- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- in India
- with readers working within the Advertising & Public Relations, Metals & Mining and Pharmaceuticals & BioTech industries
When the final whistle blows on the field, disputes no longer need to linger in courtrooms. Increasingly, they find resolution before arbitral tribunals- quietly, efficiently, and with expertise that modern sport demands.
Sport Beyond the Field: Commercial Disputes and Arbitral Solutions
Contemporary Indian sport has evolved far beyond stadiums and scorecards into a sophisticated commercial ecosystem encompassing franchises, broadcasters, sponsors, athletes, and governing bodies. This expansion has been accompanied by an inevitable increase in disputes, ranging from contractual and disciplinary issues to regulatory and governance related conflicts.
While traditional court litigation remains central to the rule of law, it is often ill-suited to disputes that demand urgency, technical expertise, and an informed understanding of the sporting sector. Arbitration, in contrast, provides a forum tailored for speed, finality, and specialised adjudication.
The Supreme Court, in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (2010) 8 SCC 24, underscored the rationale underlying alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, observing:
“The object of alternative dispute resolution processes is to provide expeditious and effective resolution of disputes, reducing the burden on courts.”
This philosophy has found growing resonance within the sporting context, where timely resolution is often essential to preserving competitive integrity, commercial certainty, and stakeholder confidence.
Indian Arbitration Law and the Imperative of Finality in Sport
Arbitration in India is governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a statute founded on the principles of party autonomy and minimal judicial intervention. Judicial interference is expressly confined to narrow grounds, most notably under Section 34 of the Act, which regulates challenges to arbitral awards.
The Supreme Court of India has consistently reaffirmed that courts do not sit in appeal over arbitral determinations. In Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI (2019) 15 SCC 131, the Court observed:
“A court does not act as a court of appeal while considering the challenge to an arbitral award. The court cannot reappreciate evidence and substitute its own conclusions for those of the arbitrator.”
This restrained standard of judicial review assumes particular significance in the context of sports disputes, where certainty, finality, and timely resolution are critical for athletes, sporting bodies, leagues, and investors alike.
Institutional Arbitration And The Global Sports Model
At the international level, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), established in 1984, has emerged as the apex adjudicatory body for sports related disputes. Recognised across jurisdictions, CAS adjudicates a wide spectrum of matters, including contractual disputes, disciplinary proceedings, and doping violations.
As aptly observed by Juan Antonio Samaranch, former President of the International Olympic Committee:
“Sport needs rules, but above all, it needs trust in those who enforce them.”
The legitimacy of CAS has also received judicial affirmation. In Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland (Applications Nos. 40575/10 and 67474/10, ECHR 2018), the European Court of Human Rights held that the Court of Arbitration for Sport “has sufficient guarantees of independence and impartiality” and “may be regarded as an independent and impartial tribunal established by law within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Convention.”
For Indian athletes and sporting federations, CAS is far from an abstract or distant institution. Its jurisdiction is routinely invoked under international federation statutes and the World Anti-Doping Code, rendering arbitration an unavoidable and integral feature of modern sport.
The Kochi Tuskers Precedent: Arbitration And Commercial Certainty
A defining moment for sports arbitration in India came with the long-running dispute between the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and the former IPL franchise Kochi Tuskers Kerala (BCCI v. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd. and BCCI Vs. Rendezvour Sports World and Ors.) MANU/MH/3362/2025, where the arbitral tribunal held that the termination of the franchise was wrongful and awarded substantial damages. In 2025, the Bombay High Court declined to interfere with the award, reaffirming the limited scope of judicial review under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Court observed that “the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is very limited” and emphasised that “BCCI's dissatisfaction as to the findings rendered in respect of the evidence and/or the merits cannot be a ground to assail the Award.”
The High Court further held that the arbitrator's conclusion that BCCI's termination “was a repudiatory breach of contract” was based on “a correct appreciation of the evidence on record” and “would call for no interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act”.
This approach is consistent with earlier Supreme Court authority, including McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.(2006) 11 SCC 181, where it was held:
“The arbitrator is the final judge of the quality as well as the quantity of evidence.”
The Kochi Tuskers ruling sent a clear message that commercial commitments in sport are enforceable, and arbitral finality will be respected.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
