Commentary byy Manuel Silvério
Independent Public Policy and Regional Development Analyst
(Former senior public official with international experience and a long-standing commitment to public policy and sports development)
Sport depends on trust in rules, selection, opportunities and the right to be heard when a decision is challenged. A sound system establishes the facts, hears the parties and resolves disputes independently and in time to make a difference.
The public consultation on amendments to the Administrative Procedure Code, running from October 9 to November 9, 2026, makes this reflection timely. Hearing interested parties, ensuring impartiality, coordinating public bodies and responding promptly to requests also matter to sport. A specialised mediation and arbitration institution would have its own remit, but could complement this effort to improve institutional processes.
Time matters too
Sanctions, eligibility, selection, association matters, contracts and decisions on funding and facilities can all give rise to disputes.
These matters fall within different frameworks, involving association rules, contracts or administrative law. Each case requires identification of the appropriate route for challenging a decision.
Macau has administrative and judicial remedies, the intervention of the Commission Against Corruption (CCAC) and internal procedures within sports organisations. The question is whether, together, they provide the expertise, accessibility and speed that sport requires.
A competition has a fixed date. Registration may close. An athlete’s career is finite. Redress after the event matters, but it cannot always restore a lost opportunity.
The CCAC and administrative justice
The CCAC does not intervene only when corruption is suspected. It also performs ombudsman functions, examining complaints about unlawful, irregular or unfair administrative conduct.
Approaching the CCAC without alleging corruption is therefore not, in itself, an abuse of its role. An administrative complaint should not automatically be interpreted as a criminal accusation.
Its 2022 annual report provides an example: a complaint concerning the Macau Youth Tennis School led to the identification of gaps in oversight rules and the absence of recusal provisions for selecting team members.
A specialised response could complement this intervention while preserving the responsibilities of the CCAC and the courts.
Supporting and adjudicating are different functions
The public body responsible for sport provides support and funding, coordinates activities and exercises oversight. Sports associations organise competitions, develop their disciplines and make decisions affecting athletes and clubs.
The function of supporting, funding or participating in a decision is distinct from that of independently adjudicating a dispute.
A credible process protects both those challenging a decision and those who made it: it can correct errors or confirm compliance with the rules.
Independence must be reflected in appointment procedures, disclosure of interests, disqualification and challenge mechanisms, and freedom to decide without pressure.
Nearby experience and a local legal foundation
In December 2025, Hong Kong launched a pilot scheme for sports dispute resolution, administered by the Hong Kong Regional Arbitration Centre of the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organization (AALCO). Its platform began accepting applications on February 13, 2026.
The scheme prioritises mediation, followed by arbitration where necessary. It covers commercial and sporting disputes under its rules, with financial assistance for eligible cases.
The Chinese mainland has had a specific sports arbitration framework since 2023. The China Commission of Arbitration for Sport, established by the General Administration of Sport of China and publicly funded, brings together representatives of the sports sector and experts in sport and law. It hears certain disputes concerning sanctions, athlete registration and participation in competitions. Its rules expressly provide that arbitration must operate independently, without interference from administrative bodies, social organisations or individuals.
For Macau, this experience offers a useful reference for specialist expertise and independent adjudication, to be studied and adapted to the SAR’s legal system, local scale and existing mechanisms for challenging decisions.
Law No. 19/2019, the Arbitration Law, and Administrative Regulation No. 36/2019, governing the establishment and operation of arbitration institutions, provide a basis for considering a specialised institution.
The legislation also permits arbitration of certain categories of administrative disputes. This does not mean that every public decision can be arbitrated: eligible matters, authority to agree to arbitration and the relationship with existing mechanisms must be clearly defined.
Mediation seeks an agreement. Arbitration produces a decision by an arbitral tribunal, provided the matter is arbitrable and there is a valid basis for referring it, such as an agreement between the parties.
A response for Macau
I propose studying the establishment of an Independent Centre for Sports Mediation and Arbitration, with its own rules and a structure proportionate to local needs.
Administrative support is essential, but adjudicating disputes requires specific expertise. The institution should bring together administrative, sporting and legal competence: knowledge of public procedures, an understanding of sports disciplines and the ability to uphold the law and the rights of the parties.
It should offer services in Portuguese and Chinese, affordable fees and urgent procedures that respect the right to be heard and to defend one’s position. Anyone involved in the contested decision or with an interest in the case should be excluded from adjudicating it.
Initial guidance could help identify the appropriate route and deadlines, without mediation jeopardising other rights.
The institution should report on its work, response times and outcomes, while respecting applicable requirements concerning publication, confidentiality and data protection.
Local capacity could benefit from cooperation with experienced institutions, including the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), through training, exchanges and possible support for hearings. Such cooperation should reflect Macau’s needs and its feasibility; it would not automatically confer jurisdiction over local disputes.
Harmony is built on trust
Macau values social harmony. In sport, harmony is built through respect, clear rules and confidence that everyone can be heard. Disagreement does not undermine that balance; leaving questions unanswered or confusing silence with consent can erode it.
Listening to an organisation, athlete or volunteer expressing dissatisfaction can help prevent disengagement and loss of trust. An independent institution could help resolve disputes, preserve relationships and prevent questions from being left unanswered.
It is in this spirit of cooperation, without targeting individuals or institutions, that I put forward this proposal.
Macau has invested heavily in infrastructure and major events. It is also worth investing in the trust of the people who bring sport to life.
Those who feel wronged should know where they can be heard. Decision-makers should be able to explain and substantiate their decisions. Both should trust the independence of those reviewing the dispute.
That is the trust a specialised institution could help build.
End
