Sports play an important role in the everyday lives of many people, whether they engage in it
recreationally or professionally. Over the past decades, the growing importance of
commercialization and professionalization in the world of sports has turned it into a major
industry where vast amounts of money circulate. This is one of the key reasons why legal
regulation in the sports sector is becoming increasingly desirable and consistent each year.
Given the complexity of the field and the large number of stakeholders involved, it is not
uncommon for disagreements or legal uncertainties to arise. When such issues escalate into
legal disputes, it makes sense, due to the specific nature of sports, for them to be resolved by a
specialized and independent body: the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The procedures before CAS are characterized by key advantages such as speed, flexibility, and
specialization. A fundamental principle of this type of dispute resolution is the mutual consent
and voluntary agreement of the parties to submit their dispute to arbitration rather than a
national court. CAS’s jurisdiction is based on either an arbitration clause or an arbitration
agreement, which the parties are expected to enter into voluntarily and with mutual consent.
However, in some cases, one party may be compelled to submit the dispute to arbitration,
leading to what is known as compulsory arbitration, which is based on a mandatory arbitration
clause. In such situations, a party may find itself involved in a dispute that is being adjudicated
under terms it did not freely negotiate. This makes it all the more crucial that the arbitral tribunal
respects all procedural safeguards as required by the highest legal standards. The European
Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has adopted a similar position in its case law, emphasizing
the importance of protecting the rights of parties in such proceedings.
|
