Football Employment Disputes
The type of issues that come before the CAS most frequently are appeals from rulings of FIFA, the organization that governs football internationally and has its own internal judicial system. This kind of disagreement often results from the termination of a player or coach’s employment contract, or the transfer of a player between teams. Due to such migration, compensation is typically due to the player’s former teams, either in accordance with the parties’ contractual obligations or in accordance with the intricate web of rules that apply to football transfers, both domestically and internationally.
Appeals against disciplinary sanctions rank as the second most frequent kind of dispute before the CAS. Sanctions for violating anti-doping rule appeals make up the majority of this category. According to Article 13.2.1 of the World Anti-Doping Code, “cases arising from participation in an International Event or cases involving International-Level Athletes, the decision (concerning an anti-doping rule infraction) may be appealed exclusively to CAS in accordance with the provisions applicable before such Court.” The CAS was chosen as the sole appeals body for all international anti-doping cases, including in sports like rugby where the CAS had no jurisdiction. Numerous appeals of decisions made in accordance with anti-doping regulations have been submitted to the CAS.
In many anti-doping cases, the appellant is a sportsperson who is contesting a suspension that has been imposed on him, but the CAS also frequently receives appeals from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) asking for a sentence against a specific sportsperson to be raised. Anti-doping cases brought before the CAS quite often include factual evidence describing the alleged violation’s circumstances, expert testimony addressing the reliability or otherwise of the scientific findings and the positive test, and legal arguments addressing the interpretation and application of the relevant anti-doping regulations. In 2001, the Court decided the case of Andreea Răducan v. International Olympic Committee. This was a controversial anti-doping case, where it was fairly clear the athlete received cold and flu tablets from her doctor. This resulted in a positive urine test, with the Court concluding:
“The Panel is aware of the impact its decision will have on a fine, young, elite athlete. It finds, in balancing the interests of Miss Raducan with the commitment of the Olympic Movement to drug-free sport, the Anti-Doping Code must be enforced without compromise”.
Match-Fixing and Ethical Disputes
Match fixing is the practice of playing or officiating a game with the aim of achieving a predetermined outcome, which is frequently against the rules of the game. Match fixing may occur for a variety of reasons, such as accepting bribes from bookmakers or sports bettors or using blackmail. Additionally, competitors could purposefully underperform in order to receive a future benefit. A player might also perform poorly in order to manipulate the sport system.
In recent years, a pattern of incidents involving match-fixing and corruption has started to develop. The authors predict that as the burden of CAS reflects the current difficulties in sports, the number of cases in this field would increase. The difficulty parties have gathering enough evidence is one issue that hampers CAS’s capacity to make decisions about these actions. While some CAS Panels have explicitly stated that the panel should take into account the fact that corruption is, by nature, concealed and that those engaged in it will seek to use avoidance measures to ensure that they leave no sign of their improper conduct, this logic was not applied in a recent high-profile corruption case. One could legitimately worry that the capacity of sports organizations to successfully combat corruption is compromised because they lack the coercive investigative tools usually required to unearth the truth.