From ice rinks to arbitration rooms: How the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) handles Winter Olympic disputes

Every four years, the Winter Olympics highlight peak athletic performance, where split seconds decide medal winners. Behind this, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) swiftly resolves sports-related disputes during the Games. The CAS system provides in-house counsel and commercial litigators with a practical model for fast and effective dispute resolution.

What is CAS and how does it operate at the Olympics?

Based in Lausanne, the Court of Arbitration for Sport is an independent organisation dedicated to resolving sports-related disputes through arbitration and mediation. These cases can involve anything from eligibility or disciplinary issues to commercial conflicts between athletes, federations, and event organisers. The institution consists of three permanent divisions: ordinary arbitration; anti-doping; and appeals. However, the pace required during the Olympic Games demands even greater efficiency—with speed as a top priority.

To keep pace with the Olympics, CAS forms an Ad Hoc Division for each Games to resolve disputes within 24 hours. For the 2026 Winter Olympics, temporary arbitration offices in Milan and Cortina d’Ampezzo will handle sports‑related and anti‑doping cases quickly, since Olympic events require immediate decisions on issues like athlete selection, equipment, judging, or discipline.

Real‑Time Justice: how the Ad Hoc Division works

The CAS Ad Hoc Division operates on-site at the Games and handles disputes that arise during the Olympics.

Some key features include:

1. Ultra-fast timelines: All proceedings in the Ad Hoc Division are designed to conclude within a 24-hour window to ensure decisions do not disrupt athletes’ participation or the flow of competition. This rapid process starts with the filing of an application and includes a written exchange, hearings (which can be held in-person or virtually), and the delivery of a reasoned award. The expedited nature of these proceedings ensures that disputes—such as athlete selection controversies or equipment challenges—are addressed and resolved before they can affect event outcomes.
2. Specialist arbitrators: The panels are comprised of arbitrators who possess deep expertise in sports law, drawn from a pool of lawyers, judges, and academics with specific experience in Olympic regulations and international sporting disputes. These experts are either physically present at the Games or participate remotely, ensuring both accessibility and impartiality. Their familiarity with the unique pressures and technicalities of Olympic sport enables nuanced, well-informed decisions.
3. Narrow jurisdiction: The CAS Ad Hoc Division only hears cases that arise during the Olympic Games and fall within the designated period—the so-called “Olympic window”. This limited jurisdiction ensures that only urgent, Games-related disputes are dealt with, focusing resources and expertise on matters directly affecting Olympic competition, such as eligibility, discipline, and technical rule interpretations.
4. Tailored procedural rules: The division operates under a bespoke set of arbitration rules developed specifically for Olympic disputes. These rules streamline and accelerate all stages of the process, including the filing of claims, appointment of arbitrators, evidence submission, and delivery of judgments. Such tailored procedures accommodate the need for prompt resolution while maintaining fairness and the parties’ rights to be heard.
5. Transparency with confidentiality: While the Ad Hoc Division’s decisions are published—providing guidance and precedent for future cases—the hearings themselves and the parties’ submissions remain confidential. This approach ensures public understanding of the outcomes and the development of sports law, without exposing sensitive information or undermining the privacy of athletes and teams involved in disputes.

Prominent Disputes within the CAS framework

CAS proceedings during the Games have tangible impacts—they routinely influence medal distribution, determine athlete eligibility, and resolve critical disputes. Notable recent instances include:

Gymnastics Medal Dispute (Paris Olympics): A medal controversy led to a CAS hearing in which the tribunal reversed a score adjustment, citing its late submission in accordance with governing regulations.

Ukrainian “remembrance helmet” dispute: Ukrainian skeleton athlete Vladyslav Heraskevych was disqualified for intending to compete with a helmet honouring athletes killed in the war. He appealed to the CAS Ad Hoc Division, but CAS upheld the IOC and IBSF (International Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation) decision, finding the restriction on wearing the helmet during competition reasonable and proportionate

under Olympic expression rules. He was permitted to display it only in training or media areas, and his disqualification stood.

Neutral-athlete eligibility: CAS regularly reviews cases on neutral-athlete status, global tensions, and discipline.

What commercial litigators can learn from CAS

CAS’s approach to Olympic disputes offers practical lessons for commercial conflict resolution. Its ad hoc division proves that speed and due process can work together, with panels delivering decisions in 24 hours through clear rules and efficient procedures.

A parallel trend in commercial arbitration closely mirrors the speed-focused approach adopted by the CAS Ad Hoc Division during the Olympic Games. Recognising the demands of modern business, institutions such as the ICC have introduced Expedited Procedure Rules, which automatically apply to disputes below a certain monetary threshold. These streamlined procedures—characterised by smaller tribunals, shortened timelines, and simplified steps—are designed to deliver decisions quickly and efficiently, much like the urgent, Games-related resolutions seen at CAS. For many businesses, time is money; lengthy proceedings can disrupt operations, drain resources, and jeopardise important contracts or partnerships. The shift towards expedited arbitration acknowledges that not every commercial dispute warrants a drawn-out, costly process. Instead, it offers a practical pathway for parties who seek swift, fair outcomes without the burden of extensive legal wrangling. By making arbitration more accessible and responsive, this model is increasingly relevant for companies facing contract breaches, supplier disagreements, or urgent issues where a timely resolution is critical to maintaining business continuity and trust.

CAS also shows the importance of subject‑matter expertise by employing arbitrators familiar with sport, streamlining evidence management and decision-making. Finally, its ability to address urgent cases underscores the need to include emergency relief options in contracts to manage time-sensitive business risks.

As the Winter Olympics continue to evolve, the CAS Ad Hoc Division remains a critical safeguard for fairness, transparency, and swift justice on sport’s biggest stage. Its ability to balance urgent decision‑making with procedural integrity offers valuable guidance not only for sports regulators but also for commercial litigators seeking efficient and effective dispute‑resolution mechanisms. In a landscape where seconds matter—both on the ice and in the hearing room—CAS demonstrates how well‑designed processes and expert decision‑makers can deliver outcomes that uphold trust in competition and support the smooth running of major global events.

If you have any questions , please don't hesitate to get in touch with your usual Brodies contact.