Abstract:

In the provisions on the sports arbitration system under China’s newly revised Sports Law, there exist three major problems: excessive restriction of the scope of case acceptance for sports arbitration, imperfect internal dispute resolution mechanisms within sports organizations, and the lack of freedom for parties to choose the dispute resolution mechanism. First, considering the special nature of sports labor disputes and sports commercial disputes, it is suggested that the scope of case acceptance for sports arbitration be interpreted expansively so as to grant it jurisdiction over the above two types of cases. Second, it is recommended that various sports associations improve the relevant provisions on dispute resolution mechanisms in their constitutions, thereby achieving the establishment of internal dispute resolution mechanisms within the industry and effective coordination with other mechanisms such as litigation and arbitration. Finally, it is proposed that party autonomy be respected in the choice of arbitration institutions, and that the competent institution for sports property rights disputes be determined by the parties themselves through arbitration agreements, so as to truly benefit the protection of the rights and interests of parties in sports disputes.

Keywords: Sports Arbitration; Scope of Jurisdiction; Industry Autonomy; Dispute Resolution

Sports arbitration can be regarded as the application of the arbitration system in sports activities, referring to the process by which parties to a sports dispute resolve the dispute through sports arbitration. The scope of sports activities here refers to sports activities in the field of competitive sports. Sports arbitration is a non-litigation dispute resolution system in nature, and it possesses incomparable advantages over general dispute resolution systems in terms of timeliness, professionalism, technicality, and enforceability of arbitral awards. It has become the primary choice for dispute resolution in the international sports community and in sports-developed countries. China’s new Sports Law was revised in 2022, and its most prominent highlight is the addition of a special chapter on sports arbitration, changing the previous situation where there was no clear legal basis for sports arbitration. This is of great significance for parties in sports disputes to safeguard their rights and interests. However, in the process of applying the sports arbitration provisions to guide practice, new problems have also emerged, the most important of which are disputes and reflections on the scope of jurisdiction and the coordination of dispute resolution mechanisms. In view of this, this article intends, on the basis of analyzing and summarizing the more controversial issues in practice, and in light of the nature of sports disputes themselves, to interpret and improve the sports arbitration system, so as to contribute to the healthy development of sports.

I. Distinctive Features of China’s Sports Arbitration System

(A) Determination of the Types of Disputes Arbitrable by the Sports Arbitration Commission

Article 92 of the new Sports Law stipulates: “Parties may, in accordance with arbitration agreements, sports organization constitutions, sports event rules, etc., apply for sports arbitration for the following disputes: (1) disputes arising from dissatisfaction with decisions made by sports social organizations, athlete management units, or sports event organizers in accordance with anti-doping management or other management regulations, such as disqualification, cancellation of competition results, or suspension; (2) disputes arising from athlete registration or transfer; (3) other disputes arising in competitive sports activities. Disputes arbitrable under the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China and labor disputes under the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Mediation and Arbitration of Labor Disputes are not within the scope of sports arbitration.” This article adopts a legislative expression method of “enumeration + catch-all + exclusion,” clearly defining the types of disputes that fall within the scope of sports arbitration.

According to the exclusionary restriction in Article 92, paragraph 2, disputes arising from athlete registration or transfer should, in principle, be limited to disputes arising from administrative actions such as determining the athlete’s representative unit or eligibility to participate. Contractual disputes between equal parties, other property rights disputes, and labor or personnel disputes arising from athlete registration or transfer are not within the scope of sports arbitration. The clear distinction between sports arbitration and labor arbitration is because the legislation has formed a mature and systematic mechanism for handling labor dispute arbitration. For sports disputes that are essentially labor disputes, applying labor arbitration is more helpful in effectively resolving the dispute. The advantage of this approach is that it provides clear normative guidance for the resolution of sports disputes and avoids buck-passing between institutions. However, the disadvantage is equally clear: sports dispute types have their own particularities, and it is difficult to confine them to a specific dispute resolution mechanism through classification. Overemphasis on avoiding mechanism overlap may instead lead to a situation where sports disputes have no appropriate recourse.

Also subject to the restriction on the scope of arbitration case acceptance under Article 92 of the Sports Law are contractual disputes and other property rights disputes in the sports field between citizens, legal persons, and other organizations as equal parties. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Switzerland is the highest dispute resolution body for sports disputes. According to the relevant provisions of CAS, the types of cases accepted by CAS include any dispute directly or indirectly related to sports, commercial disputes (such as sponsorship contract disputes, player transfer disputes, employment contract disputes), and disciplinary disputes (anti-doping disputes, disciplinary disputes, eligibility disputes), all of which are arbitrable. Compared with the relevant provisions of international arbitration, China’s Sports Law imposes relatively strict restrictions on the scope of case acceptance. It still needs to be continuously expanded and improved in light of practical needs to align with international arbitration provisions.

(B) Relationship Between Sports Arbitration and Litigation and Other Arbitration Mechanisms

On June 21, 2023, the Supreme People’s Court released a batch of typical civil cases involving sports disputes, which included not only substantive issues such as the security obligation of training institutions, identification of labor relations for athletes, protection of intellectual property rights related to sports events, and identification of unfair competition behaviors, but also procedural issues such as the adoption of behavioral preservation measures and the scope of sports arbitration versus the scope of case acceptance by the People’s Courts, reflecting innovative governance of litigation sources through pluralistic co-governance. For parties to sports disputes, sports arbitration and litigation mechanisms are parallel options. If the parties have not reached an arbitration agreement, the court should not refuse to accept the case on the grounds that “the case should be arbitrated by a sports arbitration institution and should not be under the jurisdiction of the court.” Once the parties choose sports arbitration, due to the “finality of arbitration” effect, the parties may no longer choose the litigation mechanism to resolve the same dispute. Sports arbitration and other arbitration mechanisms are in a contradictory relationship. Labor disputes stipulated in Article 92, paragraph 2 of the Sports Law are not within the scope of sports arbitration, but rather apply the “arbitration first, then litigation” system in the labor arbitration system, where the arbitration does not have a final effect.

Due to the particularities of sports disputes, members of the sports arbitration commission have a better understanding of the core of the dispute and related issues. Exploring the cross-management of sports labor disputes by various arbitration mechanisms is more conducive to leveraging the professional characteristics of sports arbitration, preventing other arbitration mechanisms from being unable to handle the problems in sports labor disputes fairly and comprehensively due to information asymmetry, and also implicitly increasing the arbitration burden on other arbitration institutions. Furthermore, although Article 97 of the Sports Law stipulates that after an award is made, if a party applies for sports arbitration or brings a lawsuit to the People’s Court regarding the same dispute, the sports arbitration commission or the People’s Court shall not accept it, this article does not clarify the issue of “arbitration first, then litigation” or “either arbitration or litigation.” This is also a source of the lack of sports arbitration cases in practice, and the authority and professionalism of sports arbitration are somewhat undermined. For example, in the case of Guo Zihao v. Shenyang Dongjin Football Club Co., Ltd. regarding recovery of labor remuneration, the court of first instance held that the parties had reached an arbitration agreement on the dispute resolution method in the signed work contract, thereby excluding the court’s jurisdiction over the dispute, and concluded that the plaintiff’s lawsuit did not fall within the scope of civil cases accepted by the People’s Court. The court of second instance, however, held that the appellant’s lawsuit complied with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law, and it was improper for the court of first instance to dismiss the lawsuit by ruling without legal grounds; the case should be heard. [1]

Finally, in the context of the long-term absence of domestic sports arbitration institutions, parties in disputes often choose international sports organization dispute resolution bodies or the Court of Arbitration for Sport, especially in clubs that introduce foreign players. The Sports Law’s clear-cut division of applicable arbitration mechanisms may not only lead to difficulties that a single mechanism cannot resolve, but also hinder the expansion of sports arbitration cases within domestic arbitration institutions. [2]

[1] See Civil Ruling of Shenyang Intermediate People’s Court, Liaoning Province (2021) Liao 01 Min Zhong No. 6159.

[2] See Liu Yongping, Li Zhi, “Reconsideration on the Construction of China’s Sports Arbitration System,” published in Strait Legal Science, Issue 3, 2022.

II. Problems in China’s Sports Arbitration System

(A) Excessive Restriction on the Scope of Case Acceptance for Sports Arbitration

According to Article 92, paragraph 2 of the Sports Law, disputes concerning athlete work contracts should be considered labor disputes and can only be submitted to the labor dispute arbitration commission for arbitration in accordance with Article 5 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Mediation and Arbitration of Labor Disputes. If a party is dissatisfied with the arbitration award, it may file a lawsuit with the People’s Court. However, in practice, courts have not formed a unified understanding of the case jurisdiction for such disputes. In the case of Shenyang Dongjin Football Club Co., Ltd. v. Wang Mian regarding labor dispute, the court of first instance held that although the contract signed between the two parties was titled a “work contract,” it was essentially a labor contract, and the dispute over unpaid wages constituted a labor dispute. If the parties were dissatisfied with the labor arbitration award, they could file a lawsuit with the People’s Court. The court of second instance, however, held that such disputes should be adjudicated by the Chinese Football Association Arbitration Commission, and the exclusion of the People’s Court’s jurisdiction over the dispute resolution method between the parties was in line with the characteristics of the football industry. The relationship between professional football players and clubs is a special labor relationship; applying the principle that special law prevails over general law, it should not be under the court’s jurisdiction. [1]

In the typical cases in the sports field released by the Supreme People’s Court, Case 8 indicates that an athlete suing with a wage IOU can be handled as an ordinary civil dispute. According to Article 15 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Labor Dispute Cases (I), if a worker directly files a lawsuit with an employer’s wage IOU and the claim does not involve other disputes in the labor relationship, there is no need to go through the pre-litigation arbitration procedure. Supporting athletes in recovering labor remuneration through litigation can promptly and effectively protect their labor rights and interests.

Sports disputes are disputes arising from differences over sports-related rights and obligations among relevant subjects in various activities involving sports. According to the nature of the case, they can be divided into four types: contractual sports disputes, administrative sports disputes, technical sports disputes, and protective sports disputes. Some opinions also hold that they can be divided into sports commercial disputes, sports labor disputes, sports organizational disputes, and sports disciplinary disputes. [2] The diversity of sports dispute types not only indicates the breadth of contentious cases but also shows that any single sports dispute case has a hybrid nature and is difficult to classify unequivocally into one case type. Artificial classification of types would increase the cost of rights protection; athletes may need to apply for arbitration at different arbitration institutions for the same dispute, leading to confusion in adjudication. According to the characteristics of the football industry, the work contracts between football players and clubs differ somewhat from general labor contracts, for example, special agreements on high penalty clauses and the inability to grant athletes the right to unilaterally resign during the contract period in accordance with the Labor Contract Law. Although the basic rights of athletes as workers should be protected equally with other workers, the involvement of other factors makes it difficult for adjudicators unfamiliar with the sports industry to make decisions based solely on the Labor Contract Law and other laws. Completely excluding labor disputes from the scope of sports arbitration would not only be inconsistent with the purpose of establishing the sports arbitration system under the Sports Law but also detrimental to protecting the legitimate rights and interests of parties in sports disputes.

[1] See Civil Ruling of Shenyang Intermediate People’s Court, Liaoning Province (2019) Liao 01 Min Zhong No. 3081.

[2] See Huang Shixi, “A Preliminary Study on International Sports Disputes and Their Resolution Methods,” published in Studies in Law and Business, Issue 1, 2003.

(B) Deficiency in Internal Dispute Resolution Mechanisms of Sports Organizations

The amendment of the Sports Law added methods for handling sports disputes, including sports arbitration, general arbitration, labor dispute mediation and arbitration, and litigation. Article 95, paragraph 1 adds a provision encouraging sports organizations to establish internal dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve disputes fairly, impartially, and efficiently. Due to the inherent institutional deficiencies of judicial mechanisms in resolving sports disputes (strict procedural requirements, long cycles, high costs), establishing internal dispute resolution mechanisms can effectively prevent sports disputes, protect parties’ sports rights, and achieve internal digestion of sports disputes. How to improve the internal dispute resolution mechanisms of sports organizations and achieve effective coordination with other mechanisms is a core issue in resolving sports disputes.

First, applying internal dispute resolution mechanisms to sports disputes has theoretical support. Supported by social governance theory and social contract theory, sports industry organizations assume some sports affairs management functions, establishing an effective governance structure among association members. Through collective agreement, they elect management personnel, jointly formulate constitutions, and vote on specific matters, essentially establishing a sports autonomy system with organizational autonomy, rule autonomy, and dispute resolution autonomy as its main content. [1] The various mechanisms for handling sports disputes may appear to be parallel options, but sports arbitration and the internal dispute resolution mechanisms of sports industry organizations are intricately linked. The development and improvement of the sports arbitration system require the support of sports industry associations, and the setting of rules for sports industry autonomous organizations needs to refer to the specific provisions of sports arbitration. These two mechanisms complement each other’s advantages and, together with the litigation mechanism, form a three-pronged dispute resolution mechanism for sports disputes. [2]

Second, handling sports disputes through a combination of internal and external mechanisms is a common practice in the global sports industry, but there are still many problems with internal dispute resolution mechanisms in China’s practice. According to a scholar’s statistics in 2021, among the 32 individual sports associations nationwide, 10 had established specialized dispute resolution institutions, but the provisions on sports dispute resolution were vague, not open and transparent, relatively simple in content, and had many gaps and omissions. By analyzing the text and operational practice of the rules, some scholars concluded that there were deficiencies such as lack of external supervision mechanisms, insufficient internal remedy mechanisms, and limited independence of arbitration institutions. There is still room for improvement in the content and procedural settings such as scope of jurisdiction, arbitration application, and hearing methods. [3]

Finally, internal dispute resolution mechanisms should be effectively coordinated with arbitration mechanisms and others. [4] Article 95, paragraph 2 of the Sports Law stipulates that if a sports organization has no internal dispute resolution mechanism or if the internal dispute resolution mechanism fails to handle the dispute in a timely manner, the parties may apply for sports arbitration. This provision establishes the supplementary role of the sports arbitration mechanism but does not clarify whether there is a mandatory sequence. In reality, it is not excluded that some sports autonomous organizations stipulate the mandatory priority application of internal handling mechanisms in their constitutions. For example, Article 65 of the Constitution of the Chinese Basketball Association stipulates that disputes falling within the scope of sports arbitration jurisdiction under the Sports Law of the People’s Republic of China shall first be submitted to the Association’s Dispute Resolution Committee for handling. If the parties are dissatisfied with the handling result or the Committee fails to handle the dispute in a timely manner, they may apply for sports arbitration in accordance with the law.

[1] See Yu Shanxu, “Discussion on Improving the Internal Dispute Resolution System of Sports Industry Associations in the Context of Establishing Sports Arbitration in China,” published in Journal of Physical Education, Issue 2, 2022.

[2] See Yang Yifan, “A New Exploration of the Systematization of China’s Sports Arbitration System: Based on Reflections on the 2022 Revision of the Sports Law,” published in Entertainment Law Internal Reference, Issue 19, 2022.

[3] See Zhao Yi, “Internal Dispute Resolution Mechanism of the Chinese Football Association in the Process of Legalization: Progress and Problems,” published in Journal of Shanghai University of Sport, Issue 6, 2020.

[4] See Liu Yun, “Construction of a Diversified Dispute Resolution Mechanism for Sports Disputes in China under the Background of Building a Sports Power: A Review of the ‘Sports Arbitration’ Chapter of the New Sports Law,” published in China Sport Science and Technology, Issue 9, 2022.

(C) The Need for Party Autonomy in the Choice of Sports Dispute Mechanisms

According to Article 92, paragraph 2 of the Sports Law, contractual disputes and other property rights disputes related to sports activities are also not within the scope of sports arbitration. The exclusion of property rights disputes is conducive to drawing a clear line between commercial arbitration and sports arbitration, preventing sports arbitration from being affected by economic and other disputes. However, the sports industry itself is difficult to completely separate from commerce. The operation of commercial models provides extremely important support for the development of the sports industry, and this complex combination does not mean that the parties remain independent after signing contracts, but rather that they shape the sports relationship through mutual influence. Faced with this new type of property relationship, commercial arbitration has certain inherent limitations and may not be well-suited to adapt to and resolve such disputes.

Second, according to the Statutes of the Bodies Working for the Settlement of Sports-Related Disputes formulated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), its scope of jurisdiction includes arbitration cases of a commercial nature. In the case of Jose Ignacio Urquijo Goitia v. Liedson Silva Muniz, the arbitration institution was able to exercise jurisdiction over economic contracts concluded between athletes and agents regarding sports content. In the case of Michel Platini v. FIFA, the arbitral tribunal also exercised jurisdiction over the sports economic dispute between Michel Platini and former FIFA President Joseph Blatter. Including sports commercial disputes within the scope of sports arbitration would align well with international rules and form a sports commercial dispute resolution mechanism connecting domestic sports arbitration with the international sports arbitration institution CAS. [1]

Finally, whether arbitration or litigation, their essence is to provide parties with a means to resolve disputes. Party autonomy is the precondition for choosing a dispute resolution mechanism. Since parties can choose industry autonomy or litigation to resolve sports disputes, why can they not be granted the right to independently choose the arbitration institution? Property rights disputes related to sports, such as endorsement contracts, agency contracts, and sponsorship contracts, are essentially disputes between equal parties. According to the basic principles of civil law, parties should be allowed to choose to submit these disputes to sports arbitration or general commercial arbitration institutions for handling. [2]

[1] See Zhang Jing, “A Study on the Specific Application of the Scope of Case Acceptance in China’s Sports Arbitration,” published in Contemporary Sports Technology, Issue 24, 2023.

[2] See Li Zhi, “The Establishment of an Independent Sports Arbitration System in China under the Background of Legal Revision,” published in Law Science, Issue 2, 2022.

III. Suggestions for Improving China’s Sports Arbitration System

(A) The Scope of Sports Arbitration Should Include Labor Disputes

Regarding Article 92, paragraph 2 of China’s Sports Law, it is suggested that sports labor dispute types be included within the scope of sports arbitration. First, disputes arising from work contracts signed by athletes, coaches, and clubs have extremely high requirements for timeliness. Although under current law, such disputes can be accepted and handled by labor dispute mediation and arbitration institutions, the lengthy arbitration and litigation procedures are not conducive to professional athletes’ rights protection, given their relatively short careers. With its professional characteristics, sports arbitration can provide athletes with a more convenient path for dispute resolution and accelerate the dispute resolution process. Furthermore, unlike the fixed and long-term nature of workers in their work institutions, athletes and coaches may be highly mobile between different clubs, and they have a strong demand for quick dispute resolution. There are also some special institutional designs in the sports field, such as priority registration, joint compensation, and contract protection periods. In response to these characteristics, sports arbitration has institutional advantages over labor arbitration, such as higher efficiency and stronger timeliness.

Second, in sports practice, sports labor disputes do not only involve labor relations disputes. The complete exclusion of labor-type cases seems to entrust professional matters to professional institutions, but it overlooks the practical accumulation during periods of unclear regulations. Under the athlete registration mechanism, labor disputes are closely linked to athlete registration, making management and disputes intertwined. Ordinary courts or labor dispute arbitration institutions may not have the capacity to handle issues related to labor disputes comprehensively. Sports arbitration institutions have themselves accumulated rich practical experience in handling disputes. Compared with labor dispute arbitration institutions, the former may be better able to handle labor disputes and related issues as a whole. The professional personnel in sports arbitration with sports expertise are also not available in labor dispute arbitration institutions.

Finally, according to the case statistics of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the proportion of labor disputes represented by transfers is approximately 10.3%. Including sports labor disputes within the scope of sports arbitration is also conducive to aligning with international systems. Faced with composite sports labor disputes, which may simultaneously contain multiple issues such as property nature, labor disputes, and personal nature, for example, the widespread labor disputes between football clubs and players in practice, they can be classified as either property rights disputes or labor disputes. The best approach is to include them within the scope of sports arbitration and, in conjunction with the principle of party autonomy, allow the parties to choose the dispute resolution mechanism for handling.

(B) Improve and Coordinate the Internal Dispute Resolution Mechanisms of Sports Organizations

Regarding Article 95 of China’s Sports Law, improvement suggestions can be made from two aspects: the improvement of internal dispute resolution mechanisms and their coordination with other dispute resolution mechanisms. According to the aforementioned problems, the internal constitutions of sports organizations may pre-set dispute resolution mechanisms and limit case jurisdiction to require that the sports organization first make a determination. Some scholars therefore advocate that Article 95 could consider adding a paragraph: “Any provision in the constitution of a sports association aimed at depriving parties of the right to submit to external arbitration or seek judicial relief from the court shall be deemed invalid.” [1] This would also be conducive to sports arbitration departments obtaining more cases and further promoting their own development. In fact, regarding the choice of sports dispute handling mechanisms, a party’s voluntary exclusion should be invalid. Article 95 essentially establishes the basic principle of “exhaustion of internal remedies.” After a sports dispute arises, industry autonomy should be applied as the priority mechanism for dispute resolution. Only when there are no corresponding rules within the industry or when corresponding remedies cannot be provided should the dispute case be submitted to external arbitration or litigation institutions for handling.

First, the establishment of internal dispute resolution mechanisms depends on the establishment of dispute resolution institutions within the sports industry. Currently, many sports associations in China have not yet established corresponding dispute resolution institutions. For those that need to set up a separate dispute resolution institution, the establishment should be accelerated. For those that do not need to add one, it is recommended to add provisions in the internal constitutions of sports associations regarding the jurisdiction of sports arbitration institutions to provide guidance for parties to resolve disputes.

Second, sports associations should, in light of the new provisions on sports arbitration in the Sports Law, add corresponding clauses in their internal constitutions. The Constitution of the Chinese Basketball Association has already completed the revision of clauses on democratic consultation and dispute resolution mechanisms, effectively linking them with the Sports Law. It is recommended that institutions that have not yet made revisions should also complete the content modifications regarding sports arbitration as soon as possible. The basic principle of “exhaustion of internal remedies” is a uniform rule formed on the basis of domestic and international sports dispute resolution practices and is an efficient mechanism for handling highly professional sports disputes. International individual sports federations usually make provisions on sports disputes subject to their jurisdiction. The judiciary should maintain restraint in intervening in sports disputes; decisions must follow the internal organizational rules of the sports profession. Only when the internal dispute resolution mechanism cannot provide adequate protection for the parties’ rights and interests should the judiciary intervene and play a final adjudicative role.

Finally, the priority application of internal dispute resolution mechanisms of sports industry organizations over the judiciary reflects the court’s respect for sports industry autonomy, but conversely, the impartiality of the judiciary is always the last line of defense for dispute resolution. While internal dispute resolution mechanisms are highly professional, they may also fail to achieve fair resolution due to internal habits. From the perspective of the establishment of sports arbitration institutions, whether in terms of personnel composition or funding sources, they are closely related to the sports industry. The extension of power may interfere with the resolution of disputes. Under such circumstances, it is necessary to introduce an external judicial mechanism as oversight. The judiciary has the ultimate power to revoke the results of autonomous dispute resolution mechanisms. The spirit of sports autonomy runs through both internal and external aspects of sports dispute resolution. The independence of autonomy is the core of sports dispute resolution, but to ensure that dispute resolution balances efficiency and fairness, judicial arbitration and litigation mechanisms must provide external oversight. The two should always maintain a beneficial interaction.

[1] See Jiang Shibo, Wang Yanting, Wang Ruikang, “Legislative Path Choices and Assumptions for the Systematization of Sports Arbitration in China: A Review of the Sports Law of the People’s Republic of China (Revised Draft),” published in Journal of Xi’an Physical Education University, Issue 2, 2022.

(C) Self-Selection of Mechanisms for Resolving Sports Property Rights Disputes

Regarding Article 92, paragraph 2 of China’s Sports Law, it is suggested that, under party autonomy, the competent institution for sports property rights disputes be determined by the parties through arbitration agreements. As noted above, sports property rights dispute cases are diverse and constitute the main part of sports disputes. If these disputes are completely allocated to general commercial arbitration institutions, it would undoubtedly severely limit the space for the sports arbitration system to function. For commercial disputes in the sports industry, sports arbitration institutions may have the advantage of specialized personnel, while commercial arbitration institutions have also accumulated certain experience. Neither is inherently superior to the other. The clear provisions in the Sports Law on the scope of sports arbitration case acceptance are intended to provide clear guidance for different types of dispute cases and to avoid buck-passing among arbitration institutions, which is detrimental to the actual resolution of disputes. However, this goal can also be achieved by expanding the scope of case acceptance and allowing parties to choose.

The establishment of the sports arbitration system is intended to leverage the professionalism of sports arbitration and achieve alignment with international arbitration. Restricting the scope of sports arbitration case acceptance is self-binding, which is not conducive to achieving these goals and limits the self-development of sports arbitration. From the ultimate goal of sports dispute resolution, whether sports arbitration, litigation, or other arbitration methods, the essence is to provide parties with a convenient path for dispute resolution. In other words, the cost of choosing a litigation mechanism should be allocated to the parties themselves, who should choose the most suitable arbitration institution, rather than restricting the right of action that the parties can assert.

Party autonomy is the key to fully leveraging the role of various sports dispute resolution mechanisms. Its purpose is to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the parties involved. The way to achieve this goal is to provide the parties with as many options as possible for dispute resolution mechanisms. To realize the function of party autonomy, the scope of sports arbitration case acceptance needs to be expanded to ensure that the parties enjoy the freedom to choose. In areas where mandatory judicial intervention is not required, especially for sports disputes of a property rights nature, parties should be allowed as much as possible the freedom to choose remedies, so as to test the actual functioning of various systems in practice and thereby define the reasonable boundaries between mechanisms.

References:

[1] Liu Yongping, Li Zhi. “Reconsideration on the Construction of China’s Sports Arbitration System.” Strait Legal Science, Issue 3, 2022.

[2] Huang Shixi. “A Preliminary Study on International Sports Disputes and Their Resolution Methods.” Studies in Law and Business, Issue 1, 2003.

[3] Yu Shanxu. “Discussion on Improving the Internal Dispute Resolution System of Sports Industry Associations in the Context of Establishing Sports Arbitration in China.” Journal of Physical Education, Issue 2, 2022.

[4] Yang Yifan. “A New Exploration of the Systematization of China’s Sports Arbitration System: Based on Reflections on the 2022 Revision of the Sports Law.” Entertainment Law Internal Reference, Issue 19, 2022.

[5] Zhao Yi. “Internal Dispute Resolution Mechanism of the Chinese Football Association in the Process of Legalization: Progress and Problems.” Journal of Shanghai University of Sport, Issue 6, 2020.

[6] Liu Yun. “Construction of a Diversified Dispute Resolution Mechanism for Sports Disputes in China under the Background of Building a Sports Power: A Review of the ‘Sports Arbitration’ Chapter of the New Sports Law.” China Sport Science and Technology, Issue 9, 2022.

[7] Zhang Jing. “A Study on the Specific Application of the Scope of Case Acceptance in China’s Sports Arbitration.” Contemporary Sports Technology, Issue 24, 2023.

[8] Li Zhi. “The Establishment of an Independent Sports Arbitration System in China under the Background of Legal Revision.” Law Science, Issue 2, 2022.

[9] Jiang Shibo, Wang Yanting, Wang Ruikang. “Legislative Path Choices and Assumptions for the Systematization of Sports Arbitration in China: A Review of the Sports Law of the People’s Republic of China (Revised Draft).” Journal of Xi’an Physical Education University, Issue 2, 2022.