48 HOURS TO JUSTICE: CAS’S WORLD CUP AD HOC DIVISION AND THE BALOGUN RED CARD CONTROVERSY
As the 2026 FIFA World Cup, hosted by the United States, Mexico, and Canada, unfolds as the largest and most complex tournament in history with 48 teams, another struggle is taking place in the shadow of the on-field competition: a legal struggle.
The Ad Hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), established almost as if it were set up directly on the field, has been created to render binding decisions within 48 hours on urgent disputes connected with the tournament throughout the period commencing on 11 June and ending on 19 July. This mechanism has once again come to the forefront following a recent concrete incident: the controversy surrounding the possible challenge to the red card shown to United States national team striker Folarin Balogun in the match against Bosnia and Herzegovina. This article addresses both the functioning of CAS’s special arbitral system and the limits of that system through current examples.
The CAS Ad Hoc Division was first established for the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games. The purpose behind its establishment was to resolve urgent sports disputes within a short period of time, as the duration of ordinary judicial or arbitral proceedings is often incompatible with the schedule of a tournament. Indeed, once an athlete has missed a crucial match or a team has been eliminated from a tournament, a subsequently rendered decision no longer retains practical value. This arbitral model, regarded as being consistent with the dynamic nature of sport, was later adapted to other major sporting events, particularly the FIFA World Cup. In this context, the first special CAS division for the World Cup was established for the 2006 Germany tournament.
Unlike the Olympic arbitral model, the arbitral mechanism established for the FIFA World Cup allows for a period of 48 hours from the receipt of an application relating to the World Cup. In the Olympic arbitral model, this period is set at 24 hours. The principal reason for this difference lies in the complexity of disputes specific to football. In football, FIFA regulations, disciplinary rules, eligibility requirements, member associations, clubs, and tournament-specific procedures all need 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 shall apply only to disputes arising between 11 June and 19 July 2026. The said rules shall automatically cease to have effect upon the conclusion of the tournament. The seat of arbitration is Lausanne, Switzerland. In the arbitral proceedings, FIFA regulations shall apply primarily, 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 26™ Final Competition, applications shall be submitted electronically to the CAS Secretariat. The parties shall not be granted the right to select an arbitrator; instead, it is provided that the President of CAS shall appoint either a sole arbitrator or a three-member panel from CAS’s football list. In our view, this arrangement is justified on the grounds that allowing the parties to engage in the arbitrator selection process would slow down the speed of the system. In addition, hearings may be conducted by video conference or telephone, and a decision may even be rendered without a hearing if the file is deemed sufficient.
Compared to the 2022 Qatar rules, three significant changes stand out in the 2026 rules. First, Article 1 now expressly recognises the interests of “participating FIFA member associations.” Under the 2022 rules, reference was made only to the interests of athletes and of sport. Second, the term “National Federations” has been replaced by the phrase “participating federations.” This more clearly defines which entities may access the Ad Hoc Division in the expanded 48-team tournament. Third, when referring to the part of the decision that will be communicated before the grounds are issued, the rules now use the expression “the operative part of the award.”
The recent concrete incident has laid bare the limits of this system. United States national team forward Folarin Balogun scored the opening goal in the match in which the United States defeated Bosnia and Herzegovina 2–0, but was sent off with a straight red card midway through the first half. Although the United States won the match despite being numerically disadvantaged and advanced to the round of 16, it faced the risk of going into its match against Belgium, ranked 10th in the world, without its star player.
Fans believed that, as in club competitions such as the English Premier League or the UEFA Champions League, the red card might be rescinded on appeal. However, FIFA stated that red cards issued in World Cup matches cannot be appealed. Indeed, Article 9.6 of the 2026 FIFA World Cup regulations expressly provides as follows: no appeal may be lodged against a referee’s decisions on matters of fact relating to play. Such decisions are final and not subject to appeal unless otherwise stipulated in the FIFA Disciplinary Code.
This has triggered public debate concerning on-field decisions, an area in which the CAS Ad Hoc Division could theoretically intervene but in practice would find it extremely difficult to do so. Historically, CAS has refrained from interfering with referee decisions, VAR interventions, and similar “field of play” decisions; however, it appears that this approach has been departed from in exceptional cases involving bad faith, corruption, or a fundamental procedural violation. Indeed, the French Football Federation’s formal application to FIFA in relation to Antoine Griezmann’s goal, disallowed by VAR in stoppage time during the France–Tunisia match at the 2022 Qatar World Cup, constitutes a clear example of this boundary, and FIFA ultimately rejected the complaint. However, the matter was never brought before CAS for review.
Beyond the Ad Hoc Division, cases heard under the ordinary CAS appeals procedure also provide insight into the institutional dimension of World Cup law. The Football Federations of Chile and Peru had alleged that Ecuador fielded Byron Castillo in the Qatar 2022 qualifiers on the basis of irregular nationality documents (CAS 2022/A/9175 and 9176). CAS accepted the player’s eligibility to participate in matches on the grounds that Castillo’s Ecuadorian nationality had been recognised by the competent authorities, and Ecuador thus retained its place in the tournament. However, due to the use of false documents, CAS imposed on the relevant federation a fine of 100,000 Swiss francs and a three-point deduction to be applied in the 2026 qualifiers.
Similarly, on 2 June 2026, nine days before the start of this year’s tournament, CAS reviewed the FIFA sanctions imposed on the Mexican Football Federation (FMF) due to homophobic chanting by its supporters (CAS 2025/A/11268 and 11512). As a result of this review, CAS fully upheld the monetary fines. However, it found the stadium closure sanction disproportionate and ordered that it be lifted. The principal takeaway from this decision is that federations are directly responsible for the conduct of their supporters, but that CAS will continue to review the proportionality of sanctions even where the violation itself is established.
The most striking examples of the speed of the Ad Hoc system have arisen in the Olympic context. Among the most memorable are the delivery of a binding decision only hours after the application in Joseph Ward v. IOC, AIBA & ANOC at the 2012 London Olympic Games, and the resolution in the same year of a sailing dispute in just 3 hours and 45 minutes before the race even began. The bronze medal dispute between the Romanian Gymnastics Federation and Jordan Chiles at the 2024 Paris Olympic Games, however, has become one of the clearest examples of how arbitration can go wrong under pressure. In a rapid decision on the merits, CAS held that the FIG’s one-minute time limit had been exceeded by four seconds and consequently annulled Chiles’s medal. However, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court set aside the CAS decision not because of the timing assessment, but because Chiles had not been afforded her right to be heard in accordance with due process.
Although the CAS Ad Hoc Division is a temporary, compressed, and exceptional structure, the decisions it renders can produce immediate sporting consequences. An examination of the tournaments in which this model has been applied shows that, although certain changes have been made, the fundamental architecture of the system has remained unchanged. Through these changes, greater clarity has been achieved by expressly recognising participating federations and by confirming that World Cup disputes concern not only individual athletes, but also institutional, competitive, and national dimensions. The Balogun example reminds us that even the fastest mechanism of justice cannot stand in front of a referee’s discretion on the field. Nevertheless, it is clear that the boundary in sports law between the untouchability of on-field decisions 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
TR
IT