FIFA VORTEX - The Standard of Proof in the Court of Arbitration for Sport Focus

Notas do episódio

The Standard of Proof in the Court of Arbitration for SportFocus: Sub-chapter 5.1 — The Evidentiary Threshold in Lex SportivaDuration: 2 minutes (Approximately 260 to 280 spoken words)[0:00 - 0:30] The Middle-Ground Trap"If you think that convicting a national team at CAS requires proving fraud 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' as in criminal law, you are mistaken. But if you think a mere balance of probabilities is enough, you are also wrong. The Court of Arbitration for Sport operates under an autonomous concept known as Comfortable Satisfaction, formalized in Article R57 of the CAS Code. It sits exactly in the middle ground: it is more demanding than the traditional civil standard, yet it does not require the absolute certainty of criminal law."[0:31 - 1:15] The Challenge of Omission"When FIFA attempts to punish an act of omission — such as deliberate non-aggression or safe sideways passing because a draw is mathematically optimal —, Comfortable Satisfaction becomes the central battlefield. The panel of arbitrators cannot rely on intuition or the 'feel' of the match. Because we are dealing with a regulatory vacuum, where the behavior is not explicitly prohibited in FIFA's Disciplinary Code, the threshold to reach the arbitrator's 'comfortable satisfaction' rises drastically. It is not enough for the match to look ugly; intent must be proven."[1:16 - 2:00] The Weight of the Scenario"This is where the structure of the case changes everything. If the panel is composed of Common Law arbitrators, they are historically more inclined to accept that the principle of good faith was violated, reaching 'comfortable satisfaction' through complex data analytics. In short: the bar is not fixed; it is malleable and highly dependent on who is sitting in the arbitrator's chair in Lausanne."#fifa #worldcup #soloonvonherclestein #avvisipodcast #avvisi #cas