How (not) to organize sports arbitration: Montenegrin olympic committee arbitration, autonomy, and the rule of law

Abstract Arbitration under the auspices of sport bodies and Olympic committees is a popular mechanism globally, and one that aligns well with both the ideals of safeguarding sport from inappropriate influences and offering speedy and cost-effective dispute resolution. But it is by no means exempt from problems or situations where it cannot perform such a beneficial role. Montenegrin Olympic Committee (MOC) Arbitration offers a case study on how not to organize sport arbitration. Set within the background of deeper sports governance issues in Montenegro, MOC Arbitration exhibits total autonomy from the wider arbitral legal framework and a series of issues concerning arbitrators, challenges and remedies against awards that render the mechanism practically unworkable. Such a state of affairs, apart from being an affront to the rule of law, is deeply detrimental to interests of sportspeople and potentially further exacerbates governance issues. Aiming to help promote effective (sports) arbitration mechanisms more generally, the present article dissects the critical issues with the MOC Arbitration and provides some guidance on how to secure a workable mechanism that respects the needs and dignity of sportspeople under its jurisdiction.