The case revolves around an appeal by Matt Fogarty and Dean Schoppe, badminton players and members of the United States Badminton Association (USBA), who challenged their non-selection for the 2007 Pan American Games. The appellants, a men’s doubles pair, lost the final selection match to another pair, Howard Bach and Bob Malaythong, and were subsequently not nominated by USA Badminton for the Games. They argued that the Badminton World Federation (BWF) failed to respond to their appeals and denied their entry into the competition, while also criticizing the eligibility criteria and selection procedures as violations of BWF statutes. The appellants filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 3 July 2007, requesting provisional measures to allow their participation. The BWF opposed this, stating the appellants had already lost their case within the USBA and USOC frameworks and could have pursued arbitration through the American Arbitration Association (AAA) but did not. A sole arbitrator, Bernhard Welten, was appointed, and the CAS rejected the request for provisional measures on 12 July 2007.
The appellants submitted their appeal brief on 27 July 2007, reiterating their claims against the BWF’s eligibility criteria and appeal procedures. The BWF denied all allegations in its response on 20 August 2007 and requested the dismissal of the appeal with costs awarded to them. The case proceeded based on written submissions, as both parties agreed to forgo an oral hearing. The key legal issue was whether the CAS had jurisdiction over the dispute. Under Swiss Private International Law (PILA), the arbitral tribunal must decide its own jurisdiction. The CAS found it lacked jurisdiction for two reasons. First, the non-selection issue fell under the authority of national and Olympic bodies (USBA and USOC), not the BWF or CAS. Second, the challenge to the eligibility criteria was filed too late—nearly a year after the regulations were published—and before the wrong body. The CAS concluded it could not intervene in the selection process or the technical regulations of the BWF.
The appellants also contested the Badminton Technical Manual for the event, which limited participation to four men, but the CAS noted the manual had been published well in advance and was accepted by the appellants when they signed the USA Badminton Code of Conduct. The PASO (Pan American Sports Organization) Regulations delegate the establishment of eligibility criteria to international federations, subject to PASO Technical Commission approval, leaving no legal recourse for appellants to challenge the manual directly. The CAS ruled it had no jurisdiction over either the non-selection dispute or the challenge to the Badminton Technical Manual, rejecting the appeal in its entirety without examining the merits. The decision reinforced the principle that CAS jurisdiction is limited to matters explicitly falling under its authority, as defined by applicable regulations and procedural timelines. The case highlights the importance of timely and correctly directed appeals within the sports arbitration framework. The final ruling by the Court of Arbitration for Sport denied jurisdiction, dismissed the appeal, and did not entertain the case further, underscoring the arbitrator's authority to determine jurisdictional matters and the procedural outcome when such jurisdiction is absent.