The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS; , TAS) is an international body established in 1984 to settle disputes related to sport through arbitration. Its headquarters are in Lausanne, Switzerland, and its courts are located in New York City, Sydney, and Lausanne. Temporary courts are established in current Olympic host cities.
The International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS) was established simultaneously, and a single president presides over both bodies. The ICAS, which has a membership of 20 individuals, is responsible for the financing of and financial reporting by the CAS, and it appoints the Director-General of the CAS.
Jurisdiction and appeals Generally speaking, a dispute may be submitted to the CAS only if an arbitration agreement between the parties specifies recourse to the CAS. However, according to rule 61 of the Olympic Charter, all disputes in connection with the Olympic Games can only be submitted to CAS, and all Olympic international federations (IF) have recognised the jurisdiction of CAS for at least some disputes.Richard H. McLaren, Twenty-Five Years of the Court of Arbitration for Sport: A Look in the Rear-View Mirror, 20 Marq. Sports L. Rev. 305 (2010)
Through compliance with the 2009 World Anti-Doping Code, all signatories, including all Olympic international federations and National Olympic Committees, have recognised the jurisdiction of CAS for anti-doping rule violations.World Anti-Doping Agency: 2009 World Anti-Doping Code Starting in 2016, an anti-doping division of CAS judges, who specialize in doping cases at the Olympic Games, replaced the IOC disciplinary commission. These decisions can be appealed to CAS's ad hoc court in the Olympic host city or, if the ad hoc court is no longer available, to the permanent CAS. The inaugural anti-doping division handled eight cases, of which seven were doping cases within its jurisdiction.
As a Swiss arbitration organization, decisions of the CAS can be appealed to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland.Court of Arbitration for Sport: Media release 23 July 2012 Appeals of arbitration decisions are generally not successful,CAS Bulletin 2011/2 Appeals against Arbitral Awards by the CAS by Stephan Netzle and no evaluation of the merits takes place, with the evaluation mainly based on whether procedural requirements have been met, and whether the award is incompatible with public policy. there have been seven successful appeals. Six of the upheld appeals were procedural in nature. Overruling a CAS decision on the case's merits is extremely rare. It occurred in 2012 for the first time in more than 20 years when the Federal Supreme Court overturned the case of Matuzalém, a Brazilian football player accused of breach of contract. In 2020, the Supreme Court overturned the case of Sun Yang, a Chinese swimmer accused of doping. CAS decisions can be the subject of further appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). For example, the ECHR found CAS and the Federal Supreme Court discriminated against and violated the privacy of runner Caster Semenya.
German speed skater Claudia Pechstein, who was unsuccessful in lifting a doping-related suspension in her CAS case, appealed to the Federal Court of Justice of Germany, which, however, ruled against her, recognising a lack of jurisdiction to revisit her case. The Federal Court ruled that CAS met the requirements of a court of arbitration according to German law and that CAS's independence from the parties was secured by the method of selecting arbitrators and the possibility to appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal.Christian Keidel: German Federal Tribunal rejects Claudia Pechstein’s claim for damages against International Skating Union (ISU) Accessed 17 June 2016. However, this decision was in turn overturned by the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, which ordered a re-trial.
Fees and costs Proceedings before the CAS require payment of fees. As of 2025 appellants pay a fee of 1000 CHF when filing. On accepting a case, CAS sets a fee as an advance on arbitration costs, normally paid in equal shares by the parties. If the advance is not paid, proceedings are terminated. The advance may be several tens of thousands of Swiss francs.
History With the intermixing of sports and politics, the body was originally conceived by International Olympic Committee (IOC) president Juan Antonio Samaranch to deal with disputes arising during the Olympics. It was established as part of the IOC in 1984.
In 1992, the case of Gundel v. La Fédération Equestre Internationale was decided by the CAS, and then appealed to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland, challenging CAS impartiality. The Swiss court ruled that the CAS was a true court of arbitration but drew attention to the numerous links between the CAS and the IOC.BGE 119 II 271 (Gundel v La Fédération Equestre Internationale)
In response, the CAS underwent reforms to make itself more independent of the IOC, both organizationally and financially. The most significant change resulting from this reform was the creation of an "International Council of Arbitration for Sport" (ICAS) to look after the running and financing of the CAS, thereby taking the place of the IOC.
As of 2022, 9695 cases had been submitted to CAS since 1986. Ordinary and ad hoc cases were first accepted in 1995, mediation cases in 1999, and anti-doping cases in 2016. As of August 2024, there are 422 CAS Arbitrators around the world, with 216 from Europe, and 52 Mediators. ICAS Board Designation Name Country ICAS/CAS President John D. Coates ICAS Vice-Presidents Michael B. Lenard OLY Dr. Elisabeth Steiner Antonio F. Arimany President of CAS Ordinary DivisionCarole Malinvaud President of Appeals Arbitration Division Corinne Schmidhauser OLY Non-Member Secretary and CAS Director General Matthieu Reeb
ICAS Members (2023–2026) Name Country Prof. Abdullah Al Hayyan Antonio F. Arimany, ICAS Vice President John D. Coates, ICAS President Ivo Eusebio, President of the Anti-Doping Division Louis Everard Dr. Emilio Garcia Silvero Dyalá Jiménez Figueres Silja Kanerva OLY Michael B. Lenard OLY, ICAS Vice President Carole Malinvaud, President of the CAS Ordinary Division Dr. Dariusz Mioduski Prof. Giulio Napolitano, Deputy President of the Ordinary Arbitration Division Judge Ellen Gracie Northfleet Kevin Plumb Mikael Rentsch David W. Rivkin, Deputy President of the Anti-Doping Division Corinne Schmidhauser OLY, President of the Appeals Arbitration Division Tricia C.M. Smith OLY Nicola Spirig OLY Dr. Elisabeth Steiner, ICAS Vice President and Deputy President of the Appeals Arbitration Division Judge Hanqin Xue Mattieu Reeb, Non-Member Secretary
Jurisprudence examples of note Doping
In March 2011, CAS decided its first case on athlete biological passports (ABP) when it suspended two Italian cyclists, Franco Pellizotti and Pietro Caucchioli, for two years based on evidence from their blood profiles.Court Upholds Cyclist's Ban Based on Biological Passport New York Times. Retrieved 24 March 2013
Prior to that, the case of skater Claudia Pechstein had been decided (2009/A/1912 & 1913) on similar grounds.CAS Bulletin 2011/2 The Athlete Biological Passport Program by Despina Mavromati Writing in the 2011/2 CAS Bulletin regarding the institution of the ABP program, CAS Counsel Despina Mavromati differentiated between the two types of cases and wrote:
In 2001, the court decided the case of Andreea Răducan v. International Olympic Committee. This was a controversial anti-doping case, where it was fairly clear the athlete received cold and flu tablets from her doctor. This resulted in a positive urine test, with the court concluding:
The court is reluctant to overturn field of play decisions, though it may do so in cases where there is clear evidence that the officials acted in bad faith or with arbitrariness.Court of Arbitration for Sport: CAS 2012/A/2731 BOC & BTC & Márcio W. Ferreira v/ WTF & COM & FMT & Damian A.Villa Valadez See §104 in particular. In CAS 2010/A/2090, the CAS Panel explained that the reason for this is not a matter of jurisdiction but arbitral self-restraint.Aino-Kaisa Saarinen; Finnish Ski Association (FSA) v. Fédération Internationale de Ski (FIS) CAS/2010/A/2090 In October 2011, in a case affecting the 2012 Summer Olympics, the court declared that a part of the Olympic Charter violated the World Anti-Doping Code.USOC v. IOC CAS/2011/O/2422 The "Osaka rule" therein had prevented athletes suspended for at least six months for anti-doping rule violations from competing at the Olympic Games following the suspension's expiration. The court later reaffirmed this decision, when it struck down a long-standing by-law of the British Olympic Association (BOA) preventing the selection of athletes sanctioned for doping.BOA v. WADA CAS/2011/A/2658 Both the IOC and BOA have responded by campaigning for adding a similar rule to the World Anti-Doping Code. In July 2016, CAS confirmed that the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC) could not enter track and field athletes for the 2016 Summer Olympics, except for those cleared by the IAAF under the new competition rules regarding "neutral athletes". As the IOC was not a party to the case, the panel found it lacked jurisdiction to decide on whether the IOC could allow such cleared athletes to represent Russia, allow them to compete independently, or refuse their participation entirely.Court of Arbitration for Sport: CAS rejects the claims/appeal of the Russian Olympic Committee and 68 Russian athletes Accessed 25 July 2016. The claimants disputed the validity and enforceability of IAAF Competition rule 22.1(a), regarding the suspension of the national federation (RusAF, formerly ARAF), and rule 22.1A, regarding the eligibility of athletes from suspended federations. The panel found that neither rule could be construed as sanctions, and for this and other reasons, they were consistent with the World Anti-Doping Code. The panels commented on the futility of the challenge to the new rule 22.1A, noting that as the rule provided athletes from Russia a new route to participation, a successful challenge would lead to the exclusion of athletes eligible under the rule, not the inclusion of other athletes. The panel decided against evaluating whether the principle of estoppel applies to sporting disputes, as it found the claims, in this case, would have failed.Court of Arbitration for Sports: ROC et al. v. IAAF Accessed 4 November 2016. At the same time, in a separate decision, the panel rejected the appeals of 67 Russian athletes against the decisions of the IAAF denying their applications to appear as "neutral athletes" at the 2016 Summer Olympics. Darya Klishina was the only Russian athlete cleared by both the IAAF and the IOC. However, the IAAF declared her ineligible on 12 August based on new information. On 15 August, the CAS ad hoc court upheld Klishina's appeal.Court of Arbitration for Sport: Athletics: The application filed by Darya Klishina (Russia) is upheld by the CAS Accessed 15 August 2016.