The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on September 17, 2015, in a dispute between the Indian Hockey Federation (IHF) and the International Hockey Federation (FIH) alongside Hockey India. The case revolved around the governance and official recognition of hockey in India, with the IHF contesting the FIH's decision to recognize Hockey India as the sole governing body. The conflict stemmed from the FIH's "One Sport – One Body" policy, which aimed to unify men's and women's hockey under a single national federation. In 2008, the FIH directed the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) to establish Hockey India as the unified body, replacing the fragmented governance structure that included the IHF and the Indian Women’s Hockey Federation (IWHF). The IHF argued it had already merged with the IWHF and dissolved the Indian Hockey Confederation (IHC), consolidating its authority.
The CAS panel, comprising Judge Conny Jörneklint, Ms. Sangeeta Mandal, and Mr. Hans Nater, emphasized the autonomy of sports associations in determining membership rules, provided such decisions were fair and in good faith. The panel ruled that the FIH was not obligated to await the outcome of domestic legal proceedings in India before making its decision, as this would undermine its autonomy. It found no substantive unfairness in the FIH's actions, noting the changes were necessary to address governance issues and were neutral in effect. The CAS upheld the FIH's recognition of Hockey India, reinforcing the authority of international sports federations to regulate membership structures without undue interference from national legal processes.
The dispute involved multiple legal and administrative challenges, including objections from the IHF regarding the procedural fairness of the FIH's decisions and the retroactive application of new statutes. The IHF argued that the FIH's actions, including pressuring the IOA to establish Hockey India and threatening to withdraw the 2010 Hockey World Cup, demonstrated bias. However, the FIH maintained its decisions were justified, citing the need for compliance with governance standards and the Olympic Charter. The CAS panel dismissed the IHF's appeal, concluding the FIH acted within its rights and in accordance with its constitutional requirements. The ruling highlighted the balance between organizational autonomy and procedural fairness in sports governance, ultimately affirming Hockey India's status as the official FIH member for India. The case underscores the complexities of resolving disputes over national representation in international sports bodies, particularly when intertwined with legal challenges at the domestic level.