Date of publication: 21 April 2026
Mikhail Ilyashev, Attorney at Law, Managing Partner, Honored Lawyer of Ukraine
Source: Yurydychna Gazeta
In the sporting environment, time has a different price. A delay that seems acceptable in ordinary legal practice often means for an athlete not just missing another start, but a lost season, a contract, or even destroying their entire career. State courts have never been able to ensure a speedy consideration of a case, not only in Ukraine (where, by the way, the situation is far from the worst) but also in other countries. Furthermore, the field of sports law itself remained insufficiently researched and non-systematized in Ukraine. The internal disciplinary bodies of the vast majority of federations barely functioned or consisted of individuals far from the field of jurisprudence. At the same time, sports in Ukraine continue to develop and, unlike many other areas, remain competitive on the global stage.
The need to involve leading experts in the field of jurisprudence to consider sports disputes and the importance of their rapid and fair resolution necessitated the establishment of activities for a specialized non-governmental body. In 2024, the National Olympic Committee of Ukraine (NOC) launched a reform and relaunch Sports Arbitration Court at the NOC of Ukraine, a body intended to become a national center of sports justice and ensure effective, predictable resolution of sports disputes.
European Experience and National Practice
In European countries, the existence of national sports arbitrations has long been the standard. Germany has the Deutsches Sportschiedsgericht, administered by the German Institute of Arbitration (DIS), which handles disciplinary and contractual disputes in sports. In Italy, the Tribunale Nazionale di Arbitrato per lo Sport functions under the National Olympic Committee as an independent arbitration body. Spain has the Tribunal Administrativo del Deporte, which ensures independent resolution of sports disputes.
This confirms: specialized sports arbitration bodies improve the quality of sports governance. Ukraine joined this practice by creating the Sports Arbitration Court, and the NOC took a leading role in this. It is important that this also received a positive response from the Ministry of Youth and Sports of Ukraine, which recommends that federations recognize the jurisdiction of this arbitration body.
Why does Ukrainian Sport need the CAS?
Traditionally, sports disputes in Ukraine were considered either by state courts or by the disciplinary bodies of federations. The first model is slow and overly formalized. The second is limited by statutes and does not always ensure the independence and professionalism of the consideration from a legal perspective, rather than just fairness. In practice, this meant one thing: athletes, coaches, clubs, and even federation leadership often lacked an effective mechanism for protecting their rights.
The Sports Arbitration Court fills this gap. It combines the speed and specialization of arbitration with the independence of an arbitration court and provides the level of procedural quality that modern sports require. It is a permanent arbitration court that operates under clear rules, ensures procedural predictability, and allows parties to choose an arbitrator from a list of specialists who have undergone rigorous selection at the NOC level. This approach strengthens the independence and impartiality of the Court’s composition and builds the parties’ trust in the arbitral award.
All procedural steps – from filing an application to making a decision – are prescribed in the Sports Arbitration Court Rules. The document is publicly available, clear, and takes into account modern standards of sports arbitration, making the procedure predictable and convenient for the parties to the dispute.
Sports Arbitration Court as an Alternative to International Arbitration
A key advantage of the Sports Arbitration Court is the opportunity to obtain a fair decision here and now, without the need to turn to international sports arbitration or go through long circles of state litigation.
The Sports Arbitration Court provides two types of proceedings:
- Ordinary arbitration proceedings – consideration of individual and contractual disputes regarding the application of regulations or other internal documents of sports organizations.
- Appeals proceedings – review of decisions by federations, associations, and other sports bodies; this category has a separate procedure that ensures a full and independent appellate review of disciplinary or administrative decisions.
It is precisely by establishing the competence of the Sports Arbitration Court to conduct appeals proceedings that the Ukrainian sports system received an internal mechanism for final review of decisions – a function that was previously effectively concentrated exclusively at the level of the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne (CAS).
The statutes of most national federations traditionally provide for an appeal of decisions of internal disciplinary and management bodies to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne. In practice, this often means complex procedures, high costs, and long durations of consideration. The National Sports Arbitration Court provides an analogous level of quality in arbitration proceedings but with greater accessibility, speed, and a better understanding of the Ukrainian sporting context. This gives Ukrainian athletes and federations an effective, clear, and accessible alternative to Lausanne.
Cooperation with Federations
The creation and reform of the Sports Arbitration Court is not just an institutional decision. It is a step toward a qualitatively new model of sports justice.
The Sports Arbitration Court does not replace the disciplinary bodies of federations and does not interfere in their autonomy. Its appellate competence applies only after the exhaustion of internal legal remedies at the federation level. This allows for the harmonious combination of internal procedures and independent arbitration, ensuring efficiency and fairness.
At the same time, federations must adapt their statutes and disciplinary procedures to the Sports Arbitration Court model. This is accessible, fast, and significantly cheaper, while maintaining a high level of professionalism and independence during the consideration of disputes.
Strong Arbitrators for Strong Sports
Practice analysis shows that sports conflicts have long ceased to be purely technical or narrow legal issues. They increasingly cover disciplinary, contractual, ethical, and organizational aspects and require not a formal approach, but a comprehensive legal assessment. In such conditions, the quality of arbitration is determined primarily by the level of expertise of those who make the decisions.
That is why the arbitration consideration in the Sports Arbitration Court is carried out by qualified arbitrators, whom the parties choose from a list formed and approved by the National Olympic Committee of Ukraine. This list is closed. This guarantees that only verified specialists are included, which ensures a high professional level of the arbitration process and trust in the newly created institution. Currently, the active formation of the closed list of Sports Arbitration Court arbitrators is underway.
The requirements for including candidates in this closed list are clearly provided for by the Sports Arbitration Court Rules and correspond to general standards defined by law. Only persons of legal age who have a higher legal education, an appropriate level of qualification in the field of sports law or sports, as well as an irreproachable business reputation and high moral and ethical qualities, can be elected as Sports Arbitration Court arbitrators.
An arbitrator must be not only a competent lawyer but also understand the specific features of the sports sector. The involvement of an arbitrator who knows the specifics of sports legal relations increases the efficiency of the dispute resolution and strengthens the parties’ trust in the arbitration procedure.
The Sports Arbitration Court under the NOC of Ukraine is not an administrative superstructure, but merely a mechanism that allows for the resolution of sports disputes professionally, independently, and promptly – in a word, in a civilized manner.
