The case involves a dispute between Shanxi Fenjiu Basketball Club and Jeffrey Curtis Ayres regarding the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) over an appeal against a Basketball Arbitral Tribunal (BAT) award. The parties had entered into a contract in August 2015, which included an arbitration clause specifying BAT as the forum for disputes, with no mention of CAS jurisdiction. After the Club terminated the contract in October 2015, the Player filed a claim with the BAT, which ruled in his favor in February 2017, ordering the Club to pay compensation. The Club appealed the BAT award to CAS, but the Player contested CAS jurisdiction, arguing the contract did not provide for such an appeal.
The Panel, composed of Murray Rosen QC, Prof. Matthew Mitten, and Mr. Chi Liu, bifurcated the proceedings to address jurisdiction first. The Club argued the Chinese version of the contract implied CAS jurisdiction, while the Player maintained the English version, the governing language, did not. The Panel found the contract explicitly designated BAT as the final arbiter, with no provision for CAS appeal, thus concluding CAS lacked jurisdiction. Additionally, the Panel noted the Club’s email filing of the appeal was only valid if followed by a courier-delivered copy within one business day, which was not done. The Club’s appeal was also deemed untimely, as it was filed 30 days after the BAT decision, exceeding the 21-day deadline under the CAS Code.
The Panel emphasized the importance of adhering to contractual arbitration clauses and procedural rules, underscoring the finality of BAT awards as agreed by the parties. The Club’s reliance on the Chinese version of the contract was contradicted by the English version, which incorporated BAT Rules explicitly stating awards were final. The Panel dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and inadmissibility due to procedural non-compliance, without addressing the merits of the case or the Player’s request for sanctions. The decision highlights the necessity of clear arbitration agreements and strict adherence to filing requirements in sports-related disputes, reinforcing the principle that jurisdictional authority is limited to what the parties expressly agree upon. The case serves as a reminder of the critical role of procedural precision and contractual clarity in arbitration proceedings.