On 18 September 2025, the 1st UBA Sports Law Forum took place — an event that brought together experts in law and sports to discuss current challenges and directions for the development of the industry. The Forum was opened by Mykola Stetsenko, President of the Ukrainian Bar Association (UBA) and Managing Partner at AVELLUM.

Mr. Mykola traditionally opened the event by honoring the memory of Ukraine’s defenders, paying tribute to lawyers who are currently serving on the front lines. He emphasized that thanks to the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the commitment of the legal community, the UBA is able to hold forums, conferences, and other initiatives, including joint fundraising campaigns in support of fellow lawyers who are fighting. During the event, a new fundraiser was announced for the unit of Anton Molchanov, which can be joined via the following link.

The UBA President also highlighted the importance of transparency and the principle of fair play — both in sports and in the legal profession. He announced the upcoming UBA Football Cup 2025, scheduled for 20 September, and called on participants to support the competing teams.

In closing, Mr. Mykola expressed gratitude to the Forum’s partners for their support: the co-organizer — the Ukrainian Association of Football, the general partner — LCF Law Group, as well as the session, tournament, and media partners.

At the opening of the event, Artem Stoianov, First Vice President of the Ukrainian Association of Football, highlighted the multifaceted nature of the sports sector. According to him, sport is not only about emotions and achievements but also about a complex infrastructure that encompasses federations, investors, clubs, and fans, and requires clear legal mechanisms.

Mr. Artem emphasized that sports law defines the rules of the game — it is designed to protect the rights of athletes, promote fair competition, resolve conflicts, and create opportunities for attracting investment. In the context of European integration, he underlined the importance of harmonizing Ukrainian legislation with international standards, which will enable Ukrainian athletes and federations to fully participate in the global sports community.

In his welcome address, Serhii Popyk, Director of the National Anti-Doping Center, thanked the UBA, the Ukrainian Association of Football, and the partners for organizing a unique event that brings together the professional interests of both the sports community and the legal profession.

Mr. Serhii emphasized that the presence of leading lawyers and sports professionals at the Forum creates a platform for in-depth dialogue. He noted that anti-doping is not a separate discipline but an integral element of the sports system, aimed at protecting honest athletes and helping the state fulfill its international obligations. At the same time, he pointed out that the number of violations remains significant, making the need for effective legal regulation critical.

Opening the Forum, Olha Kostyshyna, Counsel at LCF Law Group and Head of the International Arbitration Practice, highlighted the symbolic nature of the event — for the first time in Ukraine, law and sport came together on a single platform.

Ms. Olha drew attention to the untapped potential of the Ukrainian legal market in the field of sports. Despite the global recognition of Ukrainian athletes, many still turn to foreign specialists in difficult situations, overlooking the opportunities for cooperation with Ukrainian lawyers.

She called on the UBA legal community to actively develop this area, build communication with sports federations, managers, and agents, and demonstrate that Ukrainian lawyers are professional, competitive, and closely attuned to the real context.

Yevhenii Promskyi, Chair of the UBA Sports Law Committee and Attorney at ARES Law Firm, opened the event by emphasizing that sport is not only about competition but also a complex legal environment where contracts, transfers, arbitration, e-sports, and other legal mechanisms intersect. He stressed that the main task of the legal community is to ensure effective cooperation between lawyers, athletes, and federations in order to protect the interests of all parties and strengthen institutional capacity.

Sports Law in Ukraine: Knockdown or Knockout?

The first session of the Forum focused on a topic that is raising increasing questions within the professional community — the current state and future prospects of sports law in Ukraine. The discussion was moderated by Hanna Hnizdovska, PhD in Law, Attorney, Managing Partner at Juris Ferrum Law Firm, Deputy Chair of the Appeals Commission of the National Anti-Doping Agency, and Member of the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Ukrainian Association of Football.

The discussion focused on sanctions in sports, the challenges of anti-doping policy, and the legal aspects of the mobilization of athletes, border crossing, and change of citizenship during wartime. Other key topics included the relationship between the state, sports federations, and athletes themselves, as well as the role of intermediaries in the football industry.

Development of Sports Law and International Legal Challenges

During the first session, Ihor Hryshchenko, Secretary General of the Ukrainian Association of Football, drew attention to the growing interest in sports regulation in Ukraine and the need for systemic cooperation between lawyers and the sports community.

Mr. Ihor emphasized that sports law has long gone beyond merely providing a normative framework for the rules of the game — it now encompasses profound moral, psychological, and social dimensions. In this context, events such as the UBA Forum create a valuable space for professional discussion and contribute to the advancement of this field.

He also drew particular attention to the importance of proper legal preparation for international proceedings. According to him, in disputes considered by international arbitration institutions, one should not rely on an emotional perception of the Ukrainian context. Therefore, a clear legal substantiation of arguments and strict compliance with all procedural standards remain crucial.

Mr. Ihor’s address served as a reminder of how critically important legal precision is — especially when dealing with the international legal dimension of sports.

Professor Maria Beatrice Deli, Arbitrator of the Anti-Doping Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS ADD) and Partner at DeliSasson, outlined three key aspects in her presentation: the work of the CAS ADD, case review procedures, and prospects for the development of sports justice.

The speaker emphasized that the CAS Anti-Doping Division (CAS ADD) is an independent and neutral institution that plays a critically important role in ensuring trust in the global anti-doping system. She explained that this division of CAS operates independently from both sports federations and anti-doping organizations, thereby guaranteeing the fairness of the proceedings.

Professor Deli shared her experience from a recent professional meeting in Los Angeles, where arbitrators discussed the importance of maintaining the institutional and procedural independence of the CAS ADD. She also noted that this division serves as the first instance for cases involving anti-doping rule violations and that an increasing number of international federations are delegating such authority to it.

In her address, the speaker elaborated on the three principles underlying the CAS ADD: independence, harmonization, and professionalism. She emphasized that while the World Anti-Doping Code has faced criticism, it remains a key instrument for ensuring consistency in global regulation. Thanks to the work of highly qualified experts specializing in international sports law, the CAS ADD guarantees the quality of its decisions and the legitimacy of the process.

Sports Agency Practice: Challenges, Legal Aspects, and the Role of a Multifunctional Approach

During the first session of the Forum, Serhii Koval, Sports Manager and Owner of ProFile Agency, shared practical insights drawn from more than 12 years of experience in the football industry. His presentation focused on the multifaceted role of the sports agent and the key legal aspects of this profession.

The speaker described the modern agent as a multidisciplinary professional — from strategic advisor to crisis manager. An agent, he noted, is not merely an intermediary in transfers but a long-term representative accompanying an athlete throughout their entire career, addressing legal, administrative, everyday, and marketing matters alike.

Particular attention was paid to the legal dimension: the drafting of agency agreements, dispute resolution, and the distinction between the terms “agent” and “intermediary” in the context of FIFA regulations. The speaker emphasized the importance of defining the exclusivity of the contract, establishing sanctions for its breach, and determining the proper jurisdiction for dispute resolution — taking into account that an agent’s work often includes a commercial component (such as image rights or endorsement contracts) that falls outside the scope of sports arbitration.

The discussion also addressed how agency activity is perceived in the Ukrainian context, where — unlike in more developed markets — skepticism still exists regarding the agent’s role and the legitimacy of their commission. In this regard, according to Serhii Koval, it is crucial to build the professional image of an agent as a specialist operating within clearly defined agreements and performing an essential function in the sports process.

Mr. Serhii also underlined the importance of maintaining a balance of interests between the athlete, the club, and the agent. A successful athletic career requires not only physical performance but also sound legal support and strategic management.

Serhii Lysenko, Managing Partner at Serhii Lysenko and Partners Law Bureau, focused on the complex issue of interaction between the state, athletes, and sports federations.

The central focus of his presentation was the legal status of athletes in Ukraine. According to the speaker, sport is not merely about competition but rather about daily systematic work — training, discipline, adherence to a regimen, and participation in competitions. Despite this, many Ukrainian athletes, particularly amateurs, remain outside the scope of labor protections. They lack official employment status and cannot rely on adequate safeguards in cases of injury or upon retirement.

Serhii Lysenko proposed viewing sport as a form of service provision within the cultural and entertainment sphere — one that requires comprehensive legal regulation. He also outlined a legal relationship triangle: athlete – sports federation – state, where each party should bear specific responsibilities. In his view, federations should not only organize competitions but also ensure compliance with social standards within the sports environment.

As a normative solution, he suggested including the profession of “athlete” in the national occupational classifier, with a clear distinction between amateurs and professionals. The state, he added, should conclude contracts not only with national team members but with all athletes representing Ukraine in international competitions.

Mr. Lysenko also emphasized that the lack of a defined legal status for athletes is not only a legislative gap but also a missed opportunity for the legal profession, which can and should play a key role in securing these guarantees.

Disputes in Sport: Fair / Foul Play

The second session of the Forum was moderated by Olha Kostyshyna, Counsel at LCF Law Group and Head of the International Arbitration Practice. The participants explored a wide range of topics related to sports arbitration, disciplinary proceedings, and the legal challenges faced by athletes, federations, and arbitrators.

During the session, participants discussed the prospects and challenges of the newly established Sports Arbitration Court under the National Olympic Committee of Ukraine, examined high-profile cases of lifetime disqualifications, analyzed Ukrainian cases heard before the CAS, and debated whether arbitration is capable of effectively addressing the challenges of e-sports. The legal dimension of football-related disputes — from referees’ on-field decisions to proceedings in Lausanne — also drew significant attention.

Paul Greene, Founder and Partner at Global Sports Advocates LLC, presented several high-profile cases from his sports law practice, including matters involving match-fixing and doping violations.

One of the cases concerned a FIFA investigation into a sports official whose actions coincided with suspicious betting activity. Immediately after the official made a certain decision, betting on the match abruptly stopped — triggering a full-scale disciplinary proceeding. The investigation, supported by data from Sportradar, established the official’s financial interest and direct involvement in match manipulation. He was banned for life, and the CAS not only upheld the decision but also ordered him to cover the costs of the proceedings. Notably, the match was replayed, allowing Senegal to qualify for the tournament.

Paul Greene also focused on the importance of the legal standard of “Comfortable Satisfaction,” which is applied in all sports arbitration proceedings. This standard is higher than the civil standard but lower than the criminal one, requiring approximately 75% certainty in the evidence. In the FIFA–CAS case, this standard was used to establish the fact of match manipulation and to impose the maximum sanction.

Another example presented by the speaker concerned a Jamaican athlete’s anti-doping case involving two positive tests — one in 2004 and another in 2011. The latter related to the use of a masking agent. The Jamaican Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) decided to impose a lifetime ban, which, according to Mr. Paul, was also a response to criticism over previous leniency in sanctions. The athlete appealed the decision to the CAS, but all arguments regarding DNA analysis, sample integrity, procedural compliance, and proportionality of the sanction were dismissed.

The expert emphasized that these examples demonstrate that sports justice is not merely a technical process but also an effective tool for upholding integrity. The CAS and international federations possess robust enforcement mechanisms, but preventive work — including the education of arbitrators, coaches, and athletes — plays an equally critical role. In many cases, such education is the only way to prevent sanctions that, as in the example of a lifetime ban, are irreversible.

Yevhenii Proms’kyi, Chair of the UBA Committee on Sports Law, devoted his presentation to an analysis of several decisions of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) involving Ukrainian athletes, clubs, and national federations. He emphasized that participation in CAS proceedings is not only a matter of defending one’s interests but also a kind of “stress test” for the institutional capacity of national bodies.

In the section on doping cases, the speaker examined the cases of Yuliia Yelistratova, Nazar Kovalenko, and Olha Zemliak. In all instances, the CAS confirmed violations of anti-doping rules and upheld the disqualification decisions. Despite the athletes’ arguments regarding the absence of intent, the tribunal relied on the principle of strict liability, whereby a positive test result almost automatically entails a sanction.

Regarding match-fixing, Mr. Yevhenii cited the case of Serhii Lashchenko, whose lifetime ban was reduced by the Appeals Body to five years. The CAS upheld this decision, which, according to the speaker, demonstrates the possibility of a differentiated approach to sanctions depending on the gravity of the violation. In this case, it concerned an isolated incident without systemic organization. At the same time, the CAS has not overturned any disqualifications in similar integrity cases, indicating its consistently strict stance.

The expert also presented two high-profile cases in the “contractual disputes” category. The first was the Matuzalem case, in which the CAS ruled that the unilateral termination of the player’s contract with FC Shakhtar Donetsk was unlawful and awarded compensation exceeding €11 million. The decision became a landmark precedent that significantly influenced international transfer practice.

The second case concerned the football player Tetê, who invoked FIFA’s special regulations for foreign players following the outbreak of the full-scale war. Although the case was ultimately settled, the CAS found the player’s actions unlawful, emphasizing that even in wartime, any contract termination must have a clear regulatory and contractual basis.

Yevhenii Proms’kyi highlighted that participation in CAS proceedings requires Ukrainian federations and clubs to maintain a high level of legal discipline — and that each such case serves as a potential model for reforms at the national level.

Sports Law Requires Systematic Development and Recognition

Yurii Kryzskyi, Deputy Chair of the Sports Arbitration Court under the National Olympic Committee of Ukraine and Honored Lawyer of Ukraine, outlined in his address the retrospective development of sports law in Ukraine and the key milestones in the formation of sports arbitration.

The speaker recalled that discussions on sports law in Ukraine began to gain momentum approximately 15–18 years ago. It was during this period that the first methodological materials and academic monographs appeared, forming the foundation of the modern doctrine. According to him, both early publications and more recent works — in particular, the textbook Sports Law edited by Professor Kharytonenko — have played an important role.

Yurii Kryzskyi noted that in 2024, the Institute of State and Law of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine hosted a large-scale academic conference that gathered more than twenty Doctors of Law and underscored the practical importance of sports law as a legal discipline. At the same time, he pointed out that institutions training athletes still lack systematic legal education, whereas specialized courses have already been introduced in several law schools.

The speaker also addressed the initiative to establish a National Sports Arbitration Court, which was launched in 2016 and formally implemented in 2018. However, the pandemic and the full-scale war slowed down the institution’s development, and it has not yet achieved sufficient visibility among lawyers and the sports community.

Mr. Yurii also emphasized the philosophical foundations of sports arbitration, noting that the effectiveness of this institution directly depends on the overall level of legal culture and ethics within society. He stressed that arbitration should serve not only as a mechanism for dispute resolution but also as a platform for mediation and constructive dialogue, particularly in conflicts between sports federations.

Jurisdiction and Challenges of Sports Arbitration in Ukraine

Oleksandr Volkov, Partner and Head of the Sports Law Practice at Asters, delivered an in-depth presentation on the jurisdictional, financial, and procedural aspects of sports arbitration in Ukraine and internationally.

He highlighted a universally recognized principle of global sport: if an organization seeks to be part of the international sporting system, it must recognize the mandatory jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne. This applies not only to sports federations but also to bodies such as national anti-doping organizations.

Oleksandr Volkov outlined the architecture of sports justice. The CAS may act either as a court of first instance (when stipulated by contract or regulation) or as an appellate body reviewing decisions of national or international authorities. In Ukraine, he cited the procedures of the Ukrainian Association of Football (UAF) as an example, where disputes are first considered by the Control and Disciplinary Committee (CDC), then the Appeals Committee, and ultimately by the CAS.

He also drew special attention to the fact that football justice bodies — as in other sports — are legally bodies of public associations, not arbitral tribunals in the sense of the Law of Ukraine “On Arbitration Courts”. This distinction carries significant legal consequences — from the prohibition on considering employment disputes to the possibility of appealing such decisions in district courts, which contradicts the principle of autonomy of sports arbitration.

Regarding the Sports Arbitration Court under the National Olympic Committee of Ukraine, the speaker noted that its decisions can legally be overturned by Ukrainian district courts — for example, by the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv. This, he stressed, raises doubts about the recognition of such decisions by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

Mr. Volkov also addressed the financial aspects of initiating proceedings in the national sports arbitration system. Filing a claim requires a registration fee of 5,000 UAH and an hourly rate between 500 and 1,000 UAH. “The final bill is known only at the end of the proceedings,” he remarked. At the same time, he added, players in FIFA and UAF proceedings pay no fees at the filing stage — only for appeals before CAS.

Martynas Kalvelis, Founder of LEXTRA, devoted his presentation to the arbitration system in esports and its future prospects. He noted that the esports industry has long outgrown amateur competition and has become a fully-fledged commercial sphere, where most conflicts carry significant legal and financial implications.

The expert identified two main types of disputes in esports: vertical (for example, between a player and a tournament organizer) and horizontal (for example, between players and clubs). The former often concern sanctions for rule violations or denial of tournament participation, while the latter typically involve payments, contracts, and transfers. He also mentioned a separate category — intellectual property disputes, given the particular role of game publishers in this sector.

In his presentation, Martynas Kalvelis highlighted the advantages of the Sports Arbitration Court, which, in his view, has the potential to become an effective platform for resolving such disputes. He emphasized the court’s procedural transparency, predictability of legal application, and the availability of legal assistance for athletes as key strengths.

At the same time, the speaker drew attention to the example of Riot Games — a company that independently develops internal arbitration mechanisms within its ecosystems, illustrating the growing trend toward industry self-regulation. In his view, the development of arbitration in esports should focus on speed, digital format, clarity of decisions, and clearly defined institutional jurisdiction.

Among the key challenges, he cited market fragmentation, the public resolution of disputes via social media, competition from blockchain-based mechanisms, and legal uncertainty in the enforcement of arbitral awards. Mr. Kalvelis emphasized that building an effective arbitration model in esports requires an inclusive approach involving all stakeholders — from players and clubs to federations and publishers.

Oksana Zalizko, Chair of the Control and Disciplinary Committee of the Ukrainian Association of Football (UAF) and PhD in Law, presented a comprehensive overview of the football justice system in Ukraine.

The speaker explained the structure of dispute resolution bodies in Ukrainian football, noting that the key disciplinary institutions are the UAF Control and Disciplinary Committee (CDC) — serving as the first instance — and the Appeals Committee, which acts as the second instance. In many cases, the final word rests with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, as stipulated by the statutes of both national and international football federations.

In 2024–2025, the Control and Disciplinary Committee reviewed 731 cases. Nearly half of them (49.1%) concerned violations of regulatory norms — ranging from a coach’s failure to attend a post-match press conference to serious breaches of team conduct. 21.4% of cases involved violations of IFAB Laws of the Game, including aggressive behavior, rough fouls, and the use of offensive language — not only by players but also by coaches, administrators, and medical staff. 16.7% of the cases dealt with misconduct by fans, such as the use of pyrotechnics, discriminatory chants, fights, and disturbances in the stands. 8.2% concerned security violations related to wartime requirements — including the availability of shelters and the proper organization of matches.

Oksana Zalizko emphasized that many disciplinary violations stem not only from emotion or the pursuit of victory, but also from systemic challenges in adhering to statutory, regulatory, and ethical standards. These include instances of discrimination, corruption, falsification, fights, and abuse of status, among others.

Particular attention was given to the sanctions system. For individuals, the minimum monetary fine starts at 1,000 UAH, while for legal entities, it can reach up to 2 million UAH. Disciplinary measures also include warnings, matches held without spectators, disqualifications, exclusion from competitions, suspension of transfer activities, and, in certain cases, even revocation of professional status. A suspension from football activities entails a complete ban, including on administration, player registration, and participation in match organization.

Out of 731 cases, only six decisions were appealed to the Appeals Committee, indicating the high stability and soundness of first-instance decisions. These appeals involved cases of discrimination, breaches of the Laws of the Game, team misconduct, and regulatory violations.

Referee vs. Arbitrator: Who Sets the Rules in the Pursuit of Justice?

The Forum concluded with a mini-interview titled “Referee vs. Arbitrator: Who Sets the Rules in the Pursuit of Justice?”, moderated by Olha Kostyshyna, Counsel at LCF Law Group and Head of the International Arbitration Practice.

In an open discussion format, Andrii Kicha, International Category Referee of the Ukrainian Ice Hockey Federation, and Tetiana Slipachuk, Arbitrator and Special Counsel at Sayenko Kharenko, shared their professional experiences and perspectives.

The moderator opened the conversation by asking the guests how they define themselves — as a judge, a mediator, or a guardian of justice.

Tetiana Slipachuk replied that she considers herself an arbitrator — a distinct role that differs from all others. “An arbitrator is a person entrusted with delivering a fair decision,” she noted.

Andrii Kicha described himself as a referee. For more than 20 years, he has been administering justice on the ice. According to him, refereeing in Ukraine is, for the most part, a voluntary activity, especially outside of Olympic sports.

The second question concerned the sense of authority at the moment of decision-making.

Andrii Kicha emphasized that he does not feel power — only responsibility for impartial judgment. Tetiana Slipachuk agreed, noting that being an arbitrator is also about carrying the responsibility entrusted to you.

The moderator then asked whether the experts have favorite teams or parties and how that might influence their work.

Andrii Kicha jokingly said that his favorite team is the referee team. “There are three teams on the ice — two that play and one that officiates,” he noted. However, he added that he holds no real preferences — a referee must remain neutral.

Tetiana Slipachuk remarked that impartiality is the cornerstone of arbitration. At the same time, she admitted that she genuinely appreciates seeing strong advocates with well-reasoned arguments in the process — something that, as she put it, “is a pleasure for any arbitrator.”

The fourth question touched upon the personal dimension: Have there been situations where the formally correct decision differed from the truly fair one?

Andrii Kicha shared a real case from the 2023–2024 season, when he allowed a team more time to return to the ice than the rules technically permitted. His actions were later challenged, but the CAS upheld the referee’s decision, recognizing that he had acted in the best interests of the sport.

Tetiana Slipachuk agreed that such situations do occur. However, she emphasized that an arbitrator cannot “rescue” a weaker party. At the same time, the law does provide room to consider the principle of fairness, and, as she noted, “one should not hesitate to use it where justice requires.”

Andrii Kicha drew a distinction between two situations: on the ice, where he explains his decision if the appeal is made respectfully, and after the game, where he welcomes civilized challenges made through proper procedures.

Tetiana Slipachuk stated that she treats appeals calmly, considering them a normal part of the process. Her goal, she noted, is to minimize the risks that lead to them.

When asked where there is a greater chance of achieving justice — on the field or in arbitration — the answers diverged:

Tetiana Slipachuk believes it is in arbitration, as the parties themselves choose the arbitrators, which builds trust but also imposes greater responsibility.

Andrii Kicha, meanwhile, sided with the player on the field, calling it his natural environment.

Finally, the speakers discussed a hypothetical question — could they ever switch roles?

Andrii Kicha said he could imagine himself working as an arbitrator, given his background in business and law.

Tetiana Slipachuk admitted with a smile that she would not manage as an on-ice referee — she is emotional by nature and more of a supporter than a composed official.

The dynamic conversation concluded with mutual respect, humor, and warm reflections on the shared importance and challenges of both the arbitral and refereeing missions in ensuring justice — whether on the field, on the ice, or in the hearing room.

The Ukrainian Bar Association extends its gratitude to the Forum’s co-organizer — the Ukrainian Association of Football, general partner — LCF Law Group, partner — Yurys Ferrum Law Firm, session partners — ARES Law Firm and Serhii Lysenko & Partners, as well as to all speakers, moderators, and participants for their insightful contributions and engaging discussions.