Share
In recent years, Hong Kong athletes have come under the spotlight by achieving unprecedented success at regional and international sporting events. Sports law in Hong Kong, particularly sports-related disputes, may share the spotlight as the Hong Kong government has announced its intention to launch a pilot scheme on sports dispute resolution in Hong Kong in the latter half of 2025, with a focus on sports arbitration.[1] In anticipation of this development, we will highlight some key benefits and considerations of a sports arbitration mechanism in this legal update with reference to recent sports-related disputes in the city.
Sports-related disputes across various facets
Athlete’s eligibility
In April 2025, the High Court found the Karatedo Federation of Hong Kong breached its object in promoting and developing karatedo in Hong Kong for implementing a policy in around 2013 to impose a 4-month “freezing period” on specified athletes’ “elite athlete” status[2] if he or she transferred to another Karate Society or Association (the “Policy”). The three athletes affected by the freezing period were compensated by way of damages awarded by a High Court judgment handed down on 2 April 2025 (the “Judgment”).[3]
This type of dispute is no isolated incident. Around July 2024, The Hong Kong China Swimming Association barred a swimmer from joining a competition despite satisfying the qualifying time because the swimmer belongs to a competition member club within the Association, the lowest of the three-tier membership system. This raised questions on the fairness of the qualification requirements notwithstanding the issue was eventually resolved after the Association changed its policy.
Also in July 2024, a skateboarder was barred from joining the Paris Olympics because he was not a member of the Hong Kong China Federation of Roller Sports And Skateboarding under the Sports Federation and Olympic Committee of Hong Kong, China. The skateboarder was instead registered under another entity. This dispute is also an example that issues involving athletes’ eligibility to compete in the most prestigious sporting events, such as the Olympic Games, may occur in Hong Kong’s sports sector.
Proper forum of dispute
Sports disputes are not confined to the domestic level. In 2015, a dispute arose between local football club, Pegasus FC, and one of its foreign-national players (the “Player”) over alleged compensation payable to the Player following the termination of his contract with the club. Instead of commencing a claim by way of domestic arbitration, or arguably the HKFA National Dispute Resolution Chambers (pursuant to the relevant arbitration clauses), the Player lodged a claim directly with FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chambers (the “DRC”). The DRC made an award in favour of the Player and held that it had jurisdiction to hear the dispute. On appeal,[4] the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) found, among other things, that the relevant arbitration clauses referring the dispute to domestic arbitration were too vague to bind the Player, who was entering into his first contract with the club and had no knowledge of its internal mechanisms as to dispute resolution. The language used in the clauses also arguably did not preclude the Player from bringing a claim before the DRC. CAS had considered the then Article 22(b) of the FIFA Regulations on the Status of Transfer of Players (the “RSTP”), which states that for a national level arbitral tribunal to have jurisdiction over an employment-related dispute of an international dimension,[5] such arbitration clause must be included directly in the contract (in this case it was not). The then Article 22(b) of the RSTP also specified that the national level arbitration tribunal would need to meet certain specifications including guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs.[6] It is important to note that Swiss law is applicable to the interpretation of FIFA regulations such as the RSTP, and therefore, Swiss legal advice may also be required in these circumstances.
Benefits and considerations of a sports arbitration mechanism in Hong Kong
1. Swift process
Examples above exposed a disadvantage to existing dispute-resolution mechanisms - lengthy Court proceedings. Remarkably, the Court proceedings between the Karatedo Federation and the athletes lasted for around 8 years before liability and compensation were decided. Arbitration is usually more expeditious due to flexibility in procedures and hearing schedules. Athletes, sports clubs and associations may prefer a swifter alternative dispute resolution mechanism, such as arbitration, over Court proceedings bearing in mind protracted litigation would be disruptive to their training schedules and sporting career.
2. Experienced arbitrators
There is no specific list in Hong Kong Courts designated to handle sports-related disputes. On the other hand, arbitrators with relevant experience in handling sports-related disputes are readily available for arbitration in Hong Kong. According to the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), there are 104 arbitrators who currently list “sports” as one of their expertise.[7] Experienced arbitrators with an understanding of standard practices and norms within the sports industry would likely facilitate a swift and just dispute resolution by arbitration, saving stakeholders’ time and costs.
3. Consistency of determinations
Currently, sports associations or bodies generally adopt their own distinct dispute resolution mechanisms for its members, which may result in inconsistent outcomes for like cases. The development of a centralised sports arbitration system may mean more unified rules and standards adopted across different sports, yielding more consistent outcomes from arbitrations. This strengthens fairness and procedural transparency in dispute resolution.
As alluded to in the CAS determination involving Pegasus FC, alignment with regulations imposed by international sports governing bodies may be one of the key consideration in the design and implementation of Hong Kong’s sports dispute resolution system. By adopting a set of arbitral rules and/or tribunal composition (etc.) which aligns with the relevant international rules, such as FIFA regulations, local and international sports communities could expect the adjudication process of disputes in Hong Kong to align with international standards. This means the decision and reasoning may more likely be recognised and affirmed by other international arbitral institutes such as CAS, and minimize the risk of arbitral awards being appealed on procedural and/or jurisdictional grounds.
4. Confidentiality
Another advantage of arbitration is confidentiality. Athletes, sports clubs, associations or other stakeholders generally prefer to resolve disputes privately to avoid drawing unnecessary public attention that may damage their reputations and/or distract them from their training / competition. Confidentiality in arbitral proceedings in Hong Kong is mandated by statute. Under section 18(1) of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609), both the arbitral proceedings and awards made in those arbitral proceedings are confidential, subject to exceptions under section 18(2).
Conclusion
The international and tight-knit elements pertaining to the sports community as well as the generally short-lived career for athletes mean that a swift, fair, procedural transparent and confidential dispute resolution system such as sports arbitration is highly desirable. There is an anticipation to see how Hong Kong’s pilot scheme for sports dispute resolution will help resolve disputes in sport in a more efficient manner, enhance protection to our athletes, sports clubs and associations and propel Hong Kong to become the dispute resolution hub for the sports industry in Hong Kong and its surrounding regions.
[1] https://www.doj.gov.hk/en/community_engagement/press/20250110_pr1.html
[2] Meaning an athlete would lose his / her monthly Elite Training Grant and other supports including opportunities for overseas trainings and competitions under the Elite Training Programme of the Hong Kong Sports Institute.
[3] HCA 529/2017, HCA 987/2019, HCA 988/2019.
[5] Pursuant to Commentary on the RSTP (“Commentary on RSTP”) published by FIFA, “[a]n employment-related dispute between a club and a player is generally deemed to have an international dimension whenever the player is of a nationality other than that of the country in which their club is domiciled”. Latest version of the Commentary on RSTP is available at: (latest version available at: https://inside.fifa.com/legal/news/fifa-publishes-third-edition-of-commentary-on-the-regulations-on-the-status-and-transfer-of-players, this definition was confirmed in a CAS award dated 27 June 2016 (CAS 2016/A/4441).
[6] In this decision, the CAS did not address the issue of whether the then NDRC was compliant with Article 22(b) of the RSTP in light of its finding that the DRC had jurisdiction.
[7] https://www.hkiac.org/thirdparty/webDB/en/panel.php?t=m45. Although, as at the date of this article, there is only one Hong Kong-based CAS arbitrator.
Sport
Insurance and reinsurance
Hong Kong