Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property

The institutional complexity of international sports law in dispute resolution often creates confusion. In recent years, this confusion has been intensified by the blurring of the distinction between professional and amateur athletes. Historically, each category of athletes developed its own legal framework. However, this structure is evolving. For instance, the Olympic Movement was initially limited to competitions among amateur athletes, but it now increasingly influences the sporting activities of professional athletes. Consequently, there is a growing need for regulatory mechanisms to determine priorities among national bodies and international federations, such as FIFA, and between the International Olympic Committee and National Olympic Committees. The role of national courts also contributes to the complexity of this process.

Emerging Challenges in the Protection of Intellectual Property

Institutional decision-making and dispute resolution within international sports law form networks of authority rather than a comprehensive hierarchical system. Rules governing priority have developed along the following lines:

• National Bodies: National sports organizations bear primary responsibility for preventing and resolving organizational disputes and disputes arising between participants on the field of play. They also have the authority to impose disciplinary sanctions. Disagreements between athletes and their respective sports bodies are typically resolved through internal administrative review procedures conducted by an independent authority or through a hybrid process combining multiple mechanisms. In general, national bodies operate under the rules of their respective international federations, subject to mandatory provisions of applicable national laws.
• International Federations: International federations review decisions made by national bodies on a wide range of issues related to field of play violations and athlete eligibility. Arbitration typically resolves disputes between international federations and national bodies. Disputes concerning jurisdiction between international federations and National Olympic Committees are generally resolved either by the International Olympic Committee or by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. The outcome of such decisions frequently favors international federations. One example is an advisory opinion issued by the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which placed National Olympic Committee decisions concerning athlete doping under the primary jurisdiction of international federations. Ultimately, while the Olympic Charter provides a general framework, it remains unclear in certain circumstances when International Olympic Committee decisions supersede those of international federations within the broader structure of international sports law.
• National Olympic Committees: This rule may be invoked in disputes concerning athletes’ participation in sanctioned competitions. In certain instances, national legislation grants exclusive authority to National Olympic Committees to impose sanctions on international competitions and to determine athlete eligibility for participation. Such legislation may also limit the regulatory authority of National Olympic Committees in specific areas such as Olympic training periods, participant selection, and competition governance. Disputes related to the Olympic Movement and the organization of the Olympic Games are typically resolved through consultation between the International Olympic Committee and the relevant National Olympic Committees.
• International Olympic Committee: The International Olympic Committee independently reviews a broad range of decisions made by National Olympic Committees. Pursuant to Rule 28 of the Olympic Charter, the International Olympic Committee recognizes the exclusive authority of National Olympic Committees to represent their respective countries in fulfilling obligations related to sending athletes to sanctioned competitions. However, Rule 27 grants international federations the authority to establish eligibility criteria and to assume responsibility for the technical supervision and governance of their respective sports. Nevertheless, the International Olympic Committee reserves certain powers as the final adjudicator of disputes related to the Olympic Movement.
• National Courts: The authority of international sports law has developed through the requirement that national courts recognize and enforce the rules and decisions of competent national bodies and international federations.
• Mediation: The expansion of sports over recent decades and its transformation into a major global industry have given rise to increasingly complex legal issues. Given the unique characteristics of the sports sector, specialized legal frameworks have been developed to distinguish sports dispute resolution from general judicial proceedings. Mediation in sports tribunals is considered a significant advantage, as it allows parties to resolve disputes through fair, rational dialogue without appearing before formal judicial forums. Arbitration also serves as an important method for resolving sports-related disputes.

Frequently Asked Questions About Intellectual Property