JURISDICTIONAL COMPLEXITIES IN SPORTS ARBITRATION: CONFLICTS BETWEEN DOMESTIC COURTS, NATIONAL FEDERATIONS, AND THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT (CAS)

Abstract

This paper critically analyzes the jurisdictional complexities that arise in the resolution of sports disputes, focusing on the tensions and conflicts between domestic courts, national sports federations, and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). This is important because of the proliferation of regulatory bodies coupled with disputes that frequently straddle national and international legal systems, raising questions about the proper forum for adjudication. The author therefore examined the legal authority and limits of CAS as an arbitral tribunal, particularly in light of its mandatory jurisdiction clauses embedded in the statutes of international sports federations and its recognition by the Swiss Federal Tribunal. The author further assesed the role of domestic courts, especially when fundamental rights such as access to justice, fair hearing, and public policy considerations are invoked by aggrieved parties. The paper draws on leading cases such as Pechstein v. International Skating Union and Mutu & Pechstein v. Switzerland (ECtHR, 2018) to illustrate the friction between national legal orders and CAS’s supranational authority. The analysis also considers the autonomy of national sports federations and their alignment with international obligations, particularly where athletes or stakeholders challenge the legitimacy of arbitral agreements or procedural fairness. Ultimately, the paper advocates for a more coherent jurisdictional framework that respects both the private ordering of sports arbitration and the protective functions of State courts. It concludes by recommending legal and institutional reforms to reduce conflicts, enhance transparency, and uphold the rights of sports stakeholders.