Court Of Arbitration For Sport Research Articles

Regulating Sports Disputes at the National Level: Requirements and Recommendations for Proceedings before National Sports Tribunals

Sports disputes are routinely subject to private resolution procedures, whether before internal bodies within the sports organisation itself, or before external fora such as, for example, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), Sport Resolutions, or the Bahrain Chamber for Dispute Resolution, under their sports arbitration rules. This article presents some key requirements and recommendations for proceedings before national sports tribunals. Given the breadth of the concept of “sports disputes,” however, it is difficult to distil requirements and recommendations that (should) apply across the board in proceedings before national sports tribunals. The article is, therefore, focused on some of the more interesting or challenging elements specific to sports-related proceedings.

Collaborative Law in Sports Dispute Resolution: Maximising the Spectrum of Processes Available towards Early Resolution of Sports Disputes

There is a wide range of disputes that can and do arise in the world of international and domestic sport, whether between individuals and their sporting body or between sporting organisations and commercial partners. Sports disputes are currently almost exclusively resolved through arbitration, whether internally within the sports organisation or through an external arbitral body, usually the Court of Arbitration for Sport. This article will explore whether “collaborative law” as an alternative method of dispute resolution, could be adopted in sports disputes, given its successful adoption in other areas. Such alternatives to adjudication have the potential to improve access to justice, reduce cost and achieve sustainable outcomes.

Sports Arbitration Procedures and Rules in Jordanian Legislation Compared to the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS)

The research dealt with the procedures and rules of sports arbitration in both Jordanian legislation and the Court of Sports Arbitration CAS, by presenting the legal texts related to arbitration in both Jordanian legislation and the Court of Sports Arbitration CAS, to benefit from them in the development of sports legal rules within the national level. The research reached a number of results, including: Settlement of sports disputes in Jordanian legislation through the Sports Federation for Sports Activity. The jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in accordance with the 2021 Jordan Sports Federations Regulations can also be terminated, after all internal methods or means have been exhausted.
 
 Received: 29 March 2022 / Accepted: 30 April 2022 / Published: 5 May 2022

Non-recognition of Dissenting Opinions in CAS as a Controversial and Unresolved Matter

In this article the authors cover the problem of expressly established non-recognition of dissenting opinions (separate opinions) in the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) being uncommon for arbitration institutes. In particular, the authors analyse approaches to dissenting opinions in various national legal systems and arbitration institutes (as well as other dispute resolution bodies) which mainly allow dissenting opinions (as described below). The main focus and goal of this article is to explore possible considerations that might have led to non-recognition of dissenting opinions in CAS proceedings and whether this is common in arbitration and international justice. Having researched this question, the authors conclude that the origins of such a substantive influence on the existing regulation could be: (1) the CAS’s precedent role; and (2) the influence of Swiss law as lex arbitri. The authors also conduct substantial analysis of existing views, asking whether the lack of dissenting opinion is a positive or a negative feature and conclude that the dissenting opinion is still very controversial regarding its impact. The chosen topic is important because the approach of various dispute resolution bodies seems not to be unanimous and there is no global tendency in this respect. The topic is especially timely, considering the recent decision of a Frankfurt Court of Appeal which refused to enforce an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) award due (among other reasons) to the existing dissent which in the opinion of the court violated public policy. dissenting opinions, separate opinions, concurring opinions, arbitral awards, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), sports arbitration, international arbitration, decision, award, alternative dispute resolution, arbitrators, deliberation, joint or individual opinions

Financial Fair Play and the Court of Arbitration for Sport

This article examines four major Financial Fair Play (FFP) cases that have come before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Although significant previous work has addressed FFP in European football, there is a major gap where its treatment at the CAS is concerned. In addition to creating substantial holes in the effectiveness of FFP regulations, the progression of the four cases discussed have let some of FFP’s most egregious offenders avoid sanctions they would consider damaging. In considering two especially important cases, this article argues that Paris Saint-Germain and Manchester City have provided ample guidance for transforming mediocre clubs through disguised equity infusions to circumvent FFP until a sustainable revenue structure is created. For the CAS, the case line resulting in major FFP offending clubs escaping meaningful sanctions builds upon a body of anti-doping jurisprudence that has had the effect of shifting the cost-benefit analysis of rule breaking. This failure in both the FFP and CAS realms leads into a larger emergent policy reform conversation.

UEFA’S financial fair play regulations: a good example of best practice governance by a sporting body?

The Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) is the body that governs European football. In 2010 it introduced its Financial Fair Play (FFP) Regulations with the main aim of bringing financial stability to European football. This article examines UEFA’s FFP Regulations from good governance and ‘best practice’ perspectives. It finds that the setting-up, implementation and monitoring of the FFP Regulations by UEFA generally adhere to ‘best practice’ principles. However, recent cases in the Court of Arbitration for Sport have revealed several areas where changes to the regulations would be appropriate. In 2021 UEFA made some changes to its Procedural rules governing its Club Financial Control Body, which address some of the outstanding issues but there are still a number of areas where changes would be beneficial as these would provide greater clarity and transparency to its operation and enforcement and thereby promote more timely and cost-effective regulation.

Contaminated product and lifting a mandatory provisional suspension: Is there a new standard of proof in case of the All-Russian Anti-Doping Rules?

The story of the possible temporary suspension of Russian figure skating star Kamila Valieva during the 2022 Olympic Games was discussed as actively as the results of the competitions. The figure skater passed a positive doping test during the competition in December 2021 but only found out about it on February 8. The Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) applied a mandatory provisional suspension to the athlete. However, on February 9, the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee, at the appeal of the skater, lifted the decision of RUSADA on suspension and the athlete was able to take part in the Olympic games. The International Skating Union, the International Olympic Committee, and the World Anti- Doping Agency (WADA) filed appeals against the Anti-Doping Committee’s decision. The Court of Arbitration for Sport denied all appeals and affirmed the decision of the RUSADA Anti-Doping Committee. The key point was the status of the skater a protected person according to the view of the WADA World Anti-Doping Code — a protected person. At the same time, the special regime for a protected person did not extend to the standard of proof. Such an athlete, like any other athlete, must prove on the basic of a “balance of probability” that a prohibited substance was entered through a contaminated product to lift a mandatory provisional suspension. In the opinion of the RUSADA Anti-Doping Committee, the athlete was able to prove a “reasonable possibility” of a prohibited substance entering her body through a contaminated product. The literal application of the norm of the All-Russian Anti-Doping Rules, in contrast to the WADA Code, is required to prove that “the violation most likely occurred due to the use of a contaminated product”. The extraordinary situation is commented on by the author.

Проблема разграничения отношений публично-правового и частноправового характера при рассмотрении споров CAS

This scientific article examines the theoretical and practical aspects of the activitiesof theInternational Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne. The prerequisites and reasons for the emergenceofaninternational independent body for the resolution of disputes arising fromthe activities of subjects of professionalsports are considered. Also, the role and legal significance of the arbitration decision adoptedin2022forRussiansports organizations is noted. In the article, the authors analyzed the Decision of the International ArbitrationCourt in the case CAS 2022/A/8708 Football Union of Russia (FUR) v. Fédération InternationaledeFootballAssociation (FIFA) et al., identified "gaps" and shortcomings of the legal technique of the adoptedact. Particularattention was paid to the legal assessment of the evidence on the basis of which the Court of ArbitrationforSportissued a decision to dismiss the claim of the Russian Football Union. In addition, the unreasonablenessoftheapplication of collective responsibility is considered.

«Достаточная убежденность» при разрешении дисциплинарных споров о манипулировании результатами спортивных соревнований

In its decision CAS 2011 / A / 2490, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (hereinafter - CAS) noted for the first time that there is no universal standard of proof (which, for example, is established in the WADA Code in anti-doping violation situations), although there is “consistency in this matter between sports associations is desirable”. Historically, the use of the “comfortable satisfaction” standard has dominated the resolution of disciplinary sports disputes. The strictest standard “without any reasonable doubt” (all doubts in favor of the person brought to justice) is not applied in sports, since it has the legal nature of public procedural branches of national legal systems - for example, in Russian criminal proceedings. At the same time, the refusal to raise the level of the standard of proof to “without any reasonable doubt” does not prevent the jurisdictional body of the federation, CAS from recognizing the court's verdict as evidence, albeit without prejudice. At the same time, in our opinion, such a position is relevant if the denial of the prejudicial significance of national decisions also makes it impossible to confer exclusivity on a sentence, a court ruling as evidence of the charge. In many of the disputes we examined federations had access to investigations by national law enforcements and sometimes to judicial decisions. Such materials, decisions for evidence purposes were provided by the national federations while resolving disputes in the jurisdictional bodies of international sports federations and CAS. With such a status quo, is it possible to speak about the lack of the necessary powers and resources? Formally, yes, because, firstly, it is necessary to gain access to evidence, which is due to the specifics of the legislative system of a particular state and may not be provided, and secondly, the evidence was not collected and evaluated by the bodies of sports federations, the latter use the results of investigative measures and law enforcement activities of state bodies. On the other hand, when the international sports federations and the CAS had at their disposal criminal investigations and decisions of national courts, as well as the jurisdiction of national federations, the evidence was considered as “comfortable satisfaction”. For law enforcement investigations and criminal court verdicts, reference can be made to the higher “without any reasonable doubt” standard of proof, which involves the use of the decisions and evidence presented in it in favor of the manipulation charge in resolving disciplinary disputes at a softer standard. A similar rationale can be extended to decisions of the jurisdictional bodies of national sports federations if they are based on the results of law enforcement investigations and / or court decisions. The authors declare no conflicts of interests.

Which states parties should be held responsible for the implementation of positive obligations under the ECHR in sports-related disputes?

In sports society, awareness of human rights protection has gradually developed and sports governing bodies, such as the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Fédération Internationale de la Football Association (FIFA), have striven to commit the implementation of human rights guaranteed by internationally recognised human right treaties in the international community. However, human rights law cannot directly impose any legal obligations on sports governing bodies because they are non-state actors established by domestic private law. In this situation, how can international human rights law apply to the private relationship between non-state actors? According to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), state parties must implement positive obligations to protect individuals against any violations caused by non-state actors within the jurisdiction. To implement the positive obligations under the ECHR, it is necessary to identify which state parties should be held responsible for the implementation in sports-related disputes because, in Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland, athletes claimed a violation of the ECHR against Switzerland on the ground that the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is located in Lausanne, Switzerland. However, it should be considered that Switzerland is not be liable for all violations of the ECHR’s rights caused by another state party. In light of this, the purpose of this article is to identify a hypothetical standard for determining which state parties should be held responsible for implementing the positive obligations under the ECHR.

ИНСТИТУТ АПЕЛЛЯЦИОННОГО ОБЖАЛОВАНИЯ РЕШЕНИЙ РОССИЙСКОГО ТРЕТЕЙСКОГО ОРГАНА ПО ДОПИНГОВЫМ СПОРАМ В МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЙ СПОРТИВНЫЙ СУД (CAS): ПРОЦЕССУАЛЬНЫЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ

The article concerns the legal problems in the procedural legislation of Russia within the consideration and appeal of cases of violation of anti-doping rules in the appellate procedure. The doping scandal that occurred with Russian athletes and a number of sports organizations and functionaries led to the hasty adoption of a number of regulations and amendments to the existing laws of Russia. One of the important aspects is the analysis of the procedure on appeal of decisions in doping cases, due to the edition of the World Anti-Doping Code and the All-Russian Anti-Doping Rules that came into force in January 2021. New in these acts is the implementation of rules on the separation of powers to appeal proceedings in the current anti-doping rules. With reference to Article 13 of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADA Code) states that appeals for international athletes (testing pool) or violations detected during international competitions are filed directly with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne (Switzerland). As for national athletes and other individuals (coaches, athlete support personnel), disputes with their participation are filed with the national appeal authority. In addition, sufficient attention is paid to the recognition of decisions of international authorities on doping cases and the procedure for their implementation in Russia. All the arguments made in the article are supported by examples from judicial practice, including the practice of CAS, in which these cases were considered.

The principle of proportionality and strict liability of football clubs for the behavior of spectators at UEFA competitions

The subject. This article is devoted to the content of the principle of proportionality in disputes about the strict liability of football clubs for the behavior of spectators. The proportionality means that the sanction corresponds to the offense and it has two dimensions. Firstly, the more serious the offense is the higher the sanction should be. Secondly, proportionality protects sport from unreasonably low sanctions while the violation is serious.The purpose of the study is the content of the principle of proportionality: the use of related principles of sports jurisprudence, exceptional circumstances (mitigating and aggravating) in the practice of applying clubs` strict liability for spectators` behavior in UEFA competitions over the period 2007-2021. Liability without fault increases the value of investigating the factual circumstances of a dispute. The broad discretion of the bodies raises the question of the validity of the choice of aggravating circumstances or the refusal of mitigating circumstances. Therefore, the jurisdictional authority in each specific dispute must search for exceptional circumstances thereby fulfilling the principle of proportionality. The second important nuance of strict liability in the UEFA regulations is the difference in the interconnection between violations and sanctions. In some articles, the sanction is predetermined. It is possible to reduce such a sanction only in the presence of an exceptional circumstance and to increase it in the presence of an aggravating circumstance. Separately considered, in conjunction with the principle of proportionality, other principles: principles of predictability of sanctions, equal treatment, the precedent value of decisions on similar disputes (stare decisis).Methodology. The methodological basis of the stated research involves the generalization and analysis of the practice of two institutions of sports jurisprudence. Firstly, the jurisdictional bodies of UEFA are publicly available, as well as available to the author, but currently not available for free download on the UEFA website. Secondly, the relevant decisions of the Court of Arbitration for Sport are in the public domain. Turning to the approaches of law enforcement officers regarding the content of the principle of proportionality meant comparing positions that did not differ in inconsistency. As a result of the analysis of the practice were systematized and identified typical exceptional circumstances, unique exceptional circumstances, and specific enforcement of the principle of proportionality.The main results of research and the field of their application. The article examined the normative limits of sanctions in the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations; exceptional circumstances affecting the choice of sanction; search by the law enforcement officer of the content of exceptional circumstances; principles of predictability of sanctions, equal treatment, the precedent value of decisions on similar disputes (stare decisis) in connection with the verification of sanctions for proportionality. Compliance with the principle of proportionality, in this case, should protect the club from an unreasonably harsh and grossly disproportional sanction. Therefore, it is important to analyze the factual circumstances: which of them are mitigating and which are aggravating. In other categories of offenses, the sanction remains at the discretion of the jurisdictional authority. In such violations, the principle of proportionality takes on a special value. The more flexibility in the choice of sanction is, the higher is the risk of abuse by the jurisdictional bodes. UEFA`s enforcement practice is seeking exceptional circumstances that are not consistent enough to be predictable. Some consistency exists only concerning aggravating circumstances. There is an unreasonably strict approach to mitigating circumstances. The practice of CAS does not differ from the practice of UEFA in terms of strict liability compositions. The principle of proportionality in sports jurisprudence can be interconnected with other legal concepts. Such concepts are equal treatment, predictability, and so-called stare decisis.Conclusions. For the slightly undisputed observance of the principle of proportionality, several requirements must be fulfilled. First, analyze the factual circumstances to find exceptional circumstances among them. Secondly, always choose the minimum sanction in the absence of aggravating circumstances, since strict liability is a forced legal institution. Thirdly, indicate in the decisions what circumstances are mitigating, what aggravating circumstances have been established, and how they both affect the choice of a sanction. Fourth, use the previous decisions of the UEFA`s jurisdictional bodies and CAS of the strict liability offenses when the actual circumstances are close.

The Legal Certainty on Freedom of Foreign Football Player Transfer in Indonesia: Learning of Bosman Ruling

The Bosman ruling means that players could move or transfer to a new club at the end of their contract without paying their former clubs any fee. A player can now agree with a pre-contract with another club for a free transfer if the players' contract with their existing club has six months or less remaining. This means that the Bosman Rulingis a pioneer in the freedom of contract aspect in sports law. According to Law Number 3 of 2005 on National Sports System in Indonesia, the problem in Indonesia is that there is no regulation regarding the freedom of contract for the sporting member in Indonesia. Some cases violate the Bosman Ruling against foreign football players Damian Linzio. Damian Linzio cannot solve his problems because there is no regulation related to Bosman Ruling issues in Indonesia. This Research aims to adapted Bosman Ruling into Indonesian Sports Law based on Law Number 3 of 2005 concerning the National Sports System. Bosman Ruling is very important in sports law because it regulates the freedom of contract. The type of this research is normative legal research. Normative legal research is a process to find the rule of law, principles of law, and the legal doctrines to address the legal issues faced equal treatment of foreign players in freedom to transfer, the need to introduce bosman ruling into indonesian sports law, study case of damian linzio and bring the case to the court of arbitration for sport. This research found that Indonesia needs to apply Bosman Ruling as the pioneer of freedom of contract to Indonesian Sports Law. Bosman Ruling can be adapted in Law Number 3 of 2005 on the National Sports System in Indonesia. For Damian Linzio, author recommend to bringing the case to Court of Arbitration for Sport because they are more competent to resolve sports cases.

Athletes’ right to a fair trial in ‘non-analytical positive doping cases’: An analysis

ABSTRACT This paper scrutinises the applicability of anti-doping legal regime as adjudicated in the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). It argues that the existing provisions dealing with ‘non-analytical positive doping’ in the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Code are arbitrary and violate the principles of natural justice. While determining ‘non-analytical positive doping violation’, the anti-doping organisations are not required to prove the athlete’s guilt because, under the existing WADA Code, this guilt is presumed regardless of the type of violation. The right to a fair trial is the most fundamental aspect of rule of law meant for the protection of human rights. This paper seeks to examine whether fair trial guarantees are available to the athletes when they are brought for trial before the CAS and National Anti-Doping Organisations. In such cases, CAS panel has evolved a presumption in favour of WADA. The WADA provisions result in a violation of the athlete’s right to a fair trial. The study reveals the existing structural defects of CAS and shortcomings of the WADA Code and issues related to the violation of right to a fair trial.

Court of Arbitration for Sport and the Role of National Courts in Resolving International Sports Disputes in the Light of Mutual Reasoning

Court of Arbitration for Sport and the Role of National Courts in Resolving International Sports Disputes in the Light of Mutual Reasoning

The court of arbitration for sport jurisprudence on match-fixing: a legal update

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) jurisprudence on manipulation of sports competitions has vastly evolved from its initial award in RSC Anderlecht in 1998, to now Labuts in August 2020. Alongside, international and national regulations, as well as sporting regulations, including, most recently, the Council of Europe’s Macolin Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions, have sought to effectively tackle the omnipresent, ever-growing phenomenon of competition manipulation. Against this backdrop, this article briefly outlines the existing legal landscape on manipulation, followed by a chronological detailing of each CAS issued award. The key aspects of defining such sanctionable behaviour, select issues of standard of proof and types of evidence which are admissible and relied on, as well as the manner and quantum of sanction are then analysed. Ultimately, noting empirical trends across these awards, questions on ne bis in idem, proportionality of sanctions and legal certainty across CAS jurisprudence are raised.

Deception and detection: the use of technology in assessing witness credibility

Abstract Tribunals, like courts, have long grappled with differentiating truthful from untruthful witnesses. A number of cases before the Court of Arbitration for Sport have considered whether polygraph evidence is admissible as a means of verifying witness testimony, though tribunals have not reached any consensus. Now, authorities in several countries are trialling a new generation of ‘lie detectors’ using technologies such as eye tracking, artificial intelligence, and brain imaging. Proponents argue that these new technologies are more accurate and less subjective than existing polygraphs and that they can transform the nature of witness evidence. This article outlines the potential scope of lie-detecting technologies in arbitration and their promise to revolutionize tribunals’ evaluations of witness credibility. It considers objections to their usage, including reliability, machine bias and privacy, and the privilege against self-incrimination, and concludes that considerations of fairness and proportionality favour excluding lie-detector evidence.

POLYVARIATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN THE FIELD OF PROFESSIONAL SPORTS: DEBATABLE ISSUES

The sports order is formed, including a huge network of various institutions, organizations and regulators, cooperation and participation of public and private entities at various levels, and has its own judicial system, which is based on the International Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne. It is the autonomy of the sports law and order that presupposes the existence of a system of jurisdictional bodies whose activities are aimed at considering disputes in the relevant sphere of relations. At the same time, despite the integrity of the system of sports law and order in relation to public law and order, the internal organizational unity, in particular, the process of resolving disputes in sports relations is quite unbalanced. In the vast majority of cases, the main aspect of the federation is the development of professional sports as such. At the same time, the issues of more detailed legal regulation of relations in the field of professional sports, their protection remain undisclosed, or disclosed in fragments. The above indicates the need for clearer legal regulation of activities in the field of professional sports, in particular in terms of issues raised. In this regard, the observance of two conditions is disputable: Firstly, the possibility of exercising the public organization's powers to regulate the professional sphere. Secondly, ensuring objectivity and impartiality in the consideration of disputes, the outcome of which also affects the interests of the federation as a subject of relations in the field of professional sports.

Exceptional circumstances beyond International Swimming Federation Doping Control Rules: The Sun Yang case of Court of Arbitration for Sport

The authors refer to the exceptional circumstances surrounding Sun Yang’s violation. The athlete intervened in the doping control procedure in several ways. First, he questioned the proper accreditation of the IDTM’s (The company “International Doping Tests and Management”) Samples Collection Personnel, one of which photographed him. This officer was suspended from urine sampling, but there was no longer a male specialist on the IDTM’s Samples Collection Personnel. Therefore, the collection of urine samples did not take place due to the athlete’s actions. A general distrust of IDTM’s Samples Collection Personnel due to inappropriate photographing was the catalyst for follow-up action. Secondly, the athlete required IDTM’s Samples Collection Personnel to confirm his credentials (accreditation) from the anti-doping organization, despite the submission of documents by IDTM’s Samples Collection Personnel following the International Standard for Testing and Investigations. Not having received the additional and, in the opinion of the athlete, necessary documents, he refused to participate in the doping control procedure as a whole, tearing up his previously given written consent. Finally, the athlete took part in the destruction of blood samples with a hammer, but his role in this process was controversial. A prerequisite for the destruction process of the samples was the assistance of the IDTM’s Samples Collection Personnel, who handed them over to the athlete in response to insistent demands. The listed circumstances, which are exceptional, however, could not affect the reduction of Sun Yang’s period of ineligibility, since the FINA (International Swimming Federation) Doping Control Rules, based on WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) Code 2015, do not imply such a basis. The new WADA Code 2021 offers a more flexible concept of liability and takes into account exceptional circumstances that in subsequent disputes about tampering can be established based on the example of the dispute CAS 2019/A/6148.

EXTRAJUDICIAL INSTITUTIONS IN RESOLUTION OF SPORTS DISPUTES

The article analyzes extrajudicial instances for resolving sports disputes, identifies their role and advantagesover courts. It is noted that in practice, sports relations cannot exist without disputes, and the latter can take placebetween athletes, on the one hand, and coaches, sports organizations, mediators, etc., on the other hand; betweenathletes (on both sides), or when an individual athlete is not a party to the dispute at all. It is established that the mostcommon disputes today are about objective judging, anti-doping, fair play.As a result of the analysis of literature sources, it was found that in all national federations of Ukraine orassociations (except the Football Federation) such specialized bodies, as a rule, do not exist. The executive bodiesof the federation are empowered to resolve disciplinary disputes, and the powers to review them on appeal arevested in higher governing bodies (for example, congresses, conferences, general meetings). This provokes situationswhere sports disputes are considered by federation leaders who do not have the appropriate legal education, or evenhave a legal education but do not have relevant experience in resolving such disputes, which negatively affects thequality of sports disputes, as often unfair decisions are made or those that contradict the regulations of internationalfederations in certain sports.The work of such an independent international arbitration body as the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which isauthorized to resolve sports or sports-related disputes, is analyzed. These disputes are divided into two groups; GroupI includes commercial disputes arising from contractual relations between professional clubs, between clubs andathletes, sports agents, disputes over the specifics of transfer activities, agreements on the transfer or distributionof television and other media rights, etc., and group II – disciplinary disputes considered by the Court of Arbitrationfor Sport as a court of the first instance or a court of appeal in the case of a dispute between national authorities.It is concluded that to protect the rights and legitimate interests of sports entities, there is an extensivesystem of national and international out-of-court bodies for resolving sports disputes. Despite this, Ukraine has anunderdeveloped system of such bodies, as only the football sphere has an effective mechanism for resolving sportsdisputes at the national level, and therefore there is a significant need to establish a Sports Arbitration Court underthe National Olympic Committee of Ukraine to protect the rights of other sports.