Institutional Trust Theory and the Dilemmas and Reform Pathways of the International Sports Arbitration System

Tiantian Yan

doi:10.54097/zrpfnv05

Authors

Tiantian Yan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/zrpfnv05

Keywords:

International Sports, International Sports Arbitration System, Institutional Trust

Abstract

As the volume and complexity of international sports disputes continue to increase, the international sports arbitration system, as the core mechanism for global sports dispute resolution, has its credibility directly linked to the authority of the rule of law in sports and the stability of the international sports order. Currently, the system faces multiple practical dilemmas, including unclear judicial review standards, insufficient transparency, mechanical application of rules coupled with hegemonic interpretation, and doubts regarding the independence of arbitral institutions and arbitrators. An increasing number of parties, after undergoing CAS proceedings, choose to continue litigating before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court or the courts of other states, reflecting a lack of trust in and recognition of the international sports arbitration system. Therefore, reforms are needed in clarifying judicial review standards, ensuring full-process transparency, and abandoning the mechanical application of rule texts. These measures will effectively enhance the credibility and enforceability of the international sports arbitration system, thereby promoting the development of international sports governance towards a more just, efficient, and trustworthy direction, and providing institutional safeguards for the sustainable development of global sports.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] X. Jiang, "How can the CAS become the 'World Supreme Court of Sports'? — Based on critical reflections on international sports arbitration (Chinese Journal style)," J. Wuhan Sports Univ., no. 5, 2025.

[2] B. Tang, "Institutional political trust: The transformation of the dominant political trust model in China's social transition period (Chinese Journal style)," J. Polit. Sci. Public Aff., no. 4, 2017.

[3] B.Y. Leng, "Research on the international sports arbitration system from the perspective of trust theory (Chinese Thesis style)," M.S. thesis, Qingdao Univ., Qingdao, China, 2023. DOI: 10.27262/d.cnki.gqdau.2023.003760.

[4] Swiss Federal Supreme Court, “Statistical justice report 2017 (Report style),” Swiss Federal Supreme Court, Switzerland, 2018.

[5] Y. N.Hou, "Research on the nature of hosting contracts for major international sports events in China (Chinese Thesis style)," M.S. thesis, Shandong Univ., Jinan, China, 2018.

[6] Swiss Federal Supreme Court, “Statistical report on applications for setting aside arbitral awards 2008-2017 (Report style),” Swiss Federal Supreme Court, Switzerland, 2018.

[7] A. Rigozzi and U. Scherrer, “Chapter 12: Challenges and reforms of the CAS,” in The Court of Arbitration for Sport 1984-2014, I. S. Blackshaw et al., Eds. The Hague: Eleven International Publishing, 2020, pp. 345–389.

[8] M. J. Mitten, “Fundamental principles of sports law,” in Principles of Sports Law, M. J. Mitten, Ed. St. Paul, MN, USA: West Academic Publishing, 2018, pp. 1–42.

[9] Swiss Federal Supreme Court, “Statistical justice report 2022 (Report style),” Swiss Federal Supreme Court, Switzerland, 2023.

[10] A. Duval, “The Court of Arbitration for Sport: A subtle privatisation of (anti)doping regulation,” Int. Sports Law J., vol. 20, no. 1-2, pp. 5–6, 2020.

[11] CAS, “CAS annual report 2023 (Report style),” Court of Arbitration for Sport, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2024.

[12] S. C. L. Fullbrook, “The reasoning of CAS awards: A call for greater transparency,” Int. Sports Law J., vol. 21, no. 1-2, p. 83, 2021.

[13] A. Duval, “The WADA-CAS complex: The centralized global anti-doping system,” in The Legitimacy and Effectiveness of the World Anti-Doping System, U. Haas and D. Healey, Eds. 2018, pp. 21–22.

[14] S.L. Guo, “Research on judicial supervision of international sports arbitration: From the perspective of the Pechstein case (Chinese Journal style),” Legal Res., no. 4, 2017.