Fair game

Sports fans can find themselves waiting anxiously for more than a VAR review, with official arbitrators increasingly relied on to determine disputed decisions. Sam Kenworthy reports on the arbitral bodies charged with keeping score.

Host nation Morocco played Senegal in the final of the Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) on 18 January. Towards the end of a largely uneventful 90 minutes in Rabat, Senegal had a likely winning goal disallowed for an infringement. Minutes later, Morocco were awarded a penalty after a lengthy Video Assistant Referee review. Incensed by what they perceived as a double dose of injustice, the Senegal players walked off the pitch with their coach’s encouragement, leaving their opponents and spectators bemused.

But the referee did not bring the match to an end. After about 15 minutes, the players returned to the pitch. The game resumed. The penalty was taken, missed, and the game entered extra time, Senegal eventually winning 1-0.

If fans’ patience was tested on the night, the contest was far from over. The following day, the Royal Moroccan Football Federation (FRMF) began legal action. It filed complaints with world football governing body FIFA and the Confederation of African Football (CAF), claiming that the Senegal team had forfeited the game by leaving the field before the final whistle.

These claims were initially dismissed, but the FRMF appealed. On 17 March, the CAF Appeals Board upheld the appeal, awarded the game to Morocco 3-0 and declared them AFCON champions. The Senegalese Football Federation immediately announced its own intention to appeal (on the grounds that the referee had not abandoned the game) to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). CAS acknowledged receipt of the appeal on 26 March and is in the process of scheduling a hearing.

The outcome of this particular dispute has no bearing on the FIFA World Cup. But both Senegal and Morocco travelled to the US, Canada and Mexico this summer believing they had legitimate claims to be African champions. It’s all a bit of a mess. These claims will be settled by legal arguments rather than athletic endeavour.

Specialist forum

CAS was founded in 1984 when the then-president of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), Juan Antonio Samaranch, envisioned a specialist dispute resolution body capable of quickly and satisfactorily settling sporting disputes. Timing was always a key tenet of CAS, taking into account competition scheduling and the relatively short span of an athlete’s career. Also, the increasing globalisation of sport highlighted the need for an umbrella body which would be accessible to all. CAS initially came under the governance of the IOC, but divested itself from the committee in 1994. It is now governed by the International Court of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS), which preserves its independence.

CAS handles two types of arbitration: the ordinary procedure, which is similar in nature to a classic commercial arbitration; and the appeals procedure, which is used when a sports governing body’s decision is challenged. The appeals procedure accounts for the vast majority of cases brought before the court. Although its awards can themselves be challenged, CAS is generally perceived as the final ruling in a sports dispute.

The ever-increasing monetisation of sport has led to greater awareness among parties of legal rights and an increased willingness to engage in legal action.

Blackstone Chambers’ Nick De Marco KC, one of the most high-profile and respected sports lawyers in the UK, says: ‘It’s much better that you see a result settled on the pitch than in a courtroom, but with the money involved it’s inevitable you will see legal action.’

Football is sport’s global financial behemoth. CAS oversaw more than 1,000 cases in 2025, with around three-quarters football-related. Most are appeals following decisions of a governing body tribunal. In England, this can be the Football Association, the Premier League, or the English Football League – and these are just the regulatory bodies.

When disputes also encompass employment, intellectual property, sponsorship, gambling, human rights, modern slavery and doping, it becomes clear why ‘sports law’ is now an accepted term, and lawyers bracket themselves as specialising in this sector.

Sports law boom

Bespoke legal services under the umbrella term of sports law have boomed over the past 20 years. CAS is the highest-profile sports dispute resolution facility internationally and a recognisable brand to sports fans everywhere. But UK-based Sport Resolutions (SR) has found favour among sports lawyers for being quick, nimble and responsive to user feedback.

SR was founded in 1997 (as the Sports Disputes Resolution Panel) after athlete Diane Modahl came into conflict with the British Athletics Federation (BAF). Although her efforts to clear her name following a false positive test, which led to a doping charge, were successful, the process risked her personal bankruptcy. BAF’s mounting legal costs, combined with its debts and falling sponsorship revenue, were factors in its administration. It was superseded by UK Athletics.

The case highlighted the need for a body that was accessible, cost-efficient, practical, flexible and a less risky dispute resolution service than was then available. ‘I am of the sincere belief that sports disputes should be handled a certain way,’ says SR CEO Richard Harry. ‘In sports, you can’t write the rules [of dispute resolution] as you go – there are considerations and timelines that are specific to that sport. A sizeable chunk of the people on our arbitral panel are non-lawyers. On certain issues, you need expertise in the sport more than the law.’

Somewhat unfairly, SR is often regarded as being UK-centric and not in the same league as CAS. However, it began expanding its scope internationally 10 years ago and is currently engaged by 30 international regulatory bodies and has 33 languages across its panel members.

While CAS and SR do not compare themselves directly, they are both sports-focused dispute resolution centres, albeit with slightly different operating methods. They both maintain lists of arbitrators available to adverse parties (around 500 at CAS; over 300 at SR).

At CAS, each side will select one arbitrator, and either the court will appoint a chair or the parties will agree on one. The lists are grouped according to expertise. In doping cases, for example, arbitrators must come from the approved doping expert list. The parties can also agree to appoint a sole arbitrator, perhaps when a speedy decision is sought or costs are a factor.

At SR, a sole arbitrator or three-person panel will be nominated internally and presented to the parties with CVs and conflict checks to demonstrate suitability. The parties can raise objections or ask questions about the proposed panel, so they are not beholden to the executive’s selection.

Personal best

There are pros and cons to both approaches. At CAS, counsel for opposing parties have the freedom to choose the arbitrators they want, perhaps having worked with them before and confident in their knowledge and competence to process the hearing efficiently.

However, the flip side is that in-demand arbitrators may have a backlog of cases, so the hearing will be delayed until they are available. It is rare for arbitrators to turn down a case if nominated outside of conflict issues. And although the other side can appeal against the selection of a certain arbitrator, this requires very strong reasons.

One lawyer within lengthy experience of arguing cases before CAS mischievously suggests that 70% of the cases are heard by 10% of the panel, while a spokesperson for CAS denies that delays occur in a procedure due to arbitrator availability. It is, they add, common practice for division presidents to ensure the panel chairs selected for cases are rotated, which avoids or minimises congestion.

Nevertheless, mutterings about the efficiency of CAS persist. In July 2025, CAS introduced a four-month time limit for panels to draft an award after the conclusion of the evidentiary proceedings. This drew acclaim from counsel and arbitrators, and both parties can agree on expedited proceedings where required.

The court has also often demonstrated its ability to reach a decision in 24-48 hours. This could be held to compromise the degree to which the legal arguments can be examined and raises questions about how carefully conclusions are reached, but is generally regarded as a necessary compromise. CAS has the peculiar distinction of drawing criticism for being simultaneously too fast and too slow.

Mediation

Mediation is an alternative dispute resolution avenue many lawyers feel is underused. The flexible and less confrontational nature of the process would seem to suit sporting disputes, especially in cases where the two opposing sides will maintain a close working relationship beyond the conclusion of the matter.

Both CAS and SR promote mediation, although uptake has been very modest. CAS hosted 23 mediation procedures in 2025. SR’s Harry acknowledges that ‘sport has a fair way to go to embrace it’.

De Marco agrees mediation can be efficient – to a point: ‘I’m a big advocate of doing it where possible. Is mediation a better solution? Yes, if it’s a commercial dispute. Litigation and arbitration are risky, and you may not recover all your costs [even if you win]. But regulatory cases are much more difficult. You would want a precedent for future cases, and transparency behind the decision.’

Max Duthie, partner in Bird & Bird’s sports group, believes it is compatible: ‘There are risks, including the impact of agreed outcomes on future cases by way of precedent… but in a sports regulatory dispute, the regulator can agree an outcome (e.g. a finding of breach and a sanction) with the relevant club or athlete, that saves time, costs, negative publicity and relationships in broadly the same way that it would do in a commercial dispute.’

Keeping costs down

Although sportspeople are generally more inclined than ever to enter into legal disputes, the risk factor is significant, not least because of the cost. The multi-millionaire footballer is unrepresentative of the vast majority of athletes. The case of Modahl is instructive, even if access to legal recourse is easier now.

SR has a pro bono initiative which has dual benefits. Harry explains: ‘[In cases involving] sports with fewer resources, we go to junior panel members and ask if they would handle something pro bono, and they gain experience of different issues.’

Another initiative is a legacy of the London 2012 Olympics. There, the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games created a facility for free, quick legal advice to athletes. It was originally established for the duration of the games, but the service remains operational today.

ICAS has two legal aid functions in operation, one dedicated to football-related claims and funded as part of wider contributions from FIFA, and another, more general fund. CAS also establishes temporary ad hoc courts for the duration of the Olympic Games, which are free and aim to expedite procedures within 24 hours, essential for an event that typically lasts for only 16 days.

Cost is only one aspect, however. Lydia Banerjee, a barrister at Littleton Chambers, is a member of the Sports Law Group. She draws attention to the stress a legal claim can put on an athlete: ‘The problem with [these types of disputes] is that the individual has to put themselves in the spotlight, often as a test case. It can be very stressful, very risky, uncertain and possibly damaging to their reputation.’

A spokesperson for CAS says the court is extremely mindful of the parties’ right to confidentiality, but highlights that parties often publicly declare their intention to file a dispute with the court. The cases of sportspeople who are celebrities with personal brands that rely on self-promotion attract significantly more media attention than other fields.

Boosting the rule of law

For all its increased commercialisation and the ubiquitous, often grubby, social media-driven scrutiny of the world of sport – and the hand wringing over the growing role of lawyers – the arbitral bodies have at their core a mission to preserve the integrity of sport. They seek to allow athletes access to legal recourse to protect their own rights and careers, and, like all successful sportspeople, are credited with striving to better their game.

The scale of the legal ecosystem that now supports these proceedings was unimaginable a generation ago. But at a time when many international disputes bodies have been paralysed or emasculated by geopolitical conflicts, the way disputes are handled in sport seems a good news story for ‘rule of law’ advocates.

SPORTING CHANCE: HEADLINE ARBITRATION RULINGS

Sport Resolutions: doping in tennis

On 4 April 2024, professional tennis player Jannik Sinner tested positive for a substance banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency. A mandatory provisional suspension was imposed with immediate effect by the International Tennis Integrity Agency. Sinner filed an urgent appeal for the immediate lifting of the suspension and an independent tribunal was convened on 15 August 2024. The hearing concluded that the player bore no responsibility for the presence of the substances in his system, as a widely available spray used to treat cuts and scrapes was the source of the substance, and the ban was lifted.

Court of Arbitration for Sport: too many shares

In August 2025, CAS dismissed Crystal Palace FC’s appeal against UEFA, which had demoted the club from the 2025/26 UEFA Europa League to the UEFA Conference League. The panel found that owner John Textor held shares and exercised decisive influence over both Crystal Palace and Olympique Lyonnais simultaneously. Both had qualified for the Europa League for the forthcoming season, which caused a breach of UEFA regulations. In a twist of fate, Crystal Palace won the Conference League.

Court of Arbitration for Sport: maternity rights

In June 2026, Swedish footballer Maja Göthberg had her claim of unlawful employment termination against Lazio Women upheld after the club withdrew a new contract offer upon learning she was pregnant – the first claim of its kind at CAS. Lazio was in breach of FIFA’s maternity regulations. CAS also found that the club had shared details of her pregnancy to her teammates without her consent. CAS ordered Lazio to pay Göthberg €64,000 plus interest as salary compensation, and €5,333 plus interest for the infringement of her private medical information. 

Sam Kenworthy is a freelance journalist