CAS CONFIRMS THAT FEDERATION ARBITRATION CLAUSES CANNOT BE INVOKED BY ORGANISATIONS OUTSIDE THE RELEVANT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
In a recent Award, handed down on 15 April 2026, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) declined jurisdiction in the appeal case CAS 2025/A/11278 Kontinental Hockey League v. International Ice Hockey Federation, Swiss Ice Hockey Federation, SC Langnau Tigers and Michal Krištof.
The appeal arose from the transfer of the Slovak professional ice hockey player, Michal Krištof, from HK Sochi, a Russian professional ice hockey club affiliated with the Kontinental Hockey League (KHL), to SC Langnau Tigers, a Swiss ice hockey club competing within the framework of the Swiss Ice Hockey Federation (SIHF). The International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) is the world governing body of ice hockey, whilst the SIHF is the national governing body for ice hockey in Switzerland. The Russian Ice Hockey Federation (RIHF) is the corresponding national federation for Russia.
The KHL is not the Russian national ice hockey federation, but a professional ice hockey league. It became involved because HK Sochi, the club from which the player transferred, was affiliated with the KHL.
The KHL alleged that the player had breached his contract with HK Sochi and that SC Langnau Tigers had induced such breach. It also challenged aspects of the international transfer procedure. On 20 December 2024, the KHL filed two requests before the IIHF Disciplinary Board, seeking the opening of disciplinary proceedings. After the IIHF did not react in the manner sought by the KHL, the KHL brought the case before CAS, alleging a denial of justice.
The three-member CAS Panel first examined whether it had jurisdiction. It recalled that CAS jurisdiction requires either a specific arbitration agreement or a valid arbitration clause contained in the applicable statutes or regulations. In the present case, it was uncontested that the parties had not concluded a specific arbitration agreement.
The KHL relied in particular on Statute 22 of the IIHF Statutes and Bylaws, which recognises CAS as the forum for certain disputes arising from the IIHF Governing Documents. Statute 22.1 provides that CAS may resolve disputes arising from the Governing Documents between the IIHF and Member National Associations (MNAs), leagues, clubs, players and/or officials.
At first sight, the reference to “Leagues” in Statute 22.1 could suggest that the KHL, being a professional league, was entitled to rely on the CAS arbitration clause. However, the CAS Panel rejected this interpretation. It held that the personal scope of Statute 22.1 was exhaustive and that the wording did not allow for an expansive interpretation. The clause did not refer to “any league” or to “other organisations”, nor was the list introduced by open wording such as “inter alia”, “such as” or “in particular”.
The decisive issue was that “League” is a defined term under the IIHF Statutes and Bylaws. According to the relevant definition, a league must be affiliated with its MNA. In the case of the KHL, the relevant MNA would have been the RIHF. The Panel noted that, as of 1 August 2024, the KHL was no longer merely operating independently from the RIHF, but outside it.
There was no proof that the KHL remained affiliated with the RIHF from that date onwards. As a result, the KHL did not qualify as a “League” within the meaning of Statute 22.1.
The KHL also relied on Article 12.7 of the IIHF Disciplinary Regulations, which provides that decisions of the IIHF Disciplinary Board may be appealed to CAS. The CAS Panel held, however, that this provision concerns the legal remedy available against IIHF Disciplinary Board decisions and does not extend the personal scope of the IIHF arbitration clause. In other words, Article 12.7 may identify which decisions are appealable, but it does not broaden the category of persons or entities entitled to bring an appeal.
The Panel, therefore, concluded that the KHL fell outside the ratione personae scope of Statute 22.1 of the IIHF Statutes and Bylaws. Since there was also no separate arbitration agreement between the parties, the Panel held that there was no valid arbitration clause conferring jurisdiction on CAS to hear the appeal.
For the sake of completeness, the Panel further held that the KHL would, in any event, have lacked standing to appeal. The KHL requests were aimed at obtaining disciplinary sanctions against the respondents or certain IIHF personnel. However, the KHL failed to establish any enforceable right to compel the IIHF to open disciplinary proceedings or to appeal against a refusal, or absence of a decision, by the IIHF Disciplinary Board.
The Panel also emphasised that the underlying employment contract was between HK Sochi and the player, not between the KHL and the player. Whilst HK Sochi and the player may, in principle, have had a legal interest in the protection of pacta sunt servanda, namely the principle that agreements must be respected, the same did not apply to the KHL, which was not a party to that contract.
The Award is significant because it confirms that CAS jurisdiction cannot be presumed merely because a dispute has a sporting character or because federation regulations contain a CAS appeal clause. An appellant must fall within the personal scope of the relevant arbitration clause and must demonstrate a sufficient legal interest in the relief sought.
The Award is particularly relevant for leagues, clubs and other sports organisations operating at the margins of international federation structures. Once an organisation places itself outside the applicable federation framework, it may also lose access to the dispute resolution mechanisms provided by that framework.
The Award, accordingly, held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the KHL appeal and dismissed all other motions or requests for relief.
We act in CAS Appeals of all kinds and further information and advice is available by emailing either Dr Lucien Valloni or Kim Gamboni at valloni@valloni.ch and gamboni@valloni.ch respectively.