As the realm of global sports evolves rapidly – fueled by increasing commercialization, athlete activism, and international broadcasting – its legal dimensions have become more significant than ever. From disciplinary procedures and arbitration to privacy rights and doping regulations, sports law today is a dynamic and multifaceted field.

In this insightful conversation with Mohd Saad Akhtar, Advocate Akshay Sinha, a seasoned legal professional shares his journey from litigation to sports law and sheds light on some of the most critical challenges facing the industry today.

VL: To begin with, could you tell us a bit about your journey into the niche field of sports law?

Akshay Sinha: Absolutely. After graduating from law school, I was naturally drawn towards litigation. My first job was working as a junior in the chambers of a senior advocate, focusing primarily on litigation before the Supreme Court. That was my entry point into the legal profession.

It was during this time that I happened to stumble upon a few articles online that introduced me to sports law. I was intrigued. Being a sports enthusiast – particularly in football, where I captained my school team – the concept of combining my passion for sports with the legal profession piqued my interest.

In 2016 and 2017, I discovered international master’s programs in sports law. After conducting thorough research into the field and the academic offerings, I enrolled in the International Sports Law program at ISDE in Madrid in 2018. That experience was transformative. I gained a deeper understanding of how sports regulations function globally and how legal structures operate within international sporting bodies. It marked my full-fledged entry into the field. In 2020, I joined the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) in Malaysia. Since then, there’s been no looking back.

VL: Let’s talk about the legal side. How do disciplinary proceedings involving athletes differ from other legal domains, such as employer-employee relationships?

Akshay Sinha: At a structural level, the two aren’t vastly different. Both involve set rules, procedural frameworks, and a system of appeals. However, the key distinction lies in the governing body of law.

Traditional legal disputes – like those between employers and employees – are governed by national legal systems. In India, for instance, we’d refer to the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), Indian Penal Code (IPC) now Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, BNS, and so forth.

In contrast, sports operate under a structure of private international law. Sports governance follows a hierarchical or “pyramid” model – starting with international federations (such as FIFA or the IOC), followed by continental and national bodies, then clubs and individual athletes.

Take football as an example. If there’s a regulatory violation, it typically starts with a charge notice issued by a judicial body such as a Disciplinary Committee. If contested, it moves to an Appeals Committee. The final level of appeal, in most Olympic and FIFA-affiliated sports, is the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Switzerland. In rare circumstances, an appeal can go to the Swiss Federal Tribunal.

This structure mirrors civil court systems district court, high court, and supreme court- but in the sports ecosystem, it is governed through arbitration, not state courts.

That often leads to quicker resolutions, which is a significant advantage.

VL: CAS has often come under scrutiny. What ensures fairness in such proceedings?

Akshay Sinha: CAS operates under jurisdiction granted by sports organizations. In Olympic sports, the IOC mandates CAS jurisdiction. By agreeing to participate in a sporting event governed by such organizations, athletes automatically accept this jurisdiction.

CAS offers two types of proceedings, those handled by a sole arbitrator and those by a three-member panel. In panel cases, each party appoints one arbitrator, and together they choose a president for the panel. This ensures balance and reduces the likelihood of partiality.

The perception of bias must be backed with credible evidence. CAS has two lists of arbitrators – general and football-specific. When a party files a case with CAS, they have the right to nominate an arbitrator. If you believe a decision is biased, you’re not powerless. You can raise an objection, but it must be based on real evidence. Just because a decision doesn’t go your way doesn’t mean it’s unfair.

VL: Media coverage can shape public opinion. How do you view the role of media in disciplinary cases?

Akshay Sinha: The media is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it promotes transparency, educates the public, and inspires future legal professionals. It also helps grow the sport through increased viewership, sponsorship, and branding opportunities.

On the flip side, unchecked media coverage can lead to a media trial. Athletes are often judged before the facts are fully out. Public pressure can impact their performance, mental health, and the legal process. There’s also the issue of stereotypes and bias, especially for athletes from underrepresented regions or minority backgrounds.

In disciplinary matters, where an athlete’s career and reputation are at stake, protecting their privacy is vital.

Transparency must be balanced with fairness and human dignity. Once a matter enters the media space, there’s little control left for the athlete or the governing body.

VL: Given the different rules across sports, is it feasible to harmonize disciplinary systems globally?

Akshay Sinha: In theory, yes. But practically, it’s incredibly challenging. Every sport has its own governance structures. Olympic sports like football, swimming, and boxing follow a unified system through CAS because they agree to the Olympic Charter.

But sports like cricket and Formula 1 are outside that framework. The ICC has not signed up for CAS jurisdiction. Likewise, FIA retains its own legal structures. Unless every sport agrees to submit to a unified arbitration body like the IOC, global harmonization is unlikely. It would require international consensus, legal modifications, and immense collaboration.

VL: Can international standards be imposed on domestic competitions?

Akshay Sinha: Yes, international federations have the power to enforce standards on their member associations. For example, FIFA can initiate legal proceedings or impose sanctions if a national federation is found violating rules, whether related to doping, match-fixing, or corruption.

This isn’t hypothetical; it happens regularly. International bodies can ban athletes, impose fines, or suspend federations. These powers are embedded in their statutes and are exercised when necessary.

VL: Do mental health considerations factor into disciplinary proceedings?

Akshay Sinha: Mental health is an emerging consideration. At the elite level, athletes face immense pressure, and public scrutiny can be damaging. However, proving that a disciplinary offense stemmed directly from a mental health issue is complex.

It requires expert evaluation and legal documentation. Simply citing mental health isn’t enough; there must be a direct link between the condition and the offense. It’s a high threshold, similar to the standard in criminal defenses. But as awareness grows, I believe we’ll see more nuanced approaches to such claims in the future.

VL: Sometimes, the same offense results in different penalties. How do bodies ensure proportionality?

Akshay Sinha: Most federations follow a structured code that provides minimum sanctions. However, discretion is applied based on context. Two key factors are considered: the gravity of the offense and whether it’s a repeat (recidivism).

Let’s say a footballer is red-carded for a foul,
The default sanction might be a three-match ban and a fine. If the foul was malicious, the penalty could increase. If the player showed remorse, that might mitigate the sentence. If they had committed a similar offense in the past, the penalty would likely increase.

So while the offense may seem identical on paper, the outcome is tailored to the specifics of the case.

VL: Finally, what do you think of platforms like Virtuosity Legal promoting legal discussions in emerging fields?

Akshay Sinha: I think Virtuosity Legal is doing a fantastic job. Sports law is still an emerging discipline, especially in regions like India. As the sports industry grows, the need for legal expertise will follow. Platforms like yours are essential for promoting scholarship, sharing insights, and encouraging young professionals to explore this field.

Editor’s Note: This interview has been edited for clarity and length. Views expressed are personal and not representative of any organization.