The case involves a legal dispute between the Malaysian Tenpin Bowling Congress (MTBC) and the World Tenpin Bowling Association (WTBA) over the hosting rights for the 2011 Women’s World Championships (WSWC 2011). The conflict arose from disagreements regarding the dispute resolution mechanism in the hosting agreement. MTBC was initially selected to host the event in 2008, but negotiations stalled when WTBA proposed arbitration through its Presidium, while MTBC insisted on arbitration by the Fédération Internationale des Quilleurs (FIQ) Presidium, citing FIQ and WTBA statutes. Despite extended negotiations and alternative proposals from WTBA, including arbitration in Texas or through the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in New York, MTBC rejected these options, arguing they were illegal and beyond WTBA's authority.
In April 2010, WTBA withdrew the event from MTBC due to the unresolved dispute. MTBC appealed to the FIQ Presidium, which declined to overturn WTBA's decision, prompting MTBC to file an appeal with CAS. The CAS panel, led by Michael Beloff QC, ruled that while FIQ statutes allow members to appeal disputes to the FIQ Presidium, this provision does not extend to contractual agreements for hosting events. The panel affirmed WTBA's autonomy to determine dispute resolution mechanisms for events it owns, provided they comply with applicable laws. Since MTBC refused WTBA's terms, WTBA was within its rights to relocate the event. The panel dismissed MTBC's appeal, upholding WTBA's decision to award the event to the Hong Kong Tenpin Bowling Congress (HKTBC).
The case highlights the complexities of international sports governance and contractual disputes. The CAS emphasized that WTBA, as the event owner, had the authority to set dispute resolution terms, and MTBC's refusal to accept these terms justified the relocation. The ruling clarified that while MTBC had principled objections, its legal arguments were flawed. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to contractual terms and the autonomy of international federations in managing their events. Ultimately, the CAS dismissed MTBC's appeal, affirming WTBA's actions as lawful and procedurally sound. The case serves as a precedent for similar disputes in sports governance, reinforcing the authority of event owners to determine dispute resolution mechanisms within legal and statutory frameworks.