This content has been translated from the original text.
The Ad Hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), set up virtually on the pitch itself, has been established to issue binding decisions within 48 hours on urgent disputes connected with the tournament, which began on 11 June and will end on 19 July. This mechanism has come back onto the agenda with the debate over an appeal following a concrete incident last week, the red card shown to Folarin Balogun, the striker of the US national team, in the match against Bosnia and Herzegovina. This article examines, through current examples, both how the special arbitration system of the CAS operates and the limits of that system.
While the 2026 FIFA World Cup, with 48 teams in the United States, Mexico and Canada, forms the largest and most complex tournament in history, another contest is being played out in the shadow of the struggle on the pitch: the legal one.
The Ad Hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), set up virtually on the pitch itself, has been established to issue binding decisions within 48 hours on urgent disputes connected with the tournament, which began on 11 June and will end on 19 July. This mechanism has come back onto the agenda with the debate over an appeal following a concrete incident last week, the red card shown to Folarin Balogun, the striker of the US national team, in the match against Bosnia and Herzegovina. This article examines, through current examples, both how the special arbitration system of the CAS operates and the limits of that system.
The Origins of the Ad Hoc Division and the 2026 Rules
The CAS Ad Hoc Division was first established for the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games. The purpose of establishing the Ad Hoc Division is to resolve within a short time the urgent sports disputes that arise because the duration of ordinary court or arbitration proceedings is incompatible with the tournament calendar. This is because a decision given after an athlete has missed a critical match, or after a team has been eliminated from the tournament, has no practical value left. This arbitration model, which is regarded as being in tune with the dynamism of sport, was later adapted to other major events, and in particular to the FIFA World Cup. In this context, the first special CAS division for the World Cup was established at the 2006 tournament in Germany.
Unlike the Olympic arbitration model, this arbitration model established for the FIFA World Cup allows a period of 48 hours from the receipt of the application relating to the World Cup. In the Olympic arbitration model, this period is set at 24 hours. The main reason for this difference in duration lies in the complexity of disputes specific to football. This is because, in football in particular, FIFA regulations, disciplinary rules, eligibility requirements, member federations, clubs and tournament-specific procedures have to be assessed together.
The CAS Arbitration Rules applicable to the 2026 World Cup were adopted by the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS) on 13 April 2026 and will apply only to disputes arising between 11 June and 19 July 2026. The rules in question will cease to be in force automatically upon the end of the tournament. The seat of the arbitration is Lausanne, Switzerland. FIFA regulations will apply first and foremost in the arbitration, followed by Swiss law as supplementary law. The decision rendered is final and binding; there is no ordinary avenue of appeal.
According to the provisions set out in the Arbitration Rules For The FIFA World Cup 26tm Final Competition, applications are to be made electronically to the CAS Secretariat. The parties will not be given the right to choose arbitrators; instead, it is provided that the President of the CAS will appoint a sole arbitrator or a three-member panel from the CAS football list. We take the view that this arrangement is appropriate, on the ground that a process in which the parties select the arbitrators would slow down the speed of the system. In addition, hearings in the arbitration may be held by video conference or telephone, and it is even possible for a decision to be given without a hearing if the file is found to be sufficient.
Compared with the 2022 Qatar rules, three significant changes stand out in the 2026 rules. The first is that Article 1 now expressly recognises the interests of the "participating FIFA member federations". The 2022 rules mentioned only the interests of athletes and of sport. The second is that the term "National Federations" has been replaced by the expression "participating federations". This defines more clearly which bodies may have access to the Ad Hoc Division in the expanded 48-team tournament. The third is that, in defining the part of the decision to be notified before the reasons for the decision are given, the expression "the operative part of the decision" is now used.
The Balogun Example: Can the Ad Hoc Division Look at Everything?
The concrete incident that took place last week has exposed the limits of this system. Folarin Balogun, the forward of the US national team, after scoring the first goal in the match in which they beat Bosnia and Herzegovina 2-0, was sent off with a direct red card in the middle of the first half and was out of the game. The USA won the match despite the numerical disadvantage and advanced to the round of 16, but found itself facing the danger of being without its star player against Belgium, ranked 10th in the world.
Fans thought that the red card could be annulled on appeal, as in club competitions such as the English Premier League or the UEFA Champions League. However, FIFA stated in a statement that red cards shown in World Cup matches cannot be appealed. Indeed, Article 9.6 of FIFA's 2026 World Cup regulations expressly provides the following: No appeal may be made against the referee's decisions on factual matters connected with play. Such decisions are final and not subject to appeal, unless otherwise stated in the FIFA Disciplinary Code.
This situation has started a public debate on decisions taken on the field of play, an area in which the CAS Ad Hoc Division could theoretically step in but in which it is in practice extremely difficult for it to do so. The CAS has historically avoided interfering with referees' decisions, VAR interventions and similar "field of play" decisions; however, it has been seen that this view has been departed from in exceptional circumstances such as bad faith, corruption or a fundamental procedural violation. Indeed, the formal application made by the French Federation to FIFA concerning the goal scored by Antoine Griezmann in stoppage time in the France-Tunisia match in Qatar in 2022, which was disallowed by a VAR decision, is a clear example of this limit, and ended with FIFA rejecting the complaint. However, the matter was not the subject of CAS review.
Institutional Disputes: The Ecuador and Mexico Examples
Apart from the Ad Hoc Division, the cases heard in the ordinary CAS appeals process also give an idea of the institutional perspective of World Cup law. The Chilean and Peruvian Federations had made an allegation that Ecuador had fielded Byron Castillo in the Qatar 2022 qualifiers with irregular citizenship documents. (CAS 2022/A/9175 and 9176). The CAS accepted the player's eligibility to play in the matches on the ground that Castillo's Ecuadorian citizenship had been recognised by the competent authorities, and Ecuador's place in the tournament was thus preserved. However, because of the use of forged documents, it ordered the federation concerned to pay a fine of 100,000 Swiss francs and imposed a three-point deduction applicable in the 2026 qualifiers.
Similarly, on 2 June 2026, nine days before this year's tournament began, the CAS examined the FIFA sanctions imposed on the Mexican Football Federation (FMF) because of the homophobic chants of fans. (CAS 2025/A/11268 and 11512). As a result of this review, the CAS upheld the fines in full. However, the stadium closure sanction was found to be disproportionate and was set aside. The most important takeaway from this decision is that federations are directly responsible for the conduct of their fans, but that even where the violation is established the CAS will continue to review the proportionality of the sanctions.
Olympic Examples: Speed and Risk
The most striking examples of the speed of the Ad Hoc system are seen in Olympic proceedings. The most memorable of these are the issuing of a binding decision only hours after the application in the Joseph Ward v. IOC, AIBA & ANOC case at the 2012 London Olympics, and a sailing dispute in the same year being decided in only 3 hours and 45 minutes before the race began. The bronze medal dispute between the Romanian Gymnastics Federation and Jordan Chiles at the 2024 Paris Olympics, for its part, was one of the most concrete examples of how arbitration can go wrong under pressure. In a swift decision on the specific case, the CAS held that the FIG's one-minute time limit had been exceeded by 4 seconds and annulled Chiles's medal. However, the Swiss Federal Tribunal set aside the CAS decision not because of the timing assessment, but because Chiles had not been properly afforded the right to be heard.
Conclusion
Although the CAS Ad Hoc Division is a temporary, compressed and exceptional structure, the decisions it gives can have immediate sporting consequences. Looking at the tournaments in which this model has been applied, it can be seen that, although a number of changes have been made, the basic architecture of the system has not changed. Through the changes made, clarity has been brought to the express recognition of participating federations and to the fact that World Cup disputes cover not only individual athletes but also institutional, competitive and national dimensions. The Balogun example, for its part, reminds us that even the fastest mechanism of justice cannot stand in the way of the referee's discretion on the field of play. On the other hand, it is understood that in sports law the boundary between the inviolability of decisions on the field of play and the judicial review of off-field disciplinary and eligibility decisions will continue to be debated throughout the 2026 World Cup.
İrem ERTAÇ & Gizem ADIGÜZEL ÖZMEN
