On 11 February 2023, China established the China Sports Arbitration Commission (CSAC) as China’s sole specialised sports arbitration institution, responsible for adjudicating sports disputes nationwide. The General Administration of Sport of China (GASC) established the CSAC pursuant to the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Sports (the Sports Law). The CSAC operates under the Sports Arbitration Rules and the Organizational Rules of the China Sports Arbitration Commission. It comprises representatives of sports administrative departments, sports organisations, athletes, coaches and referees, as well as experts in sports and law. It maintains a Roster of Arbitrators and a separate Roster of Anti-Doping Arbitrators. The CSAC adjudicates sports disputes through arbitral panels, and its awards are final and binding.

The internal dispute resolution procedures of individual sports associations are a prerequisite to sports arbitration. Article 95 of the Sports Law encourages sports organisations to establish internal dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve disputes fairly, impartially and efficiently. According to publicly available information, some national associations for individual sports have established dispute resolution bodies, but these bodies vary in their level of development. Only a few associations, including the Chinese Football Association and the Chinese Basketball Association, have published procedural rules, such as rules of procedure for their arbitration committees, on their official websites. Under Article 96 of the Sports Law, a party dissatisfied with a decision made by a sports organisation, an athlete management entity or an organiser of sports events and activities, or with the outcome of an internal dispute resolution procedure, may apply for sports arbitration. Existing sports arbitration awards indicate that the exhaustion of internal remedies within the relevant association is a prerequisite to sports arbitration. This requirement will encourage associations to establish and improve their internal dispute resolution mechanisms.

Mediation and settlement are not independent dispute resolution mechanisms, but components of sports arbitration or litigation proceedings. Article 51 of the Sports Arbitration Rules provides that the arbitral tribunal may mediate during the arbitration proceedings and that the parties may also reach a settlement independently. In sports arbitration cases concerning anti-doping, any mediation conducted by the tribunal, or any settlement reached independently by the parties, also requires the consent of the China Anti-Doping Agency (CHINADA). In a written reply to a member of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, the GASC stated that the relevant departments were studying rules on mediation in sports arbitration and related institutional rules, with a view to improving the supporting mechanism for ‘arbitration plus mediation’.

In addition, various sports events have internal appeal or arbitration mechanisms for resolving disputes over field-of-play decisions, competition results and objections to competition eligibility. The doping-dispute hearing system is a specialised procedure, independent of disciplinary sanctions imposed by associations, for resolving disputes over the testing and handling of anti-doping rule violations. Multi-level internal appeal or review procedures within sports organisations address matters such as disciplinary sanctions and athlete registration and transfers.

As to jurisdiction and the scope of cases the CSAC may accept, the CSAC derives jurisdiction from, among other things, arbitration agreements between the parties, the charters of sports organisations and the rules of sports events. Article 92 of the Sports Law defines the scope of sports arbitration by listing both included and excluded categories of disputes.

The CSAC may accept the following cases: (1) disputes arising from dissatisfaction with decisions made by sports organisations, athlete management entities or organisers of sports events and activities under anti-doping or other management rules to disqualify a person from competition, annul competition results or impose a suspension; (2) disputes concerning athlete registration or transfer; and (3) other disputes arising in competitive sports activities.

Article 92 of the Sports Law expressly excludes disputes that are arbitrable under the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China, as well as labour disputes defined by the Labour Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China (the Labour Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Law), from the scope of sports arbitration.

Furthermore, in the first batch of typical sports arbitration cases released by the CSAC, the CSAC invoked the field-of-play principle in its awards and clarified that field-of-play decisions fall outside the scope of sports arbitration. As to the relationship between sports associations’ internal dispute resolution mechanisms and sports arbitration, the CSAC’s awards clarified that a matter should first be handled through the relevant sports association, followed by recourse to sports arbitration. Together with Articles 95 and 96 of the Sports Law, these awards establish that the exhaustion of internal remedies is a prerequisite to sports arbitration. This exhaustion requirement is consistent with the practice of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). As at June 2026, the CSAC had received 355 arbitration applications, accepted 227 cases and concluded 201 cases. The cases included disciplinary sanctions, competition results, registration, youth training compensation and work contracts, across several sports, including football, ice hockey, biathlon and athletics.

As to the effect of awards and judicial review, sports arbitration awards are final and binding and take effect on the date on which they are made. If a party fails to comply with an award, the other party may apply to the People’s Court for enforcement under Article 99 of the Sports Law. If a party considers that an award contains a statutory defect, it may apply under Article 98 of the Sports Law to the Intermediate People’s Court where the CSAC is located to set aside the award. As the only court in China authorised to conduct judicial review of sports arbitration awards, the Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People’s Court decided China’s first case involving judicial review of a sports arbitration award in 2024. The case concerned a dispute between Ma and a Shanghai-based football club over a youth-player training agreement. The court found that the award did not fall within any statutory ground for setting it aside under Article 98 of the Sports Law and dismissed the application.

China has a multi-tiered sports-law framework centred on the Sports Law. It comprises four tiers: laws, administrative regulations, ministerial rules and local legislation. China also has a dedicated national sports administrative authority.

At the legislative level, the Sports Law was promulgated in 1995, amended in 2009 and 2016, and comprehensively revised on 24 June 2022. The revised Law took effect on 1 January 2023. It is the principal law governing the sports sector. The current text consists of 12 chapters and 122 articles, covering fitness for all, youth and school sports, competitive sports, anti-doping, sports organisations, the sports industry, sports arbitration, support measures, and supervision and administration.

The supporting regulatory framework includes several sports-related administrative regulations enacted by the State Council, principally the Regulations on National Fitness, the Regulations on Anti-Doping, the Regulations on Administration of Lotteries, the Regulations on the Protection of Olympic Symbols, the Regulations on Public Cultural and Sports Facilities, and the Regulations on School Sports Work. The GASC has issued more than 30 ministerial rules, including the Measures for the Administration of Sports Events and Activities, the Sports Arbitration Rules, and the Measures for the Administration of Competition Conduct and Discipline in Sports Events and Activities. Most provinces have also enacted local sports regulations or government rules.

As to administrative bodies, the GASC is an agency directly under the State Council and oversees sports affairs nationwide. Sports administrative departments of local people’s governments at or above county level are responsible, at their respective levels, for supervision within their administrative regions. The All-China Sports Federation is a national mass sports organisation, while the Chinese Olympic Committee represents China in Olympic affairs. National associations for individual sports are responsible for promoting and developing their respective sports, regulating sports events and activities, and representing China in the relevant international sports organisations. Since 2015, reforms have sought to separate government from sports associations and establish associations as independent legal entities. The Chinese Football Association and the Chinese Basketball Association, among others, were separated from the GASC’s sports administration centres and obtained independent legal-person status as social organisations. This created a hybrid model combining administrative oversight with self-regulation by sports associations. In football, the reform separating the oversight and operation of professional leagues has been in effect since 2025. The Chinese Professional Football League (CFL) was established on 23 January 2025 and, from the 2025 season, has independently operated the three tiers of professional football: the Chinese Super League (CSL), China League One (CL1) and China League Two (CL2). The Chinese Football Association retains ownership and oversight of the professional leagues but no longer participates in their organisation or operation.

In addition, the 15th Five-Year Plan for Building a Sports Power, approved by the State Council on 29 June 2026 and issued by the GASC on 8 July 2026, sets out a systematic plan to accelerate the development of China as a sports powerhouse during the 15th Five-Year Plan period.

China regulates sports advertising and marketing differently by product category: tobacco advertising in sports settings is completely prohibited; betting advertising is generally prohibited, except for advertising relating to state-run lotteries; and alcohol advertising is subject to restrictions on content and distribution channels rather than a complete ban.

China imposes a complete ban on advertising for tobacco products, including e-cigarettes. Article 22 of the Advertising Law of the People’s Republic of China (the Advertising Law) prohibits tobacco advertisements in mass media, public places, public transport and outdoor spaces. It also prohibits the disguised promotion of tobacco products through advertisements for other goods or services, public-service advertisements or other means. Because sports venues are public places and event broadcasts are treated as mass media, tobacco advertising is prohibited in and around sports venues, in venue advertising, on official uniforms and in broadcast footage. Under the Measures for the Administration of E-cigarettes, e-cigarettes are regulated in the same way as cigarettes; their advertising is therefore also prohibited.

China imposes content restrictions on alcohol advertising rather than a blanket ban. Unlike some jurisdictions, Chinese law does not generally prohibit alcohol advertising in sports settings. Article 23 of the Advertising Law prohibits alcohol advertisements from inducing or encouraging alcohol consumption, promoting excessive drinking or depicting acts of drinking. It also prohibits express or implied claims that alcohol can relieve tension or anxiety or increase physical strength. The restriction on claims about physical strength is particularly relevant in sports. Article 40 of the Advertising Law prohibits alcohol advertisements in mass media directed at minors. In practice, beer brands commonly sponsor professional sports events as ‘official partners’.

China operates a state monopoly and completely prohibits commercial betting advertisements. Under Article 3 of the Regulations on Administration of Lotteries, the State Council authorises the issuance of welfare lotteries and sports lotteries. The issuance of any other lottery without authorisation is prohibited, as is the issuance or sale of foreign lotteries in China. Commercial betting is illegal in China, and no legal betting brands sponsor sports events. Article 51 of the Sports Law strictly prohibits any organisation or individual from using sports events to engage in gambling.

In professional football, Article 13 of the Regulations on the Administration of Club and Team Names in Chinese Football Professional Leagues, issued by the Chinese Professional Football League in June 2025, expressly provides that teams may not accept title sponsorship from sponsors in the gambling or tobacco industries. Jingcai (sports-lottery prediction games), the only legal channel for sports prediction, focuses its brand communications at sports events on public welfare and responsible lottery participation.

China currently has no specific rules on ambush marketing. Related disputes are primarily resolved under the general provisions of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China (the Anti-Unfair Competition Law) and under contracts and competition rules issued by event organisers.

China combats match-fixing and other forms of match manipulation through administrative and sports-governing-body sanctions, supplemented by criminal enforcement.

Article 51 of the Sports Law provides that sports events must uphold the principle of fair competition. Organisers of sports events, athletes, coaches and referees must observe sportsmanship and the rules of sports events, and must not commit fraud or engage in malpractice for personal gain. No organisation or individual may use sports events to engage in gambling. Article 112 of the Sports Law provides that any athlete, coach or referee who, in violation of the Law, breaches sportsmanship or the rules of sports events, commits fraud or engages in malpractice for personal gain must be dealt with by the relevant sports organisation in accordance with applicable rules. If the circumstances are serious and the conduct has a serious social impact, the sports administrative department of the people’s government at or above county level must add the person to the list of persons restricted or prohibited from participating in competitive sports activities. Any illegal gains must be confiscated, and a fine of between RMB 10,000 and RMB 100,000 must be imposed. Anyone who uses sports events to engage in gambling must be investigated and punished by the public-security authorities in accordance with the law.

As to disciplinary sanctions imposed by sports governing bodies, Article 2 of the Measures for the Administration of Competition Conduct and Discipline in Sports Events and Activities, issued by the GASC, expressly defines conduct that violates competition rules and sports ethics, such as fraud, match-fixing and on-field violence, as a violation. Under Articles 24 and 25 of the Measures, sanctions for athletes and coaches who commit violations include criticism and education, an order to submit a written self-criticism, public censure, disqualification from consideration for the Sportsmanship Award, disqualification from competition or annulment of competition results, a fixed-term suspension or a lifetime ban. Sanctions for referees who commit violations include public censure, revocation of officiating qualifications, a fixed-term or lifetime suspension from officiating, demotion or revocation of their technical grade, and a four-year prohibition on the nominating organisation applying to host relevant sports events. Other specific sanctions include competition bans, participation restrictions, restrictions on eligibility for awards and credit sanctions.

A recent landmark set of industry sanctions was jointly announced in January 2026 by the Ministry of Public Security, the GASC and the Chinese Football Association as part of the special rectification of match-fixing, gambling and corruption in football. In accordance with the Chinese Football Association Disciplinary Code, the Chinese Football Association banned 73 industry professionals, including Chen Xuyuan and Li Tie, who had been convicted by final court judgments, for life from all football-related activities. The association also sanctioned 13 professional clubs by deducting points from their 2026 professional-league standings and imposing fines.

The current Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (the Criminal Law) contains no sports-specific offences. In practice, these cases are primarily handled under Article 163 of the Criminal Law (the offence of accepting bribes by a non-state functionary), Article 164 (the offence of offering bribes to a non-state functionary) and Article 303 (the offences of gambling, opening a casino and organising Chinese citizens to participate in gambling outside the country or territory). As part of the special rectification described above, all 18 individuals implicated in this round of football anti-corruption cases had been sentenced by 30 July 2025.

China has not signed the Macolin Convention. As the Convention is primarily intended for member states of the Council of Europe and invited countries, any future decision by China to join would require consideration of the cost of, and need for, the supporting institutional framework. China can currently undertake similar co-operation under the United Nations Convention against Corruption, through the self-regulatory mechanisms of international sports organisations and through law-enforcement co-operation under the Interpol framework.

China operates a state monopoly on sports betting. Only the China Sports Lottery, whose issuance is authorised by the State Council, may provide sports-prediction products. All other private lotteries, underground football betting, offshore gambling and online football betting are unlawful, and both organisers and participants may incur administrative, public-security and criminal liability. Jingcai (sports-lottery prediction games), issued and administered by the Sports Lottery Administration Centre of the GASC, is the only legal sports-match prediction product in mainland China. Its proceeds are used for public welfare, making it a national public-welfare lottery. The Ministry of Finance is responsible for national lottery supervision and administration; sports administrative departments are responsible for the administration of sports lotteries; and public-security authorities and market-regulation authorities are responsible for investigating and taking action against illegal lotteries. Together, these authorities divide responsibility among fiscal co-ordination, sector supervision and public-security enforcement. Article 51 of the Sports Law expressly provides that no organisation or individual may use sports events to engage in gambling. Article 7 of the Rules for the Implementation of the Regulations on Administration of Lotteries expressly defines welfare lotteries and sports lotteries sold online without authorisation as ‘illegal lotteries’. In practice, accepting bets and placing them with overseas sports-betting websites, or providing offshore online football-gambling accounts through which bets are accepted, are all treated as constituting the offence of opening a casino.

China has bodies responsible for sports integrity, but none is an independent institution. Four types of body perform distinct roles: (1) the General Administration of Sport of China (GASC) and local sports administrative departments at all levels act as administrative authorities and issue rules on sports ethics and integrity; (2) the China Anti-Doping Agency (CHINADA), as the national specialist anti-doping body, manages and regulates doping matters and has a relatively independent hearing committee; (3) the China Sports Arbitration Commission (CSAC) may hear disputes arising from dissatisfaction with decisions, such as disqualification from participation, annulment of results or suspension, made under anti-doping rules or other management rules; and (4) disciplinary committees, arbitration committees, disciplinary and anti-doping committees, and competition-conduct and anti-doping committees established within national single-sport associations set rules for and oversee sports-ethics matters within their respective sports.

On sports ethics, Article 51 of the Sports Law establishes the principle of fair competition and requires organisers, athletes, coaches and referees to comply with sports ethics and competition rules. They must not engage in fraud or malpractice, and using sports events to engage in gambling is strictly prohibited. Article 112 provides that sports organisations shall discipline athletes, coaches and referees who engage in fraud or malpractice. In serious cases, the sports administrative department shall add them to a list of persons restricted or prohibited from participating in competitive sports activities, confiscate any illegal gains, and impose a fine of RMB 10,000 to RMB 100,000.

On anti-doping, the China Anti-Doping Agency (CHINADA), an institution directly under the GASC, is responsible for doping testing, investigations and education. Chapter 7 (Articles 53–60) of the Sports Law addresses anti-doping. It provides that the state shall establish and improve the anti-doping system, adopt a comprehensive approach, establish a national anti-doping agency and fulfil its international-cooperation obligations. The Anti-Doping Measures provide that anti-doping work follows a ‘zero-tolerance’ principle and that doping is strictly prohibited, rigorously checked and dealt with severely. The GASC oversees anti-doping work nationally, while local authorities exercise oversight at their respective levels; CHINADA and national sports associations carry out their respective management responsibilities. The Anti-Doping Rules separately set out the technical and operational requirements. Supporting documents, including the Detailed Rules for Hearings on Anti-Doping Rule Violations, provide operational guidance on hearings, results management and accountability. Article 355A of the Criminal Law provides criminal penalties for inducing, abetting or deceiving athletes into using doping substances, and for providing such substances to athletes. China has signed the Copenhagen Declaration and, in 2006, acceded to the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport; CHINADA is a signatory to the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC). An athlete who challenges an anti-doping sanction must first apply for a hearing before CHINADA’s Hearing Committee. If dissatisfied with the hearing decision, the athlete may apply to the CSAC for arbitration; if dissatisfied with the CSAC’s award, the athlete may appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) under Article 13 of the WADC.

On abuse cases, China currently has no sports-specific legislation or dedicated body addressing abuse in sport. In practice, such cases are addressed under the Sports Law’s special protections for vulnerable groups, general laws including the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Protection of Minors (the Minors Protection Law), the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Penalties for Administration of Public Security and the Criminal Law, together with applicable disciplinary rules of sports governing bodies. The Minors Protection Law’s mandatory reporting system for cases involving harm to minors also applies to abuse of, or harm to, minor athletes in sports schools, clubs and other sports settings.

China adopts a three-pronged model combining criminal enforcement, administrative oversight and industry self-regulation. These mechanisms are interconnected and operate in parallel.

Specifically, national single-sport associations exercise disciplinary powers over corruption in sport under their charters and disciplinary codes, such as the Chinese Football Association Disciplinary Code. Sports administrative departments supervise the sector and impose administrative penalties under specialised laws and regulations, including the Sports Law and the Measures for the Administration of Sports Events and Activities. Where conduct constitutes a criminal offence, criminal liability is pursued in accordance with law. These mechanisms are interconnected and operate in parallel, forming an integrated governance chain.

Within the Chinese legal system, corruption between private parties is subject to criminal and civil liability. Although the Criminal Law does not create a specific offence of ‘sports corruption’, it addresses such conduct, according to whether the perpetrator is a state or non-state functionary, through general corruption offences including accepting bribes (Article 385), offering bribes (Article 389), bribery by an entity (Article 393), accepting bribes by a non-state functionary (Article 163), and offering bribes to a non-state functionary (Article 164). These provisions punish criminal offenders, recover illicit gains and collectively cover corruption in sport. The football anti-corruption cases since 2022 illustrate how these provisions operate (see Question 13). Civil liability can also arise. Contracts concluded or performed through corrupt conduct may be invalid because they violate mandatory provisions of laws or administrative regulations or contravene public order and good morals (Article 153 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China (the Civil Code)). Invalidity may require restitution of property and compensation for loss under Article 157 of the Civil Code.

China has established a four-tier framework of sports-specific anti-corruption rules comprising laws, ministerial regulations, event-specific regulations and association rules. At the legislative level, the Sports Law provides the core rules and provides for corresponding administrative penalties and, in some cases, criminal liability. At the level of ministerial regulations, the Measures for the Administration of Sports Events and Activities specify requirements for organising and supervising sports events, define the standards for determining violations and the procedures for imposing penalties, and ensure lawful, standardised and consistent administrative enforcement. Under event-specific regulations, major events such as the National Games have detailed rules on anti-cheating and integrity in competition. At the association-rule level, national single-sport associations adopt disciplinary codes and ethical standards for their respective sports and prescribe industry sanctions for corruption and match-fixing by members and registered practitioners. These rules form the self-regulatory tier of the framework.

Amendment (XI) to the Criminal Law (2021) introduced the crime of obstructing doping control. Although not directly classified as a sports-corruption offence, this reflects China’s trend towards sports-specific criminal legislation.

In China, fan behaviour is regulated through four channels: sports rules, public-security administrative penalties, criminal sanctions and civil compensation.

The Sports Law requires sports-event organisers to ensure safety and maintain order, but does not impose separate statutory duties on spectators. Article 102 of the Sports Law requires organisers of sports events to fulfil their duty to ensure safety, provide safety conditions that meet the applicable requirements, formulate safeguards such as risk-prevention and emergency-response plans, and maintain the safety of sports events. Article 40 of the Measures for the Administration of Competition Conduct and Discipline in Sports Events and Activities requires organisers to strengthen management, guide spectators towards appropriate conduct and foster an orderly environment for viewing events. Spectator conduct suspected of constituting a criminal or other legal violation must be referred to the public-security authorities. The competition disciplinary codes of some national sports associations contain dedicated chapters on spectator discipline, requiring spectators to comply with event management, cooperate with security checks and observe order in the stands. These codes prohibit forcibly entering the competition venue; displaying statements, flags or banners containing insulting, abusive, political or inflammatory content; carrying dangerous goods or other prohibited items; throwing objects onto the field; insulting, abusing or besieging athletes, coaches, referees or relevant staff; fighting or disrupting the order of the competition in any form; and climbing on or over barriers. Where spectators breach these provisions, organisers must stop the conduct promptly and handle it appropriately in accordance with applicable law. Where criminal or other unlawful conduct is suspected, organisers must promptly report the matter to the public-security authorities and cooperate with their investigation.

The Regulations on Security Administration of Large-scale Mass Activities establish a safety-licensing system for large-scale public events, such as sports competitions, with an expected attendance of 1,000 or more. Organisers must apply to the public-security authorities for a safety licence 20 days before the event, formulate a safety plan and discharge their safety responsibilities. Any large-scale public event held without authorisation shall be shut down by the public-security authorities, and the organiser shall be fined between RMB 100,000 and RMB 300,000. Together with Article 102 of the Sports Law, the Regulations constitute the core rules governing event organisers’ duty to ensure safety.

The Public Security Administration Punishments Law of the People’s Republic of China (the Public Security Administration Punishments Law), revised on 27 June 2025 and effective on 1 January 2026, sets out the specific legal consequences of fan misconduct. The revised Law raises the two respective maximum fines from RMB 200 and RMB 500 to RMB 500 and RMB 1,000 and includes a banning-order regime. Article 28 provides that a person who commits any of the following acts and disrupts the order of a large-scale public event, such as a sports or cultural event, shall be given a warning or fined up to RMB 500; in serious cases, the person shall be given administrative detention for five to ten days and may also be fined up to RMB 1,000: (1) forcibly entering the venue; (2) setting off fireworks, firecrackers or other items inside the venue in breach of regulations; (3) displaying insulting slogans, banners or other items; (4) surrounding or besieging referees, athletes or other staff; (5) throwing objects into the venue and refusing to comply with an order to stop; or (6) otherwise disrupting the order of a large-scale public event. Persons given administrative detention for disrupting the order of sports competitions or cultural performances may also be barred from entering sports or performance venues to watch similar events for six months to one year. A person who enters such a venue in contravention of that restriction shall be forcibly removed and may be given administrative detention for up to five days or fined up to RMB 1,000. The Regulations on the Governance of Online Violence Information apply to online insults or defamation directed at athletes and impose obligations on platforms throughout the response process, including preventive measures, real-time intervention and preservation of post-incident evidence. Insult or defamation that does not meet the threshold for criminal prosecution is subject to administrative penalties under the Public Security Administration Punishments Law.

The Criminal Law contains no provisions specifically targeting fan conduct, but fans who engage in violence inside or outside stadiums may be held criminally liable under Article 291 for the crime of assembling a crowd to disturb order at public places or under Article 293 for the crime of picking quarrels and provoking trouble. In many cases, fans have been held criminally liable for violent conduct inside or outside stadiums under the latter offence. Online abuse directed at athletes is primarily governed by Article 246 of the Criminal Law, which covers the crimes of insult and defamation. ‘Doxxing’ and the publication of athletes’ identity-card numbers and itinerary information are punishable for the crime of infringing on citizens’ personal information under Article 253A of the Criminal Law.

In civil matters, spectators who cause personal injury or property damage to others are liable for tort damages; event organisers who breach their duty to ensure safety bear corresponding liability; and fans who insult, defame or spread rumours about athletes, thereby infringing their right to reputation, shall be required to apologise, take steps to eliminate the adverse effects and compensate for losses, including emotional distress.

Ownership and governance of professional sports clubs in China are primarily regulated by general laws and the rules applicable to each sport. Article 72(2) of the Sports Law requires professional sports clubs to establish effective internal and corporate governance structures. Clubs incorporated as companies must also comply with the Company Law of the People’s Republic of China in relation to shareholder rights, corporate bodies and the duties of directors, supervisors and senior managers. Eligible non-profit sports organisations may be registered in accordance with law as private non-enterprise units in the sports sector, but their non-profit status and registration requirements must be distinguished from those applicable to corporate clubs. Registration as a legal entity does not automatically make a club eligible to participate in a professional league.

As regards foreign ownership, the Foreign Investment Law of the People’s Republic of China applies a system of pre-establishment national treatment plus a negative list. The current national negative list for foreign investment does not impose sector-specific caps on foreign ownership of professional sports clubs. Specific investments must nevertheless comply with the relevant league’s rules on shareholder eligibility and changes in equity ownership.

In football, restrictions on foreign investment primarily concern transferee eligibility. Under the Regulations on the Change of Registered Association and Equity Transfer of Chinese Professional Football League Clubs, issued by the Chinese Professional Football League (CFL) in 2025, the transferee in a major equity transfer must be a legal entity lawfully registered in mainland China; the transferee in a minor equity transfer may be either such a legal entity or a natural person who is a mainland Chinese citizen. Under these eligibility criteria, foreign entities cannot directly acquire transferred equity. This does not necessarily exclude every domestic legal entity with foreign-invested ownership. Relevant investment arrangements must comply with requirements for financial disclosure and disclosure of related-party relationships and actual controllers, and must be reviewed by the registration association and the CFL.

In basketball, the Opinions on Further Promoting the Reform and Development of Basketball, issued by the General Administration of Sport of China in 2025, expressly call for the active introduction of high-quality foreign capital to invest in professional clubs. This policy signals a direction of greater openness, but specific transactions must still comply with applicable law and the relevant league rules.

As regards fan ownership and member participation, China has not yet established a uniform, mandatory system of fan ownership or member control applicable to all professional leagues, nor has it widely adopted the ‘50+1’ voting-control rule used in German professional football. This does not mean that fan ownership or member participation in governance is categorically prohibited. Such arrangements may be implemented through ownership structures, club articles of association and membership systems, to the extent permitted by general law and applicable league rules. The General Administration of Sport of China’s policy on developing key cities for football also proposes pilot programmes for diversified ownership models, including club membership systems. Membership status does not of itself confer shareholder rights; specific voting, nomination or supervisory rights depend on the relevant legal documents and their implementation.

As regards league admission and continuing supervision, clubs must, in addition to registering as legal entities, satisfy the registration and admission requirements for the relevant sport, league and season. In football, the CFL, authorised by the Chinese Football Association (CFA), organises and operates the professional leagues. Its admission rules cover sporting, infrastructure, personnel and management, legal and financial criteria, including requirements relating to youth development, venue facilities, disclosure of ownership and control relationships, financial audits and performance of debt obligations. Equity transfers and control arrangements are also subject to rules designed to prevent related-party relationships and conflicts of interest between clubs.

Professional football also regulates club names. This reflects the CFA’s reform, introduced in 2020, promoting non-corporate (‘neutral’) club names. Under the CFL’s 2025 Regulations on the Administration of Club and Team Names in Chinese Professional Football Leagues, club names should, in principle, exclude corporate identifiers. During the 2025–2028 seasons, clubs may grant commercial naming rights for their teams in accordance with the applicable rules, but may not accept title sponsorship involving a club shareholder’s trade name, business name or brand. Club registration names and team commercial naming rights are subject to separate regulatory requirements. Ownership, governance and participation requirements in other sports are governed by the rules applicable to each sport.

The Chinese sports industry has not yet shown a clear growth trend in cross-sport ownership, but cross-sport operations and investment have increased, while investment is also expanding across both upstream and downstream segments of individual sports.

China has no specific mandatory national rules expressly prohibiting or restricting cross-sport ownership in the sports industry (that is, a single entity simultaneously holding equity in clubs or assets across multiple sports). At present, the only binding constraints on ‘cross-sport ownership’ arise indirectly under the general rules of the Anti-Monopoly Law of the People’s Republic of China. Because horizontal overlap between different sports is usually limited, such ownership is unlikely to be prohibited or made subject to conditions.

Although there are no legal restrictions, in practice cross-sport ownership by a single entity remains rare and has not shown a growth trend. Most entities with cross-sport ownership have state-owned-enterprise backgrounds or are affiliated with large industrial groups, such as Beijing Shougang Group (which owns several professional teams, including the Beijing Shougang men’s and women’s basketball teams and its ice hockey team) and Shanghai Jiushi Group (which owns professional teams in basketball, football and other sports). These groups often also hold operating rights in professional sports. Their cross-sport investments are often linked to venue operations and city-wide sports development. In addition, Fosun Group currently owns both Wolves Esports Club (which has multiple divisions) and the English football club Wolverhampton Wanderers. This is an example of cross-sport and cross-regional investment.

Within a single sport, multi-club ownership is subject to industry rules. In football, for example, the admission rules of the Chinese Football Association and the Chinese Professional Football League (CFL) prohibit one actual controller from controlling two or more professional league clubs at the same level. Equity transfers and control arrangements must disclose related-party relationships and prevent conflicts of interest. This is broadly consistent with the approach to multi-club ownership used by UEFA and the major European leagues.

China has no mandatory national provisions regulating athlete representation. Industry-association rules requiring agents to hold sports-agent qualifications are not legally binding. Under Article 153 of the Civil Code, a contract is invalid only if it violates mandatory provisions of laws or administrative regulations; association rules are not laws or administrative regulations for this purpose, and the professional qualification for sports agents has been removed from the National Catalogue of Vocational Qualifications. Accordingly, where a party claims that a contract is invalid because the agent ‘lacks the relevant qualifications’, the court will not uphold the claim. Among the first batch of typical cases published by the China Sports Arbitration Commission in June 2026, in one case concerning a dispute between a sports agency company and a club over a sports agency contract, the tribunal held that disputes arising from sports-agency activities have distinct industry characteristics and fall within the scope of sports arbitration.

Mandatory limits on an agent’s authority are governed by the general rules of the Civil Code. The only nationwide mandatory rule directly addressing dual representation is Article 168 of the Civil Code: An agent shall not perform a civil juristic act in the name of the principal with himself, unless it is consented to or ratified by the principal. An agent who has been designated by two or more principals shall not in the name of one principal perform a civil juristic act with another principal whom he concurrently represents, unless it is consented to or ratified by both principals. This rule applies to athlete representation.

No law caps agents’ commissions. In practice, disputes over commission amounts are generally addressed through judicial adjustment of liquidated damages and compensation for loss. Where liquidated damages stipulated in an agency contract are excessive, courts will reduce them, exercising their discretion in light of the athlete’s individual contribution, the nature of the contract, and the evidence adduced as to investment and loss.

There are also no specific regulations governing the representation of minor athletes. Such cases are primarily governed by the general rules on guardianship, limited capacity for civil conduct, and transactions whose validity is pending under the Civil Code and the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Protection of Minors. Judicial decisions have established the rule that a long-term agency contract signed by parents on behalf of a minor should not extend beyond the date on which the minor reaches the age of majority. It should be noted that this rule derives from judicial decisions rather than statutory provisions.

China currently has no law, administrative regulation or ministerial rule specifically addressing the eligibility of transgender athletes to compete, nor are there any relevant precedents. China’s current legal system adopts a binary framework for gender. In domestic practice, the relevant national sports associations address eligibility questions case by case, with reference to the rules of their respective international sports federations; there is no uniform mandatory domestic standard. Domestic competitions classify athletes by the gender recorded on their identification documents. Under the applicable household-registration rules, a change to registered gender requires completion of gender reassignment surgery.

China has no unified law or administrative regulation governing e-sports. The framework uses the Sports Law as its basis for classification, online-game regulation as an upstream constraint, and the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (the Copyright Law) and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law as its core rights-protection regimes.

For regulatory purposes, e-sports is classified as a sport. On 18 November 2003, the General Administration of Sport of China (GASC) approved e-sports as the 99th official competitive sports discipline; it was later reclassified as the 78th. E-sports-specific requirements are found in lower-level rules and normative documents issued within the GASC system. These include the Interim Provisions on the Administration of E-sports Events, the Administrative Measures for National E-sports Competitions, the Administrative Measures for the Registration and Transfer of National E-sports Athletes (Trial), the Administrative Measures for National E-sports Referees (Trial), and the Implementation Measures for the National E-sports Athletes’ Points System (Trial). The GASC has stated that it is working to clarify the distinction between e-sports and video games. E-sports also became an official medal event for the first time at the 2023 Hangzhou Asian Games.

As online games, e-sports titles must obtain a game publication and operation approval (commonly referred to as a version number) from the National Press and Publication Administration (NPPA); without such approval, they may not be operated commercially. On 22 December 2023, the NPPA published the Measures for the Administration of Online Games (Draft for Comment) for public comment, including provisions on game publication approvals. The comment period ended in January 2024, but the draft has not been promulgated and therefore has no current legal effect.

E-sports tournaments necessarily use online games. Rights in the game software and artistic elements belong to the game companies concerned, which therefore exercise substantial control over the tournaments. The civil rights and interests of the relevant parties are protected under the Copyright Law and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Continuous moving images generated by games may qualify for protection under the Copyright Law as audiovisual works (formerly described as ‘works created by methods similar to the production of films’). Disputes concerning e-sports event livestreams are governed principally by the general business-conduct clause in Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.

As to eligibility, under the Minors Protection Law and the relevant anti-addiction rules, all major tournaments have adjusted the minimum participation age to 18.

The most influential sports law case in China over the past year was the Li Tie corruption case. On 30 April 2025, the Hubei Provincial Higher People’s Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the first-instance judgment. In January 2026, the Chinese Football Association subsequently imposed a lifetime ban on Li Tie from engaging in any football-related activities on the basis of that judgment. The case remains influential.

From 2015 to 2021, while holding various positions with the Huaxia and Zhuoer clubs and serving as head coach of the Chinese national football team, Li Tie abused his authority to assist relevant entities and individuals in matters including the selection of players for the national team, the signing of contracts with clubs, and the winning of matches, and illegally accepted more than RMB 50.89 million. He also paid a bribe of RMB 1 million to secure the position of head coach of the national team and engaged in conduct constituting the crimes of offering bribes by an entity, accepting bribes as a non-State functionary, and offering bribes to a non-State functionary. The total amount involved was nearly RMB 120 million. On 13 December 2024, the Xianning Intermediate People’s Court of Hubei Province sentenced Li Tie at first instance to a combined term of 20 years’ imprisonment for the crimes of accepting bribes, offering bribes, offering bribes by an entity, accepting bribes as a non-State functionary, and offering bribes to a non-State functionary. Li Tie appealed, but on 30 April 2025 the Hubei Provincial Higher People’s Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the first-instance judgment. In January 2026, the Chinese Football Association banned Li Tie for life from all football-related activities.

The central issue was whether Li Tie qualified as a ‘State functionary’ while serving as head coach of the Chinese national football team. This directly determined whether the crime of accepting bribes or the crime of accepting bribes as a non-State functionary applied, as the maximum statutory penalties for the two offences differ significantly. The court adopted the substantive-authority approach, finding that the Chinese Football Association manages national football affairs under statutory authority and a government mandate. During his tenure as national team head coach, Li Tie in practice exercised public administrative authority over sports matters, including player selection. His functions were therefore public in nature, and he fell within the category of ‘other persons performing public service in accordance with the law’ under Article 93 of the Criminal Law. He was accordingly deemed a State functionary. The substantive-authority approach adopted in this case established a standard for determining State-functionary status in the sports sector and provides an important precedent for anti-corruption cases in the sports industry.

The case exposed deep-seated problems, including fixed pricing for player selection, match-fixing and corrupt refereeing in the league, opaque dealings involving club equity, and improper ties between Chinese Football Association officials and commercial interests. It also prompted the Ministry of Public Security, the General Administration of Sport of China, and the Chinese Football Association jointly to announce special rectification penalties concerning match-fixing, gambling, and corruption in football in January 2026. These consequences made the case a major football anti-corruption case.

The case of Yang and Liu concerning the crime of obstructing anti-doping administration was also significant, as it resulted in China’s first conviction for that crime. From March to April 2021, Yang, a member of the teaching and research staff at Jilin Institute of Physical Education, colluded with Liu, a coach at Inner Mongolia Vocational College of Physical Education. Under the guise of scientific research and training, they deceived athletes preparing to compete in major domestic sports competitions into undergoing blood reinfusion (the infusion of leukocyte-depleted red blood cell suspensions), thereby manipulating blood and blood components. They jointly performed the procedure on two athletes on four occasions, and Yang separately performed it on one athlete on two occasions, generating illegal proceeds of RMB 200,000. In January 2025, at first instance, the Hohhot Intermediate People’s Court sentenced Yang to one year and nine months’ imprisonment and fined him RMB 300,000; it sentenced Liu to one year and three months’ imprisonment and fined him RMB 150,000. The court also ordered recovery of the illegal proceeds. In April 2025, the High People’s Court of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region dismissed the appeal and affirmed the first-instance judgment.

The core issue was whether blood reinfusion, which is a prohibited method rather than a prohibited substance, fell within the statutory concept of ‘using doping’ under Article 355A of the Criminal Law. The court held that this concept extends beyond prohibited substances to prohibited methods, consistently with the broad international understanding of ‘using doping’. In this case, the manipulation of blood and blood components through blood reinfusion constituted a prohibited method under the World Anti-Doping Code, and CHINADA determined that it constituted an anti-doping rule violation.

This was China’s first conviction for the crime of obstructing anti-doping administration. It also shows how the Anti-Doping chapter added in the 2022 revision of the Sports Law—which expressly provides that criminal liability shall be pursued in accordance with the law where conduct constitutes a crime—operates together with criminal prosecution under the Criminal Law. The judgment established that the use of a prohibited method also constitutes ‘using doping’, marking a transition from indirect punishment to direct regulation of doping-related offences and making the case a landmark in anti-doping criminal justice. The case has been included in the People’s Court Case Database as a reference case (reference no. 2025-18-1-367-001) and provides guidance and a reference for adjudicating similar cases.

Separately, on 28 June 2026, the China Sports Arbitration Commission (CSAC) released its first batch of representative sports arbitration cases. This was the CSAC’s first public release of cases since its establishment. The cases cover common types of dispute in the sports industry, including field-of-play decisions, athlete registration, and competition results.

Overall, the most current and relevant sports-law issues in China include assumption of risk and safety liability in mass-participation sports activities; intellectual property protection for live sports broadcasts; addressing online abuse associated with ‘toxic fandom’ in sports; safeguarding retired athletes’ employment and commercial rights; the growth of mass-participation urban sports events and protection of event intellectual property, as exemplified by the Jiangsu Football City League (abbreviated in Chinese as ‘Suchao’); and the separation of management from operations in professional leagues and the law-based governance of sports organisations.

Topic 1: Assumption of Risk and Safety Liability in Mass-Participation Sports Activities

China actively promotes the development of sport and participation in sports activities. It encourages young people to participate in sport, requires schools to deliver the full required physical-education curriculum and to ensure that students undertake at least one hour of exercise each day, and promotes national fitness and broad public participation in sport. However, injuries frequently occur during sports activities. As entities subject to safety obligations, schools may have concerns about organising such activities, while commercial sports venues and sports training institutions often use standard-form disclaimers in an attempt to exclude or limit liability in advance. How the assumption-of-risk rule established by Article 1176 of the Civil Code applies in these settings has become a subject of academic debate.

The duty of care owed by schools and venues and the assumption-of-risk rule in sports activities are not inherently in conflict: both require schools and venues to bear liability only to the extent of their fault. In practice, courts focus on whether a school has exercised a degree of care commensurate with the students’ age, stage of education and abilities. A higher standard of care applies to students without capacity for civil conduct; for students with limited capacity for civil conduct, the focus is on whether the school has adequately performed its educational and managerial duties. For commercial sports venues and similar facilities, Article 506 of the Civil Code provides that any term excluding liability for personal injury caused to the other party is invalid, as is any term excluding liability for property damage caused intentionally or through gross negligence.

The primary future task is to harmonise adjudicative standards for allocating liability across regions.

Topic 2: Intellectual Property Issues in Live Sports Broadcasts

Article 52 of the Sports Law provides: ‘Without the permission of the organisers of sports events and activities or other relevant right holders, no person may collect or disseminate for profit photographs, audio recordings, video recordings or other relevant information from live sports events and activities.’ Together, this provision, the Copyright Law and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law regulate copyright issues relating to live broadcasts of sports events. Article 25 of the Measures for the Administration of Sports Events and Activities also provides that the names, logos, emblems, mascots, slogans, hosting rights, broadcasting rights and other intangible property rights of sports events and activities are protected by law and may not be infringed by any organisation or individual.

Debate continues over whether event footage constitutes a ‘work’ under the Copyright Law; how infringement should be determined in relation to secondary editing, short-video clips and real-time screenshot livestreams by self-media platforms; how to balance event intellectual property rights with fair use by the public; and the scope of platform safe-harbour rules in the dissemination of sports events. In practice, sports events themselves are not protected by copyright. However, live sports-event footage (sequential footage) may qualify as an audiovisual work if it is sufficiently original. Extracting event footage without authorisation to create short videos or GIFs, or to conduct real-time online livestreams, constitutes infringement.

In recent years, China has strengthened its management of sports-event copyrights, and video platforms have imposed increasingly strict restrictions on event clips and unofficial commentary. Consequently, cross-border unauthorised broadcasting has increased. Further analysis is needed to strike a balance between sports-event intellectual property rights and fair use by the public.

Topic 3: Addressing Online Violence Associated with ‘Toxic Fandom’ in Sports

Fan violence is no longer confined to physical spaces inside or outside stadiums and now also occurs online. Athletes and coaches frequently face insults, defamation and invasions of privacy, and the lawful rights and interests of sports professionals require protection.

Since 2023, online abuse associated with ‘toxic fandom’ in sports has become a specific enforcement priority. At the National Sports Publicity and Culture Work Conference held on 19 May 2026, the GASC stated that it would deepen efforts to address disorderly toxic-fandom practices, strengthen action against online abuse in sports and protect the lawful rights and interests of sports professionals in accordance with the law. The 15th Five-Year Plan for Building a Sports Power, approved by the State Council on 29 June 2026 and issued by the GASC on 8 July 2026, calls for stronger action against disorderly toxic-fandom practices in sports, the elimination of toxic-fandom culture from competitive sport, measures to prevent athletes from being turned into online influencers, tighter management of fan-support and ranking activities involving athletes, and improvements to the interdepartmental coordination mechanism for toxic-fandom governance.

Current practice suggests that legislation specifically regulating fan conduct is unlikely in the short term. Instead, authorities will continue targeted governance through interdepartmental coordination, while individual sports associations may issue sport-specific guidance reflecting the characteristics of their respective sports.

Topic 4: Protection of Retired Athletes’ Employment and Commercial Rights

As China’s sports economy has grown, public attention to athletes has extended beyond their active careers. Many fans follow athletes’ post-retirement careers and the commercial use of their personal brands.

As regards employment rights, the Sports Law sets out general principles on job placement, preferential access to higher education and vocational training for retired athletes. The framework combines government-sponsored placement with independent job-seeking. The current framework still has significant shortcomings, principally in two areas. First, its scope is narrow: policy resources are concentrated largely on a small number of top, medal-winning athletes, while ordinary athletes at grassroots level lack institutional safeguards after retirement and rely primarily on one-off financial compensation. Second, athletes have long faced tension between education and training, leaving many with weak academic foundations and a limited range of vocational skills, and therefore less competitive in the job market after retirement.

As regards commercial rights, athletes’ commercial personality rights, including their likenesses, names and public images, are protected under the Civil Code. During their active careers, however, these rights are often centrally managed and commercially exploited by sports associations. The ownership and permitted scope of use of these rights remain relatively unclear, and the commercial use by sports associations and event organisers of athletes’ competition images and honorary status is insufficiently regulated. Further regulation is also needed to clarify the boundaries between copyright in event footage and athletes’ personality rights, as well as new forms of commercial rights such as self-media IP and livestream e-commerce.

Topic 5: The Growth of Mass-Participation Urban Sports Events and Protection of Event Intellectual Property—Taking the Jiangsu Football City League (abbreviated in Chinese as ‘Suchao’) as an Example

In 2025, the Jiangsu Football City League (abbreviated in Chinese as ‘Suchao’) grew rapidly in popularity. The 2025 season ran for 176 days, recording total in-person attendance of more than 2.43 million and more than 2.2 billion online livestream viewings. The 2026 season began on 11 April 2026, and the four opening-day matches recorded combined in-person attendance of over 120,000. The league’s rapid growth quickly made protection of its intellectual property a focus of legal practice. The principal issues are: first, trade mark strategy and prevention of bad-faith registration—the league operator’s earlier application to register the ‘Suchao League’ trade mark was rejected, while identifiers such as the mascot ‘Su Dudu’ were at one point at risk of bad-faith registration; second, trade mark and copyright registration for team crests and the league’s visual symbols; and third, the scope of authorised use of athletes’ names and likenesses and event content. On 22 April 2026, the Office of the Jiangsu Provincial Leading Group for the Implementation of Intellectual Property and Trademark Strategies and the Jiangsu Provincial Sports Bureau jointly issued the Initiative on Intellectual Property Protection for the Jiangsu Football City League. The initiative states that no person may use or imitate the league’s official identifiers without official written authorisation, register related trade marks or domain names in bad faith, or trade on the league’s reputation; and that the league’s audiovisual works, posters, theme songs and other creative works may not be commercially edited, distributed or adapted without authorisation. Intellectual property rights in the event name ‘Suchao’, the official logo, the mascot ‘Su Dudu’ and original visual assets such as the participating teams’ crests have all now been secured and protected.

Intellectual property governance for mass-participation urban sports events draws on the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Copyright Law and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. As local urban sports events become more common, this is likely to become a recurring issue in sports-law practice.

Topic 6: Separation of Management from Operations in Professional Leagues and Law-Based Governance of Sports Organisations

On 23 January 2025, the Chinese Professional Football League (CFL) was formally established and assumed independent operation of the three tiers of professional football—the Chinese Super League (CSL), China League One (CL1) and China League Two (CL2). The Chinese Football Association (CFA) retains ownership and oversight of the professional leagues but no longer participates in organising or operating them. This formally implemented the reform separating league oversight from operations. Three issues are particularly important: the allocation of responsibilities between the CFL and the CFA; the relationship between the CFL’s autonomy under its charter and administrative oversight of the sector; and the allocation of responsibility for disciplinary sanctions and dispute resolution. Under the current structure, a club or player may appeal a sanction imposed by the CFL’s Disciplinary and Ethics Committee to the CFA’s Dispute Resolution Committee and may subsequently apply for arbitration to the China Sports Arbitration Commission. Together, these issues make the reform an important case study in the law-based governance of China’s sports organisations and provide a reference model for reforms of professional leagues in other sports.