June 2025: Australian Sports Law Update

Like many sports, the world of sports law is also fast paced, so we’ve summarised some important updates over the last month or so that we think those involved in sport in Australia should be aware of, so that you can stay ahead of the game. 

Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Code Update

The International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS), which is responsible for the adoption of and amendments to the CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration (Code), has released amendments which came into effect on 1 July 2025.

The amendments to the Code are:

1. Expedited procedures: where the Parties have agreed to expedited time limits/procedural calendars in Ordinary Proceedings, these will be binding for the CAS provided that they have been validated by the Division President or the Panel (R44.4).
2. Procedures to be handled quickly and efficiently: for both Ordinary and Appeals proceedings, the Code now expressly requires that ‘[t]he Panel shall ensure that the procedure is handled quickly and efficiently’ (R46; R59). When it comes to Appeals proceedings, the Code has further been amended to remove the requirement that the operative part of the award be communicated to the parties within three months after the transfer of the file to the Panel (subject to possible extensions) – the Code now simply provides that the operative part shall be communicated ‘within a maximum of four months after the closing of the evidentiary proceedings by the Panel’.
3. Value of dispute may be relevant to the number of arbitrators in Appeals proceedings: in the absence of an agreement on the number of arbitrators for an Appeals proceeding, the President of the Division may decide whether to submit the appeal to a sole arbitrator instead of a panel of three arbitrators – what is new is that the President shall take into account ‘the value of the dispute’ when doing so (R50).
4. Removal of Facsimile: CAS has done away with nostalgia - facsimile as a method of communication has finally been removed (R30; R31; R46; R59).
5. In-house clerks/counsel and Ad Hoc clerks: there are two relevant changes regarding the clerks and counsel assisting the Panel: (i) the Code now expressly provides for in-house clerks to be appointed to assist the Panel in both Ordinary and Appeals proceedings (R40.3; R54) (previously this referred only to ad hoc clerks); and (ii) the costs of the arbitration have been clarified to explicitly include the expenses of in-house clerks (previously only ad hoc clerks) as well as the costs of travel and accommodation costs of CAS counsels (R64.4). More detail is found in the Schedule of Costs, with a lump sum between CHF 4,000 and CHF 8,000 payable for in-house clerks assisting with the drafting of the award.

Cases pending at 1 July 2025 remain subject to the Code in force prior to 1 July 2025, unless both parties request the application of the amended Code.

For more information, please follow this link. The amendments to the Code can be found here.

The amended Schedule of Costs can be found here.

ECtHR Grand Chamber Ruling in Semenya v Switzerland

Background

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) handed down its decision in Semenya v. Switzerland on 10 July 2025.

Caster Semenya (Semenya) was an international-level athlete who challenged World Athletics’ regulations on participation in the female category of competition (Regulations). The ECtHR proceedings can be traced back to the CAS, where a three member Panel rejected Semenya’s challenge to the Regulations in 2019 (CAS 2018/O/5794; CAS 2018/O/5798). Semenya appealed the CAS decision to the Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT), which refused to set aside the CAS decision in 2020.

Following the decision of the SFT, Semenya lodged a complaint against Switzerland before the ECtHR in February 2021, alleging several breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In a 2023 decision, the Chamber of the ECtHR held, by majority, in favour of Semenya, finding violations of: (i) Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken together with Article 8 (right to respect for private life); and (ii) Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in relation to Article 14 taken together with Article 8.

In October 2023, the Swiss Government requested the matter be referred to the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR for final determination. A hearing before the Grand Chamber took place in May 2024 and the Grand Chamber announced its decision live on 10 July 2025.

The Grand Chamber’s Decision

The Grand Chamber first considered the admissibility of Semenya’s claims, and found: (i) the complaints under Article 8 ECHR, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 13 and Article 14, were inadmissible, because there was not a sufficient nexus between Semenya and Switzerland; and (ii) the claim under Article 6.1 ECHR (right to a fair hearing) was admissible because the route of challenge (i.e. to the CAS and the SFT) provided a jurisdictional link.

The Grand Chamber then considered whether the judicial protections required by Article 6.1 had been upheld by the SFT. The Grand Chamber held that Article 6.1 required the SFT to conduct a ‘particularly rigorous examination’ of Semenya’s appeal since the arbitration had been imposed by the Regulations and the – compulsory - arbitration concerned a dispute relating to civil rights. Applying that test to the SFT’s review, the ECtHR found that with respect to one aspect of Semenya’s dispute, the SFT’s assessment ‘within its competence to review the compatibility of the award with substantive public policy, had not been subjected to the particularly rigorous examination called for by the circumstances of the case’ and, therefore, a breach of Article 6.1. 

The matter will be sent back to the SFT for reconsideration but the sports law community is already considering the broader implications of the decision – which will be discussed by Prof Ulrich Haas at the ANZSLA conference in Brisbane on 21 to 23 October.

For more information, please see the judgment, legal summary, a press release and a Q&A document.

ACMA Warning to Social Media Influencers

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), Australia’s online gambling regulator, has issued a warning to social media influencers (which has the potential to include athletes with large social media followings) against promoting illegal online gambling services.

The warning reminds social media influencers that ‘[o]nline slots (pokie-style games) and casino-style games like blackjack are illegal in Australia. It’s also illegal in Australia to provide unlicensed lotteries or wagering services, or to accept online in-play bets on sports. If you are an influencer and you profit from promoting illegal games and wagering services to Australians – you are breaking the law’.

The warning outlined substantial penalties of up to $59,400 for individual influencers promoting these services, while influencers who facilitate these illegal services face penalties of up to $2,475,000 under the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth).

Examples of breach include:

• Streaming of participation in gambling on an illegal gambling service.
• Links provided in content that directs people to an illegal gambling service.
• Promotional content related to an illegal gambling service.

For more information, please follow this link.

Amendments to Brisbane Olympic and Paralympic Games Arrangements Act 2021 (Act)

Further to the first topic in our May newsletter, the proposed amendments from the Planning (Social Impact and Community Benefit) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 (the Bill) have now been passed and attained royal assent.

The legislative amendments introduced by the Bill are extensive and relate to the operation of key organising bodies established by the Act for the 2032 Brisbane Olympic and Paralympic Games (the Games), including the Brisbane Organising Committee (BOCOG), and the Games independent Infrastructure and Coordination Authority’ (GIICA). These changes clarify the composition, governance, and functions of these bodies, and reduces the red tape around planning and development.

Key amendments to the Act include:

• identifying Games venues and villages and their Games-related and legacy use;
• identifying Games-related transport infrastructure;
• further expediting the pathway for the delivery of Games venues and villages and the construction of Games-related transport infrastructure identified in the Act by removing the requirements for compliance with certain planning, environmental and other legislation relevant to the development of venues and villages;
• streamlining the governance arrangements of the BOCOG;
• enabling additional Queensland Government oversight of the BOCOG by providing for an observer at board and committee meetings; and
• acknowledging the Games Leadership Group (membership of the group is to be decided by the Minister) and that both the BOCOG and GIICA must have regard to its advice in carrying out their respective functions.

This article was written with the assistance of Tia Khan and Alexander Chau.