Sports Arbitration: A perspective from Singapore

This is the ninth article in Clyde & Co’s latest international arbitration series covering the topic of Sports Arbitration. In this piece, Partner Leon Alexander, Legal Director Hannah Chua and Associate Elizabeth Teo from our Singapore office provide an overview of sports arbitration in Singapore.

Overview

While the use of arbitration as a preferred means of alternative dispute resolution is widely recognised in commercial disputes, its application has also extended to other fields such as sports, with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) being the leading institution for international sports arbitration. 

In sporting disputes, matters are typically adjudicated privately within the internal processes of national governing bodies before potentially being escalated to the CAS. Although arbitral awards do not create binding precedents, CAS awards do carry significant precedential weight, mirroring the common law principle of stare decisis in court proceedings. To this end, the CAS publishes a substantial majority of its appeal case awards on its website, enhancing transparency in the resolution of sporting disputes.

Sports Arbitration Framework in Singapore 

In Singapore, domestic arbitrations are governed by the Arbitration Act 2001, whilst international arbitrations fall under the purview of the International Arbitration Act 1994. A valid and binding written arbitration agreement, demonstrating the parties' clear intention to resolve disputes through arbitration, is a prerequisite for commencing arbitration proceedings.

Court of Arbitration for Sport 

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is an international arbitral institution established by the International Olympic Committee in 1984 to address the need for independent resolution of disputes within the global sports community. The CAS hears appeals against decisions made by sports organisations, including matters related to employment such as wrongful termination of player contracts and private contractual disputes involving agents, athletes and clubs. While on-field appeals may also be brought before the CAS, decisions regarding the application and enforcement of game rules by officials (e.g. field of play decisions) are generally upheld unless there is clear evidence of bad faith or corruption.¹  

The CAS broadly comprises three divisions: (a) the Ordinary Division, (b) the Appeals Arbitration Division, and (c) the Anti-Doping Division.² The CAS Court Office assigns the arbitration proceedings to the appropriate Division and such assignment may not be contested by parties nor raised as a cause of irregularity. The arbitration may be re-assigned where there is a change of circumstances during the proceedings, subject to consultation with the Panel.

Different procedural rules apply depending on whether the arbitration proceedings are conducted under the Ordinary Arbitration Procedure or the Appeals Procedure. 

Award

The Procedural Rules of the CAS provide that the seat of the CAS and each arbitration panel is Lausanne, Switzerland, although the hearing may be held at a different location. The Panel may decide not to hold a hearing if they consider the written submissions sufficient. The Panel will then make an award following the hearing (if any). This award is final and binding, subject to challenge by Swiss courts. 

In the Singapore context, awards from the CAS would fall under the purview of the International Arbitration Act 1994. Further, as both Singapore and Switzerland are contracting states to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards (New York Convention), a CAS Award may also be readily recognised and enforced in Singapore. 

Alternative Dispute Resolution for Sports

A further dispute resolution mechanism available in Singapore is the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Sports scheme (ADR Sports). This scheme is an initiative by the Singapore Sports Council and provides an avenue for domestic arbitration and mediation for sports disputes such as athlete selections, disciplinary matters and contractual disputes. 

It is compulsory for all National Sports Associations (explained below) to adopt the ADR Sports. However, the scheme excludes issues related to government funding, criminal cases, and matters under the exclusive jurisdiction of the World Anti-Doping Agency and the judicial bodies of International Sports Federations and the CAS.

Local Sports Associations

Within Singapore, national governing bodies operate under their respective constitutions and rules that govern the behaviour of their members and affiliates. Typically, these constitutions include provisions requiring internal review and contain appeal processes for disputes between members and affiliates, before such matters can be escalated to an external body like the CAS, if necessary. 

Singapore National Olympic Council

The Singapore National Olympic Council (SNOC) is tasked with selecting Singaporean athletes for international multi-sport events. Athletes chosen by the SNOC must sign a Team Membership Agreement that includes a Code of Conduct. A breach of this agreement can lead to sanctions imposed by the SNOC Disciplinary Committee. The Code of Conduct outlines obligations concerning off-field behaviour of athletes, such as upholding the reputation of Singapore and the SNOC, and maintaining exemplary conduct at all times. For example, whilst the World Anti-Doping Agency does not prohibit the use of recreational controlled substances outside of competition, the SNOC has fined and sanctioned local athletes for such behaviour. One prominent example is the fine imposed by the SNOC on Singapore Olympic gold medallist swimmer Joseph Schooling in 2022 after his admission that he had consumed cannabis overseas that year. He was also found to have breached other rules under the SNOC’s Code of Conduct, including the consumption of alcohol during competition and gambling. The SNOC also issued a warning to Schooling that he may be debarred from selection for all major games for two years in the event of any future breaches. 

National Sports Association 

In Singapore, each sport recognized by the International Olympic Committee is overseen by a National Sports Association (NSA). The NSA acts as the governing body responsible for the promotion, development, regulation and sanctioning of activities within its respective sport in Singapore. Typically, an NSA is affiliated with a regional governing confederation, which provides financial and logistical support through various programs to its member associations. These regional confederations, in turn, are affiliated with International Federations (IFs), which serve as the global governing bodies for their respective sports.

Sports-Related Offences 

Singapore does not have comprehensive legislation specifically dedicated to sports law. Instead, statutory provisions are applied based on the nature of the misconduct involved. Criminal conduct, as a matter of public policy, is non-arbitrable and therefore falls outside the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals. To the extent that any such conduct also falls foul of an association’s rules or code of conduct, there may also be additional consequences imposed by the association, which may give rise to a dispute that is then determined in arbitration.

Outlined below is a list of offences pertinent to the sports industry along with the corresponding statutory legislation governing these offences.

Doping

Singapore maintains a strict zero-tolerance policy towards drug use, which encompasses the consumption, possession, trafficking, import or export of controlled substances without authorisation. 

Anti-Doping Singapore, the national regulatory body for doping, imposes sanctions on athletes found to have violated anti-doping rules³. These penalties vary from a few months' suspension to a lifetime ban, depending on factors such as intent and the substance used. NSAs may also suspend support for athletes or their eligibility for competitions. For instance, Sport Singapore withdrew support from multiple swimmers in 2022 after they admitted to drug use abroad, resulting in the loss of training grants and access to sports science and medicine services.

Sanctions for violations of sports codes of conduct are typically determined by the relevant sporting body. However, the CAS may intervene in exceptional cases. In Mariano Puerta v International Tennis Federation⁴, for example, the CAS Panel reduced an eight-year ineligibility sanction imposed by the ITF on a tennis player to two years. This decision was based on mitigating circumstances, including the inadvertent ingestion of a prohibited substance with negligible impact on performance.

Match-fixing and Corruption

Match-fixing and bribery are criminal offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act (POCA). Under POCA, attempting to induce match officials to agree to fix a match is also an offence, regardless of whether an agreement is ultimately reached or a specific match is fixed. In the case of Ding Si Yang v PP⁵, the accused was convicted for offering gratification to influence match officials, even though no match-fixing agreement was finalized. This highlights that the attempt alone constitutes wrongdoing. The fact that no match was fixed or even agreed to be fixed did not mean that no harm was done. 

Sporting organisations also enforce rules against corruption. For example, players in the Singapore Premier League (S League) must adhere to a Code of Conduct that explicitly prohibits such activities. The Football Association of Singapore has imposed lifetime bans on athletes found guilty of match-fixing. 

Match-fixing extends beyond traditional sports and includes professional e-sports. In a notable case involving the game Valorant in 2020, two Singaporeans were convicted of match-fixing for an online tournament. They had offered bribes to influence the match outcome and were additionally charged under the Remote Gambling Act as the bribe / gratification had been in the form of partial winnings from bets placed on the match through an illegal online gambling website.

These examples underscore Singapore's robust legal framework and stringent penalties aimed at combating match-fixing and bribery across various sports disciplines (including e-sports).

The series continues next week with a perpective from Egypt. 

¹ Korean Olympic Committee v International Skating Union CAS OG 02/007, award of 23 February 2002 (https://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/OG%2002-007.pdf)
² https://www.tas-cas.org/en/icas/code-icas-statutes.html

³ https://www.sportsingapore.gov.sg/media-centre/media-release/sportsgs-considerations-when-deciding-on-the-disciplinary-actions/ 

⁴ Mariano Puerta v International Tennis Federation 2006/A/1025, award of 12 July 2006

⁵  [2015] 2 SLR 229