resolution of disputes between players, agents
and clubs known as the Basketball Arbitral Tribunal (BAT). This arbitration tribunal is seated
in Geneva and involves a simple, English language procedure with a sole arbitrator, who is
appointed by the President of BAT. The final award is issued by the arbitrator within six
weeks of the completion of the proceedings and also provisional and conservatory measures
are available to the parties during this course. Some of the notable features of BAT are that
the hearings are held only upon application and the arbitrators decide the cases ex aequo et
bono, meaning, on the basis of general considerations of justice and fairness, without any
particular national or international law reference.

Some sports such as rugby and Formula One do not allow for an appeal of their own
decisions to the CAS, except when mandated by the WADA Anti-Doping Code, although
majority of the international federations can appeal. Likewise, the protocols governing the
last editions of the America’s Cup sought for an arbitration scheme separate from the CAS.59
In view of the same, the disputes arising from the mentioned respective sports are to be
addressed by CAS.

On the national level, there is an increase in the establishment of national sports dispute
resolution bodies. Many of these bodies cannot be considered as arbitration tribunals in the
true sense of their significance. The Italian Olympic Committee has set up its own dispute
resolution body called the Tribunale Nazionale di Arbitrato per lo Sport (TNAS) in Italy and
this body resolves disputes between sports federations and affiliated persons. This tribunal is
resorted to, provided, all other internal remedies have been exhausted.

59 Thomas Schultz, Sailing away from judicial interference: Arbitrating the America’s Cup, International Sports
Law Journal, Jan-April, 2006, pp27-39.

In France, the Chambre Arbitrale du Sport is set up to be a dispute resolution body which
resolves sports-related disputes that have been referred to it by national sports federations, as
well as regional, national and departmental sporting organs including the sporting groups that
are affiliated to them as well as their members. It is created and is controlled by the French
Olympic Committee, which appoints all its arbitrators and thus cannot be regarded as a true
arbitral body for the resolution of all sporting disputes in France, markedly those involving
the French Olympic Committee.60 Some national dispute resolution systems provide for first
instance arbitration by a national body, with a future possibility to appeal the award before
the CAS and there are many national bodies that allow for an appeal to the CAS only when
the dispute in question is international in nature. This selection has been adopted in the
Australian and United States anti-doping dispute resolution systems as well. The choice also
provides for a first instance arbitration under the procedures of CAS Oceania and also the
American Arbitration Association61 respectively with the possibility of an appeal to the
CAS.62 Similarly, some countries as discussed below, have established their own national
CAS, independent from a particular sport or National Olympic Committee, whereas many
national arbitration services are controlled by one particular sporting federation or by a
country’s National Olympic Committee.

In Ireland, Just Sport Ireland (JSI) has been in operation since 2007 and has already
established itself within the Irish sporting community. It is experiencing an ever-increasing
caseload. It provides accessible and cost-effective mediation and arbitration services to the
sporting community which is an advantage as it is an independent dispute resolution body. Its
arbitration rules and regulations provide for an expedited appeals arbitration procedure which
also offers a potential further appeal to the CAS, depending on the arbitration clause adopted
by the parties.

It is the same in the UK, where the Sport Resolutions provides independent arbitration and
mediation services for sport and is also the provider of the National Anti-Doping Panel
(NADP) service. It also serves as a national CAS for the UK with an input in cases wherein,
three-quarters of its enquiries and referrals comes from Olympic, Paralympic and English
high-performance sports and the remaining quarter from community sport.

60 See also for details on the German sports arbitration tribunal, das Deutsche
Sportschiedsgericht, established in 2008.
61 The proceedings are governed by the AAA Supplementary Procedures for the Arbitration of Olympic Sport
Doping Disputes.
62 For an example describing this mechanism, Mark French v. Australian Sports Commission & Cycling
Australia, CAS 2004/A/651, (Appeal) Award of 11 July 2005.

There is no denying the fact that given sports professionals have short career spans and that
prompt resolution of disputes is the need of the hour. Traditional proceedings or litigation is
always fraught with inordinate delays and additionally, given with Sports Law having its own
technicalities and nuances, the one deciding such disputes needs to have a thorough
understanding of the same rules and regulations governing sport-related disputes. The
working knowledge of the institutions, needs to be discipline specific and must possess a
stringent framework with a concise and clearly distinguishable dispute resolution practice and
procedure, placing emphasis on "Alternate Dispute Resolution" because of its inherent
advantages. CAS holds a unique place as the "Apex Sports Resolution Authority" and various
domestic and national arbitration tribunals have also been set up to in local jurisdictions to
deal with Sports Disputes within the sports jurisprudence globally. There is no doubt that had
there been an effective Arbitration process in place, to deal with sports related issues,
facilitating amicable settlements instead of a lengthy, time-consuming litigation procedure. In
conclusions, this leads to a win – win situation instead of scenario where both Sports
Federations and athletes are caught settling scores in a hostile litigation.

Click to View FlipBook Version