The case centers on a dispute between Ankaraspor A.S., a Turkish football club, and the Turkish Football Federation (TFF), which was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The conflict arose when the TFF accused Ankaraspor of violating multi-ownership rules due to its relationship with another club, MKE Ankaragücü SC, which allegedly undermined fair competition. After issuing warnings and finding Ankaraspor non-compliant, the TFF suspended the club from competitions and later relegated it to a lower league. Ankaraspor appealed to the TFF Arbitration Board, but the appeal was dismissed without grounds, prompting the club to seek recourse at CAS. The club sought to overturn the TFF's decision, reinstate its league position, and recover legal costs. However, the TFF contested CAS jurisdiction, arguing that its statutes did not permit CAS appeals for national disputes. The CAS panel prioritized resolving the jurisdictional issue before addressing provisional measures or the case's merits. The key legal question was whether CAS had jurisdiction under TFF statutes or regulations, which did not explicitly allow for CAS appeals in national matters. The panel referenced Article R47 of the CAS Code, which stipulates that CAS jurisdiction requires either an agreement between the parties or provisions in the sports body's statutes permitting such appeals. Since the TFF's rules lacked these provisions and explicitly excluded CAS jurisdiction for national disputes resolved by its Arbitration Committee, the panel concluded it lacked authority to hear the case. The decision highlights that CAS jurisdiction in national disputes depends on clear statutory provisions, which were absent here. The panel also dismissed arguments about the TFF Arbitration Board's potential lack of independence, noting that FIFA's provisions on independence did not override the TFF's explicit exclusion of CAS appeals. Ultimately, the panel ruled that CAS had no jurisdiction, removed the case from its docket, and declined to address the merits or provisional measures. The ruling underscores the necessity of clear regulatory frameworks for arbitration in sports disputes and reaffirms the importance of jurisdictional prerequisites in CAS proceedings. The case illustrates the limits of CAS authority when statutory provisions do not explicitly grant it jurisdiction over national disputes.