In the first half of 2025, the Turkish Court of Cassation rendered two arbitration-friendly decisions in the context of the setting aside proceedings concerning sports arbitration awards:

• Court of Cassation Decision No. 1: “Arbitration Committee’s Decision on the Discipline of Football Activities is final”

The 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (decision of 27 February 2025, Docket No: E. 2024/4242, Decision No: K. 2025/1219, found here) upheld the first instance court’s decision dismissing the request for setting aside of the arbitral award.

The underlying arbitration proceedings were filed by a football club against a former player before the Dispute Resolution Committee (Uyuşmazlık Çözüm Kurulu) (“DRC”) of the Turkish Football Federation (“TFF”) and concern the player’s termination of a contract with a football club under claims that his receivables had not been paid, and social security records had not been corrected. The football club requested for the DRC to (i) declare that the football player’s termination of the contract is unlawful and (ii) punish the player for wrongful termination of the contract by banning him from future matches. The DRC declined the club’s request and dismissed the claim, declaring the termination of the contract by the player lawful. Following appeal, the Arbitration Committee (Tahkim Kurulu) of the TFF (“AC”) upheld the DRC decision.

The football club sought to challenge the arbitral award before state courts, seeking to set aside the arbitral award on the basis that (i) the DRC exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding on a social security matter and (ii) the award violates Turkish public policy. The Court of Appeal (acting as the first instance court) declined the club’s requests. 

On appeal, the Court of Cassation noted that the football club had asked the DRC to impose a match ban, which constitutes a sporting sanction. It held that such disputes fall within the discipline of football activities. In support, the Court referred to Article 6 of Law No 5894 Regarding Establishment and Duties of TFF (available here), which provides that decisions of the AC concerning discipline of football activities are final. Thus, the Court of Cassation decided that the AC’s decision on such matter was final and not subject to set-aside proceedings. While the Court of Cassation disagreed with the reasoning of the Court of Appeal, it upheld the latter’s decision by substituting its own reasoning.

• Decision No. 2: “The Arbitration Committee Has the Power Not to Hold a Hearing and the Award Cannot Be Set Aside on Issues Concerning the Merits of the Award”

   

The 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (decision of 12 May 2025, Docket No: E. 2025/854, Decision No: K. 2025/2730, found here) upheld the first instance court decision dismissing a request to set aside an arbitral award.

The underlying arbitration proceedings concerns a football player’s unsuccessful claim before the DRC, seeking an order that former club pay outstanding premium entitlements. The DRC dismissed the claim and, on appeal, the AC upheld the DRC decision.

The player sought to set aside the arbitral award before the state courts, arguing that (i) the award disregarded the contract between the parties and (ii) the AC violated his due process rights by not holding a hearing, despite his express request. The Court of Appeal (acting as the first instance court) declined to set the award aside.

On appeal, the Court of Cassation stated that the AC referred to Article 11(2) of the TFF AC Rules (available here), which gives the AC the discretion to render a decision on matters based on documents and not to hold a hearing. The Court of Cassation thereby decided that the due process rights of the football player had not been breached. It further held that the player’s other arguments addressed the merits of the award, and therefore do not constitute a ground for the setting aside. In this regard, the Court of Cassation rejected the player’s set-aside request and upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision.

South African courts have long maintained a pro-arbitration approach, consistently upholding the enforceability of arbitration agreements and limiting judicial interference in arbitral proceedings. However, since the enactment of the International Arbitration Act (IAA) in 2017, the courts have adopted a firmer and more robust pro-arbitration stance, closely aligning their decisions with the provisions of the Act and international best practice. A clear example is the recent Supreme Court of Appeal decision in Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Limited and Another v Kalagadi Manganese (Pty) Ltd. 

By applying the International Arbitration Act and its UNCITRAL Model Law underpinnings in preference to the older, more discretionary (now only) Domestic Arbitration Act, the courts have signalled an unambiguous commitment to international standards. This heightened judicial support, coupled with initiatives such as Johannesburg Arbitration Week and the increasing use of South Africa as a seat for cross-border commercial disputes, has bolstered investor confidence and positioned the country as a leading arbitration hub on the continent. 

Notwithstanding this momentum, certain legacy issues still require legislative or judicial refinement if South Africa is to achieve full alignment with global norms. A prime example concerns disputes brought under section 163 of the Companies Act for oppressive or unfairly prejudicial shareholder conduct. Because some of the statutory remedies, such as orders commencing business-rescue proceedings, can only be granted by the courts, earlier case law casts doubt on whether such matters are arbitrable at all. The International Arbitration Act now provides a clearer, more compelling framework that obliges courts to refer disputes to arbitration unless an agreement is “null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed,” yet the lingering uncertainty created by the pre-IAA authority is yet to be conclusively addressed. Modernising the statutory regime or securing definitive guidance on the arbitrability of oppression claims, would remove this anomaly, ensure greater coherence between company law and arbitration principles, and reinforce South Africa’s trajectory toward a genuinely arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.