International Boxing Association (IBA) v. International Olympic Committee (IOC)

At a glance

Parties

International Boxing Association (IBA, formerly AIBA) v. International Olympic Committee (IOC)

Case no.

CAS 2023/A/9757

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeal procedure under the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (2023 edition); Chapter 12 of the Swiss PILA as lex arbitri; seat Lausanne

Treaty

None. Olympic Charter (Rules 3.7 and 61); Swiss Civil Code Articles 28 and 72; Swiss Cartel Act (LCart)

Tribunal

James Drake KC (President), Jeffrey Benz, Patrick Lafranchi

Sector

Sport governance (boxing)

Outcome

Appeal denied (2 April 2024); the IOC Session's decision of 22 June 2023 withdrawing recognition of the IBA is confirmed.

The dispute

The IBA, formerly known as AIBA, had been recognised by the IOC as the international federation for boxing. After years of concern about corruption in refereeing and judging, governance and finances, the IOC suspended the IBA's recognition on 26 June 2019. On 9 December 2021 the IOC set three conditions for lifting the suspension: more financial transparency and sustainability, a changed referee and judging process monitored by PwC, and full and effective implementation of the Governance Reform Group (Prof. Haas) recommendations. On 22 June 2023 the IOC Session withdrew the IBA's recognition under Olympic Charter Rule 3.7 and decided that the IBA would not organise the LA 2028 boxing tournament. The IBA appealed. It argued that the decision had no legal basis, was imposed by the IOC Executive Board, breached its right to be heard, abused a dominant position under Swiss competition law and infringed its personality rights, and that it had in fact met the conditions. The IOC replied that the IBA had not shown, to the IOC's satisfaction, that it met the conditions by the cut-off date.

Key holdings

1. The arbitration is domestic under PILA Article 176(1), because both parties are seated in Switzerland. But the parties validly opted into Chapter 12 of the PILA in the signed Order of Procedure, which meets Articles 353(2) and 358 CPC. The IBA is held to that agreement. ¶¶ 310–319
2. Rule 3.7 of the Olympic Charter only allocates a discretionary power to grant or withdraw recognition between the Executive Board and the Session. The legal basis for withdrawal lies in Articles 28 and 72 of the Swiss Civil Code, applied by analogy to the expulsion of a member. The French term "définitive" does not make full recognition irrevocable. The IOC had to show good cause (an important reason) for the withdrawal. ¶¶ 330, 335–339, 367–376
3. The IOC Session decided freely; it was not bound by the Executive Board's recommendation. The right to be heard does not include a right to address the Session orally. The IBA had many written opportunities to put its case, and in any event the de novo CAS appeal cured any defect. ¶¶ 341–348
4. The abuse of dominance claim under Article 7 LCart fails. The IBA did not define the relevant market and offered no economic evidence. Dominance is not unlawful in itself, and the alleged procedural shortcomings are not exploitative abuse. ¶¶ 351–357
5. None of the three conditions was met on 22 June 2023. On finance, the IBA did not show diversified and transparent revenues: it gave no evidence of the terms of the Sting sponsorship, it still relied on Gazprom, and the FCIT claim left uncertainty about its going-concern status. On refereeing and judging, the IBA insisted on an NDA that would have stopped PwC from reporting to the IOC, so PwC could not monitor. On governance, the IBA was entitled to end the GRG's mandate, but the BIIU was not operational, committee members resigned without explanation, and the handling of the 2022 election after the CAS 8862 Award showed disregard for the electoral process. ¶¶ 405–410, 424–430, 443–457
6. The withdrawal impaired the IBA's personality rights, but the impairment was justified. The failure to meet the conditions is an important reason under Article 72 SCC and an overriding interest under Article 28 SCC. The IOC's right to control the conditions of recognition outweighs the IBA's personality rights. ¶¶ 364, 458–461
7. The appeal is denied and the IOC Session decision of 22 June 2023 is confirmed. The costs paragraphs of the operative part are redacted in the published award. Operative part

Procedural history

1. 26 June 2019The IOC Session suspends its recognition of the IBA (then AIBA), following the IOC Inquiry Report of 21 May 2019.
2. 9 December 2021The IOC Executive Board sets three conditions (finance, refereeing and judging, governance) for lifting the suspension, possibly in 2023.
3. 22 June 2023The IOC Session withdraws the IBA's recognition under Olympic Charter Rule 3.7 and decides that the IBA will not organise the LA 2028 boxing tournament.
4. 27 June 2023The IBA files its Statement of Appeal with CAS and asks for a stay. Its request to consolidate with CAS 2023/A/9718 is rejected.
5. 10 August 2023Panel constituted after the Division President appoints a new president.
6. 7 September 2023The Panel denies the IBA's request for a stay; reasons to follow in the award.
7. 16 November 2023Hearing held in person at CAS in Lausanne.
8. 2 April 2024Award: appeal denied and the IOC decision confirmed.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• James Drake President, Court of Arbitration for Sport — appointed by the institution (appointed by the Division President after an earlier appointee withdrew)
• Jeffrey G. Benz Co-arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport — appointed by the claimant (appointed after the IBA's first nominee declined)
• Patrick Lafranchi Co-arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport — appointed by the respondent

For the claimant

IBA (in-house) · Yury Zaytsev · Alexander Zen-Ruffinen · Emilie Weible

For the respondent

Antonio Rigozzi · Marie-Christin Bareuther

Experts

Sportdata GmbH & Co KG (claimant)

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• boxing
• Olympic recognition
• withdrawal of recognition
• Olympic Charter Rule 3.7
• AIBA
• freedom of association
• Article 72 Swiss Civil Code
• personality rights
• Article 28 Swiss Civil Code
• abuse of dominant position
• Swiss Cartel Act
• right to be heard
• de novo review
• good governance
• Gazprom sponsorship
• referees and judges integrity
• non-disclosure agreement
• PILA Chapter 12 opt-in

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.