From Sagen to Henriques: Legal Challenges to Olympic Event Selection Decisions and the Role of the Court of Arbitration for Sport

Author:

Mazzucco MarcusORCID,Findlay Hilary

Abstract

AbstractThe interests of athletes are a fundamental aspect of the Olympic Movement. Yet, athletes face jurisdictional barriers when attempting to advance their interests and challenge the International Olympic Committee (IOC)’s exercise of authority over the Olympic Movement, including the IOC’s decisions regarding which sport events are included in the Olympic Games. Previous attempts to challenge the IOC’s selection of sport events for the Olympic Games have been unsuccessful in national courts, as seen in the case of Sagen v. Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games (“Sagen”) involving women’s ski jumping. Following the outcome in Sagen, academics theorized that athletes might have better success challenging Olympic event selection decisions at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), as CAS has several jurisdictional advantages over national courts. A recent CAS decision in Henriques v. IOC (“Henriques”), involving the exclusion of women’s 50 km race walking from the 2020 Olympic Games, casts doubt on this approach as CAS dismissed the application due to the lack of an arbitration agreement between the appellants and the IOC. However, the outcome in Henriques should not deter athletes from using CAS to challenge the IOC’s Olympic event selection decisions in future cases. It is arguable that the CAS panel’s reasoning in Henriques did not properly consider how the arbitration clause in the Olympic Charter could form the basis of an arbitration agreement between the appellants and the IOC under Swiss law. Additionally, the CAS panel’s decision in Henriques can be used to inform legal strategies in subsequent disputes to ensure that CAS is able to hold the IOC accountable for Olympic event selection decisions that are discriminatory or otherwise unlawful.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Law

Reference37 articles.

1. Baddeley, M. 2020. The Extraordinary Autonomy of Sports Bodies Under Swiss Law: Lessons to be Drawn. International Sports Law Journal 20: 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-019-00163-6.

2. Bärtsch, P. 2015. “Consent” in Sports Arbitration: Which Lessons for Arbitrations Based on Clauses in Bylaws of Corporations, Associations, etc.? In Sports Arbitration: A Coach for Other Players?, ed. E. Geisinger and E. Trabaldo-de Mestral, 95–122. New York: JurisNet, LLC.

3. Blackshaw I (2003) The Court of Arbitration for Sport: An International Forum for Settling Disputes Effectively ‘Within the Family of Sport’”. Entertainment and Sports Law Journal 2(2): 61–83. https://doi.org/10.16997/eslj.139

4. Casini, L. 2011. The Making of a Lex Sportiva by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. German Law Journal 12 (5): 1317–1340.

5. de La Rochefoucauld, E. 2011. Standing to Sue, a Procedural Issue Before the CAS. CAS Bulletin 1: 13–20.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3