Last updated 30 April 2026

Many types of disputes can arise in a sporting context. For instance, where a participant breaks a rule of the sport, they may find themselves disqualified from the event or suspended from future events. In professional sport, off-field disciplinary issues may also lead a player into conflict with their sporting association. Further, participants (especially in Olympic sports) may dispute their non-selection in a representative team. Because of the unique nature of sporting disputes, courts have often been reluctant to intervene.

Sporting associations usually set out dispute resolution procedures in their governing documents that members agree to when registering. These procedures often provide for the use of internal (or sometimes called ‘domestic’) tribunals. While this section refers to such tribunals, it should be noted that this term is intended to cover any internal dispute resolution process, whether the decision-maker is a panel of people, an individual or the membership as a whole.

Jurisdiction of domestic tribunals

The governing documents of a sporting association should clearly spell out what rules apply to members (whether relating to on-field performance or off-field behaviour) and how penalties may be imposed for their breach. When a person joins the association, agreement with these rules should be a condition of membership and hence may be contractually enforceable (see following section). It is therefore somewhat up to the sporting association’s discretion what rules it will impose and how any disputes will be resolved, subject to an important consideration of providing natural justice (see below).

It should be noted that the racing industry (thoroughbred, harness and greyhound racing) have formalised dispute resolution procedures, which are specified by legislation (see the Racing Act 2002 (Qld) and the Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld)).

Professional football codes, such as the Australian Football League and National Rugby League, have implemented quasi-judicial tribunal systems whereby on-field infringements are reviewed post-match by a citing officer or panel, who would then classify the infringement according to a scale of severity and charge the player. The player might plead guilty and receive a reduced penalty or choose to appear before the tribunal in order to dispute the charge. It is not uncommon for players to engage legal representation for such hearings. If found guilty, the player’s prior offences may be taken into account when imposing a sentence.

Appealing to a court from a domestic tribunal

Courts are not generally used as an appeal forum for decisions of domestic tribunals, unless it can be argued that a breach of contract has occurred in the way the tribunal operated. A court may also require that a party exhaust any other internal appeal avenues first.

When dealing with a sporting association that is an incorporated body, its constitution or rules of association have contractual force by virtue of the legislation mentioned earlier. However, it would still be necessary for the tribunal/dispute resolution policy or other document in contention to be somehow linked into the organisation’s constitution.

Unincorporated associations are more problematic as they are not a separate legal entity, and association rules have been seen by courts to be of consensual effect rather than contractual. This means that if a person is aggrieved by a decision of an unincorporated association, even if that decision breaches the association’s own rules, that person is merely free to leave—the court usually will not get involved to enforce the association’s rules (see Cameron v Hogan (1934) 51 CLR 358). Some exceptions where a court may intervene in internal disputes include:

  • where there is clear intention to be contractually bound
  • to correct ongoing damage to a member’s reputation
  • where decision affects property rights of the member
  • to prevent an unreasonable restraint of trade
  • for other policy reasons.

Even if the organisation’s dispute resolution process can be seen as contractual, a court will not look at the merits of the tribunal’s decision (i.e. whether the tribunal made the notionally correct decision after they had heard all the evidence). Courts, however, may get involved if it can be shown that there has been a denial of natural justice where it was required in the decision process. This requirement for natural justice may be implied into the membership agreement between the parties, or in the case of sporting associations that are incorporated in Queensland, explicitly provided for under s 71 of the Associations Incorporation Act 1981 (Qld) where the member’s constitutional rights are at stake. Many sporting organisations choose to explicitly state that natural justice would be provided as part of their dispute resolution process, however, there may be considerable variation in how an organisation interprets that.

Denial of natural justice

The concept of natural justice can be somewhat fluid and satisfying it will depend upon the unique facts of each case. At a basic level, it requires a fair hearing including:

  • notice of the tribunal hearing date, time and place
  • notice of the alleged breaches in as much specific detail as possible
  • the right to appear, produce evidence and have it considered by the tribunal
  • the right to not face duplicitous (i.e. multiple overlapping) charges
  • the right to be heard separately on the question of penalties (see South Melbourne Football Club Ltd v Football Federation Victoria Inc [2010] VSC 355).

It also requires an honest verdict where the tribunal must:

  • come to its decision honestly and without actual bias
  • make a bona fide decision in the association’s interests and not for some other purpose.

It is important to note that the concept of bias in a sporting tribunal sense will be more limited than its application to a court. A judge in court must avoid any ‘reasonable apprehension’ of bias. However, a domestic tribunal will often not be able to meet such a standard. This is because the tribunal members may already have some knowledge of the incident leading to the hearing, or may have been involved in its investigation, especially in smaller associations. Provided there is no actual bias in the decision, this should usually satisfy natural justice requirements. Situations where bias has been proved include where the tribunal member has a financial interest in the decision to be made, and where a tribunal has prejudged a matter and published that prejudgment (Stollery v Greyhound Racing Control Board (1972) 128 CLR 509).

While the same rules of evidence used in courts (e.g. preventing the introduction of hearsay) do not apply to a tribunal, it is still important that the decision be made honestly. This means that a tribunal should not base its decision on evidence that is clearly unreliable. It is also not a requirement that a complaint be proven to any particular level (i.e. ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, as used in criminal law). Generally, it is up to the association to specify in its rules how the tribunal will come to its decision. It is common for the phrase ‘comfortable satisfaction’ to be used (sometimes referred to as a ‘Briginshaw standard’), which can be flexible depending on the seriousness of the allegation. It would be prudent for a tribunal to consider the quality/extent of evidence presented before pronouncing that a member engaged in very serious misconduct, which could damage that person’s reputation.

Note, that it is not a mandatory requirement of natural justice for a member to be allowed legal (or other) representation in a tribunal hearing. Often, it is important for tribunal processes to be resolved promptly, and legal representation may impede that. Tribunal processes are often (though not solely) about establishing the ‘facts’ of what happened, rather than involving legal questions of interpretation. However, should a member ask for such, particularly when facing a serious charge or when under a particular disadvantage, it may be prudent for the sporting association to allow representation to show that the accused was afforded every possible fairness.

It is sometimes considered that providing parties with reasons for a tribunal’s decision is part of providing natural justice. However, the courts have consistently held that a domestic tribunal is not required to provide reasons for its decisions unless its internal rules (or legislation) require it to (see Osmond v Public Service Board of NSW [1984] 3 NSWLR 447, Waterhouse v Bell (1991) 25 NSWLR 99). Invariably this means that tribunals are not required to provide reasons, but again, in the interests of fairness to the member in question and for the benefit of the membership at large (e.g. in deterring similar behaviour), it may be worthwhile publishing reasons, at least in a summary form.

Should natural justice be lacking in the tribunal processes where it was required, a court may invalidate the tribunal’s decision and require the decision to be remade with natural justice provided.

It is recommended that legal advice be sought before pursuing court action.

Appealing a decision of a tribunal, but not to a court

There may be appeal possibilities beyond seeking court action—however this is solely governed by what the rules of the association allow for. If nothing is covered by the rules, the disputing parties may otherwise agree to the appeal for a specific instance.

The first option may be an internal appeal forum, whether to a specific appeals tribunal, or the membership in general meeting, or to an affiliated body at a higher level of the sport. Where an internal appeal route exists, it should be exhausted before moving on.

National Sports Tribunal

A second option may be the National Sports Tribunal (NST). It offers arbitration, mediation, conciliation and case appraisal services. It operates a general division (for initial dispute resolution), appeals division and anti-doping division.

However, due to constitutional limits on the Commonwealth, there are eligible parties and eligible disputes, which can be brought to the NST.

The parties to the dispute must also agree to the NST hearing the matter (whether by specific agreement or through a clause in the sporting body’s constitution or rules).

The types of eligible disputes which the NST can resolve are:

  • anti-doping rule violations
  • disciplinary matters
  • selection/eligibility disputes
  • bullying/harassment/discrimination
  • other disputes approved by the CEO of the NST in exceptional circumstances.

Different dispute resolution methods are used for different categories. Some require a binding arbitral decision (e.g. doping), while others require conciliation, mediation or case appraisal e.g. discrimination note that options outside of the NST exist for discrimination. See below in relation to sport or the general Discrimination and Human Rights chapter. The NST explicitly states that it will not handle contractual or employment disputes (other than ones involving disciplinary issues), disputes where a party is seeking monetary compensation, or field-of-play disputes (e.g. about the correct application of an on-field ruling—see explanation regarding the similar position of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) below).

Court of Arbitration for Sport

The third option is to utilise the CAS. The IOC created CAS to settle sports-related disputes, be they domestic or international disputes, through the use of mediation or arbitration provided by panels composed of one or three arbitrators. Chartered under Swiss law, CAS is governed by its own statutes and rules of procedure and is independent of any sports organisation. The court is popular for international disputes because it eliminates the problem of determining in which jurisdiction a dispute is heard.

It is important to note that CAS gets its jurisdiction from the agreement of the parties. However, because of the relative bargaining positions of athletes versus international and national sports federations, it may be somewhat misleading to suggest a true agreement exists. Athletes usually consent through a contractual condition when they become a member of the respective team, affiliate or federation.

The CAS has three permanent arbitration sections:

  • the Ordinary Arbitration Division (OAD)
  • the Appeals Arbitration Division (AAD)
  • the Anti-Doping Division.

Finally, CAS has the authority to set up as a temporary forum (the Ad-Hoc Division), which it does during major sporting events such as the FIFA Soccer World Cup or the Olympics, to provide timely resolution of disputes (usually within 48 hours).

The OAD is a first-instance forum that can resolve disputes arising from all types of legal relations between parties such as broadcasting, sponsorship, player contracts or rule interpretation. This division might be used instead of establishing a domestic tribunal within a sport or may be called upon to resolve one-off disputes where the parties consent to it. The Anti-Doping Division is also a tribunal of first instance, which is an available option for resolving doping matters (rather than the sporting organisation providing for their own internal doping tribunal as was often the case beforehand).

The AAD hears appeals from the OAD or from sporting organisations’ internal tribunals where their rules allow for it. Such appeals might cover:

  • disciplinary decisions (including anti-doping disputes)
  • selection of athletes for representative teams
  • decisions concerning the official recognition of events.

Arbitration is a dispute resolution process that involves an arbitrator making a decision, much like a judge does in court. However, what makes the decision binding is that, via the rules of the sporting organisation or a contract, parties agree to be bound by it. To strictly enforce an arbitration decision, parties may go to local courts. Like other forms of arbitration, CAS hearings are private and take place outside media and public scrutiny. The agreements or rules discussed above may require confidentiality of an arbitral decision (e.g. if the dispute involved commercial matters), however, parties can agree otherwise or CAS can decide to publish. Many decisions of CAS are available online.

The subject matters of CAS proceedings can be quite broad and anything related to sport. However, CAS has consistently opted to not involve itself in field-of-play disputes. These are decisions made by on-field officials (e.g. referees, umpires, judges) about the application of the rules of the sport. Unless it can be shown that such a decision was tainted by bad faith (e.g. the umpire was bribed), CAS takes the view that the on-field official is best positioned and possesses the most expertise to apply the rules of their particular sport. The position of CAS has not changed even where video evidence may show the official’s judgment was objectively incorrect. Often, a sport may have its own internal process for a participant to protest an outcome. Opening up such decisions to further CAS appeal risks unduly delaying the finality of sporting results.