The case involves an arbitration dispute between BC Arsenal, a Russian basketball club, and the Russian Basketball Federation (RBF) regarding sanctions imposed for alleged unsportsmanlike conduct during a game on December 7, 2019. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued an award on August 3, 2020, with the operative part dated April 8, 2020. The sole arbitrator, Prof. Martin Schimke, addressed several legal principles, including jurisdiction, standing, proportionality, and the legality of sanctions. The dispute arose from a game between BC Arsenal and BC Dynamo Stavropol, where Arsenal was accused of passive play and intentional missed shots in the fourth quarter, violating principles of fair play under Article 7.2 of the Championship Regulations. The RBF Executive Committee annulled the game result, excluded Arsenal from the league, and suspended players and the coach, citing a prior warning from the 2017-2018 season.
BC Arsenal contested the sanctions, arguing the RBF Executive Committee lacked authority, the decision was procedurally flawed, and the penalty was disproportionate. The club also claimed the RBF failed to provide a clear legal basis for the sanctions and violated principles of predictability and equal treatment, as Dynamo received only a warning for similar conduct. The RBF defended its decision, asserting jurisdiction under Article 8.1 of the Championship Regulations, which allows exclusion for gross violations. It argued the sanction was necessary to protect the competition's integrity and financial interests, emphasizing Arsenal's prior misconduct.
The CAS upheld the RBF's decision, confirming its jurisdiction under Article 94.7 of the Championship Regulations, which permits disputes to be resolved by either the National Center for Sports Arbitration (NCSA) or CAS. The arbitrator rejected Arsenal's procedural objections, noting the appeal process allowed for a de novo review. On the merits, the arbitrator found the RBF Executive Committee had authority under Article 8.1 to exclude Arsenal for gross violations of fair play. The sanction was deemed proportionate, given Arsenal's prior warning and the adverse impact of its conduct on the competition. The arbitrator also dismissed claims of unequal treatment, noting Dynamo's lack of prior violations justified the lesser sanction.
The case highlights the balance between enforcing disciplinary rules and ensuring fairness in sports governance. It underscores the importance of clear regulations, procedural fairness, and proportionate sanctions in maintaining competitive integrity. The CAS decision reaffirmed the RBF's authority to impose disciplinary measures while emphasizing the need for consistency and predictability in sanctions. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, and the RBF's sanctions were upheld. The ruling serves as a reminder of the legal and ethical standards governing sports conduct and the role of arbitration in resolving such disputes.