How are CAS awards enforced in domestic courts, and what obstacles can arise in cross-border enforcement?

• A. CAS awards are not enforceable in any jurisdiction.
• B. CAS awards are generally enforceable under the New York Convention or local law; obstacles include public policy and varying enforcement standards.
• C. CAS awards require approval from the league board to be enforceable.
• D. CAS awards are automatically enforced in all countries without review.

Answer: (B)

The main idea here is how a CAS award gets enforced in courts and what can block that process across borders. CAS awards are arbitration awards, and most jurisdictions treat them as enforceable like other arbitral awards. They can be recognized and enforced in a foreign or domestic court under the New York Convention (to which many countries are signatories) or under the country’s own arbitration laws. Practically, the winner files for recognition and enforcement in the court where enforcement is sought, presenting the award and the arbitration agreement, and the court normally enforces the award unless a limited set of defenses applies.

The New York Convention sets narrow grounds on which recognition or enforcement can be refused. Commonly cited defenses include problems with the arbitration agreement (was there valid consent, was the party properly informed), whether the tribunal was properly constituted or acted within its mandate, whether the award addresses issues beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement, and whether the award is final and binding. Importantly, public policy is a classic obstacle: if enforcing the CAS award would violate the forum state’s fundamental policies, a court may refuse recognition or enforcement. Beyond that, different countries may apply different standards or procedural requirements for enforcement, which can create practical hurdles in cross-border cases.

That combination—broad acceptance under the NY Convention or local law, plus defenses like public policy and varying national enforcement standards—explains why this option is the best fit. The other choices misstate enforceability (not enforceable anywhere, or always requiring league approval, or automatic everywhere) and don’t reflect the real, limited defenses courts typically have.