Sports Arbitration: A Case Study

International federations such as FIFA have its own structure and regulations. It creates 'law-like' rules that apply only to its members (Maciel, 2016). Similarly, at the national level, all sports bodies create rules of the game and grievance resolution machinery that apply to their sports participants (Anthony, 2015). Sport bodies will significantly apply autonomous rules, explore other meanings of general principles of law combing with specificity of sport disputes, and promote the rule of law in the process of self-regulating in the sport field (Zhi & Yijuan, 2015). However, dual sanctions or harsh sanctions may be imposed to the participants as a result of such self-regulatory machineries (Melissa, 2015). The application of sports arbitration is seen as the best solution to resolve sports matters (Abraham & Zaidi, 2015). Nafziger (1999) said internationalisation of sports arbitration can shape a more efficient and stable regime for resolving not only international disputes in a strict sense (athlete and sports federation) but also essentially domestic disputes. The creation of sports arbitration under Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre of Arbitration (KLRCA) is timely, but it failed to accomodate many sports dispute

One of the importance strategic core (2010-2015) of KBS is to strengthen the organisation and management of sports bodies. In order to ensure best governance practises in resolving disputes are exercised extensively by the sports bodies, the new draft of Sports Development Act (Act 576) is in the process of amendment by developing special provisions in Part V, namely Disputes Tribunal of Sports Bodies. The objective of the tribunal is to review decision from any internal disputes as provided in section 23 and section 24 of the existing Act 576. The tribunal is established in order to reconcile matters which cannot be resolved at the sports bodies