The case centers on a dispute regarding the basketball nationality of player W., who held dual legal citizenship (American and German) and was subject to FIBA regulations governing player nationality. FIBA rules stipulate that a player can have only one basketball nationality, which must align with one of their legal nationalities. For players with multiple legal nationalities, the default basketball nationality is that of the country of birth unless the player played basketball in another country of their legal nationality after their nineteenth birthday, in which case they are deemed to have opted for that country's basketball nationality. W. was born in the USA and played basketball there until age 23, including at high school and university levels. He later joined the German club Brandt Hagen e.V., which sought confirmation from FIBA that W. had German basketball nationality to participate in the Korac Cup. FIBA initially ruled that W. had American basketball nationality, leading to appeals and legal actions by Brandt Hagen e.V. and W.
The dispute escalated when FIBA refused to recognize W.'s German basketball nationality, prompting Brandt Hagen e.V. to appeal. FIBA dismissed the appeal as untimely, citing procedural delays and the absence of a required deposit. The case was brought before German courts, which initially dismissed the claim but later allowed W. to participate in a match pending further proceedings. The matter was then referred to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which examined the applicability of FIBA's appeal deadlines. The CAS found FIBA's regulations ambiguous, particularly regarding whether appeal deadlines under articles 12 and 13 of the National Status of Players Regulations applied, as these pertained to disciplinary penalties, not nationality determinations. Instead, the CAS ruled that the appeal should have been governed by articles 34 and 35 of FIBA's General Bye-Laws, which concern the Eligibility Commission and allow for appeals within 30 days of a decision.
The CAS concluded that FIBA's earlier correspondence did not constitute a formal decision, making the appeal timely when filed on October 21, 1993. Given the regulatory ambiguity, FIBA should have allowed Brandt Hagen e.V. the opportunity to seek reinstatement. The CAS also addressed procedural matters, noting that FIBA's requirement for a DM 10,000 deposit was excessive and unjustified, as the regulations did not clearly specify its purpose or refund conditions. On the substantive issue, the CAS found that W. had played basketball in Germany after his 19th birthday, which constituted an implicit opt for German basketball nationality under FIBA's rules. The court rejected the argument that W. had to explicitly opt for American nationality, as he was already deemed to have it by birth.
Ultimately, the CAS ruled that W. should be recognized as a German player for basketball purposes due to his post-19th birthday play in Germany. The decision underscored the importance of clarity in regulatory frameworks and fair procedural adherence in sports governance. The case highlights the complexities of sports nationality rules and the need for clear guidelines in administrative decisions. The CAS emphasized fairness in interpreting appeal deadlines, particularly where regulatory clarity is lacking.