The case involves Paul King, a former member of the International Boxing Association (AIBA) Executive Committee, who was suspended for 24 months by the AIBA Disciplinary Commission. The suspension stemmed from allegations that King engaged in misleading conduct during his campaign for the AIBA presidency in 2010. Specifically, King sent an email to national federations (NFs) asserting that suspended NFs could regain voting rights at the AIBA Congress by paying overdue fees. The Disciplinary Commission deemed this email deceptive, as it omitted key details from a legal opinion King cited and misrepresented the reasons for the suspensions, which were not solely due to unpaid fees but also inactivity. The Commission also accused King of associating with suspended individuals and harming AIBA's reputation.
King appealed the suspension to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which overturned the decision. The CAS ruled that AIBA's statutes define "Member" as national federations, not individuals, and thus the disciplinary action against King lacked a legal basis. The court also found that Articles 3 and 4 of the AIBA Disciplinary Code, which outline principles of conduct, could not justify a suspension as they do not prescribe specific sanctions. Additionally, the CAS held that King's use of an external legal opinion to bolster his candidacy did not violate AIBA regulations, as election campaigning—including efforts to present oneself favorably—is normal and protected under freedom of expression. The CAS emphasized that sports governing bodies must avoid conflating organizational interests with those of individuals in power and cautioned against overreach in disciplinary measures.
The dispute also involved broader tensions within AIBA, including conflicts over membership fee payments, procedural irregularities, and leadership disputes. King argued that over 70 national federations were unfairly suspended and disenfranchised from participating in the 2010 AIBA Congress. He contended that suspended federations should have their rights reinstated if they paid their dues within a specified timeframe, citing legal advice supporting his interpretation of AIBA's Statutes and Bylaws. However, AIBA maintained that suspension affected all membership rights, including voting, and upheld its decision to exclude King as a candidate. The case escalated when 13 member federations sought legal intervention to cancel or postpone the Congress, but their application was rejected.
The CAS panel ultimately found no evidence that King's actions violated AIBA's disciplinary code. It dismissed allegations under Articles 45, 46, and 47, which addressed serious violations, failure to respect AIBA decisions, and disparagement of AIBA's reputation. The panel concluded that King's actions, including sharing a legal opinion and engaging with member federations, were legitimate and did not constitute misconduct. It also rejected claims that King undermined AIBA's authority or acted in bad faith. The panel emphasized the importance of clear rules, procedural fairness, and the protection of political speech within sports governance.
In its final ruling, the CAS granted King's appeal, nullified the sanctions, and dismissed all other claims. The decision underscores the need for proportionality and fairness in disciplinary actions by sports organizations, as well as the legitimacy of individuals seeking legal clarity and advocating for their positions. The case highlights the complexities of governance in international sports bodies and the challenges of balancing organizational discipline with individual rights. The panel's ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to legal principles and avoiding the misuse of disciplinary power.