The case revolves around a dispute between basketball player B. and the International Basketball Federation (FIBA) concerning his eligibility to compete under Belgian nationality in international competitions. B., born in the United States but holding dual citizenship (American and Belgian) through his father, argued that FIBA's classification of him as an American player violated his rights as a Belgian citizen and conflicted with European free movement principles. FIBA's regulations prioritize the nationality of a player's birthplace in cases of dual citizenship to prevent arbitrary changes for competitive advantage, including a three-year waiting period for players over 19 who wish to switch their sporting nationality. B. had previously registered as an American player in European leagues, which FIBA cited as evidence of his voluntary initial classification. The dispute escalated when B. sought to play for a Belgian club and national team, leading to legal proceedings in Belgian courts and eventual arbitration before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS ruled in favor of FIBA, upholding its regulations as private international law governing basketball that do not conflict with national sovereignty over citizenship. The tribunal found FIBA's rules on sporting nationality neither arbitrary nor disproportionate, as they serve the legitimate purpose of maintaining competitive integrity. The decision emphasized the distinction between legal nationality (a matter of public law) and sporting nationality (a private regulatory matter). The CAS also dismissed B.'s claims under European free movement laws, as he had waived reliance on these arguments during proceedings. The ruling clarified that FIBA's regulations do not unlawfully restrict B.'s rights but apply a neutral and justified system to ensure consistency in player eligibility.
The document further explains FIBA's regulations, which distinguish between legal nationality and basketball nationality, prioritizing the country of birth (ius soli) for players with multiple citizenships. Players can opt to change their basketball nationality, with different procedures for those under and over 19 years of age. The three-year waiting period for older players is designed to prevent arbitrary changes while maintaining fairness. The arbitration tribunal rejected B.'s appeal, reinforcing that FIBA's rules do not infringe on state sovereignty over citizenship and are neither arbitrary nor disproportionate. The ruling reaffirmed the distinction between legal and basketball nationality, ensuring clarity and consistency in international basketball eligibility. Ultimately, the CAS confirmed FIBA's authority to determine sporting nationality independently of state citizenship laws, upholding its regulatory framework as a necessary and fair mechanism for international competitions.