The document outlines a request for an advisory opinion from the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) regarding rule changes made by the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) in October 1999. The request was submitted by the Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI), which argued that the amendments to UCI’s Cycling Regulations, particularly concerning the registration of Trade Teams, conflicted with the Olympic Charter, UCI’s Constitution, Swiss civil law, Swiss and EC competition law, and Italian law. The CAS deemed the request admissible and formed a panel to evaluate the matter, holding an oral hearing in Lausanne on May 29, 2000, with participation from both CONI and UCI.
The UCI, founded in 1900, serves as the global governing body for cycling, regulating the sport, organizing world championships, and collaborating with the International Olympic Committee. The contested changes involved Trade Teams, defined as entities comprising riders, employers, sponsors, and support staff registered with the UCI to compete in road races. Prior to October 1999, Trade Teams were required to register with national federations, but the amendments allowed direct registration with the UCI under certain conditions. Further changes in 2000 removed the national federation requirement entirely, prompting CONI’s objections. CONI argued that these changes undermined the Olympic Charter’s pyramidal structure, which emphasizes national federation authority over individual members, including teams and clubs.
CONI sought the CAS’s opinion on five questions, focusing on the compatibility of the new rules with the Olympic Charter, UCI Constitution, Swiss and EC competition law, and Italian law. The UCI defended the amendments, asserting its authority to regulate international aspects of cycling and arguing that Trade Teams operate exclusively at the international level, unlike traditional clubs. The CAS panel concluded that the amended rules were compatible with the Olympic Charter, as they did not disrupt the sport’s pyramidal structure. The panel also found that the UCI Management Committee had the authority to enact the changes under the UCI Constitution and Swiss law, rejecting CONI’s claim that the amendments created a new membership category.
Regarding competition law, CONI contended that the UCI, as both regulator and market participant, held a dominant position that could violate Swiss and EC competition laws. The panel did not explicitly rule on this but implied that the regulations aimed to ensure uniformity rather than anti-competitive behavior. On Italian law, CONI argued that the rules could prevent Italian cyclists and teams from affiliating with the Italian Cycling Federation, but the panel found no incompatibility, noting that Italian law still required such affiliation.
The panel also addressed broader governance issues, emphasizing the importance of collaboration between CONI, the Italian Cycling Federation, and the UCI to resolve challenges like doping regulations and tax-related difficulties for Italian Trade Teams. It highlighted the need for better communication and consultation in rule-making processes to prevent disputes. Ultimately, the panel affirmed the compatibility of the UCI’s amended regulations with the relevant legal frameworks while advocating for improved dialogue in sports governance. The advisory opinion underscores the balance between international federation autonomy and national federation authority in the regulation of professional cycling.