By Claire O’Neill
Marquette University Law School’s National Sports Law Institute hosted its 36th Annual Conference at Eckstein Hall on Friday, October 17, 2025. The event featured discussions and lectures focused on resolving international sports disputes and analyzing collegiate athletics post House. Marquette’s Sports Law Program, recognized as one of the most comprehensive in the nation, offers specialized coursework, hands-on sports industry experience, and opportunities to engage in moot court and negotiation competitions. The underlying theme of this year’s panel centered on one key question: What happens when an athlete believes they have not had a fair chance at being selected for a team?
Panelists Professor Maureen Arellano Weston, Professor of Law and Director of the Entertainment, Media, and Sports Law Program at Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law; Matthieu Reeb, Director General of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS); and Michael Lenard, OLY, Acting President of CAS, sat down to discuss how international sports disputes are arbitrated and resolved. Each panelist has lived through these hearings in real time and shared valuable insights into the procedures and principles that define international sports arbitration.
Athlete vs. Athlete
Professor Weston opened the discussion by explaining that Olympic sports in the United States are governed by the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act. The Act gives the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC) exclusive authority over U.S. participation in the Olympic Games and requires that there be fair and efficient dispute procedures for athletes.
Weston noted that these hearings move extremely fast because they usually involve imminent competition. “You could get an email asking if you’re available for a hearing tomorrow or in the next three days,” she said. She recalled one 13-hour hearing involving a selection dispute and explained that arbitrators are often expected to issue an operative award by the next day. This level of urgency places tremendous pressure on arbitrators to reach a fair and timely decision. The concept of time was emphasized during this discussion, as there are often long arbitrations and quick turnaround times to render a decision. Professor Weston recounted a time when she had an arbitration that lasted over fifteen hours, and there needed to be answer the very next day. Sports arbitration is intense, and time is often limited. Compared to the civil litigation process which can take years, this type of arbitration expects and indeed requires decisions within days if not hours.
Lenard emphasized how important it is for athletes to understand this process, noting that these disputes often come down to “athlete versus athlete.” He explained that the process “isn’t always well known among competitors, yet understanding it is crucial.” He also added, “If an athlete’s name isn’t on the long list, they can’t be added to the short list, and if they’re not on either, they can’t compete,” he said. “If you represent athletes, you owe them to find out when the long list date is and make sure they’re on it.”
The panelists agreed that these disputes often arise not because of bad faith but because athletes are unaware of the strict procedural rules governing Olympic selection. Section 9 exists to ensure fairness, but it also reflects the reality that time is of the essence in the world of elite sports.
CAS Ad Hoc Division
The discussion then turned to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Ad Hoc Division, which handles disputes that arise during the Olympic Games. Lenard explained that the Ad Hoc Division was created in 1996 to prevent athletes from having to file lawsuits in multiple countries and to provide a single, expedited avenue for resolution. “We cannot leave an athlete at the gates of the Olympic Village without some redress,” he said.
A recent example discussed by Reeb was the Jordan Chiles case from the 2024 Paris Olympics. The dispute centered on whether a protest filed by Chiles’s coach was submitted too late. A matter of seconds ultimately decided who was rewarded the medal. Under the gymnastics rules, coaches have one minute after scores are posted to file a protest. In this case, the timekeeper confirmed that the coach’s hand was raised sixty-four seconds after the results appeared. As a result, CAS ruled the protest was not admissible, meaning “the initial mark was reinstated, and therefore, the initial medal standings were restored,” with the bronze medal going to the Romanian gymnast instead of Chiles.
Shortly after the ruling, new evidence surfaced. U.S. Gymnastics and Chiles presented Netflix footage that appeared to show the protest being raised within sixty seconds, arguing that the timing had been miscounted. However, because the decision was already final, Chiles’s only remaining option was to file a petition for review before the Swiss Federal Tribunal, which oversees CAS appeals. As of the panel, that appeal was still pending.
Field of Play v Procedure
Professor Weston noted that the case raises important questions about the distinction between a “procedural rule” and a “field-of-play decision.” Procedural errors, such as late protests, can be reviewed by CAS, but decisions made on the field or floor, like judging or scoring calls, are rarely overturned unless there is proof of corruption or arbitrariness.
One of the most challenging situations occurs when a national federation forgets to enter the name of an athlete who truly qualified for their event. As Lenard explained, arbitrators cannot simply add a new athlete or team to the competition due to rigid scheduling and broadcast commitments. “We cannot easily just add another hockey team… There are limits… these are the most painful cases. Simple solutions are not always the best,” he said.
Another challenge involves distinguishing between procedural errors and field-of-play decisions. If a protest is filed too late, it fails on procedure. If a technical committee reviews the evidence and upholds a call, CAS will not interfere.
Conclusion
All three panelists agreed that education is the most effective way to prevent disputes before they happen. As Lanard emphasized, “There are now 200 athletes’ commissions out of 206 National Olympic Committees… This is excellent news.” These commissions give athletes a seat at the table and ensure they’re aware of their rights and responsibilities long before a dispute ever reaches arbitration.
Claire O’Neill is a first-year law student at Marquette University Law School and a former Division I athlete at Seton Hall University. She graduated Seton Hall with magna cum laude honors with a B.A. in Communication and a minor in Legal Studies in Business. She previously served as a judicial intern at the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and now volunteers at the Milwaukee Justice Center’s Family Forms Clinic. Claire is currently a Sports Law Certificate Candidate, and a member of the Sports Law Society and Association for Women Lawyers at Marquette. Her interests include sports law and litigation, where she hopes to combine her athletic background and passion for advocacy in her future legal career.
