London International Disputes Week 2026
Sport is entering a more interventionist era, one defined by heightened scrutiny, growing financial complexity, and an increasing willingness to challenge regulatory decisions.
These themes were explored at London International Disputes Week in a panel, moderated by Ankura’s Jonny Gray, which brought together a distinguished group of practitioners spanning the key pillars of modern sports regulation and dispute resolution. The discussion featured Karen Moorhouse, CEO of the International Tennis Integrity Agency; Ben Johnson, a senior testifying accounting expert at Ankura; Stephen Sampson, head of the EMEA Litigation practice and of the Sports & Entertainment group at Squire Patton Boggs; and Adam Lewis KC, leading barrister at Blackstone Chambers. Together, they offered a comprehensive cross-disciplinary view of the forces shaping the current state and future direction of sports regulation.
The discussion highlighted how sport is adapting to a more complex and demanding regulatory structure. What emerged was a picture of a sector that is becoming more mature, more structured and, in many respects, more contested.
A central theme was the transition into what can be described as an “age of intervention.” Across a variety of sports, governing bodies are no longer confined to a reactive, enforcement-based role. Instead, they are increasingly operating as proactive regulators, investing in sophisticated governance frameworks, dedicated investigative functions, and clearer enforcement processes. This shift reflects both the growing commercial scale of sport and the heightened expectations of stakeholders including fans, athletes, sponsors, and public authorities. Trust in competition is now a critical asset and protecting it requires a visible and systematic regulatory approach.
The regulatory landscape is also being shaped by the continued professionalisation of sports governance. Modern regulators are seeking to build credibility through independence, transparency, and procedural fairness, often drawing from regulatory models seen in other sectors. This includes the development of specialist integrity units, clearer rules and guidelines, and more robust investigative capabilities. However, these developments also bring challenges. Maintaining confidence in sport in the wake of highly visible integrity issues remains difficult. Regulators must balance their desire for independence with the need for accountability, and they must operate effectively across different legal systems and cultural contexts. This creates both practical and conceptual tensions that are still being worked through.
The panel then turned to the growing importance of financial regulation within sport, which is increasingly at the centre of high-profile disputes. The implementation of frameworks, such as profit and sustainability rules and salary cap regimes, have led to sports disputes that are increasingly complex, data-driven exercises. As participants look to take advantage of complex and judgemental accounting rules, establishing whether a breach has occurred often requires detailed forensic analysis of financial records, careful interpretation of regulatory provisions, and the ability to present complex material in an accessible and persuasive way. These disputes frequently depend on expert evidence, and the role of forensic accounting has become central rather than peripheral. This represents a significant shift from earlier eras, where disciplinary issues were often more straightforward and less reliant on technical financial analysis.
Alongside this, the discussion explored how the nature of dispute resolution in sport is evolving. At the level of elite sport, previously relatively straightforward and rapid internal disciplinary mechanisms have developed toward more formalised processes before independent decision makers that often resemble mainstream commercial disputes, although still often handled on an expedited timetable. National and international arbitration are playing an increasingly prominent role, particularly where the financial or reputational stakes are high.
This trend is the consequence of the need to maintain the public confidence in sport, which entails that regulatory issues that arise are resolved with integrity and by practitioners and bodies equipped to deal with the specific issues applicable to a sport, but who are also sufficiently removed from the sport not to have a conflict of interest. It also reflects the broader legalisation of sport, where disputes are no longer seen as purely sporting matters but as issues that may engage wider legal rights and obligations and widespread public interest. As a result, stakeholders must now navigate a complex interaction between sport-specific rules and general legal principles, often across multiple jurisdictions.
The final strand of the discussion focused on the emerging body of sports law jurisprudence and its implications for the autonomy of sport. Recent high-profile cases have tested the extent to which governing bodies can impose and enforce their rules without external interference. These cases have examined issues such as competition law, proportionality, and procedural fairness, and they suggest an increasing willingness on the part of courts and tribunals to scrutinise regulatory decision-making. While sport continues to benefit from a degree of autonomy, reflected in tribunals’ reluctance to intervene in governing bodies’ decisions in their expertise and experience as to what is best for the sport, that reluctance is no longer as great as it previously was. Instead, it is being recalibrated in light of broader legal standards, creating a more balanced but also more complex regulatory environment.
Bringing these strands together, the discussion pointed to several overarching conclusions. Sports regulation is becoming more sophisticated, both in its institutional design and in its practical operation. It is also becoming more contested, as stakeholders are increasingly prepared to challenge decisions and test the boundaries of regulatory authority. At the same time, the legal framework surrounding sport is becoming more developed, with a growing body of case law shaping how rules are interpreted and applied.
Looking ahead, the direction of travel appears clear. There will likely be continued movement toward greater procedural rigour, enhanced transparency, and increased external oversight. At the same time, tensions between regulatory autonomy and legal accountability are unlikely to disappear and may in fact intensify as the financial and commercial stakes continue to rise. The central challenge will be one of balance, preserving the integrity and unique character of sport while ensuring that its regulatory systems remain fair, credible, and legally robust.
© Copyright 2026. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of Ankura Consulting Group, LLC, its management, its subsidiaries, its affiliates, or its other professionals. Ankura is not a law firm and cannot provide legal advice.
