The case involves a dispute between the Fédération Royale Belge de Gymnastique (FRBG) and the Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique (FIG), along with the Japan Gymnastics Association (JGA), concerning the bidding process for the 2023 Men’s and Women’s Artistic Gymnastics World Championships. The FRBG challenged the FIG’s decision to accept the JGA’s bid, arguing it was submitted past the deadline, thereby violating procedural fairness and equal treatment principles. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was tasked with resolving the dispute, focusing on jurisdiction, standing, and the interpretation of contractual terms.
The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction under Article 43.2 of the FIG Statutes and the Bid Contract, which stipulated Swiss law for interpretation. The central issue was the definition of "mid-December" as the submission deadline. Under Swiss law, "mid-December" was interpreted as December 15, while ordinary English usage suggested a broader range (11–20 December). The JGA submitted its bid on December 21, 2018, which the CAS deemed non-compliant with either interpretation. The FIG had initially communicated conflicting deadlines—November 30 and mid-December—creating ambiguity. The FRBG adhered to the mid-December deadline, submitting its bid on December 14, while the JGA’s late submission was accepted by the FIG, leading to the dispute.
The CAS emphasized procedural fairness, noting that all bidders must be treated equally. The FRBG had standing to appeal as its rights were directly affected by the FIG’s decision. The Panel rejected the FIG’s argument that the FRBG lacked standing, affirming that procedural irregularities in bid processes impact all participants. The CAS also dismissed the JGA’s claim that "mid-December" was open to flexible interpretation, ruling that the FIG’s communications and Swiss law supported December 15 as the definitive deadline.
The FIG’s inconsistent communications and acceptance of the JGA’s late bid were found to violate its own statutes and the principle of equal treatment. The CAS annulled the FIG’s decision to accept the JGA’s bid, declaring it invalid due to its late submission. The ruling reinforced the importance of clear contractual terms, adherence to deadlines, and procedural fairness in international sports governance. The CAS underscored that sports federations must consistently apply their rules to maintain transparency and fairness.
The decision highlighted the CAS’s role in upholding the lex sportiva principle, ensuring a level playing field in competitive bidding processes. It also addressed concerns about potential conflicts of interest, as the FIG President’s Japanese nationality raised questions about impartiality, though he recused himself from deliberations. The FRBG’s appeal was upheld, and all other relief requests were dismissed. The case serves as a precedent for enforcing strict compliance with submission deadlines and procedural integrity in international sports federations.
Ultimately, the CAS ruling clarified that ambiguous contractual terms must be interpreted consistently, and federations cannot arbitrarily deviate from established deadlines. The decision reinforced the need for sports governing bodies to maintain clear, transparent, and equitable processes to avoid disputes and uphold the integrity of competitive bidding. The FRBG’s bid was validated as the only compliant submission, ensuring fairness in the selection process for the 2023 World Championships.