Game On for Hong Kong’s Sports Arbitration
In the fast-paced world of sports, where competition extends beyond the field and into realms of contracts, endorsements and intellectual property rights, the need for a robust dispute resolution mechanism is paramount. In Hong Kong, with its burgeoning sports scene and strong legal infrastructure, the establishment of a dedicated sports arbitration system is essential to ensure the vitality of sport in the region.
Sports disputes in Hong Kong
Recently, the Hong Kong China Swimming Association’s (“HKCSA”) rules have sparked debate when a 9-year-old was barred from participating in the 2024 open championships, despite the swimmer meeting the qualifying time. HKCSA said the swimmer’s club lacked the necessary “competition member” status. The controversy prompted Hong Kong’s Sports Federation and Olympic Committee to call for a more flexible and inclusive qualification process. While HKCSA have promised to review their eligibility mechanism, there is no promise significant changes will be implemented.
This isn’t the first example of there being an unmet demand for sports arbitration in Hong Kong. Earlier this year, two powerlifters were banned from representing Hong Kong internationally after accusing the Hong Kong Weightlifting and Powerlifting Association (“HKWPA”) of withholding more than HK$200,000 in government subsidies intended to be received by athletes directly. The pair also said HKWPA had neglected to develop the sports in any meaningful way. In response, HKWPA merely suggested the pair file a complaint with law enforcement. It took intervention from lawmaker to call on authorities to investigate the existing grant mechanism and establish a third-party committee to handle complaints. Progress towards a solution, however, remains slow and uncertain.
Time and time again athletes, coaches, sporting bodies and sponsors are forced to rely on inconsistent internal processes and the intervention of officials to resolve sporting disputes. Indeed, it is rare for sports associations to insert arbitration or mediation clauses into their documents due to a lack of awareness of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for sport. Individuals and clubs simply cannot afford the costs of court litigation and are in need of a neutral, fair and efficient system for addressing and settling sports disputes.
Sports arbitration across the globe
Globally, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) located in Switzerland is the leading international body for adjudicating sports disputes. In recent years, Asia has seen significant strides in addressing the demand for sports dispute resolution, including the establishment of arbitration centres in Japan, Malaysia, Thailand and China. To align it with its Asian counterparts, Hong Kong needs to establish a dedicated sports arbitration body modelled after CAS to handle sports-related disputes.
With access to mediation and arbitration, the swimming club and the two powerlifters could find their disputes resolved in a much cheaper, more flexible and faster manner. The introduction of sports arbitration in Hong Kong is imminent. Not only is it essential to enhance access to justice, but also to foster the promotion of sport and genuine competition nation- and worldwide. Sporting associations are responsible for cultivating athletes to represent their country at an international level, and they must put structures in place to support this goal.
With its pool of experienced multilingual legal professionals, reciprocal agreements with the PRC, and “one country, two systems” principle, which allows the territory to maintain an independent judiciary and common law system that is familiar with international practitioners, Hong Kong is well placed to become a sports arbitration centre. We recognise that sports organisations and associations in Asia require a hub that is not only more geographically convenient than CAS, but also operates within Asian time zones. Hong Kong, with its rich arbitration expertise, stands poised to play an instrumental role in bringing this vision to fruition.
Conclusion
The resolution of the swimming dispute is approaching as the HKCSA has agreed to permit qualifying participants to compete in all tournaments irrespective of their club's membership status. This step signifies a positive advancement towards equity in sports governance, although the lack of a cohesive strategy and expertise impedes the resolution of numerous sports conflicts. The overall framework for resolving sports disputes in the region remains inconsistent, particularly in sectors where governing bodies and officials are less engaged, emphasizing the need for a structured arbitration system.
If Hong Kong wants to become a sports hub, it needs to commit to developing a comprehensive sports mediation and dispute resolution mechanism. With the upcoming 2026 Asian Games, Hong Kong’s embrace of sports arbitration is not just a necessity but a strategic move to ensure fair play. It can reinforce the territory’s position as a leading centre for international arbitration and contribute to the integrity and development of sports in the region.
