The case involves a professional basketball player who was suspended by the International Basketball Federation (FIBA) for two years following a positive doping test for amphetamines conducted by the National Basketball Association (NBA). The player, previously banned by the NBA, appealed FIBA's decision, arguing that the arbitration clause in FIBA's rules was invalid under Swiss law, which requires arbitration agreements to be in writing to ensure parties are aware of such clauses. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) examined whether a global reference to arbitration in FIBA's rules was sufficient, concluding it was valid given the player's experience in professional sports and the customary nature of arbitration clauses in international sports federations.
The player's suspension by FIBA was based on its Internal Regulations, which referenced doping tests conducted by external organizations like the NBA. After the suspension, the player appealed to FIBA's Appeals Commission, which upheld the decision but notified him of his right to appeal to CAS within 30 days. Instead of immediately appealing to CAS, the player sought an interim injunction from a German court, which temporarily lifted the suspension. FIBA complied but later faced the player's appeal to CAS, where he contested the tribunal's jurisdiction and sought to overturn the suspension.
The CAS panel addressed the validity of the arbitration clause, emphasizing that professional athletes are familiar with arbitration as a standard dispute resolution mechanism in sports. It noted Swiss law permits global references to arbitration clauses when parties are experienced in the field, as is common in international sports federations. The panel also considered the player's prior engagement with FIBA's rules, including his acknowledgment of the appeals process, as evidence of his awareness of the arbitration clause.
The CAS upheld its jurisdiction, rejecting the player's argument that the arbitration agreement was invalid. The case highlights the principle that arbitration clauses in sports regulations are binding, particularly for professional athletes who operate within frameworks where such clauses are standard. The decision reinforces CAS's role as the primary forum for resolving sports-related disputes, ensuring consistency and expertise in adjudicating matters like doping sanctions. The player's attempt to bypass arbitration through national courts was unsuccessful, as the CAS affirmed the enforceability of arbitration agreements in international sports governance.
The player further argued he was not a member of FIBA or its national federations and had not consented to CAS jurisdiction in writing. FIBA countered that his participation in the appeals process implied acceptance of the arbitration clause. The CAS examined whether an arbitration agreement existed under Swiss law, which requires such agreements to be in writing or established through text-based communication. The tribunal noted arbitration clauses are often incorporated by reference to other documents, such as organizational regulations. While the player's non-membership in FIBA distinguished his case, the tribunal considered whether his participation in the appeals process constituted acceptance of the clause.
The panel concluded the player's actions—lodging an appeal under FIBA's procedures without objection—implied acceptance of the arbitration clause. The Swiss Federal Court's precedent supports this reasoning, emphasizing that parties familiar with industry norms cannot later deny awareness of standard arbitration clauses. The player's failure to explicitly reject the clause before proceeding with the appeal reinforced the validity of the arbitration agreement. The decision aligns with broader legal principles ensuring fairness and predictability in international arbitration, particularly in professional sports.
The CAS affirmed its jurisdiction over the dispute regarding the doping-related sanctions but emphasized its inability to address claims beyond the original appeal's scope, such as damages, without explicit agreement. The panel concluded by formally confirming its jurisdiction in the matter, reinforcing the binding nature of arbitration clauses when parties fail to object despite being aware of them.