Author: Rupal Rani, University Of Petroleum And Energy Studies
To the Point
India’s sports sector has undergone a significant transformation over the past two decades. The emergence of commercial leagues such as the Indian Premier League (IPL), Indian Super League (ISL), and the Pro Kabaddi League has not only increased public interest but has also introduced complex legal relationships involving players, teams, broadcasters, sponsors, and regulatory bodies. These relationships often give rise to disputes over selection, doping allegations, breach of contract, sponsorship violations, and disciplinary actions. However, despite the economic significance and global exposure of Indian sports, the country lacks a consolidated legislative framework specifically dedicated to sports law. Most sports disputes are either settled internally by federations or litigated in regular courts, which are often ill-equipped to deal with the urgency and technicalities involved. Arbitration, especially sports arbitration, presents itself as a timely and effective solution. It offers a confidential, faster, and expert-oriented alternative to litigation. With India’s growing presence in international sports, there is a compelling need to adopt structured and specialized dispute resolution mechanisms that uphold the principles of fairness, efficiency, and expertise—values that are central to the idea of sports arbitration.
Abstract
In this article, the author critically examines the Indian terrain of sports arbitration with a view to highlighting the systemic voids in the legal system of India as it addresses sports disputes. It undertakes an overview of the international evolution of sports arbitration, highlighting the role of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne as the hub for the determination of high-profile international sports disputes .Drawing from this international model, the article evaluates India’s current position, including its reliance on the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the lack of a standalone sports arbitration law. It discusses the challenges associated with arbitrability of sports disputes, jurisdictional overlaps, and the enforcement of awards—particularly those rendered by CAS or similar foreign arbitral forums. Additionally, the article investigates how India has responded through institutional mechanisms, notably the establishment of the Sports Arbitration Centre of India (SACI) in 2021, which is intended to fill the vacuum in the domestic dispute resolution system for sports. It also analyzes legislative efforts such as the National Sports Development Bill, 2013, and the National Sports Ethics Commission Bill, 2016, which reflect a growing recognition of the need for governance reforms in the sports sector. In the end, the paper makes the argument that although India has started down the path to a strong sports arbitration framework, much more needs to be done to codify procedures and bring domestic systems into line with international best practices.
Use of Legal Jargon
Sports arbitration in India functions within the overarching framework of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which is heavily influenced by the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. This statute lays down the foundation for both domestic and international arbitration in India. Key provisions such as Section 7 (arbitration agreement), Section 16 (jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal), and Sections 34 and 36 (setting aside and enforcement of arbitral awards) are regularly invoked in sports-related disputes. Despite the growing need, India does not yet have a codified “Sports Law”, and legal issues in the field are often addressed through judicial interpretation or policy directives. In cases involving contractual breaches—for example, between a franchise and a player—or disciplinary actions for doping, sports arbitration offers a forum where disputes can be resolved with expertise and minimal public exposure. Issues involving intellectual property rights, such as unauthorized use of logos or team branding, and broadcasting disputes, especially relating to exclusive media rights, are also arbitrable under current Indian law. One significant legal innovation is the founding of the Sports Arbitration Centre of India (SACI) in Gujarat. It provides institutional arbitration, ensuring proceedings are administered in a structured manner. SACI seeks to emulate the success of CAS, offering a specialized platform for selection controversies, anti-doping violations, and contract enforcement, all within a legally recognized and expert-driven forum.
The Proof
The commercial explosion of sports in India is best evidenced by the rise of marquee events such as the Indian Premier League (IPL), Pro Kabaddi League, Premier Badminton League, and Hockey India League. These leagues have turned sport into a billion-dollar business, attracting major investments, endorsements, and international talent. Nevertheless, more litigation and legal risk accompany greater commercialization.Disputes involving athlete contracts, team selections, sponsorship obligations, and anti-doping violations have grown in frequency and complexity. Despite this evolution, India still lacks a comprehensive legal regime to address such conflicts. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland, has developed as the global benchmark in this field, with a well-defined legal structure, procedural code, and enforceability under the New York Convention. CAS provides both ordinary and appeals arbitration divisions, and has handled major disputes like Dutee Chand v. AFI & IAAF.
Although Indian courts have recognized and enforced foreign arbitral awards under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, there is a gap in terms of domestic institutional capacity. The establishment of SACI marks India’s first attempt to develop an internal system for sports arbitration. However, challenges remain—such as a lack of awareness among stakeholders, absence of a national sports arbitration statute, and limited availability of trained arbitrators with domain-specific expertise. The growing body of jurisprudence in Indian courts, along with emerging institutional frameworks, demonstrates a gradual but significant shift toward aligning with international best practices in sports dispute resolution.
Case Laws
1 BCCI V. Cricket Association of Bihar, AIR 2015 SC 3194
The case arose from allegations of corruption and betting in the Indian Premier League (IPL), specifically involving high-ranking officials of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). The Cricket Association of Bihar filed a writ petition seeking judicial intervention into the opaque functioning of BCCI. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for transparency and accountability in sports governance and constituted the Lodha Committee to recommend structural reforms in BCCI. Although this case did not involve arbitration, it became a landmark ruling in the context of sports administration, establishing that sports bodies are subject to judicial oversight, especially when public interest and national reputation are at stake.
2 Dutee Chand v, AFI & IAAF, CAS 2014/A/3759
Dutee Chand, an Indian sprinter, was barred from competing under the IAAF’s hyperandrogenism policy, which disqualified female athletes with testosterone levels above a certain threshold. She challenged the ban before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that it was discriminatory and violated her rights. The CAS ruled in Dutee Chand’s favor, suspending the policy and affirming that there was insufficient evidence to prove a competitive advantage due to naturally high testosterone. This case is a pivotal example of how sports arbitration protects athlete rights and ensures fairness and scientific integrity in policy enforcement.
3 Churchill Brothers v. All India Football Federation (W.P. 9775/2015)
Churchill Brothers, a football club, was excluded from participating in the I-League by the All India Football Federation (AIFF) based on licensing criteria. The club challenged this decision in the Delhi High Court, alleging violation of principles of natural justice and arbitrary exclusion. The Delhi High Court ruled that sports federations are not immune from judicial scrutiny and must follow due process. It held that decisions affecting rights and interests must conform to fairness and transparency, setting a precedent for judicial review of sports body decisions, especially when procedural irregularities are involved.
4 World Sports Group Ltd v. MSM Satellites PTE Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 639
This dispute arose from a commercial agreement related to broadcasting rights of cricket matches, where one party sought to enforce a foreign arbitral award passed by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in Singapore. The Supreme Court clarified that foreign arbitral awards are enforceable in India under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, provided they meet the conditions under the New York Convention. This ruling affirmed that CAS and other foreign arbitral awards are valid and enforceable in India, making it crucial in the context of international sports arbitration.
5 Booz Allen v. SBI Finance, (2011) 5 SCC 53
The dispute involved a mortgage-related issue where one party attempted to refer the matter to arbitration. The court had to determine whether such a dispute was arbitrable under Indian law. The Supreme Court held that disputes involving rights in rem (rights enforceable against the world, like property rights) are non-arbitrable, whereas disputes involving rights in personam (between specific parties, such as contractual disputes) are arbitrable. Though not related to sports, this case laid down the fundamental test for arbitrability in India, which is essential in evaluating whether sports disputes, especially those involving contracts, selection, or disciplinary actions, can be referred to arbitration.
Conclusion
As India’s sports industry experiences unprecedented growth driven by broadcasting rights, sponsorship deals, and private investments, the need for a structured and efficient legal framework to resolve disputes is more critical than ever. Modern sports have evolved from mere entertainment into arenas of national pride, economic power, and global competition. Events like the Indian Premier League (IPL) showcase the commercial complexity of sports, where multiple stakeholders—players, federations, sponsors, and media entities—enter into intricate legal and financial relationships that often lead to disputes over contracts, sponsorships, doping, and player eligibility.
Arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has proved to be the favored mode of resolving such disagreements.Thanks to the doctrine of severability, arbitration clauses remain valid and enforceable even if the main contract is terminated or held void. This makes the inclusion of arbitration clauses in sports contracts essential, as it allows both parties to resolve their disputes efficiently outside of lengthy and costly litigation.
Today’s sports contracts mirror corporate agreements and deal with responsibilities, risks, and dispute resolution strategies. However, Indian sports governance continues to face challenges such as mismanagement, corruption, biased selections, and lack of transparency—issues that underscore the need for formal legal processes. Arbitration serves as a practical alternative, especially given the urgency and time-sensitive nature of sporting events, where court delays can unjustly sideline athletes from competitions.
Sports arbitration offers confidentiality, speed, and expertise. It enables disputes to be resolved within months by arbitrators well-versed in sports law. Well-funded sports organizations are also financially equipped to bear the costs of arbitration, which further supports its adoption. Confidentiality is another major benefit, protecting the reputations and commercial interests of athletes and organizations from public scandals.
In conclusion, sports arbitration provides a timely, fair, and effective solution for managing disputes in India’s fast-growing sports industry. An important step toward improving governance, safeguarding stakeholder interests, and maintaining the integrity of Indian sports is the institutionalization of procedures such as the Sports Arbitration Centre of India (SACI).
FAQS
1. What is Sports Arbitration?
Sports Arbitration is a specialized form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) that is designed to address disputes arising within the sports industry. Unlike traditional court litigation, which is often slow and expensive, sports arbitration provides a faster, confidential, and expert-driven mechanism to resolve conflicts. It caters to disputes involving athletes, coaches, national and international sports federations, broadcasters, sponsors, and governing authorities. Common issues resolved through sports arbitration include doping violations, contractual disagreements between players and teams, disputes over broadcasting rights and sponsorship agreements, eligibility and selection controversies, disciplinary actions, and intellectual property matters such as unauthorized use of logos and branding.
2. Is Sports Arbitration legally recognized in India?
Yes, sports arbitration is legally recognized in India; however, it is not governed by a separate or dedicated sports law. Instead, it operates within the framework of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which governs both domestic and international arbitration proceedings in India. This legislation provides the necessary legal foundation for recognizing arbitration agreements (as defined under Section 7), conferring jurisdiction on arbitral tribunals (Section 16), and allowing for the enforcement or setting aside of arbitral awards (Sections 34 and 36) Further, awards rendered by CAS and other international tribunals are enforceable in India under Part II of the 1996 Act if they are in line with the criteria laid down by the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.
3. What is SACI?
Sports Arbitration Centre of India (SACI) is the nation’s inaugural institutional arbitration organization solely formed to solve sports-related disputes. It was launched in 2021 in Gujarat by then Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju. SACI was envisioned to serve as a domestic forum for resolving a wide range of conflicts within the sports industry, including those involving athlete contracts, doping violations, team selection issues, disciplinary proceedings, and sponsorship disagreements. The primary aim of SACI is to provide an efficient, impartial, cost-effective, and specialized dispute resolution platform that reduces the burden on traditional courts, which often lack expertise in sports law. SACI emphasizes transparency, neutrality, and confidentiality in its proceedings and seeks to emulate the standards set by international bodies like CAS.
4. Are selection disputes arbitrable?
Yes, selection disputes are generally considered arbitrable in India, although there are certain limitations. When an athlete or coach is not selected for a tournament or event, and there exists a valid arbitration clause in their contract or in the governing body’s rules, the matter can be referred to arbitration—especially if the dispute arises from a violation of selection guidelines, bias, or denial of due process. However, the scope of arbitration in such matters is not absolute. Indian courts have held that where the selection process implicates constitutional rights, involves arbitrary decision-making, or lacks procedural fairness, the affected party can seek judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
5. What is the time limit for filing an appeal in CAS?
According to Article R 49 of the Code of Sports-Related Arbitration, the time limit for filing an appeal before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is 21 days from the date on which the decision being contested is received. This deadline is strictly applied, and late submissions are generally not accepted unless extraordinary circumstances justify the delay. The rationale behind this strict timeline is similar to sports, where timely resolution is critical due to the short duration of tournaments and the limited career span of athletes.
