The Russian Ice Hockey Federation -RIHF- is scheduled to appear before the Court of Arbitration for Sport -CAS- this Friday, 23 October, in its appeal against the International Ice Hockey Federation -IIHF-. The proceedings follow the governing body’s decision to maintain Russia’s exclusion from four championships in 2027 on safety, security and sporting integrity grounds. The hearing appears on the tribunal’s official calendar under case 2026/A/12753, with no date published for the award.
The dispute pits Russia’s request to return to competition against the IIHF’s authority to impose restrictions when it considers events to be at risk. There is a significant precedent within the federation itself: in May, its Disciplinary Board annulled a blanket exclusion decision and referred the matter back to the Council. That annulment did not automatically reinstate Russia, but required its participation to be reconsidered through an assessment of the conditions at each championship.
From a blanket exclusion to event-by-event decisions
On 21 January, the IIHF Council had decided that Russian national and club teams would not return to its competitions for the 2026-27 season on safety and security grounds. The Russian federation appealed to the Disciplinary Board, which annulled that decision on 25 May. The IIHF explained that the earlier decision could not stand in its existing form and that further information was needed to examine safety, security, operational and sporting plans. The review would take place on an event-by-event basis.
The outcome was published on 30 July. Russia remained excluded from the 2027 Men’s World Championship, World Junior Championship and men’s and women’s Under-18 World Championships. The Council said it had assessed each event separately, considering safety, security, operational feasibility and sporting integrity. Participation in the senior Women’s World Championship was left for a separate review in November, based on the circumstances and risk assessment available at that time. The organisation therefore made separate decisions, while maintaining exclusion from four of the five tournaments examined.
How to justify restrictions on participation
The Russian federation rejected July’s decision and announced that it would appeal to CAS. It argued that the IIHF’s position disregarded recommendations from the International Olympic Committee -IOC- and contradicted sport’s role in bringing people together. Those arguments represent the appellant’s position. The hearing schedule confirms that the dispute will reach that procedural stage, but the public listing does not detail the specific relief sought or the parties’ full legal arguments.
May’s decision places the institutional focus on how restrictions are justified. Assessing each championship allows distinctions between its venues, age categories and participants. An examination of proportionality involves the risks identified, the measures available to mitigate them and the reasons those measures might be insufficient. The question is how a restriction on participation is substantiated and how far it can be maintained on security grounds. The public documentation describes the IIHF’s general criteria, but does not disclose the complete risk assessments or the evidence submitted to arbitration.
Different decisions and a pending review
The scope of the dispute must also be distinguished from the position of Russian players competing professionally in other leagues. The decisions examined concern national teams’ access to IIHF championships. They also differ from those adopted for Belarus: in May, the organisation authorised its reintegration into the Men’s Under-18 World Championship, Women’s World Championship Division IV and Women’s Under-18 World Championship Division IIIB, following risk assessments with the respective organising committees. That precedent shows that event-by-event reviews can produce different participation decisions.
November’s review of Russia’s eligibility for the Women’s World Championship will provide another opportunity to examine how the IIHF applies those criteria to a competition it left undecided in July. That assessment belongs to the Council and is separate from the CAS appeal. The award could, in turn, offer guidance on the justification of future restrictions, although its scope will depend on the issues actually submitted to the tribunal. For other federations, the significance will lie in the legal reasoning behind the ruling and its relationship to the circumstances of each event.
Last related articles
