Essay: Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)

As the world of sport grows parallel to the age of globalization upon us, there is a growing need for transnational dispute resolution (Ramaswamy, 2009). This fact is evident through the New York Yankees hats sold in Irish souvenir shops and the infiltration of rugby in the United States. With the increasing trend of globalization, a universal form of dispute resolution was necessary in the world of sport. Thus, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was born. The creators of the CAS envisioned their conception as the future “supreme court of world sport,” and that is exactly what it has become (Blackshaw, 2004). After discussing the role and structure of CAS, this report will outline some of the advantages and disadvantages for sports organizations and athletes who seek redress from the CAS.
Sports law is a widely debated term because of the issue of whether it should be considered separate from ordinary laws. Why are athletes allowed to pummel and seriously injure other athletes without consequences on the field when off the field these same actions would likely result in assault charges and jail time? This is because violent acts are viewed differently when they are a part of a sports game. This discrepancy between sport and real life is why the CAS is necessary. The CAS separates the laws applied in sports from the ordinary laws of a country/state/city and evaluates conflicts in sport to resolve disputes fairly as they pertain to the sport or action in question.
However, sports law does not just refer to the physical acts committed in sports that need to be punished adequately. Sports law includes a variety of areas of law such as contract law, tort law, agency, employment law, antitrust law, international regulations, drug testing, Title IX Civil Rights Act, international property rights, and intellectual property rights (“Sports Law,” 2016). The CAS can address issues in any and all of these areas of law if they deem it fit.
The CAS is an independent organization separate from sports organizations. Its purpose is to settle disputes within and between sports organizations and athletes through means of arbitration or mediation as it pertains to the specific sport being addressed. With 300 arbitrators carefully selected for their special knowledge of arbitration and sports law and diverse representation of 87 different countries, the CAS handles roughly 300 cases each year. The cases the CAS takes on can be resolved either through arbitration or mediation. Arbitration involves settling a legal dispute and results in judgments that are equivalent to the decisions made in ordinary judicial courts. The mediation process is a more amicable route for dispute resolution, although only useful when it is allowed. The CAS also gives consultation advice about legal issues related to sport (“CAS FAQs,” 2016).
The procedures of the CAS are governed by the Code of Sports-related Arbitration, which outlines the rules for four main processes conducted by the CAS:
1. The ordinary arbitration procedure
2. The appeals arbitration procedure
3. The advisory procedure
4. The mediation procedure
Arbitration procedures include written proceeding and oral proceedings, respectively. Meanwhile, the mediation process is decided by the parties (“History of the CAS,” n.d.).
Another key factor in the structure of CAS is the International Council for Arbitration of Sport (ICAS). The ICAS safeguards the independence, administration, and financing of the CAS. The membership is limited to 20 elite judicial figures with appointments of renewable four-year terms (“History of the CAS,” n.d.). These members cannot participate directly in CAS arbitrations but their roles include utilizing and making amendments to the CAS code, managing finances and the CAS arbitrators, making decisions about removing arbitrators from a case because of party objections, and appointing the CAS Secretary General (Yi, 2006).
Beyond the structure of the CAS, an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages is necessary to understand why the CAS is even necessary in the first place. To begin, in order for an entity like the CAS to succeed, it must add value for all of the parties involved. There has to be a reason why parties prefer the CAS to other forms of dispute resolution. The CAS court rates very highly along the party preference lines. This advantage comes from the disadvantages of its alternatives: domestic courts or internal hearings. For athletes, domestic courts are slow, expensive, and often do not settle disputes and internal hearings are set up so that the athlete’s accuser is also their judge, jury, and executioner (Yi, 2006). Olympic institutions also prefer the CAS because domestic courts often involve unfamiliar and hostile local judges and laws while internal hearings invoke public criticism. Thus, the CAS is value adding for both athletes and Olympic institutions and it is easy to see why it is preferred.
However, a disadvantage of the CAS is its unfair appointment system, which athletes are starting to notice. The CAS is infiltrated with high-ranking members of Olympic institutions, who have the power to appoint themselves to the CAS. Athletes view this as unfair because of the bias the CAS members have towards Olympic institutions over the athletes.
Although the member selection process may not seem fair, another advantage of the CAS is the expertise of the arbitrators in sports related disputes. An ordinary court judge would most likely not possess the sport specific knowledge that these courts do and this is usually an advantage for all parties involved (“CAS FAQs,” 2016).
The CAS serves a valuable role in the world of sport. Although it is not always possible to keep every party satisfied, the many advantages of utilizing the CAS over other conflict resolution courts have fostered its great success. Since its foundation by the International Olympic Committee in 1984, the CAS has evolved, improved, and succeeded in its purpose of resolving sports related disputes quickly, cheaply, confidentially, and fairly (“History of the CAS,” n.d.).