Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Emergency arbitration in sports: a case analysis of the Brazilian experience

  • Article
  • Published:
The International Sports Law Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Being a quick and professional way to resolve disputes, arbitration has been firmly established as the predominant method of sports conflict resolution. Implementing emergency arbitration in sports disputes speeds up the case analysis, allowing claimants to request a pre-arbitration interim measure directly to an arbitral institution, not the courts. This paper aims to unfold emergency arbitration as a provisional remedy focusing on sports arbitration in Brazil under a comparative perspective with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). An explanatory case study of six sports emergency arbitration cases from the Brazilian Center for Mediation and Arbitration—CBMA allows us to conclude that a short time frame benefits emergency arbitration. It requires diligence from the arbitration center and emergency arbitrator, so the rules on emergency arbitration must be properly designed. This study offers a theoretical and practical approach to emergency sports arbitration, providing benefits for rulemaking, arbitrators, and sports arbitration lawyers and contributing to future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Wekesa (2018). See also O’Leary (2021) and Duval (2022).

  2. Mironi (2017). For mediation in other areas including multiparty mediation, see Ferreira and Severo (2021).

  3. See Blackaby et al. (2015).

  4. See Alnaber (2019). See also Brown (2020), Zhang (2020), and Wang (2002).

  5. See Blackshaw and Pachmann (2016).

  6. See The White & Case and Queen Mary International Arbitration Survey: Improvements and Innovations in International Arbitration (2015). See also The White & Case and Queen Mary International Arbitration Survey: Adapting arbitration to a changing world (2021). See also ICC Arbitration and ADR Commission Report on Emergency Arbitrator Proceedings (2019).

  7. McDonough and McDonough (1997). See also Yin (1984).

  8. Blackaby et al. (2015), para 7.14. See also Alnaber (2019), p. 442.

  9. See The White & Case and BIICL Empirical Study: Provisional measures in investor–state arbitration (2023), p. 2.

  10. UNCITRAL Model Law (1985).

  11. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (1976).

  12. See article 28(2) of the ICC Arbitration Rules (2021). See also Rule 30.3A of the SIAC Arbitration Rules (2016).

  13. New York Convention (1958a, b) Status.

  14. UNCINTRAL Model Law 1985 Status.

  15. See Teradyne, Inc. v. Mostek Corp., (1st Cir. 1986); see also Danieli & C. Officine Meccaniche S.p.A. v. Morgan Constr. Co., (D. Mass. 2002).

  16. Wang (2002), p. 1081.

  17. See the Brazilian Arbitration Act in English (2021).

  18. See Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ), Special Appeal no. 2023615/SP (2023).

  19. See the opt-in (1990) ICC—Pre-Arbitral Referee Rules as a separate set of rules from the ICC Arbitration Rules.

  20. See article 28(1) of the (2021) ICC Arbitration Rules.

  21. See The White & Case and Queen Mary International Arbitration Survey: Improvements and Innovations in International Arbitration (2015), p. 7.

  22. See The White & Case and Queen Mary International Arbitration Survey: Adapting arbitration to a changing world (2021), p. 12.

  23. Alnaber (2019), p. 445.

  24. See article 37 and the summary of changes for the ICDR Rules.

  25. See Rule 26 and Schedule 1 of the SIAC Arbitration Rules (2010).

  26. If the parties do not wish to use the emergency arbitrator, they must expressly opt out by adding the following wording to the clause: The Emergency Arbitrator Provisions shall not apply.

  27. See the ICC Arbitration and ADR Commission Report on Emergency Arbitrator Proceedings (2019), p. 3.

  28. See Article 29 of the ICC Arbitration Rules 2021. See Article 1 of Appendix II of the SCC Arbitration Rules (2023), p. 30.

  29. See Schedule 1 Paragraph 1 of the SIAC Arbitration Rules 2016. See Article 23 and Appendix III of the CIETAC Arbitration Rules (2015). See Article 7, para 1 of AAA-ICDR Arbitration Rules (2021).

  30. See The White & Case and BIICL Empirical Study: Provisional measures in investor–state arbitration (2023), p. 16.

  31. See City Oriente Limited v. Republic of Ecuador and Empresa Estatal Petróleos del Ecuador (Petroecuador) (I) (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/21) (2007), para. 83–86.

  32. See Bernhard von Pezold and others v. Republic of Zimbabwe (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/15) (2012).

  33. See IBT Group, LLC e IBT, LLC v. República de Panamá (ICSID Case No. ARB/20/31). DECISIÓN SOBRE LA SOLICITUD DE MEDIDA PROVISIONALÍSIMA (2020), para. 48.

  34. See CAM-CCBC Administrative Resolution No. 32 (2018).

  35. See CAMARB Administrative Resolution No. 06 (2020).

  36. See article 21 of CAM-CCBC Arbitration Rules (2022). See also Rule 9 of CAMARB Arbitration Rules (2019).

  37. See CIESP–FIESP Administrative Resolution No. 4 (2018).

  38. See CIESP–FIESP Arbitration Rules (2013).

  39. See Oliveira (2019). See also Soares et al. (2020). See also Ferreira and Oliveira (2019).

  40. E.g., Article 5 (1) of the Appendix V of the ICC Arbitration Rules (2021).

  41. See Brown (2020), p. 48. See also Zhang (2020), p. 67.

  42. See Part 3A, Article 22B(1), Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) 2015.

  43. See Section 2 (1) of Part II, Singapore International Arbitration Act (1994).

  44. Article 1043b(2) and Article 1043b(4), Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (2015)

  45. See Section 2(1b), New Zealand Arbitration Act (1996).

  46. The White & Case and Queen Mary International Arbitration Survey: Improvements and Innovations in International Arbitration (2015), p. 28.

  47. See The White & Case and Queen Mary International Arbitration Survey: Adapting arbitration to a changing world (2021), p. 8.

  48. See the article 29 (3) of the Swiss Rules 2021.

  49. See article V(1b) of the New York Convention (1958a, b).

  50. See the ICC Commission Report: Emergency Arbitrator Proceedings (2019), p. 3.

  51. See article 7, Appendix V of the ICC Arbitration Rules (2021).

  52. Fry (2013), p. 187.

  53. French Cour de Cassation, No 09-72.439, (2011).

  54. See Yahoo! Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 983 F.Supp.2d 310 - United States District Court, S.D. New York (2013). See also Vital Pharmaceuticals, d/b/a VPX Sports v. Pepsico, INC., 528 F.Supp.3d 1304 - United States District Court, S.D. Florida (2020).

  55. See Chinmax Medical Systems INC., v. Alere San Diego, INC., No. 10cv2467 WQH (NLS) - United States District Court, S.D. California (2011).

  56. CVG V CVH–SGHC 249, 2022.

  57. Brazilian Superior Court of Justice, PET na HDE 5144, 2022.

  58. See article 128 of the CBF Statute (2022).

  59. For more details on CBMA and sports arbitration, see Schmidt et al. (2021), p. 94.

  60. See CBMA’s ordinary sports arbitration rules 2020. See also CBMA’s appeal sports arbitration rules 2019.

  61. See article 217 of the Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil

  62. See article 52 of Act nº 9.615/1998.

  63. See article 183 (1) of the Swiss Private International Law Act (1987).

  64. See article 374 (1) of the Swiss Civil Procedure Code (2008).

  65. See article 37 of the CAS Code: Procedural Rules (2023).

  66. Blackshaw and Pachmann (2016), p. 95.

  67. See ICAS board.

  68. See Legia Warszawa SA v. Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), CAS 2014/A/3703, (2014).

  69. See the preamble of CBMA’s Ordinary Sports Arbitration Rules.

  70. See CBMA Commercial Arbitration Rules (2013).

  71. See, for example, See Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ), Jurisdiction Conflict (CC) no. 180394/2021.

  72. See Article 300 of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure 2015.

  73. See Ferreira et al. (2022). See also Ferreira et al. (2023).

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ambra University, Orlando, FL, United States of America

    Daniel B. Ferreira

  2. Department of Business Law, South Ural State University (National Research University), Chelyabinsk, Russia

    Elizaveta A. Gromova

  3. Daniel Brantes Ferreira Advogados - DBFLaw, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil

    Daniel B. Ferreira

  4. Chartered Institute of Arbitrators - CIArb, London, England

    Daniel B. Ferreira

Authors
  1. Daniel B. Ferreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elizaveta A. Gromova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel B. Ferreira.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ferreira, D.B., Gromova, E.A. Emergency arbitration in sports: a case analysis of the Brazilian experience. Int Sports Law J (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-024-00256-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-024-00256-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation