History

Operational since 1984, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was founded to be an independent judicial authority to settle sports disputes worldwide. 

Origins

In the early 1980s, an expansion of professional sports, major sports events and international participation led to an increase in sports-related disputes. Sports were starting to become the worldwide phenomenon they are today, but federations and athletes were left to resolve issues internally or take legal action through national courts. This led to an inconsistent application of sporting rules and left athletes without a suitable recourse to challenge decisions.

Shortly after his election as President of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in 1981, H.E. Juan Antonio Samaranch addressed this gap and had the idea to create a sports specific jurisdiction. For athletes, going through national courts was impractical as judgements could come long after their career had ended. It was clear that the jurisdiction had to handle procedures in a way that was flexible, quick and inexpensive.

A working group was formed at the IOC Session in 1982, chaired by IOC member and judge at the International Court of Justice, H.E Judge Kéba Mbaye. It was tasked with bringing Samaranch’s idea to life and establishing the statutes for a sports tribunal.  

The working group chose arbitration as the most suitable means of resolving sports dispute because of its flexibility. Arbitration is flexible and could ensure that disputes were decided by sports and law experts, appointed as arbitrators.

The first Statutes of the Court of Arbitration for Sport were ratified by the IOC in 1983 and became effective on 30 June 1984. H.E Judge Kéba Mbaye was appointed CAS President, with lawyer Gilbert Schwaar appointed as Secretary General.

The early years of CAS

CAS began opening procedures for a wide range of issues, including disputes on athlete nationality, employment contracts, televisions rights, sponsorship and disciplinary matters. The first case that CAS considered was in 1986.

There was one type of legal procedure that covered all sports, with regulations drafted into CAS Statutes. The procedure was free of charge and could be initiated by any sports person or entity accepting CAS jurisdiction. Disputes would first be examined by a ‘Requests Panel’ and then subject to a final decision by a Panel of arbitrators. The Parties involved were free to continue their action irrespective of a rejection on admissibility from the Requests Panel. Proceedings would always begin with an attempt for conciliation and settlement before being put to arbitration.

In 1991, CAS published a Guide to arbitration with several model arbitration clauses. This included a clause that could be inserted into the statutes of sporting federations, providing a recourse to CAS for any disputes that could not be settled amicably. The International Equestrian Federation (FEI) was the first sports body to adopt this clause the same year, with others following suit.

Between 1984 and 1994, 76 procedures were filed with CAS. The adoption of the arbitration clause by multiple sports federations led to a sharp increase in the Court’s workload, and the beginning of what would become known as an Appeals Arbitration Procedure at CAS. 

The 1994 reform

During the first ten years of CAS, the IOC continued to be responsible for the organisation’s governance, operating costs and statutes.

In February 1992, a professional horse rider named Elmar Gundel lodged an appeal according to the arbitration clause in the FEI statutes. He challenged a horse doping charge by the FEI which resulted in a disqualification, a suspension and a fine. CAS partially upheld the rider’s appeal in October 1992 and reduced the suspension from three months to one month.

Dissatisfied with the CAS ruling, Gundel filed an appeal against the decision with the Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT). The appeal disputed the validity of the CAS Award, which he claimed was rendered by a court that did not meet the conditions of impartiality and independence required to be a legitimate court of arbitration.

The SFT issued a judgement in March 1993 that rejected Gundel’s appeal and noted that CAS was not dependent on the FEI and retained sufficient autonomy from the federation to render decisions. It recognised CAS as an official court of arbitration that can render awards enforceable like judgments issued by State courts. However, it did highlight the structural link between CAS and the IOC, noting that the relationship between both organisations could be called into question.

Significant structural reforms were necessary to preserve the court’s independence. In 1994, the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS) was created to become a governing body for CAS in place of the IOC. Two arbitration divisions were also created to make a clear distinction between disputes of a sole instance and appeals against decisions by sporting bodies. These were separated into the CAS Ordinary Arbitration Division and the Appeals Arbitration Division.

The creation of ICAS and the changes to CAS’ structure were approved in Paris on 22 June 1994. The highest authorities in the sports world, including the President of the IOC, the Association of Summer Olympic International Federations (ASOIF), the Association of International Winter Sports Federations and the Association of National Olympic Committees (ANOC) signed what became known as ‘the Paris Agreement’. The first ICAS members from various sports and/or legal backgrounds were subsequently nominated with the mandate to protect the rights of Parties before CAS, as well as the absolute independence of the institution.

The CAS reforms were enshrined with updated procedural rules. The ‘Code of Sports-related Arbitration’, also known as the CAS code, came into effect on 22 November 1994.

CAS ad hoc divisions

In Atlanta for the Olympic Games in 1996, a temporary CAS division was established with the aim of resolving disputes for the sporting event in a 24-hour time frame. A tailored legal procedure was designed that was simplified and free of charge to athletes, officials and federations taking part. Six cases were submitted in total.  

The ‘ad hoc division’, as it was named, is a key part of CAS history. Ad hoc divisions have been set up for each edition of the Summer and Winter Olympic Games since Atlanta. CAS also established ad hoc divisions for the Commonwealth Games and continues to do so for the UEFA European Football Championship since 2000 and for the FIFA World Cup since 2006 and for the Asian Games since 2014.

CAS to the present day

By the end of 2025, CAS handled over 12’000 international and national sports-related procedures, covering a large variety of sports disciplines, Olympic and non-Olympic.

Most international sports governing bodies now recognise CAS as the judicial authority for sporting matters, including the World Anti-Doping Agency who wrote CAS into the World Anti-Doping Code in 2003. CAS has a first instance procedure dedicated to anti-doping matters (CAS ADD) and continues to operate as the appeals body for all doping-related disputes across sports.

Having specialised and effective procedures adapted to the needs of sport, through arbitration and mediation, provides solutions to a wide range of legal challenges. Because of CAS rulings, sports presidential elections have been changed, sanctions have been imposed or cancelled, rules and regulations have been modified, and players and clubs have been able to recover their dues. Samaranch’s and Judge Mbaye’s vision to create a flexible and accessible sports tribunal remains paramount, and CAS jurisdiction works to ensure a consistent application of the rules worldwide.