Reported by Wong Zi Ying, Samantha Guang and Jeeva Rachelusun Pragas
The ASEAN Sports ADR Forum 2025 (‘the Forum’) jointly organised by the Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC), the Legal Affairs Division of the Prime Minister’s Department (BHEUU), and the Ministry of Youth and Sports Malaysia (KBS), underscored the theme ‘Ensuring Fair Play: Advancing Sports Dispute Resolution in Asia’.
Keynote Highlights
Session 1: Dispute Resolution Across the World of Sports
Moderated by Dato’ Mary Lim Thiam Suan, Director of AIAC and Chairperson of the Protem Committee for the AIAC Court of Arbitration, the session featured the following speakers:
- Paul Hayes KC, Barrister-at-Law of 39 Essex Chambers;
- Thomas Delaye-Fortin, Head of Legal and Governance at Badminton World Federation (BWF);
- Christophe Larrouilh, Christophe Larrouilh Law Office; and
- Dato’ Low Beng Choo, Secretary-General of World Baseball Softball Confederation and President of Softball Asia.
Dato’ Low Beng Choo emphasised the importance of understanding the legal framework and the ‘law of the game’ in sports, as federations typically avoid courts to ensure swift and transparent resolutions. She advocated for every sport to maintain its own internal dispute panel. While sports bodies are self-regulated, many sports associations lack such mechanisms and resort to reporting issues to the Ministry. However, internal remedies must be exhausted before escalation to the Sports Dispute Committee, akin to exhausting the first instance court before appealing to a higher one.
Paul Hayes KC explained that sports like triathlons and equestrian sports often face intense disputes, many of which stem from contractual issues. He highlighted the importance of a uniform dispute resolution approach, such as via Sports Dispute Committee (SDC), especially given the growing commercial stakes. For athletes, accessing the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is often expensive, necessitating pro bono initiatives.
Christoph Larrouilh explained that football-related disputes are primarily handled by FIFA’s Football Tribunal, reflecting the sport’s global popularity and high financial stakes. However, jurisdiction depends on whether the dispute involves international elements and is recognised under Article 50 of the FIFA Statutes. While some cases fall under FIFA’s purview, others may not. Proceedings, typically involving three arbitrators, can be costly with fees ranging from 30,000 to 40,000 Swiss Francs (approximately RM150,000-RM200,000). In some cases, the appellant bears the costs for both parties, though legal aid may be available.
Thomas Delaye-Fortin provided that (BWF) utilises two distinct mechanisms for dispute resolution to ensure appropriate expertise and consistency in decisions. The Independent Hearing Panel handles ethics-related matters such as match-fixing, breaches of the Code of Conduct, and betting issues. This panel comprises individuals with governance and sports law expertise, rather than badminton-specific backgrounds, ensuring impartiality and alignment with standards like those of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). In contrast, the Sports Disciplinary Panel consists of members with direct badminton experience who will address on-court incidents such as player misconduct. This approach ensures fair, efficient and informed dispute resolution, fostering uniformity and integrity within the sport.
Session 2: Fireside Chat on Doping Disputes in Sports
Moderated by HRH Tunku Tan Sri Imran ibni Almarhum Tuanku Ja’afar al-Haj, International Olympic Committee (IOC), the panel included:
- Prof Richard McLaren, Counsel to Mckenzie Lake Lawyers LLP, Professor of Law at Western University in London, Ontario;
- Nageswary Thiagarajan, Principal Assistant Director of Malaysian Anti-Doping Agency (ADAMAS);
- Thi My Dung Nguyen, arbitrator at Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS), the Deputy Chairman of the AFC Appeal Committee and a Member of the Vietnam Anti-doping Agency Hearing Committee; and
- Ang Li Peng, former Malaysian badminton player.
Prof Richard McLaren explained that the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) conducts drug testing, with results reported to the relevant National Anti-Doping Organizations (NADO). Cases are handled by national or ad-hoc disciplinary panels, using a standard of burden of proof known as ‘comfortable satisfaction’ — stricter than balance of probabilities but lower than beyond reasonable doubt. Common defenses for anti-doping offences include unintentional use of contaminated substances, under ‘No Fault’ or ‘No Significant Fault’ claims.
Nageswary Thiagarajan stressed the need for stronger legislation and better educational channels, particularly since banned substances are often found in common products like slimming coffees or chocolates. ADAMAS promotes peer-to-peer learning via its Athlete Commission and uses game-based learning for school children to instill fairness and integrity.
Thi My Dung Nguyen emphasised the importance of early education for athletes and their families. Language barriers hinder understanding of complex WADA rules. Accurate translations and legal representation are critical, especially during hearings. Therefore, athletes must be well-informed about the prohibited substances and disciplinary procedures.
Ang Li Peng shared how doping awareness was virtually nonexistent in early 2000s Malaysia. They were simply warned against consuming certain foods, traditional Chinese medicines, or supplements, without clarity on safe consumption periods. With limited access to information, especially before the internet, athletes relied heavily on coaches and senior teammates. A notable case occurred during the 1995 Chiang Mai SEA Games, where a badminton player tested positive after taking an over-the-counter flu medication, reinforcing the need of access to legal support and comprehensive top-down educational initiatives.
Session 3: Malaysia’s Path to Becoming a Capital for Global Sports Dispute Resolution
In this session, moderated by Suhardi bin Alias, National Sports Commissioner of Malaysia, the speakers are namely:
- Saaran Nadarajah, Vice President and Chairman of the Legal Committee at Football Association of Malaysian (FAM);
- Darren Lai, Partner of Richard Wee Chambers (a member of Grandall Law Firm); and
- Dato’ Sri Megat D.Shahriman bin Dato’ Zaharudin, President of Paralympic Council Malaysia.
Saaran Nadarajah explained that the Football Association of Malaysia (FAM) frequently encounters disputes relating to disciplinary matters both on and off the field, as well as recurring issues involving player contracts and the non-payment of salaries. Disciplinary cases are governed by the Disciplinary Code and FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), with oversight provided by specific internal bodies such as the Status Committee and the National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC). The Status Committee primarily addresses contractual disputes involving salaries of coaches and officials, while appeals are handled by the NDRC in accordance with Article 71 of the FAM Statutes — positioning FAM among the few sports organisations to formally embed such a mechanism within their constitutional framework.
Contentious matters such as athlete selection, employment or termination of coaches, and merit-based team selections also emerge periodically. Notably, Article 72 of the FAM Statutes prohibits recourse to civil courts, mandating arbitration as the sole avenue for dispute resolution. Upon exhaustion of internal mechanisms through the Status Committee and NDRC, and should a club continue to defy a decision — particularly concerning financial obligations — the association’s enforcement powers remain confined. Disciplinary measures such as suspension or point deduction can be imposed, but FAM lacks the jurisdiction to pursue enforcement beyond the confines of the sport’s regulatory framework.
Darren Lai highlighted that Malaysia, as a common law country and a signatory to the New York Convention 1958, has a robust legal framework that supports enforcement of arbitral awards. He further explained the emerging disputes in the e-sports ecosystem — spanning game publishers to influencers — legal issues range from intellectual property and occupiers’ liability to employment disputes and sexual harassment. In terms of ADR in sports, incorporating a mandatory arbitration clause into sports constitutions would strengthen AIAC’s role and ensure cost-free, accessible dispute resolution. He also emphasised the conciliatory value of mediation.
Dato’ Sri Megat recounted a disqualification case at the Tokyo 2021 Paralympics that highlighting how narrow timeframes and rigid procedures can deeply impact outcomes. The cost of legal representation and the emotional toll further complicates access to justice. For athletes with disabilities, the challenge extends to accurate classification, as eligibility may change when competing abroad. Disputes in this area often arise and must be referred to the relevant International Federation. The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) bears the responsibility to provide a clear sport-specific code to ensure fair classification and participation in multi-sports games.
Conclusion
To strengthen the integrity and accessibility of sports dispute resolution in ASEAN, it is imperative to engage and collaborate actively with the AIAC. Renewed efforts must focus on education and outreach, especially in awareness of arbitration or mediation as an effective dispute resolution mechanism. These collective measures will help build a more equitable, accessible, and locally rooted dispute resolution system for athletes across the region.
Published on 29 May 2025