The case revolves around a dispute between the Belize Basketball Federation (BBF) and the International Basketball Federation (FIBA) concerning the eligibility of six basketball players to represent Belize in international competitions. The core issue was whether the players had acquired Belizean nationality before the age of 16, as stipulated by FIBA’s Article H.2.3.3, which limits national teams to one player who acquired nationality after that age. The BBF argued that the players were Belizean by descent, with their nationality automatically granted at birth under Sections 23 and 25 of the Belize Constitution, regardless of when their nationality was formally certified. FIBA, however, contended that the players' nationality was not finalized until after they turned 16, making them subject to the restriction.
The dispute arose when BBF submitted player documents, including birth certificates and nationality affirmations, for the 2009 COCABA Championships. FIBA questioned the eligibility of several players, including Milton Palacio, who received formal certification at age 20. The Belizean government clarified that under the Constitution, nationality by descent is automatic from birth, with certification being declaratory, not constitutive. Despite this, FIBA applied its regulation, allowing only one disputed player to participate. The BBF appealed, but FIBA’s Appeals Tribunal dismissed the case, emphasizing the timing of formal nationality acquisition over the automatic nature of descent-based citizenship.
The BBF then took the matter to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which reviewed the Belize Constitution and FIBA’s regulations. The CAS panel determined that the players’ Belizean nationality was inherent from birth or Independence Day (21 September 1981), well before age 16, and that Section 29 of the Constitution—requiring procedural certification—was administrative, not substantive. The panel rejected FIBA’s argument that Section 27, which addresses retaining Belizean nationality after acquiring another, applied to the players, as they were born with dual nationality. The panel also noted that FIBA’s concerns about competitive integrity could be addressed through alternative rules rather than misapplying nationality criteria.
Ultimately, the CAS panel ruled in favor of the BBF, reversing FIBA’s decision and affirming the players’ eligibility. The ruling highlighted the tension between national sovereignty in citizenship matters and international sports regulations, emphasizing the need for harmonized rules that respect both legal frameworks. The case underscores the complexities of reconciling diverse nationality laws with sports eligibility criteria, particularly in contexts involving dual citizenship and procedural formalities. The decision clarified that the players’ Belizean nationality was established before age 16, exempting them from FIBA’s restrictions and allowing them to represent Belize without limitation.