Skip to main content
International Arbitration Forum

British Bobsleigh & Skeleton Association Ltd (BBSA) v. International Bobsleigh & Skeleton Federation (IBSF)

Case summary

At a glance

Parties
British Bobsleigh & Skeleton Association Limited (BBSA) (United Kingdom) v. International Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation (IBSF) (Switzerland); British Olympic Association and IOC notified as interested parties
Case no.
CAS OG 26/004 (CAS ad hoc Division, OG Milano-Cortina)
Forum and rules
CAS ad hoc Division for the Olympic Winter Games Milano-Cortina 2026; CAS Arbitration Rules for the Olympic Games; Rule 61.2 Olympic Charter; seat Lausanne
Tribunal
Marianne Saroli (President), Luigi Fumagalli, Joongi Kim
Sector
Sport; skeleton; equipment (helmets)
Outcome
Jurisdiction upheld, but the application was dismissed because BBSA did not prove that its helmet complied with Article 10.16.1 of the IBSF Rules (7 February 2026).
Amount
No monetary claim. No order as to costs; the CAS ad hoc Division's services are free of charge.

The dispute

BBSA, the UK national federation for bobsleigh and skeleton, developed a new one-piece skeleton helmet for the Milano-Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics. It said the helmet was certified under ASTM 2040 and EN 1077 (Class A), standards that become mandatory only from the 2026-2027 season. IBSF representatives inspected the helmet at an informal meeting in Winterberg on 1 January 2026. By emails of 26 and 29 January 2026 IBSF stated that the helmet did not comply with Article 10.16.1 of the IBSF International Skeleton Rules 2025, citing spoilers, protruding edges and aerodynamic elements. BBSA argued that the helmet had no "attached" elements and no "aerodynamic modification" because it was manufactured as a single integrated form. IBSF objected that internal remedies before the IBSF Appeals Tribunal had not been exhausted and that the matter was a "field of play" issue, and argued on the merits that the helmet's overall shape produced prohibited aerodynamic effects.

Key holdings

  1. Jurisdiction upheld. The dispute arose on 28 January 2026, within the ten-day period before the Opening Ceremony. Exhaustion of internal remedies was excused: a decision by the IBSF Appeals Tribunal shortly before the first training on 9 February 2026 would leave no effective time for CAS review, and IBSF identified no established expedited Games-time procedure. ¶¶ 62–76
  2. The dispute is not a "field of play" matter. A pre-competition administrative determination of equipment compliance with written rules is a question of rule interpretation and application. IBSF could not call the matter unreviewable while also insisting on recourse to an Appeals Tribunal that lacks jurisdiction over field of play matters. ¶¶ 56–60
  3. Relief is limited to the OWG 2026. The Panel would in any case lack jurisdiction to rule on future IBSF competitions or on the general safety superiority of the helmet. ¶¶ 51–54
  4. Under Article 10.16.1, compliance is the responsibility of national federations. A federation that seeks a declaration of compliance therefore bears the burden of proof. ¶ 85
  5. One-piece manufacture is not decisive. The prohibition of spoilers and protruding edges applies to features however they were created. A design that departs from the standard market shape illustrated in Article 12.10, with a rear section that "considerably protrudes" for aerodynamic purposes, is a "modification" within the rule even if it was made at the manufacturing stage. BBSA did not show that the helmet fell within the permitted configurations. ¶¶ 105, 112–118
  6. International federations have reasonable discretion to apply technical rules expressed in general terms to novel designs. That discretion deserves deference absent arbitrariness, bad faith or manifest error. IBSF's assessment fell within the range of reasonable interpretations, and contra proferentem did not resolve the issue. ¶¶ 119–121
  7. Application dismissed; no order as to costs. The Panel urged IBSF to adopt clearer and more transparent procedures for pre-competition equipment approval. It also urged IBSF to consider the helmet's safety benefits, and found that the 1 January 2026 meeting created no binding approval. ¶¶ 125–135; Decision

Procedural history

  1. 1 January 2026IBSF representatives examined the helmet at a meeting at BBSA's hotel in Winterberg, Germany.
  2. 26 January 2026IBSF emailed BBSA that the helmet, in its current form, did not comply with the IBSF Rules.
  3. 28 January 2026BBSA contested the assessment; the Panel dated the dispute from this point.
  4. 29 January 2026IBSF's Sports Manager confirmed the Material Controllers' opinion that the helmet did not comply with the rules.
  5. 2 February 2026BBSA filed its Application with the CAS ad hoc Division, and the Panel was constituted the same day.
  6. 3 February 2026IBSF filed its Reply objecting to jurisdiction. After a case management conference, the Panel ordered the parties to appoint experts and file a joint expert protocol.
  7. 5 February 2026The experts filed a joint protocol, and a hearing was held.
  8. 7 February 2026Award: jurisdiction upheld, application dismissed.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by
For the claimant
Mike Townley
For the respondent
Stephen Netzle
Experts
Dave Short (claimant) · Gatis Güts (respondent)

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

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

Case ID
CAS OG 26/004
Claimant
British Bobsleigh & Skeleton Association Ltd (BBSA)
Respondent
International Bobsleigh & Skeleton Federation (IBSF)

Procedure: Ad hoc
Sport: Skeleton
Matter: Other
Outcome: Dismissed
Panel: Luigi Fumagalli, Marianne Saroli, Joongi Kim
Source: Court of Arbitration for Sport case database.