The case involves a dispute between the Israel Basketball Association (IBA) and FIBA Europe regarding a player's request to wear religious undergarments during the Eurobasket Women 2011 tournament. The player, a member of the Israeli women's national basketball team, sought to cover her shoulders with an undergarment under her uniform due to her religious beliefs. FIBA Europe, which enforces strict uniform rules, initially denied the request, citing non-discrimination regulations. The IBA appealed this decision to the FIBA Appeals Panel, which declined jurisdiction, stating that FIBA Europe’s Appeals Commission was the appropriate body to hear the appeal. The IBA then filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), requesting an expedited procedure due to the imminent start of the tournament. The CAS appointed a sole arbitrator, Mr. Romano Subiotto QC, who proceeded without a hearing given the urgency. FIBA Europe agreed to the expedited process but requested that FIBA be included in the arbitration. FIBA submitted an amicus curiae brief to clarify its rules on uniforms.
The key legal issues addressed were the standing to be sued under Swiss law, the jurisdictional division between FIBA and FIBA Europe’s appeal bodies, and the extent of a federation’s authority over uniform regulations. The arbitrator noted that federations have broad discretion in setting uniform rules, and CAS would only intervene in cases of blatant arbitrariness or discrimination. The case highlighted the tension between religious accommodation and uniform standardization in sports. The IBA argued that the FIBA Appeals Panel had jurisdiction under Article 37.4(a) of the FIBA General Statutes, which allows appeals against decisions by FIBA's organs unless explicitly excluded. IBA also contended that FIBA's rules permitted undergarments if they matched the uniform's color and that prohibiting them for religious reasons violated FIBA Internal Regulations. FIBA Europe countered that the FIBA Appeals Panel lacked jurisdiction, as the decision was issued by a body of FIBA Europe, not FIBA itself, and that its Appeals Commission was the competent body to hear such appeals.
The sole arbitrator examined the jurisdictional and substantive arguments, confirming CAS's jurisdiction under Rule 47 of the Arbitration Code and Article 1-178 of the FIBA Internal Regulations. The appeal was deemed admissible as it was filed timely. Under Rule 58 of the CAS Code, the sole arbitrator applied the relevant FIBA regulations and internal rules to resolve the dispute. The CAS ultimately agreed with the Appeals Panel’s conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction over the Secretary General’s decision, emphasizing the clear division of competences between the FIBA Appeals Panel and FIBA Europe’s Appeals Commission. The CAS rejected IBA’s appeal, upholding the Appeals Panel’s decision on jurisdictional grounds. The ruling underscored the importance of adhering to procedural rules and jurisdictional boundaries within sports governance. While the document briefly mentions the issue of undergarments under uniforms, this point was not central to the ruling. The final decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport rejected the appeal filed by the Israel Basketball Association and denied all other requests for relief. The case illustrates the complexities of interpreting sports regulations and the role of arbitration in resolving such disputes.