Authors: Gustavo Favero Vaughn, Kércia Tavares da Silva, Pedro Mariz, Eduardo Martinez*
| Jurisdiction: |
Topics: |
Introduction
We are witnessing the largest FIFA World Cup in history. Scheduled to conclude on 19 July 2026, the tournament brings together 48 national teams, is hosted across three countries and spans 16 cities, establishing itself as the biggest football competition ever held (and arguably the most important). For just over a month, cities virtually come to a standstill, crowds gather to watch the matches, and football takes center stage worldwide. At the same time, beyond sporting rivalries, geopolitical issues find in the football field a renewed opportunity to reignite tensions and bring regional disputes, previously thought to have subsided, back to the surface[1].
Against this background, as the world follows the matches daily, the World Cup reveals itself to be far more than a sporting event. The tournament has become a global phenomenon capable of mobilizing economic, political, commercial and legal interests, giving rise to controversies that extend well beyond the boundaries of the field of play.
Thus, while the competition unfolds on the pitch, many of its most consequential decisions are made away from it. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), through its Ad Hoc Division[2], stands ready to resolve urgent disputes connected with the tournament within 48 hours, thereby ensuring that legal protection remains effective in a competition in which time is a decisive factor.
Written by authors who share both an academic interest in sports law and a passion for football, this article seeks to examine the historical background of the CAS Ad Hoc Division, its operation, its legal foundations and its relevance to the FIFA World Cup.
Ultimately, it asks whether the current regulatory framework may restrict access to, and the practical use of, a mechanism specifically designed to resolve the tournament’s most urgent disputes.
To understand this framework it is first necessary to revisit, albeit briefly, the historical circumstances that led to the creation of the CAS.
From the CAS to the Ad Hoc Division
In the early 1980s, the increasing professionalization of sport led to a rise in international commercial, disciplinary and regulatory disputes. Such disputes were frequently brought before the ordinary courts of different jurisdictions, resulting in decisions that were inconsistent, slow and lacking the degree of specialization required to address the particular features of sports law, thereby leaving athletes, federations and other sporting stakeholders without adequate legal protection[3].
Against this backdrop, following the election of Juan Antonio Samaranch as President of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in 1981, the idea emerged of creating a specialized arbitral forum for the resolution of sports-related disputes. It was conceived as a genuine “Supreme Court of Sport”[4], capable of combining technical expertise, procedural speed and impartiality in the settlement of disputes. As a result of this initiative, the IOC formally approved the relevant Statutes, which entered into force on 30 June 1984 and established the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
In 1994, the CAS underwent a far-reaching institutional reform[5] aimed at strengthening its independence from the IOC. This reform led to the creation of the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS), the body responsible for the administration and financing of the Tribunal, a structure that remains in place to this day.
As the Olympic Games experienced increasing commercial growth and sporting decisions came to have a greater economic impact on the careers of thousands of athletes and on the Olympic Movement itself, a new challenge emerged. From the 1990s onwards, the IOC identified the risk that proceedings brought before domestic courts could directly interfere with the conduct of the Olympic Games, particularly given the short duration of the event, traditionally limited to seventeen days.
In response to this challenge, the then nascent ICAS established a special division of the CAS: the Ad Hoc Division. Conceived as a temporary, cost-free tribunal committed to maximum accessibility and procedural speed, the Division was designed to operate exclusively during the Olympic Games and to resolve, within an extremely short timeframe, disputes arising in the course of the competition.
Accordingly, during the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games, the first CAS Ad Hoc Division became operational. It was empowered to issue final decisions, within a maximum period of twenty-four hours, in relation to disputes arising during the Games. At that time, the Division consisted of two Co-Presidents and twelve arbitrators, all of whom were present in Atlanta throughout the competition and available to act at any time[6].
Since then, a new Ad Hoc Division has been constituted for each edition of the Summer and Winter Olympic Games. In football — the specific subject matter of this article — the first such experience took place at UEFA Euro 2000. The model was subsequently adopted for the 2006 FIFA World Cup, when an Ad Hoc Division was constituted specifically for the tournament for the first time.
For the 2026 FIFA World Cup, ICAS adopted, on 13 April 2026, the CAS Arbitration Rules for the 2026 FIFA World Cup. Those Rules apply exclusively to disputes arising between 11 June and 19 July 2026 in connection with the final competition of the FIFA World Cup.
They constitute a temporary regulatory framework whose operation automatically comes to an end upon the conclusion of the tournament. More than a mere set of procedural rules, this framework governs the operation of the Ad Hoc Division during the competition and forms the central object of this study: how a mechanism designed to decide disputes within 48 hours attempts to reconcile the urgency inherent in the tournament with the fundamental guarantees of arbitral due process. After all, in a time-limited competition, a decision rendered too late may be just as harmful as a decision that is wrong.
The 48 Hours That Can Change the Course of the World Cup
Having outlined the origins, institutional design and jurisdictional framework of the CAS, this article now examines how that framework is adapted to the particular demands of the FIFA World Cup. Unlike ordinary sporting competitions, the World Cup brings together, within a compressed period, disputes of sporting, disciplinary, commercial and institutional significance, all of which may require an immediate legal response.
In this setting, time is not merely a procedural concern; rather, it is an essential element of effective legal protection. A decision rendered after the end of the tournament may be formally correct, but practically useless. The suspension of a player shortly before a knockout match, the exclusion of a member of a national delegation, a dispute over a player’s eligibility, or the imposition of a disciplinary sanction capable of affecting the lineup of a team are examples of situations in which delayed adjudication may produce irreversible consequences. In a competition structured around successive and non-repeatable matches, the loss of time may itself amount to the loss of the right at stake.
The Ad Hoc Division is therefore not an ordinary arbitral chamber operating at ordinary speed, but an emergency mechanism designed to preserve both the regular conduct of the tournament and the basic procedural guarantees owed to the parties.
As noted above, the rules applicable to the 2026 edition are the Arbitration Rules for the 2026 FIFA World Cup. Under Article 1[7], the Ad Hoc Division has jurisdiction to resolve, by arbitration, disputes falling within the scope of Article 50 of the FIFA Statutes, provided that such disputes arise during and in connection with the final competition of the World Cup, between 11 June and 19 July 2026. Article 2[8] further provides that, for that period, ICAS shall establish a CAS Ad Hoc Division composed of a President, a Court Office and arbitrators selected from a special list.
This jurisdiction, however, is strictly delimited. The fact that a matter is controversial, widely debated or capable of producing significant sporting consequences is not, in itself, sufficient to bring it before the Ad Hoc Division.
Three elements are central: the dispute must be connected with the final competition of the FIFA World Cup; the challenged decision must be appealable to CAS under the FIFA Statutes; and the internal remedies available within FIFA must have been exhausted.
The Ad Hoc Division does not act as a court of first instance, nor as a general review body for every decision taken during the tournament. Its jurisdiction depends on the existence of a final and legally challengeable decision within FIFA’s internal system. This point is fundamental in distinguishing disputes of legal relevance from ordinary sporting controversies.
A goal disallowed following a VAR review, for example, may generate public dissatisfaction and even formal complaints addressed to FIFA. Nevertheless, such a situation would not ordinarily fall within the jurisdiction of the CAS Ad Hoc Division if it concerns only a technical decision made by match officials.
The analysis would be different if the same factual episode gave rise to disciplinary proceedings and resulted in a formal decision suspending a player, sanctioning a federation, or otherwise affecting the participation of an individual or entity in the tournament. In that scenario, if the admissibility requirements were fulfilled, the dispute could acquire a legal-disciplinary character and become amenable to review by the Ad Hoc Division.
The procedural design of the Ad Hoc Division reflects the need to reconcile urgency with due process. An application may be submitted by any natural or legal person seeking to bring before the Division a dispute falling within its jurisdiction. The application must be filed in writing and may be submitted in English, French or Spanish. Once the application is received, the President of the Ad Hoc Division appoints either a sole arbitrator or a panel of three arbitrators from the special list. The arbitrators must have legal training, recognized expertise in sports-related matters and independence from the parties involved.
Once constituted, the panel has broad procedural discretion to conduct the case in a manner appropriate to the circumstances, while preserving the parties’ right to be heard. The rules allow the panel to organize the proceedings at the speed required by the competition, including by holding hearings through videoconference or telephone, or by dispensing with a hearing where the panel considers that it has sufficient information to decide.
As a general rule, the award must be rendered within 48 hours of receipt of the application. This deadline may be extended only exceptionally by the President of the Ad Hoc Division where the circumstances of the case so require.
The award rendered by the Ad Hoc Division is immediately enforceable and is not, as a rule, subject to appeal within the arbitral system. The regulatory framework nevertheless provides an important procedural safeguard: depending on the nature and complexity of the dispute, the urgency of the matter, the evidence required and the procedural stage of the case, the panel may either render a final award or refer the dispute, in whole or in part, to ordinary CAS proceedings.
Such referral is not an appeal from the Ad Hoc Division. Rather, it is an exceptional procedural solution for cases that cannot be adequately resolved within the emergency structure of the tournament.
The CAS Ad Hoc Division should therefore not be understood as a new autonomous avenue for reviewing FIFA decisions, nor as an open forum for re-litigating every sporting controversy arising during the World Cup. Its role is narrower and more precise: during the competition, it replaces the ordinary rhythm of CAS proceedings with an emergency arbitral mechanism capable of providing effective protection against legal, disciplinary or organizational decisions of FIFA that are appealable to CAS and whose late review could irreversibly affect the position of players, federations or other stakeholders involved in the tournament.
In this sense, the 48-hour timeframe is not a mere procedural detail. It is the condition that allows arbitral justice to retain practical meaning in a competition where time is not neutral. During the World Cup, a decision delivered too late may no longer be capable of protecting the right in dispute.
The 48 Hours That Never Begin
The mechanism previously described has now existed for two decades. Since its first constitution for the 2006 FIFA World Cup, an Ad Hoc Division has been established for successive editions of the tournament and has remained available to address urgent disputes arising during the competition.
Nevertheless, its practical operation in the World Cup context remains largely unclear. The information available in public sources makes it difficult to determine whether, how often and under what circumstances the Division has been effectively activated, as well as to assess whether the mechanism has fulfilled the role for which it was designed.
At Qatar 2022, for example, the ICAS Annual Report[9] notes that the Division operated remotely from the CAS Court Office in Lausanne for the entire tournament and “no arbitration procedures were registered.” This absence is confirmed by other public records: the official Table of CAS Awards Rendered by the CAS Ad Hoc Divisions contains no World Cup entry, and a search of the CAS jurisprudence database reveals no award issued by any World Cup division[10].
This silence does not reflect a shortcoming of emergency arbitration itself: the equivalent division at the Olympic Games, operating under very similar rules, has decided more than a hundred cases since Atlanta 1996 on matters such as admission to the Games, application of tournament rules and doping, often within hours.
It would also be wrong to assume that World Cups lack legal disputes, as recent editions alone produced the suspension of a star striker in the middle of the competition, a qualification challenged over a player’s nationality and a federation sanctioned days before kickoff[11]. All of these disputes were brought to CAS, but none of them reached the Ad Hoc Division created for that purpose. The question, then, is why the doors that stay open at the Olympics remain closed at the World Cup.
One explanation may lie in the design of the applicable rules. The World Cup Division was built with the same “machinery” as its Olympic counterpart, with the seat in Lausanne, a panel appointed by the President of the Division, a short deadline to decide and an award that is final[12]. It did not, however, inherit its counterpart’s conditions of entry. The Olympic and World Cup divisions differ not in how they decide, but in what is allowed to reach them, and this difference in access explains the silence described above.
The first barrier to entry is the shape of the jurisdiction itself. At the Olympic Games, the Ad Hoc Division may hear any dispute arising in connection with the Games, including disputes that arise in the ten days before the opening ceremony[13]. The World Cup rules, by contrast, are considerably narrower: the Ad Hoc Division may hear claims only if “all internal legal remedies at FIFA have been previously exhausted,” and only if the dispute arises during the tournament itself[14].
As a consequence, the Division cannot act on a dispute, however serious it may be, until FIFA has issued a formal decision on it. Furthermore, most football disputes arise before the opening match, in the registration of players and in the qualification of teams, so they also fall outside the Ad Hoc Division’s reach.
The dispute over Byron Castillo’s nationality, which called Ecuador’s place at Qatar 2022 into question, arose during the qualifiers, months before the period covered by the Division, so the case had to be filed under the ordinary appeal procedure, before the Qatar 2022 Ad Hoc Division even existed[15]. In this sense, the jurisdiction was drawn for a type of dispute that the tournament rarely produces at the right moment.
Moreover, both the World Cup and the Olympic rules require a party to exhaust the internal remedies of the sports body before turning to the Ad Hoc Division, but they treat that requirement in very different ways. The Olympic rules expressly waive it when the time needed to exhaust those remedies would make the appeal ineffective, an exception applied by the Beijing 2022 Division in order to hear the case of an athlete whose internal appeal could not have been decided before the beginning of the tournament[16].
The World Cup rules contain no such exception, so the requirement of exhausting internal remedies is absolute[17]. The result is that the pace of FIFA’s own procedures determines whether the Ad Hoc Division can be used at all.
The Suárez case illustrates what this means in practice. The player was banned during the 2014 World Cup, but the proceedings before FIFA’s disciplinary bodies concluded only after Uruguay’s elimination from the tournament; his appeal was therefore decided by CAS through the ordinary procedure, one month after the final[18].
Another barrier to triggering the Ad Hoc Division’s jurisdiction comes not from its rules, but from the case law of the CAS itself. Decisions taken on the pitch, by the referee or through video review, are treated as “field of play” matters, which the arbitrators will not examine unless there is evidence of bad faith or arbitrariness. The Ad Hoc Division has applied this doctrine since its first case at Atlanta 1996[19], and many controversies arising directly from decisions taken by match officials fall within this category.
During the 2026 World Cup, for example, the red card shown to Folarin Balogun sparked a public debate about whether the decision could be challenged. The card, issued after a video review, was a field-of-play decision and, as such, beyond the Division’s reach. Moreover, the one-match suspension that followed was automatic, and the FIFA Statutes exclude suspensions of up to four matches from any appeal to CAS[20]. Thus, however controversial the episode, the dispute arising from it could never reach the Ad Hoc Division.
In this light, the question arises as to why the Ad Hoc Division should continue to exist. The most generous answer is that its value does not depend on its use, since a court that stands ready to decide within 48 hours offers a guarantee to the tournament that is worth having, even if it is never triggered. Indeed, the reconstitution of the Division after the 2014 World Cup[21], despite the empty record, suggests that the institutions involved see value in that availability.
The 2026 Rules state that the Division exists in the interest of the athletes, the participating associations and sport[22], yet the barriers described in this section deny access precisely to those it is intended to serve. None of these barriers is inevitable: they are drafting choices, and the Olympic rules offer a useful model of how some of them could be revised so as to turn the World Cup Ad Hoc Division into an effective institution of sports arbitration.
At the time of writing, the 2026 Ad Hoc Division remains operational. Whether, and to what extent, it will be activated during the tournament remains uncertain. The barriers examined in this section may help explain the uncertainty surrounding its practical operation and suggest that access to the mechanism may continue to be constrained.
Conclusion
The FIFA World Cup brings together cultures, nationalities and people through a shared passion for football. This passion is reflected in the trust placed in the world’s most important football competition. As examined throughout this article, the CAS Ad Hoc Division was created to protect that trust by offering a rapid and specialized mechanism capable of resolving urgent disputes within the exceptional timeframe of the tournament.
Its effectiveness depends not only on its ability to render decisions within 48 hours, but also on the conditions governing access to the mechanism. The limited temporal scope of its jurisdiction, the requirement to exhaust FIFA’s internal remedies and the restrictions applicable to certain sporting and disciplinary decisions may reduce its practical reach. To preserve and strengthen confidence in the competition, FIFA and ICAS may therefore consider adjustments aimed at making the Ad Hoc Division more accessible, effective and capable of providing greater legal certainty to the tournament.
* Gustavo Favero Vaughn is a Partner at Cesar Asfor Rocha Advogados. He holds a Master of Laws (LL.M.) from Columbia Law School and a Master’s degree in Procedural Law from the University of São Paulo Law School. Professor of Arbitration at the Brazilian Institute of Education, Development, and Research (“IDP”). Auditor at the Superior Court of Sports Justice for Football. Alumni Advisor at the American Review of International Arbitration (ARIA).
Kércia Tavares da Silva is an undergraduate student in Law and Economics at the Brazilian Institute of Education, Development, and Research (“IDP”). Founder of the IDP Arbitration League.
Pedro Mariz is an undergraduate student at the University of Brasília (UnB) and a member of the University’s Arbitration League.
Eduardo Martinez is an undergraduate student at the University of Brasília (UnB) and a founding member of the University’s Administrative Law Study Group.
[1] By way of example, reference may be made to the 2026 FIFA World Cup semi-final between Argentina and England, to be played on 15 July 2026, which has reignited debate surrounding the Falklands/Malvinas War and revived memories of historic episodes in the rivalry between the two national teams, particularly the celebrated “Goal of the Century” and the so-called “Hand of God”, both produced by Diego Maradona at the 1986 FIFA World Cup. Germany’s triumph at the 1990 FIFA World Cup, achieved only one year after the fall of the Berlin Wall and frequently associated with the broader context of German reunification, is also noteworthy. One of the most emblematic, albeit less frequently recalled, episodes occurred during the qualifying campaign for the 1974 FIFA World Cup, when the Soviet Union refused to play its match against Chile in Santiago because of the political circumstances following the 1973 military coup. In the absence of the Soviet team, the Chilean national side took to the field alone and scored a symbolic winning goal, with Francisco Valdés tapping the ball into an empty net. The episode became one of the most striking illustrations of the relationship between politics and football.
[2] HAJJ, Mohammad. Justice in 48 Hours: The CAS Ad Hoc Division at the 2026 FIFA World Cup. Daily Jus, 19 June 2026.
[3] COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT (CAS). History. Lausanne: CAS, n.d.; XIANG, Huiying. The Development and Evolution of the Court of Arbitration for Sport and the Code of Sports-related Arbitration. International Sports Law Review Pandektis (ISLR/Pandektis), vol. 14, ns. 1–2, pp. 45–60, 2022.
[4] CASINI, Lorenzo. The Making of a Lex Sportiva by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. German Law Journal, vol. 12, n. 5, p. 1327, May 2011.
[5] The 1994 reform was prompted, to a significant extent, by the so-called Gundel case. In 1992, professional equestrian Elmar Gundel appealed to the CAS against sanctions imposed by the Fédération Équestre Internationale (FEI), including disqualification, suspension and a fine arising from an anti-doping violation involving his horse. Although the CAS reduced the suspension from three months to one month, Gundel subsequently brought the matter before the Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT), arguing that the CAS did not satisfy the standards of independence and impartiality required of an arbitral tribunal. In a decision rendered in March 1993, the SFT recognized the CAS as a genuine arbitral tribunal and upheld the validity of its awards, while drawing attention to its close institutional links with the International Olympic Committee (IOC), particularly in relation to funding, organizational structure and the appointment of arbitrators. These observations prompted the 1994 institutional reform, which culminated in the creation of the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS) and strengthened the CAS’s administrative and financial independence.
[6] Overview of the Rules Governing the CAS Ad Hoc Division and the CAS Anti-Doping Division at the Olympic Games, in Despina Mavromati and Matthieu Reeb, The Code of the Court of Arbitration for Sport: Commentary, Cases and Materials (Second Edition) (2025), pp. 739–740.
[7] Arbitration Rules for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, art. 1.
[8] Arbitration Rules for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, art. 2.
[9] ICAS, 2022 Annual Report and Financial Statements (July 2023), p. 14.
[10] Table of CAS Awards Rendered by the CAS Ad Hoc Divisions, in Despina Mavromati and Matthieu Reeb, The Code of the Court of Arbitration for Sport: Commentary, Cases and Materials (Second Edition) (2025), pp. 831-834.
[11] Respectively: CAS 2014/A/3665, 3666 & 3667, Luis Suárez, FC Barcelona & Asociación Uruguaya de Fútbol v. FIFA, award of 14 August 2014; TAS 2022/A/9175, Federación Peruana de Fútbol c. Federación Ecuatoriana de Fútbol & FIFA, and TAS 2022/A/9176, Federación de Fútbol de Chile c. Federación Ecuatoriana de Fútbol, Byron Castillo Segura & FIFA, operative part notified on 8 November 2022; and CAS 2025/A/11268 & 2025/A/11512, Mexican Football Federation v. FIFA, decision of 2 June 2026.
[12] Arbitration Rules for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, arts. 7, 12, 19, 20 and 22.
[13] Arbitration Rules applicable to the CAS ad hoc division for the Olympic Games, art. 1; see also Rule 61(2) of the Olympic Charter.
[14] Arbitration Rules for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, arts. 1 and 11; see also FIFA Statutes, art. 50.
[15] TAS 2022/A/9175 and TAS 2022/A/9176; the Qatar 2022 ad hoc division only began operating on 20 November 2022.
[16] Arbitration Rules for the Olympic Games, art. 1. The exception was applied in CAS OG 22/004, Adam Edelman & Bobsleigh Skeleton Israel v. International Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation, award of 4 February 2022 (operative part of 31 January 2022).
[17] Arbitration Rules for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, art. 11.
[18] CAS 2014/A/3665, 3666 & 3667, Luis Suárez, FC Barcelona & Asociación Uruguaya de Fútbol v. FIFA, award of 14 August 2014.
[19] CAS OG 96/006, Mendy v. AIBA, award of 1 August 1996.
[20] FIFA Statutes, art. 50.3(b); FIFA World Cup 26 Regulations, art. 10.5.
[21] Arbitration Rules for the 2026 FIFA World Cup; CAS Arbitration Rules for the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022 Final Round.
[22] Arbitration Rules for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, art. 1.