A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CAS AND NATIONAL SPORTS

ARBITRATION BODIES, FOCUSING ON THE IMPACT ON ATHLETES

CAREERS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO TAMIL NADU REGION

AUTHOR
SHAHIN M
REGISTER NUMBER : 132302024
BBA.L.LB ( HONS )
SAVEETHA SCHOOL OF LAW
SAVEETHA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL AND TECHNICAL SCIENCE ( SIMATS )
CONTACT NO. :8438258445
EMAIL ID : shahinmujeeb2430@gmail.com
 A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CAS AND NATIONAL SPORTS
ARBITRATION BODIES, FOCUSING ON THE IMPACT ON ATHLETES
CAREERS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO TAMIL NADU REGION

AUTHOR : SHAHIN M
ABSTRACT
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is a globally recognized independent institution that
resolves legal disputes in sports through arbitration and mediation, often referred to as the
Supreme Court for sports. Established in 1984, CAS handles a wide range of cases, including
doping, contract disputes, and disciplinary actions, providing a neutral platform for athletes and
sports organizations worldwide. In contrast, national sports arbitration bodies operate within
individual countries, addressing sports-related disputes at the domestic level. The field of sports
arbitration plays a critical role in resolving disputes that impact athletes' careers, with the Court
of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) serving as the pinnacle of global sports arbitration. This study
provides a comparative analysis of CAS and national sports arbitration mechanisms, with a focus
on their impact on athletes' careers. The research aims to analyze the differences in legal
frameworks and processes between CAS and national arbitration bodies, assess the effectiveness
of these bodies in protecting athletes' rights and career interests, and explore the specific
challenges faced by athletes in Tamil Nadu in navigating these systems. This study will provide
insights into how these arbitration bodies shape athletes' careers, especially in regions where
local arbitration bodies may hold greater sway over athletes' professional lives.

KEYWORDS: Doping, Contract disputes, disciplinary action, Mediation, Arbitration

mechanisms.
INTRODUCTION

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is an independent, international institution established
in 1984 by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to resolve sports-related disputes fairly,
efficiently, and consistently. CAS serves as a specialized forum distinct from regular courts,
addressing a wide range of issues from doping violations to contract disputes, making it a crucial
element in the governance of international sports. Operating under the International Council of
Arbitration for Sport (ICAS), CAS ensures transparency and impartiality in its arbitration
processes, with its headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland, but with a global reach through
hearings conducted in various locations.

A key feature of CAS is its ability to provide expedited proceedings, which is vital in the fast-
paced world of sports where timely decisions are essential. For instance, during major sporting
events such as the Olympics or World Cup, CAS can issue rulings within 24 hours to prevent
disruptions in competitions. This capability highlights CAS's integral role in maintaining the
integrity and continuity of global sports, ensuring that athletes and teams are not unfairly
disadvantaged by delayed legal processes.

CAS’s jurisdiction is broad, covering disputes related to doping, match-fixing, eligibility, and
commercial issues like sponsorship agreements and broadcasting rights. The binding nature of its
decisions, which are recognized globally by sports organizations, further establishes CAS as the
final authority in sports law. Appeals against CAS decisions are rare and can only be made to the
Swiss Federal Tribunal on limited grounds, reinforcing the court’s role in providing definitive
and respected rulings that shape the sports world.

National sports arbitration bodies, which operate within individual countries, complement CAS
by resolving sports disputes at the domestic level. These bodies are structured to provide
independent and impartial arbitration, often mirroring CAS principles. They are essential for
handling cases that require specialized knowledge of sports law, offering swift and efficient
resolutions, particularly in time-sensitive situations like eligibility disputes before competitions.
The presence of these bodies ensures that athletes and sports organizations have access to a more
accessible and contextually relevant forum for resolving disputes.
The impact of national sports arbitration bodies on athletes is significant. They offer a less
intimidating and more specialized venue for dispute resolution compared to traditional courts,
with arbitrators who understand the unique challenges of the sports world. However, the
decisions made by these bodies can have far-reaching consequences, affecting an athlete's
reputation, career trajectory, and financial stability. Therefore, the fairness and transparency of
these processes are crucial in protecting athletes' rights and interests. As the global sports
industry continues to evolve, both CAS and national arbitration bodies will play increasingly
important roles in shaping sports law and ensuring justice within the sporting community.

OBJECTIVES

● To identify whether CAS offers more opportunities for athletes to appeal in decisions
than national sports arbitration bodies
● To examine the familiarity among the athletes about the cost and transparency of CAS
and national sports arbitration bodies

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The research method followed is Empirical research. The data is collected through a
questionnaire and the sample size is 100. Convenience sampling method is adopted in the study
to collect the data. The samples were collected from a specific sample group consisting of
student athletes, coaches, and athletic directors with special reference to Tamilnadu region. The
independent variables are gender, age, educational qualification, role in sports and the sport .
The dependent variables are about the familiarity and awareness about the cost and transparency
of CAS and national sports arbitration bodies in disputes resolution. The researcher used graphs
to analyze the data collected.

FIGURE 1
LEGEND: The above graph shows the opportunity for athletes to appeal in decisions provided
by CAS and national arbitration bodies.

FIGURE 2

LEGEND: The above graph shows the costs associated with arbitration in CAS and national
sports arbitration bodies.

FIGURE 3
LEGEND: The above graph shows the CAS and national arbitration bodies about transparency
and straightforwardness.

FIGURE 4

LEGEND: The above graph shows the CAS and national arbitration bodies legitimacy in the
international sports community.

FIGURE 5
LEGEND: The above graph shows the disputes resolution by CAS and national arbitration
bodies.

FIGURE 6

LEGEND: The above graph shows the variability among the disputes resolution decisions
provided by CAS and national arbitration bodies.

FIGURE 7
LEGEND: The above graph shows the variability among the decision made by CAS and
national arbitration bodies with gender of the respondents

FIGURE 8

LEGEND: The above graph shows the variability with CAS transparency and national
arbitration bodies with education qualifications.

FIGURE 9
LEGEND: The above graph shows the variability with the cost associated with arbitration at
CAS and national arbitration bodies with role in sports of the respondents.

FIGURE 10

LEGEND: The above graph shows the variability among the opportunity for athletes to appeal
in decisions provided by CAS and national arbitration bodies with sport that respondents play.

RESULTS
Figure 1 It is revealed that 41% of respondents were neutral regarding whether CAS offers more
opportunities for athletes to appeal decisions than national sports arbitration bodies, 33% agreed
with this statement, and 4% strongly agreed, which is the least chosen option. Figure 2 It is
revealed that 40% of respondents were not at all satisfied with the costs associated with
arbitration at CAS being more affordable and reasonable for athletes compared to national sports
arbitration bodies, 28% were moderately satisfied, and 0% were slightly satisfied, which is the
least chosen option. Figure 3 It is revealed that 45% of respondents agreed that they are aware
that the procedures of CAS are more transparent and straightforward than those of national sports
arbitration bodies, 25% strongly agreed, and 4% strongly disagreed, which is the least chosen
option. Figure 4 It is revealed that 40% of respondents who are very familiar perceive decisions
made by CAS as more legitimate by the international sports community, 29% of respondents
who are extremely familiar perceive decisions made by CAS as more legitimate, and 3% of
respondents who are slightly familiar perceive decisions made by CAS as more legitimate, which
is the least chosen option. Figure 5 It is revealed that 43% of respondents disagree that national
sports arbitration bodies resolve disputes more quickly than CAS, 29% of respondents strongly
agree with this statement, and 2% of respondents strongly disagree, which is the least chosen
option. Figure 6 It is revealed that 27% of respondents above 50 years strongly agree that
national sports arbitration bodies resolve disputes more quickly than CAS, 20% of respondents
aged between 31-40 years disagree with this statement, and 1% of respondents below 20 years
agree, which is the least chosen option. Figure 7 It is revealed that 33% of male respondents are
very familiar with the decisions made by CAS and perceive them as more legitimate by the
international sports community, 26% of female respondents are extremely familiar and perceive
the decisions as more legitimate, and 1% of female respondents are slightly familiar, which is the
least chosen option. Figure 8 It is revealed that 42% of respondents with higher education are
slightly aware that the procedures of CAS are more transparent and straightforward than those of
national sports arbitration bodies, 23% of respondents with higher education are not at all aware
of this, and 2% of respondents with no education are moderately aware, which is the least chosen
option. Figure 9 It is revealed that 26% of athletes are not at all satisfied with the costs
associated with arbitration at CAS compared to national sports arbitration bodies, 22% of
coaches are very satisfied, and 1% of athletic directors are slightly satisfied, which is the least
chosen option. Figure 10 It is revealed that 24% of respondents involved in individual sports are
neutral about CAS offering more opportunities for athletes to appeal decisions than national
sports arbitration bodies, 21% of respondents involved in team sports disagree with this
statement, and 1% of respondents involved in endurance sports strongly agree, which is the least
chosen option.

DISCUSSION

Overall, the results indicate that perceptions of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) are
mixed among respondents. A substantial portion remains neutral or dissatisfied with various
aspects of CAS, such as appeal opportunities, costs, and procedural transparency compared to
national sports arbitration bodies. While some respondents agree or strongly agree that CAS
provides more transparent procedures and is viewed as legitimate by those familiar with its
operations, there is notable dissatisfaction with the affordability of CAS arbitration. Additionally,
opinions on the speed of dispute resolution are divided, with some believing that national bodies
resolve disputes more quickly. These findings suggest a need for CAS to address concerns
related to cost, accessibility, and clarity of its processes to improve its reputation and
effectiveness among diverse stakeholders.

SUGGESTION

To enhance the comparative analysis of CAS and national sports arbitration bodies, consider
incorporating a detailed historical and legal context to trace their development, along with
specific case studies to illustrate their impact on athletes' careers. Expand on the jurisdictional
differences between CAS and national bodies, and include perspectives from athletes who have
undergone arbitration to provide insights into the fairness and accessibility of these processes.
Finally, discuss future trends in sports arbitration, such as the role of technology and potential
reforms, and offer recommendations on how these institutions can better protect athletes' rights
and careers.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations for this study include restricted access to confidential arbitration proceedings, which
may limit the depth of case analysis and impact assessment. The variability in legal frameworks
and procedures among national sports arbitration bodies can make uniform comparison
challenging and may lead to inconsistent findings. Additionally, the study might lack
comprehensive athlete perspectives, as it may be difficult to gather detailed personal experiences
and opinions from those directly affected by arbitration decisions. These factors can affect the
overall completeness and accuracy of the comparative analysis.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion , the comparative analysis of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and national
sports arbitration bodies underscores their essential roles in protecting athletes' rights and
careers. CAS provides a consistent and authoritative forum for resolving international sports
disputes, while national bodies offer localized, culturally attuned avenues for justice, particularly
important in regions like Tamil Nadu. Both institutions are crucial, with CAS setting global
standards and national bodies ensuring accessible and fair dispute resolution within specific legal
and cultural contexts. The effectiveness of these bodies in safeguarding athletes' careers hinges
on their independence, impartiality, and adherence to high legal standards.

REFERENCES

● Mark, F., Owens., Adam, D., Rennhoff., Michael, A., Roach. (2024). (5) The

impact of name, image, and likeness contracts on student-athlete college

choice. Applied Economics, doi: 10.1080/00036846.2024.2331425

● (2023). (12) NIL, Stakeholders, and Image Transfer: An Empirical Study of

Mid-Major Student-Athletes. Journal of Marketing Development and

Competitiveness, doi: 10.33423/jmdc.v17i1.602

● Eugene, J., Lewis. (2023). (4) The Business of Sports Marketing and the

Growing Challenge of Name Image and Likeness (NIL) for Student Athletes.

Advances in business strategy and competitive advantage book series, doi:

10.4018/979-8-3693-1634-4.ch014