Constructing arbitral authority in CAS jurisdictional reasoning

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is a central forum for resolving disputes in organized sport, and the legal effect of its jurisdictional provisions depends on how they connect sporting rules, parties, and disputes. The question is how those connections become legally sufficient for jurisdiction.

Using structured analysis of published decisions and doctrinal interpretation, this article examines how CAS panels make arbitral authority legally operative in jurisdictional reasoning. It draws on a corpus of 172 public CAS decisions, with decision dates between 13 January 2015 and 2 April 2024, and compares the legal connections through which panels establish or deny authority. The analysis distinguishes the procedural route to CAS, the instrument providing for arbitration, and the connection binding the parties to that instrument.

Federation rules, anti-doping provisions, Olympic instruments, specific agreements, and procedural conduct perform different functions within these connections. The comparison shows why participation in organized sport can support jurisdiction in one setting while leaving it unavailable in another.

This relational account explains how private sporting rules become arbitral authority and why clarity in jurisdictional drafting matters for athletes, clubs, federations, and anti-doping institutions.