EFAF proposes CAS arbitration

According to IFAF statutes EFAF and a number of member federations have asked the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) at Lausanne for arbitration in the dispute on the recent move of IFAF to revoke recognition of continental federations in American Football. The IFAF Congress at Austin this summer voted – legally questionable - for a new structure of IFAF, in which continental federations will no longer be recognized by IFAF.

EFAF, which is and remains the governing body for American Football in Europe, has opposed the change in IFAF statutes based upon its longstanding experience in developing American Football in Europe. The proposed new structure will certainly harm further development of American Football in Europe. Moreover there is serious doubt that the vote at the IFAF Congress was held according to IFAF statutes, considering that the subject was a fundamental alteration of IFAF statutes and not even half of IFAF members were present to cast their vote.

As all attempts on behalf of EFAF to engage in talks with IFAF representatives on the matter failed, an arbitration by CAS seems to be inevitable. IFAF has appointed CAS as its arbitration institution for all disputes between IFAF and its member federations. CAS has been implemented as an arbitration court for sports by the International Olympic Committee and certainly is a renowned authority in the world of sports. Thus EFAF and a number of member federations have asked CAS to start an arbitration.

However CAS regulations in any arbitration process demand all parties involved to cover the projected arbitration costs in advance. Unfortunately IFAF has rejected to cover its financial share of the arbitration process as would have been standard procedure by any sports federation willing to solve disputes with the help of CAS in an organized way. As CAS is the legitimate arbitration authority, selected to settle disputes by IFAF itself, EFAF has to state serious disapproval with the way IFAF is obviously trying to avoid any neutral third-party arbitration or democratically legitimate discussion of the matter.