A Review of the Possibility of Application for Concrete Norm Control by the Turkish Football Federation Arbitration Board

Abstract

Arbitration, as an alternative dispute resolution method, is becoming more popular for resolving sports disputes and is also rising in Turkish law. Under the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey (the Constitution), objections to sports federations’ decisions related to the management and discipline of sports activities can only be made to arbitration, which is the authorised body. Additionally, the arbitration board’s decisions are considered final and cannot be appealed to the judiciary.According to the Constitution and other relevant statutes, the Turkish Football Federation Arbitration Board (TFF Arbitration Board) has been designated as the only authorised body to which objections can be made against decisions related to the management and discipline of sports activities by the Turkish Football Federation. However, it is uncertain whether concrete norm control is possible if the parties claim or if the TFF Arbitration Board finds that the laws applied by the Board in cases where it acts as a mandatory arbitral body are unconstitutional. It should be possible to raise objections to the Constitutional Court to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution for sports stakeholders and to eliminate unconstitutional regulations in sports law.This study evaluates the conditions for resorting to concrete norm control, as stated in Article 152 of the Constitution, within the scope of the mandatory arbitration proceedings of the TFF Arbitration Board. It also addresses the necessary changes to Turkish positive law.

Keywords

• concrete norm control
• mandatory arbitration
• tff arbitration board
• tff
• constitution
• constitutional court
• echr