The Role of Arbitration in Sports Disputes

This article is written by Pallavi Das during her internship with Le Droit India.

Introduction 

Disagreements are as inevitable as the rush of winning in the thrilling world of sports, where prestige, passion, and multibillion-dollar stakes collide. Conflict is nothing new in the world of athletics, from dramatic contract disputes to controversial drug accusations. While supporters applaud from the sidelines, a less obvious but no less important game is played behind the scenes: these conflicts are settled through arbitration, a process intended to maintain justice without the spotlight of open courts. Arbitration provides a streamlined, specialized alternative to traditional litigation, which can be confrontational, slow, and unsuitable for the international character of sports. 

 The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which was founded in 1984 as the “supreme court” for international sporting disputes, is at the center of this system. CAS and related organizations make sure disputes are resolved by professionals who understand the specific language of sports law, whether they are deciding Olympic doping bans, settling transfer price disputes in European football, or handling governance concerns in international federations.

 But why is arbitration now considered the best option? Its combination of effectiveness, privacy, and enforceability holds the key to the solution. Arbitration produces legally binding verdicts that are acknowledged around the world often in a matter of weeks rather than years in a field where reputations may be destroyed overnight, and careers are on the line. This procedure protects athletes and organizations from the drawn-out disputes and media flurry of public trials while also maintaining the integrity of tournaments. 

We’ll look at how arbitration evolved to be the main stay of sports dispute resolution in this blog. We’ll examine why this behind-the-scenes tool is essential to preserving the spirit of sport, from its historical roots and seminal cases (think of Maria Sharapova’s doping appeal or FIFA’s controversial transfer rulings) to its challenges and future in a time of changing issues like esport and gender equality. Appreciating the complex balance between justice and the games we love requires a grasp of arbitration’s function, regardless of whether you’re a fan, athlete, or legal enthusiast.

Arbitration in Indian Sports: Historical and Institutional Context

Sports Arbitration’s Development in India 

Through ad hoc committees of sports federations, India first became involved in sports arbitration in the late 20th century. The first formal attempt to regulate sports conflicts was made in 1927 with the founding of the Indian Olympic Association (IOA), however its procedures were unofficial and unenforceable. Systemic governance shortcomings were revealed by the 2010 Commonwealth Games corruption scandal, which sparked calls for official dispute resolution procedures.

Important Organizations 

• The Sports Authority of India (SAI) oversees national sports regulations but does not have specific arbitration authority. 
• Despite accusations of prejudice, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) uses internal arbitration to settle player-contract issues.
• Doping cases are decided by the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA), however CAS appeals are permitted.
• India relies on the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (ACA), which regulates business and civil disputes, because it lacks a sports arbitration organization similar to CAS.

India’s Laws Regarding Sports Arbitration 

The 1996 Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a domestic law. The foundation of arbitration in India is provided by the ACA, which was modified in 2015 and 2019.

 Important clauses consist of: Only in situations involving procedural injustice or abuses of public policy may courts set aside arbitral rulings, according to Section 34. In the event that parties cannot agree, Section 11 gives courts the authority to designate arbitrators. However, there is uncertainty when applying general principles to sports issues because the ACA does not directly handle sports disputes. 

Global Structures and India’s Adherence 

The 1958 New York Convention, to which India is a party, permits the implementation of foreign arbitral awards, including CAS decisions. For example, despite Narsingh Yadav’s accusations of sabotage, the 2020 CAS ruling that banned him for doping was upheld in India.

2011’s National Sports Development Code 

Although federations are required under the Code to set up grievance redressal procedures, there is uneven adherence to this requirement. As an illustration of inadequate internal conflict resolution, FIFA suspended the All-India Football Federation (AIFF) in 2022 for governance infractions.

Arbitration’s Benefits in Indian Sports 

• Quickness and Adaptability: Arbitration circumvents India’s overburdened legal system, where disputes typically take five to ten years to resolve in 2015, Rahul Sharma’s IPL contract issue was arbitrated by the BCCI and settled in six months.
• Expertise: Sports-savvy arbitrators, such former judges or players, guarantee well-informed rulings. A panel of hockey veterans settled a selection bias suit in Indian Hockey Federation v. Pargat Singh (2007).
• Maintaining confidentiality: Athletes’ reputations are protected by private proceedings. In order to prevent media sensationalism, Sreesanth’s 2013 IPL spot-fixing case was arbitrated in a discreet manner. 
• Enforceability: Arbitral awards have the same legal power and effect as court orders under Section 36 of the ACA.

Indian Sports Arbitration’s Difficulties

1. Insufficient Specialized Tribunals: In contrast to CAS’s organized procedure, India relies on ad hoc arbitration under the ACA. A National Sports Arbitration Centre (NSAC) was suggested in the Law Commission’s 2018 report, but nothing has come of it.
2. Judges Interfering: Results are routinely delayed by Indian courts’ frequent intervention in arbitration under Section 34. An arbitral award was stayed for two years by the Supreme Court in Kerala Cricket Association v. BCCI (2018).
3. Expense and Availability: Athletes from low-income backgrounds are excluded due to high arbitration fees. Vinesh Phogat, a wrestler, paid ₹20 lakh to contest her removal from the 2021 Asian Championship.
4. Doping Controversies and NADA’s Restrictions: Due to procedural errors, NADA’s decisions are frequently contested. Biased panels and sample testing delays were revealed in the 2022 case of Jhulan Goswami v. NADA.

Sports Arbitration Cases That Are Historic in India 

1. Narsingh Yadav v. WADA (CAS, 2016) After CAS reversed NADA’s exoneration in a doping case, wrestler Narsingh Yadav received a four-year ban. India’s inadequate anti-doping infrastructure was brought to light by the verdict.
2. BCCI v. Kochi Tuskers Kerala (Supreme Court, 2018) The Supreme Court confirmed the binding nature of arbitration by upholding an arbitral award of ₹850 crore against BCCI for illegal IPL termination.
3. Pargat Singh v. Indian Hockey Federation (2007) A historic case that established a precedent against federation nepotism by ensuring fair selection trials for the Olympic squad through arbitration.

India and International Standards: A Comparative Study 

The Impact of CAS on Indian Arbitration 

Because of their mistrust of domestic systems, Indian athletes and federations are interacting with CAS more and more. For instance, sprinter Dutee Chand obtained a temporary respite in 2015 after appealing to CAS against her exclusion due to hyperandrogenism.  For Indian athletes, however, CAS procedures are expensive and logistically difficult. 

The necessity of structural changes 

There are specialized tribunals in nations like Australia (National Sports Tribunal Act, 2019) and the UK (Sports Resolutions UK). To guarantee prompt, affordable resolutions, India’s proposed NSAC might adopt these methods. 

Prospects for the Future and Suggestions 

• The National Sports Arbitration Center (NSAC) was established. 
• A dedicated organization under the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports could streamline disputes. Anti-doping specialists and athlete representatives should be part of the NSAC. 
• The Arbitration Act Amendment 
• Limiting court intrusion and clarifying procedural procedures would be achieved by adding a sports-specific chapter to the ACA. 
• Increasing the Autonomy of NADA 
• Doping adjudication would be enhanced by independent funding and training for NADA panels. 
• Raising Awareness 
• Athletes can learn about their arbitration rights through SAI and federation workshops. 

In conclusion 

Arbitration provides speed and skill that courts cannot match, making it essential to India’s changing sports landscape. However, its promise is undermined by institutional biases, expensive costs, and structural limitations. India can create a just, athlete-centered conflict resolution system that preserves the integrity of sports by using international best practices and establishing the NSAC.