The case before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) involved a dispute between the Puerto Rico Amateur Baseball Federation (PRABF) and USA Baseball (USAB) regarding the eligibility of a baseball player, referred to as C., to represent the United States in international competitions. C. held dual nationality, having been born in Puerto Rico but raised primarily in Houston, Texas. The central issue was whether C. had the right to choose which country he could represent, given his dual citizenship and prior involvement with both Puerto Rican and U.S. baseball programs. PRABF argued that C. was contractually bound to represent Puerto Rico due to a 1991 agreement and his participation in junior tournaments there. However, C. maintained that the contract was limited to a specific tournament and did not restrict his international representation. He cited the Olympic Charter, which allows athletes with dual nationality to choose their preferred national Olympic committee (NOC) unless they have previously competed for one country in certain defined competitions, which he had not done.
The dispute escalated when C. was invited by USAB to try out for the U.S. national team in 1994. PRABF objected, but C. asserted his right to choose, emphasizing his minimal involvement in Puerto Rican baseball compared to his development in the U.S. The International Baseball Association (IBA) referred the matter to the International Olympic Committee (IOC), which declined to intervene, stating its jurisdiction was limited to Olympic Games eligibility. The case was then brought before CAS, which ruled in favor of C., upholding his right to choose under the Olympic Charter. The panel concluded that C. had not irrevocably committed to Puerto Rico and was free to represent the U.S. The decision reinforced the principle that athletes with dual nationality retain autonomy in selecting their sporting nationality unless they have previously competed for one country in a binding manner.
The case also highlighted the distinction between political citizenship and sporting citizenship, affirming that athletes should not be treated as property and have the right to choose their representation. The Panel acknowledged Puerto Rico's desire for autonomy in international sports but clarified that contractual agreements do not override Olympic eligibility rules. C.'s written election to play for the U.S. was deemed valid, as he had not competed in any qualifying events for either country by 1994. The decision set a precedent for future cases, emphasizing the importance of athlete autonomy and the equal status of all NOCs in international sports. Ultimately, CAS rejected PRABF's challenge, upholding C.'s right to represent the U.S. and reinforcing the principles of fairness and athlete choice in international competitions.