The case before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) involved a dispute between the International Surfing Association (ISA) and the International Canoe Federation (ICF) over the governance of Stand-Up Paddleboarding (SUP) at the international and Olympic levels. The ISA claimed exclusive authority over SUP, citing its historical involvement since 2008, including organizing world championships and integrating SUP into multi-sport events like the Pan American Games. The ICF, traditionally governing canoeing, began recognizing SUP events in 2016 and argued that SUP, particularly flatwater racing, aligned more closely with canoeing. The conflict escalated when the ICF announced plans to organize its own SUP World Championships, prompting the ISA to challenge these actions as an infringement on its authority. Efforts to resolve the dispute through mediation and negotiation failed, leading to arbitration under CAS.
The arbitration panel examined the validity of the arbitration agreement under Swiss law, concluding that the parties' intent to arbitrate was evident through written communications, including a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) proposed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The panel rejected arguments that the dispute could be decided ex aequo et bono (based on fairness) or that IOC regulations implicitly governed the case. It emphasized that Swiss law does not inherently adjudicate global sport governance to a single federation but protects the autonomy of associations. The panel affirmed its authority to narrow the dispute to SUP governance at the Olympic level, clarifying that any decision would bind only the parties and not compel the IOC to recognize SUP as an Olympic sport.
In evaluating which federation should govern SUP, the panel considered criteria from the IOC's Recognition Rules, including historical involvement, promotion, and development of the sport. The ISA demonstrated long-term commitment, financial support, and grassroots development, while the ICF's involvement was recent and limited. The panel concluded that the ISA met the criteria for governance at the Olympic level, given its established role in organizing SUP events, athlete development, and global promotion. The ruling granted the ISA governance rights within the Olympic framework but did not prevent the ICF from organizing SUP events outside it.
The case underscores CAS's role in resolving jurisdictional disputes within the Olympic Movement while respecting the autonomy of international federations and the IOC's exclusive authority over Olympic recognition. The decision balances legal principles with the practical realities of international sports governance, ensuring clarity and compliance with Swiss law and IOC regulations. The panel's ruling was binding on the parties but did not extend to the IOC, which retains ultimate authority over sport recognition and Olympic program inclusion. The outcome highlights the complexities of defining governance rights for emerging sports and the importance of historical involvement and adherence to established criteria in such disputes.
Ultimately, the panel's decision affirmed the ISA's governance of SUP at the Olympic level, recognizing its longstanding contributions to the sport while allowing the ICF to continue developing SUP independently outside the Olympic framework. The ruling provided a resolution to the conflict, ensuring stability and clarity for the future of SUP within the international sports community.