The case involves a dispute between the Malaysian Tenpin Bowling Congress (MTBC) and the Asian Bowling Federation (ABF) regarding disciplinary measures imposed by the ABF on the MTBC. The dispute arose from the MTBC's failure to award a promised cash prize of RM 50,000 to a bowler who achieved a perfect game during the 2006 Malaysian International Open Bowling Championship. Instead, the MTBC awarded a Canon printer, claiming the cash prize was a mistake in the tournament rules and that participants had been informed of the change. The Emirates Bowling Federation, representing the bowler, protested this decision, leading the ABF to impose sanctions on the MTBC, including a fine and withholding tournament sanctions in Malaysia.
The MTBC contested the ABF's decision, arguing procedural irregularities and lack of jurisdiction. The case escalated through multiple appeals, first to the World Tenpin Bowling Association (WTBA) and then to the Fédération Internationale des Quilleurs (FIQ), before reaching the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The CAS, with Prof. Ulrich Haas as the sole arbitrator, examined the case's jurisdictional, procedural, and substantive aspects. The key legal issues included the scope of arbitration clauses in international federation statutes, the waiver of internal remedies, standing to be sued, the necessity of reasoned decisions, and the legal basis for disciplinary measures.
The CAS ruled that members of an international federation are bound by its arbitration clauses, and disputes between members fall within these clauses' scope. It clarified that procedural agreements, such as bypassing internal remedies, do not require formalities and that non-participation in disciplinary proceedings does not equate to a waiver of appeal rights. The tribunal also emphasized the need for reasoned rulings in disciplinary proceedings, though procedural flaws in lower instances do not affect a de novo hearing before the CAS.
On the merits, the CAS found that the MTBC violated the WTBA Statutes by failing to notify the ABF and WTBA of the prize change, which materially altered the tournament's sanctioned status. The ABF's disciplinary measures were deemed justified under its constitution, which allows penalties for non-compliance with federation rules. The CAS dismissed the MTBC's claims of procedural irregularities, including allegations of improper quorum and conflicts of interest in the ABF Executive Committee, concluding that the CAS hearing cured any prior defects.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld the ABF's decision, including the RM 50,000 fine, and rejected the MTBC's appeal. The ruling reinforced the principle that sports federations must adhere to their own rules when imposing sanctions and highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and transparency in sports governance. The case underscores the consequences of failing to meet contractual or regulatory obligations in international sports tournaments.