Sports Arbitration: Takes Center Stage in Asia-Pacific
min readIntroduction
The spotlight is on Paris as it hosts the Olympics after a century, sparking excitement in Hong Kong as they witness team Hong Kong, China’s success.
Italy's CONI. This incident highlights the need for a sports arbitration system in Hong Kong to efficiently resolve disputes in the APAC region. Moving forward, Hong Kong is exploring options such as creating its own sports arbitration center or collaborating with existing institutions like the HKIAC.
Amid doping controversies from Tokyo, a new dispute emerged at the Paris Games when Italy’s Olympic Committee (“CONI”) lodged a complaint over a gold medal match decision following foilist Cheung Ka-long’s gold medal match victory over Filippo Macchi. Notably, CONI’s president labelled the decision by the referees a “disgrace” and complained that the referees (from South Korea and Chinese Taipei respectively) were selected from regions that are nearer to Hong Kong. Had a similar incident occurred in a Hong Kong / APAC-based competition, would we have a mechanism to efficiently resolve the dispute?
In our recent piece “Game On for Hong Kong’s Sports Arbitration”, we discussed the need for a dedicated sports arbitration system in Hong Kong to serve the needs in the APAC region. In this piece, we discuss what we think may be the way forward in driving the initiative.
Key takeaways
To further reinforce the territory’s position as a leading centre for international arbitration and contribute to the integrity and development of sports in the APAC region, Hong Kong is developing its own sports arbitration mechanism, potentially by establishing: its own centre (perhaps modelled after Switzerland’s Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”)); a Hong Kong branch of the China Commission of Arbitration for Sport (“CCAS”); or a mechanism with existing institutions such as the HKIAC.
Hong Kong has a unique edge over its APAC counterparts, as it is one of the most preferred seats for international arbitration; has an established common law framework; and has a range of reciprocal arrangements in arbitration with Mainland China. There is therefore no reason why the world city of Asia could not evolve to take on a leading role in sports arbitration. Rome wasn’t built in a day, as the saying goes, and with the Asian Games 2026 fast approaching, now is the time to expedite this evolution.
With a wealth of sports-related disputes experience in Europe and the APAC region, Charles Russell Speechlys is here to support our clients to navigate complexities on this journey.
Sports Arbitration in Hong Kong – The Way Forward
As the global sports (including e-sports) market continues to expand, the demand for related dispute resolution services have also increased in the APAC region. Apart from competition-related disputes and disciplinary matters, sports-related disputes also include contractual disputes and governance matters. Stakeholders include sports bodies (associations / federations), athletes, sponsors and more.
Over the years, we have seen a proliferation of arbitration centres in Asia: from the Japan Sports Arbitration Agency founded in 2003 to the CCAS founded in 2023. Hong Kong is developing its equivalent via several potential avenues:
- Establish a Hong Kong arbitration centre dedicated for sports-related disputes: Whether or not modelled after the CAS, Hong Kong can attempt to set up its own centre, with its own list of arbitrators and rules.
- Establish a Hong Kong branch of the CCAS: As an alternative, Hong Kong may join force with CCAS and benefit from the already established rules and mechanism.
- Develop a mechanism with existing Hong Kong institutions: The HKIAC already has a rich pool of arbitrators with expertise in sport. To build on this, HKIAC and other existing arbitration institutions as well as the Law Society in Hong Kong can establish dedicated panels of arbitrators specialised in sports-related matters. This will help identify the pool of experts in the area, and for their credentials to be readily available for stakeholders’ consideration when the need arises. Existing arbitration institutions in Hong Kong can then develop its own set of rules tailored for sports-related disputes.
Option 3 is perhaps the most practical for Hong Kong to gain short/medium-term momentum. But whichever option is adopted, further efforts by the government/ institutions will be required to encourage stakeholders, in Hong Kong, the PRC and the broader APAC region to refer any sport-related disputes to Hong Kong. Notably, engagement with sports bodies in Hong Kong (most of whom currently prefer to resolve disputes via internal procedures) is needed to reinforce their understanding of the advantages of arbitration such as (i) procedural flexibility and timely resolution, which is crucial to an athlete’s short career; (ii) impartiality and expertise; and (iii) confidentiality.
Why Hong Kong?
Currently, the CAS is the exclusive forum for disputes in respect of sports governed by the key international federations. And although Hong Kong is still in the course of establishing its own sport-specific mechanism, Hong Kong already possesses the necessary experience and strengths to provide sports dispute resolution services in both local and APAC context in at least some aspects such as contractual disputes amongst sports stakeholders.
Firstly, Hong Kong has always been regarded as one of the leading seats for international arbitration, with unique strengths to offer quality sports disputes resolution. Hong Kong has a comprehensive and mature common law framework, with a supportive judiciary to facilitate the conduct of arbitration. Hong Kong has a unique connection with Mainland China. With three reciprocal arrangements in arbitration with Mainland China concerning mutual enforcement and interim measures, Hong Kong has an unparallel advantage over its counterparts and can provide incredible convenience for arbitration users when resolving disputes with Mainland-related elements.
Also, parties to a Hong Kong seated arbitration have full autonomy in selecting arbitrators from anywhere across the globe, based on their expertise, availability, and neutrality, allowing for the appointment of individuals who are best suited to the specific nuances of the sports dispute at hand. On the flip side, in recent years there has also been a high demand for Hong Kong counsels to sit as arbitrators of both domestic and international arbitration centres.
Lastly, where all the parties involved are from the APAC region, existing arbitration institutions in Hong Kong such as the HKIAC are well experienced and equipped to manage such disputes in an efficient manner within the same time zone, and to provide proximate facilities for meetings, mediations, and hearings for all parties.
Conclusion
While Hong Kong’s sports arbitration practice is in its infancy, it has massive potentials to grow.
At Charles Russell Speechlys, we envision this future and are ready to support our clients in APAC to resolve their sports-related disputes in Hong Kong and to navigate complexities as the mechanism evolves.
Our expertise
At Charles Russell Speechlys, we are one of the only law firms with an international focus on sports arbitration and dispute resolution. With offices in Hong Kong, Singapore, and Switzerland, we are well versed to handle matters relating to the CAS and/ or the APAC region for athletes, federations, and governing bodies.
Our lawyers, in APAC and beyond, work at the cutting-edge of sports development in relation to data protection, commercial contracts, and technology, and their experience speaks volume. Benoit Pasquier, a listed CAS arbitrator at our Zurich office, is regularly appointed in CAS proceedings and works extensively on matters relating to commercial sports law (e.g. sponsorship, media rights, and merchandising) and sports integrity (match-fixing). Edward Craig, in our London office, successfully obtained a high-value award for an international sports regulatory body and defeated an appeal for anti-doping – both in the CAS. Patrick Chan, in our Hong Kong office, successfully defended in an anti-doping appeal by a professional ice skater.
