The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued an advisory opinion on January 4, 1999, addressing the eligibility of a baseball player, P., with dual Brazilian-German nationality to change his sporting nationality. P. had represented Brazil in an International Baseball Association (IBA) tournament in 1996 at age 15 but later moved to Germany for education and sought to represent Germany in future competitions. All relevant parties, including the Brazilian and German baseball federations and their National Olympic Committees, supported P.'s request. The CAS was tasked with determining whether IBA rules and the Olympic Charter permitted such a change and, if so, from which date. The case was examined under Article R60 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration, focusing on written submissions without a hearing.
The CAS analyzed Article 57 of the IBA Constitution and Rule 46 of the Olympic Charter, which govern nationality in sports. The Olympic Charter allows athletes with dual nationality to choose which country to represent but imposes a three-year waiting period if they have already competed for one country. This period can be waived or reduced with agreement from the relevant National Olympic Committees, International Federation, and IOC Executive Board. The CAS distinguished between legal nationality (a public law concept) and sporting nationality (a private law concept), emphasizing that prior representation does not indefinitely bind an athlete if all parties consent to a change. Given unanimous support for P.'s request, the CAS concluded he could represent Germany, provided the waiting period was waived or reduced.
The opinion further clarified the broader legal framework for dual-nationality athletes. It noted that sporting nationality is singular, meaning dual nationality’s benefits disappear once an athlete chooses a country to represent. The CAS argued against permanently restricting dual-national athletes, as this would unfairly disadvantage them compared to those with single nationality. Instead, it advocated for a flexible approach, allowing changes subject to the waiting period. For athletes like P., who had dual nationality before representing any country, the waiting period could start either from the date of notifying the International Federation or from the last representation of the previous country.
The document also addressed practical considerations, such as safeguarding fairness and preventing unethical practices like "commerce of nationalities." In P.'s case, since he last represented Brazil at 15 and had no further obligations to the Brazilian federation, the IBA could approve an immediate switch to Germany without undermining competitive integrity. The Brazilian and German NOCs supported waiving the waiting period, and the Brazilian Baseball and Softball Federation confirmed P.'s freedom to play for Germany. The CAS emphasized that the IBA had the authority to approve an earlier start, with IOC approval required for Olympic participation. The decision balanced fairness, practicality, and the unique circumstances of dual-national athletes, providing a clear framework for similar cases. The opinion affirmed P.'s eligibility to represent Germany under the specified conditions, subject to IBA and IOC approval.