split between the CAS and IOC as two separate independent bodies. Today, the CAS has nearly 300 arbitrators from 87 countries, chosen for their specialist knowledge of arbitration and sports law. The CAS is an institution independent of any sports organization, which provides for services aimed at facilitating the settlement of disputes through arbitration or mediation by means of procedural rules adapted to the specific needs of the sports world. The CAS has very few limitations regarding the types of cases that it may consider for Arbitration provided that both parties are amenable to the arbitration process. CAS arbitration provides an independent and impartial forum for quickly and finally resolving the often-complex issues arising in athlete eligibility disputes. An international pool of arbitrators does this with specialized expertise in sports law. The CAS appeals arbitration process also provides an efficient and impartial means of adjudicating athlete eligibility issues arising in other international sports competitions. CAS awards are generally available to the public and can be viewed on the CAS website, this doesn’t apply to those awards considered private. Introduction to the Code: The Code of Sports-related Arbitration (the Code) was adopted in November 1994 and has governed the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s organization and procedures since its introduction. It is divided into two parts; the Statutes of bodies working for the settlement of sports-related disputes (Arts. S1 – S26) and the Procedural Rules (Arts. R27 – R69). It has been subsequently revisited and amended in 1995, 1999, 2003 and 2004. Along with the initiation of the Code in 1994, the CAS was further divided into two divisions; the ‘Ordinary Arbitration Division’, and the ‘Appeals Arbitration Division’. The ‘Ordinary Arbitration Division” handles disputes submitted to the ordinary arbitration procedure. The ‘Appeals Arbitration Division’ handles disputes arising from decisions taken by sports bodies. The Code also provides for an advisory procedure and a related
Andy Webster, who was contracted to play for Heart of Midlothian Football Club (Hearts FC) in Scotland, successfully exploited the transfer regulations of FIFA, which claimed that players and clubs alike, are unilaterally allowed to walk away from a contract after a fixed period (The ‘protected period’), regardless of the duration of the contract. Article 17 (introduced in 2004) of FIFA’s Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players deals with this idea of ‘Sporting Just Cause’, in particular the ‘Consequence of Terminating a Contract Without Just Cause’. It highlights a series of provisions for such breach and provides that: “…Outwith the “Protected Period” a player may unilaterally break the remainder of his contract of employment and be entitled to transfer his registration certificate (his license to play football) to a new club.” This is indeed what occurred when in 2006 Webster became engrossed with a dispute with the club chairman Romanov and so broke the remainder of his contract with Hearts FC to join Wigan Athletic Football Club, even though technically still contracted for one more year to play for the former. Hearts then took the dispute to FIFA after threatening to refuse to release the player’s license to play football. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber, which met in April 2007, announced that although the player (Webster) was still under contract, he was ‘outside the protected period’ and so any compensation owed to Hearts FC could only be derived from the amount of Webster’s outstanding salary. Hearts FC’s claim, that Webster was guilty of breaking his contract ‘without just cause’ was partially accepted, but only on a technicality. This meant that Hearts were only entitled to six hundred thousand English pounds from a player they had valued at five million pounds. An appeal then followed by Hearts FC in front of the CAS (January 2008) which only clarified the original ruling and indeed reduced the compensation due to Hearts FC for the player to one hundred and fifty thousand English pounds to be jointly and severally liable between Andy Webster and Wigan Athletic Football Club.
CAS 1998/204 R./FEI CAS 1999/A/235 David Meca-Medina & Igor Majcen/FINA CAS OG 2000/6 Dieter Baumann/IOC, NOC of Germany and IAAF CAS OG 2000/7 Keith Sieracki/IOC CAS OG 2000/11 Andreea Raducan/IOC CAS 2001/A/330 Reinhold/FISA CAS 2002/O/410 Gibraltar Football Association CAS 2003/A/O/520 T.&B./UEFA CAS 2008/A/1480 Pistorius v/ IAAF CAS 2004/A/628 International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF) v. USA CAS OG 2000/13 Segura v. International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF) CAS 2008/A/1644 Adrian Mutu v Chelsea Football Club Ltd CAS 2008/0/1808 Kenya Football Federation v FIFA CAS 2009/A/1880 FC Sion v FIFA and Al Ahly – Sporting Club CAS 2009/A/1881 Essam El-Hadary v FIFA and Al-Ahly Sporting Club CAS 290/A/2172 Mr. Oleg Oriekhov v UEFA CAS 2008/A/11574 D’Arcy v. Australian Olympic Comm CAS 2008/A/1480 Pistorius v/ IAAF, award of 16 May 2008 CAS/2011/0/2422 USOC v IOC CAS 2007/A/1298 Wigan Athletic FC v Heart of Midlothian CAS 2007/A/1299/ Heart of Midlothian v Webster & Wigan Athletic FC CAS 2007/A/1300 Webster v Heart of Midlothian Eastham v Newcastle United Football Club (1963). Elmar Gundel v FEI/CAS I Civil Court Swiss Fed Trib, 15 March 1993. Enderby Town Football Club Ltd v. Football Association A11 ER 215 ISL Marketing AG and the Federation Internationale de Football Association v. J.Y. Chung, Case No: D2000-0034, 2000. N. v. Federation Equestre Internationale (FEI) I Civil Division Swiss Fed Trib, 31 October, 1996. Union Royale Belge des Societies de Football ASBL v. Bosman (1995) ECR I-4921 Case C-415/93. A & B. v. IOC, (2003) Swiss Fed. Trib., 1st Civil Chamber; Carter. Dwaine Chambers v. British Olympic Association EWHC 2028 (QB) (QBD)
Mackie, K., Commercial Dispute Resolution – An ADR Practice Guide 2nd edn, London: Butterworths. (2000), Ogawa, K Sports Disputes Resolution in Japan The activity and role of Japan Sports Arbitration Agency JCAA Newsletter, (2010) Findlay, H “Rules of a Sport-Specific Arbitration Process as an Instrument of Policy Making” (2005) Marquette Sports Law Review Carter, J.H “The Law of International Sports Disputes” (Lecture presented to the Annual Meeting of the Indian Society of International Law, November 2004), www.asil.org/pdfs/carterspeech0411.pdf. Humphrey, T Dust in the balance: the use of mediation to resolve disputes in Australian sport International Sports Law Review 2008, Issue 1, Oschütz, F, Institutional arbitration in Sport, in Sports et Garantie Fondamentales: Violences-Dopages, Oschütz, F. “Harmonization of Anti-Doping Code Through Arbitration: The Case Law of the Court of Arbitration for Sport” Marq. Sports L. Rev. 684 (2002) McLaren, R.H The Court of Arbitration for Sport: An Independent Arena for the World's Sports Disputes, 35 Val. U. L. Rev. 379 (2001). Wise, A.N Sports governing bodies’ strict liability drug rule standards’, 14 Sports Law (September – October 1996)
(official website of the CAS) – last visited 21 September, The 2001 FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players - Thomson, Ross. . The Journal () (March 2007): 43. Media release of the case CAS/2011/O/2422 USOC v. IOC taken from - . / . (31 January 2008). . London: . Nisbet, John (21 February 2008). . London: . . - Arbitration Foundation of South Africa webpage - - Richard H. McLaren, The Court of Arbitration for Sport: An Independent Arena for the World's Sports Disputes, 35 Val. U. L. Rev. 379 (2001). Available at: The Hague Joint Proposal on the definition of Sports Law - - Arbitration template (English Version) - James H. Carter, “The Law of International Sports Disputes” (Lecture presented to the Annual Meeting of the Indian Society of International Law, November 2004), online: