Romania does not have a single, nationwide sports tribunal with compulsory jurisdiction, but, during this time, private initiatives have attempted to set up independent arbitration institutions. The turning point has been represented by Decision no. 10/17th of June 2024, issued by the Romanian High Court of Cassation and Justice, applicable “erga omnes”, which clarified that associations and foundations can only organise institutional arbitration if expressly authorised by the law. Therefore, the aforementioned private initiatives are not considered to meet the mandatory conditions required for institutional arbitration. In other words, no private body can operate as a national sports tribunal in Romania without an express law enacted for that purpose.

Unlike other jurisdictions, there is no sports ombudsman and no specialised mediation or conciliation scheme; a general mediation framework exists but is rarely used in practice. The closest structure in Romania is the Athletes’ Commission within the Romanian Olympic and Sports Committee (“COSR”), which serves as a representative body ensuring that athletes’ views are heard in decision-making processes. However, this commission has an advisory and consultative role rather than an independent mandate: it does not adjudicate disputes, mediate conflicts, or provide remedies in cases of abuse, discrimination or safeguarding concerns. In this sense, it cannot be considered equivalent to a sports ombudsman, as its function is limited to representation and dialogue within COSR’s governance framework.

In accordance with Law no. 69/2000 on Physical Education and Sport, each national federation has the right to operate on the basis of their own statute. Typically, national federations, through their statute, establish an internal judicial system, meant to solve contractual, disciplinary, and ethical disputes.

For example, with regard to Professional Football, the Romanian Football Federation (“FRF”) has created its own judicial structure, with the National Dispute Resolution Chamber (“CNSL”) at its core, jurisdictional body which rules on Player vs. Club/ Club vs. Player/ Club vs. Club contractual issues, while disciplinary matters go before the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission. In both cases, challenges against awards issued by the aforementioned judicial bodies are to be deferred to the Recourse Committee. Furtherly, the FRF`s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players are explicit, in the sense that decisions of the Recourse Committee are final and enforceable domestically and may be challenged exclusively before CAS in Lausanne.

In addition, following the recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-600/23, it remains to be seen how Romanian courts and sports institutions will adapt their practices in order to ensure compliance with EU Law, taking into account that the Court held that arbitral awards of the Court of Arbitration for Sport cannot automatically acquire res judicata effect within a Member State if they have not been subject to effective judicial review by a national court empowered to make a preliminary reference to the CJEU, nor can such awards be given binding probative value vis-à-vis the parties or third parties absent that review.

Moving further, we mention that other federations follow a similar pattern of internal adjudication, with first-instance commissions and appeal bodies, though the availability of CAS jurisdiction depends strictly on whether it is expressly provided for in the relevant statutes or regulations. For instance, the Romanian Handball Federation has two layers of jurisdictional bodies. Decisions of the Appeal Commission are final and enforceable domestically, with no determined recourse to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

The aforementioned limitation has also been highlighted in basketball, which offers a cautionary example: in cases CAS 2024/A/10406; CAS 2024/A/10364; CAS 2024/A/10488, involving Sepsi SIC and the Romanian Basketball Federation, CAS dismissed all Sepsi SIC’s appeals for lack of jurisdiction, specifically because the relevant federation regulation (Article 21.3 of the Romanian Basketball Federation`s Regulations on Games, Official Competitions, and Homologations) did not provide for appeals to CAS in those situations. The cases illustrate that CAS jurisdiction cannot be presumed and must be conferred in clear and unequivocal terms by the relevant statutes or regulations of the national federation in question.

Anti-doping matters are regulated, however, through a specialised structure, which is governed directly by Law no. 310/2021 on the Prevention and Combating of Doping in Sport, with the Romanian National Anti-Doping Agency (“ANAD”) being the autonomous authority in this field. According to Law no. 310/2021 on the Prevention and Combating of Doping in Sport, case adjudication at national level is entrusted to two independent bodies, the Hearing Commission and the Appeal Commission, thereby ensuring compliance with the World Anti-Doping Code. For national-level athletes, decisions of the Appeal Commission are final within the domestic system, though they may be further appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne only by certain international stakeholders such as WADA, the relevant international federation, or the International Olympic or Paralympic Committees. By contrast, in cases involving international-level athletes or competitions, Article 61 of Law no. 310/2021 provides that decisions of ANAD or of the Hearing Commission are subject to appeal exclusively before the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne.

This dual-track system entirely reflects the WADA Code, but has been debated in Romania, as it is considered to prevent national athletes from challenging anti-doping decisions before ordinary courts or CAS.

With regard to the matter of “arbitrability” of cases, the Romanian Civil Procedure Code expressly excludes from arbitration all disputes concerning non-disposable rights, such as personal status, capacity, family relations or succession. To this category we may also add matters involving public obligations owed to the State, for example taxes and social contributions which clubs are legally bound to pay. Even if financial in nature, these are not freely disposable rights: disputes on unpaid taxes or fiscal debts are settled exclusively before the competent national courts and cannot be diverted into sports arbitration.

By contrast, civil disputes that arise within the sporting relationship, such as contractual claims under sports activity contracts, or disciplinary and regulatory issues under federation statutes are “arbitrable”, provided that the relevant statutes or contracts contain a valid arbitration clause.

Romania does not have a standalone code of sports law, with the field instead governed primarily by Law no. 69/2000 on Physical Education and Sport, that has been amended on multiple occasions to address the professionalisation of sport, financing mechanisms and the contractual framework for athletes. This law sets out the legal basis for the organisation of sporting activity, recognition of sports structures and the relationship between the state and private sporting entities.

The National Agency for Sport (“ANS”) reorganised in 2023 under the direct coordination of the Government, acts as the central authority in this field. Its responsibilities include:

• recognising and financing national sports federations;
• monitoring their compliance with the law and with their own statutes; and
• implementing national policy documents such as the National Strategy for Sport 2023–2032, which aims to increase participation in sport, modernise infrastructure and strengthen governance standards.

Oversight is complemented by two specialised autonomous bodies:

• The Romanian National Anti-Doping Agency (“ANAD”), which ensures compliance with the World Anti-Doping Code through testing, investigations, prevention and education programmes, while disciplinary hearings are conducted by independent adjudicatory commissions established under the law; and
• the Romanian Olympic and Sports Committee (“COSR”), a non-governmental organisation of public utility that represents Romania in the Olympic Movement and coordinates Olympic disciplines.

For a better understanding, we further state that each sport is then organised and administered by a national federation, established under general association law and officially recognised by ANS. While federations enjoy internal autonomy in managing their sport, they remain subject to the statutory framework and to governmental oversight, especially in relation to the use of public funds.

In sum, Romania’s sports governance reflects a hybrid model: a central state authority (“ANS”), autonomous bodies with specialised mandates (“ANAD” and “COSR”), and federations exercising a degree of self-regulation, thus representing a structure that we can consider as being influenced both by domestic policy priorities and international sports governance standards.

The regulation of advertising and marketing in Romanian sport is layered, combining general advertising rules, sector-specific restrictions, and federation guidelines. In practice, sponsorship patterns differ significantly across industries.

Tobacco has virtually disappeared from sport. Smoking is banned in stadiums, sports halls, and other enclosed public spaces, which has eliminated the visibility of traditional tobacco brands. A more recent development is the promotion of electronic smoking devices, such as e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products. These enjoy wider advertising opportunities at the national level, yet sponsorship in sport remains absent, as clubs and federations generally avoid partnerships linked to tobacco products.

Alcohol occupies a paradoxical position. While alcohol advertising in media is subject to time-band and content restrictions, and the sale or consumption of alcohol is prohibited inside stadiums, sports halls, and nearby areas, advertising in sport is not banned. As a result, supporters cannot legally consume alcohol during matches but are consistently exposed to alcohol brands through sponsorships. A prominent example is a leading Romanian beer producer acting as the main sponsor of the national football team, with visibility on jerseys and in official campaigns. It is worth noting that a recent legislative proposal (294/2025) has been submitted in Parliament to amend Law no. 4/2008 so as to allow the sale and consumption of low-alcohol beverages (up to 5% ABV) in stadiums.

Betting and gambling represent the most visible category of sponsorship in Romanian sport. Many top-tier football clubs carry betting logos on their kits and around stadiums. Advertising is allowed, provided it carries responsible-gambling warnings and 18+ restrictions. However, the regulatory landscape changed in June 2025, when the National Audiovisual Council (“CNA”) prohibited the use of athletes, celebrities, and influencers in gambling promotions and introduced a restricted advertising window between 06:00 and 23:00, with a narrow exception for live sports broadcasts. This reform has curtailed betting ads during peak hours, although sponsorship presence inside stadiums and on uniforms remains widespread.

In summary, tobacco is entirely excluded from sport, while alcohol and betting are subject to restrictions.

Match-fixing and similar illicit practices are addressed in Romania through a dual framework of criminal law and sports disciplinary rules. The Criminal Code sanctions bribery and fraud, provisions that apply directly to attempts to corrupt sporting outcomes. In parallel, the Law on Physical Education and Sport (Law no. 69/2000) and federation disciplinary regulations prohibit the manipulation of matches, imposing sanctions that range from suspensions to lifetime bans. For example, the Romanian Football Federation, the Romanian Handball Federation and the Romanian Basketball Federation actively cooperate with law enforcement and international governing bodies such as UEFA and FIFA, or as the case may be, the European Handball Federation and the International Basketball Federation, relying on integrity officers, monitoring systems and information-sharing platforms to identify suspicious activity.

At the time of drafting the present document, Romania has only signed but not yet ratified the Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions (the Macolin Convention). Even without ratification, Romanian authorities remain engaged in international integrity initiatives and collaborative programs promoted by the Council of Europe and major federations.

The betting industry plays a prominent role in Romanian sport, both as a source of sponsorship and as a focal point of regulation. Betting is governed by Government Emergency Ordinance no. 77/2009, under the supervision of the National Gambling Office. Only licensed operators may provide or advertise betting services, while also being subject to capitalisation thresholds, responsible-gambling obligations and restrictions designated to protect minors.

In practice, match-fixing is tackled through criminal prosecution, disciplinary sanctions, and betting regulation. Yet, challenges persist given the visibility and financial weight of betting operators in Romanian sport, compounded by the fact that the Macolin Convention remains unratified.

As already outlined in connection with anti-doping disputes, the National Anti-Doping Agency (“ANAD”) acts as the autonomous authority in charge of prevention, control, and enforcement in this area. The adjudicatory side, however, is carried out by two independent judicial bodies, respectively, the Hearing Commission and the Appeal Commission. Their independence is intended to guarantee impartiality and alignment with the World Anti-Doping Code. For athletes competing at the national level, the decisions of the Appeal Commission are final domestically, although international stakeholders such as WADA, the competent international federation, or the International Olympic and Paralympic Committees retain the right to challenge them further. In contrast, when international-level athletes or competitions are concerned, Article 61 of Law no. 310/2021 stipulates that decisions of ANAD or of the Hearing Commission must be appealed exclusively to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne.

Integrity in other areas is safeguarded through a combination of federation-level structures and general state authorities. Typically, national federations have disciplinary and ethics commissions established under their statutes, aligned with the codes of their respective international governing bodies (e.g. FIFA, UEFA, EHF, FIBA). For example, the Romanian Football Federation`s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission applies rules largely harmonised with FIFA and UEFA standards.

At a broader level, the Romanian Olympic and Sports Committee (COSR) has established its own Ethics Committee, which promotes compliance with ethical standards within the Olympic movement and provides guidance on integrity issues across sports.

Matters of discrimination fall under the jurisdiction of the National Council for Combating Discrimination (“CNCD”). CNCD decisions may be challenged before the national courts. Precisely because many of its past rulings did not adequately reflect the specific features of sport, there is a risk that in sensitive matters such as racism in stadiums or gender discrimination in competitions, the effectiveness of CNCD’s intervention may be undermined.

Cases of harassment, abuse or safeguarding violations are not overseen by a dedicated sports integrity body. Depending on their severity, they are either handled internally within federations or prosecuted by the criminal justice system. Romania has taken steps towards alignment with international safeguarding frameworks, but enforcement remains inconsistent and dependent on the initiative of individual federations.

Overall, the Romanian integrity system functions as a mosaic of specialised agencies and federation mechanisms: ANAD ensures compliance with WADA standards in anti-doping, federations, typically through their dedicated judicial body regulate disciplinary and ethical issues, CNCD addresses discrimination, and the national courts intervene where criminal or civil liability arises. This fragmented framework offers only partial coverage and highlights the need for a unified body to oversee integrity in Romanian sport.

Corruption in Romanian sport is addressed through a dual framework of criminal law and sports regulations. The Criminal Code and Law no. 78/2000 criminalise bribery and influence peddling, and unlike in some jurisdictions, these provisions also apply when the act takes place between private individuals. Offering money or other benefits to players, referees or officials to influence the outcome of a match is therefore a matter for criminal prosecution, regardless of whether state officials are involved.

At the same time, federations regulate corruption through their own disciplinary rules. The FRF Disciplinary Regulations, for instance, prohibit offering or accepting advantages intended to manipulate a match. Sanctions can be severe: from fines and suspensions to points deductions or even exclusion from competitions. Other federations have similar provisions, often harmonised with the codes of their international bodies, such as UEFA or FIFA.

Perhaps the most famous illustration is the so-called “briefcase case” in Romanian football. In May 2008, prosecutors investigated a cash-filled briefcase containing €1.7 million, allegedly prepared by FC Steaua București’s management as an incentive for Universitatea Cluj players to win their final league match against CFR Cluj, the latter being Steaua’s direct rival for the title at that time. The National Anticorruption Directorate pursued the case, and in 2013 the High Court of Cassation and Justice (“ICCJ”) handed down final convictions, including prison sentences and the confiscation of the money. The case remains emblematic in Romania as a demonstration of how criminal law can intervene to protect the integrity of sport, even where corruption occurs between private actors.

Civil liability theoretically exists as well, clubs or sponsors harmed by manipulated results could seek damages in court, but in practice, enforcement relies almost entirely on criminal prosecution and federation discipline.

In short, corruption in Romanian sport is prosecuted as a crime even in private-to-private settings, while federations complement this with sporting sanctions designated to preserve the integrity of competition.

Fan behaviour in Romania is regulated through Law no. 4/2008 on the prevention and combating of violence at sports events, a statute drafted in line with the European Convention on Spectator Violence (1985) and reinforced by EU accession commitments. The law was adopted following a series of violent incidents in the early 2000s and has since become the cornerstone of spectator regulation.

The framework places strong emphasis on prevention. Organisers are obliged to declare high-risk matches to the gendarmerie, draw up safety plans, install and operate video surveillance, separate rival supporter groups, prohibit alcohol sales inside stadiums, display internal regulations, and communicate safety obligations throughout events. Matches are classified by risk level in cooperation with the gendarmerie, considering factors such as rivalries, the history of incidents, and the anticipated crowd size.

Spectators who breach the rules face fines and, in addition, ban orders essentially prohibiting them from attending sporting events for periods of up to one year. Such sanctions are applied in practice and, where challenged, have been upheld by the competent authorities and courts; pitch invasions and comparable public-order offences routinely attract fines and event-attendance bans under the current framework. More serious misconduct, such as the unauthorised use of pyrotechnics, triggers criminal liability under Law no. 126/1995 on explosives and the Criminal Code, with penalties reaching up to seven years’ imprisonment in aggravated circumstances.

The Ministry of Internal Affairs, through the Romanian Gendarmerie and Police, plays a central role in enforcing the law. Their presence is mandatory at medium and high-risk matches, and they work alongside organisers to approve and implement safety plans. Their powers extend to removing offenders, issuing fines, and reporting crimes for prosecution.

Since its entry into force, Law no. 4/2008 has had a measurable impact: the frequency and severity of violent incidents in Romanian stadiums have declined significantly compared to the pre 2008 period. While isolated clashes still occur, especially in high-profile derbies, overall safety standards have improved thanks to stricter enforcement, more effective crowd management, and educational campaigns aimed at promoting fair play and civic behaviour. At the same time, ongoing legislative initiatives seek to recalibrate the framework by reducing certain sanctions and creating a more favourable regime for the fans.

In Romania, sports clubs may be organised, in a restrictive way, either as non-profit associations or as sports joint-stock companies, and they are obliged to obtain a Sports Identity Certificate issued by the National Agency for Sport, pursuant to Law no. 69/2000 on Physical Education and Sport. At the moment, football is the only sport with a formally established professional league, which also triggers a specific restriction: public-law clubs are not allowed to compete within the professional league structure. In other sports such as handball, volleyball or basketball, no professional league exists in the legal sense, even if athletes perform under professional-like conditions. Consequently, public-law clubs may still participate in the top national divisions of those sports. Associations are governed by Government Ordinance no. 26/2000 on associations and foundations, while sports joint-stock companies fall under Companies Law no. 31/1990 alongside the special provisions of Law no. 69/2000.

Unlike other jurisdictions, Romania does impose restrictions on ownership, but only for sports joint-stock companies. According to Article 32 para. (5) of Law no. 69/2000, the participation of foreign natural or legal persons in the share capital of professional sports clubs organised as joint-stock companies cannot exceed 49% of the total shares. In addition, no shareholder may simultaneously hold shares in two or more such companies within the same sport, in order to prevent conflicts of interest. These statutory safeguards do not apply, however, to non-profit associations organised under Government Ordinance no. 26/2000 on associations and foundations, where no such ownership limits exist. In practice, this dual regime means that foreign investors face restrictions only when the club operates as a sports joint-stock company, while association-based clubs remain open to broader participation. When applicable, federation licensing systems operate alongside these statutory rules, supervising ownership structures, financial soundness and governance standards. In football, for instance, the Romanian Football Federation applies a licensing regime modelled on UEFA’s Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations, which requires clubs to demonstrate compliance with sporting, financial, infrastructure and administrative criteria.

Romanian law does not recognise special fan ownership models such as the German “50+1” system. Supporter involvement is possible only under general association law or through minority shareholdings, subject to the legal restrictions mentioned above. At the same time, a number of clubs continue to operate as publicly owned entities or to rely on municipal support, particularly in handball, basketball or volley, which reflects the strong role of local authorities in financing sport.

In short, the Romanian framework combines flexibility in the choice of legal form with strict statutory safeguards: professional clubs must be licensed by their federations, foreign ownership in joint-stock clubs is capped at 49%, and multi-club ownership in the same sport is expressly prohibited. Law no. 69/2000 has been subject to repeated attempts of reform in order to keep pace with the evolving realities of professional sport.

Romanian law expressly prohibits multi-club ownership within the same sport at the national level. However, this restriction does not extend to cross-border situations, with the clearest example being represented by the case of an investor who controls Rapid București, football club who activates in the Romanian professional first league, while also holding the majority stake in Genoa CFC in Italy’s Serie A. This kind of cross-border portfolio situates Romanian football within the wider European debate on multi-club ownership and its impact on integrity and competition.

Domestically, most private investors focus on a single club, usually in football, which remains the most commercially attractive sport. However, in football, as in basketball or handball, ownership structures are typically municipal or based on sponsorship from state-owned companies, making this the predominant model across Romania’s major sports and leaving little room for multi-sport or multi-club portfolios at the national level.

In comparative perspective, while multi-club ownership is already well entrenched internationally, with groups like City Football Group or investors holding parallel stakes in several European teams, in Romania the phenomenon is still emerging. The involvement of Romanian investors in clubs abroad, alongside their domestic holdings, illustrates how the local market is beginning to reflect global trends, though on a smaller scale.

In short, while multi-sport ownership remains absent in Romania, the first examples of cross-border multi-club ownership have already appeared. These cases link Romanian sport to the broader European conversation about shared ownership, financial synergies, and the risks of competitive imbalance.

Romania lacks a binding national regime specifically regulating the activity of football agents. The Romanian Football Federation had previously adopted a Regulation on Intermediaries, but that instrument is no longer in force. At the moment, the representation of players and coaches is governed directly by the FIFA Football Agent Regulations (“FFAR”), which entered into effect in 2023.

The FFAR establish the applicable framework in Romania, introducing licensing requirements, limits on dual representation, caps on commissions, and special safeguards for minor athletes.

However, this framework is currently under judicial scrutiny at European level. In Case C-209/23, RRC Sports v. FIFA, pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union, the compatibility of the FFAR with EU Competition Law and the freedom to provide services is being challenged. The ruling will determine whether FIFA’s regulatory model, including commission caps and licensing obligations, can be applied uniformly across all Member States, Romania included.

Outside football, athlete representation is not subject to specific national provisions. General civil and Labour Law principles apply, with federations occasionally setting their own rules, but no national restrictions on commissions or dual representation exist beyond those introduced by international federations.

In short, the representation of athletes in Romania is effectively regulated by international federation rules rather than domestic law. In football, the FFAR set the binding framework, while the pending CJEU ruling will be decisive in confirming whether FIFA’s model stands or must be reshaped to comply with EU Law.

There is no specific national legislation in Romania regulating the participation of transgender athletes in competitive sport, with no national laws that establish eligibility rules, hormonal thresholds or procedural safeguards specific to this category of athletes.

In international sport, federations’ policies like those of World Athletics or the IOC may set eligibility criteria (testosterone levels, transition periods, etc.), and Romanian athletes or federations wishing to compete internationally must comply with those. Domestically, however, there are no (publicly known) cases litigated specifically over transgender athlete eligibility, though advocacy groups have called for legislative or regulatory clarity.

The broader debate in Romania remains limited and fragmented. In short, the participation of transgender athletes is not regulated by national law or federation rules but rather determined in practice by the eligibility criteria imposed by international sports governing bodies. As public awareness increases, there is emerging pressure for formal regulation to ensure clarity, fairness and consistency, especially regarding the recognition of gender identity, how identity documents are handled, and how to align with international sports governing bodies.

Romania does not yet have a specific legal framework dedicated to e-sports. No statute or federation regulation currently addresses matters such as licensing, contractual models, player protection or institutional recognition of e-sports as a distinct sport discipline. For now, activities in this field fall under general commercial, contractual and tax law, with occasional reliance on the general provisions of sports law by analogy.

In 2023, a legislative proposal was introduced to amend Law no. 69/2000 on Physical Education and Sport in order to expressly recognise e-sports and provide rules for their organisation and governance. The initiative has not advanced into binding legislation, but it reflects growing awareness of the need for regulation in this area. Another proposal (PLx 638/2022) had the same objective, namely the explicit recognition of e-sports as part of the national sports system. However, this initiative was rejected after the Senate and later the Youth and Sports Committee of the Chamber of Deputies concluded that e-sports cannot be classified as a sport under the current definition of Law 69/2000, which requires a component of physical activity. The Committee further argued that e-sports are closer to the category of leisure activities and that their inclusion as a separate pillar of the sports system would contradict the three-pillar structure (performance sport, sport for all, school and university sport) established by the law.

Meanwhile, the e-sports industry in Romania has expanded rapidly, with professional teams, tournaments and sponsorship agreements operating in practice despite the absence of a tailored legal regime. This shows a widening gap between the fast-paced growth of the market and the lack of dedicated legislation, a gap that lawmakers have already acknowledged but not yet addressed.

Perhaps the most high-profile matter was represented by the case of Simona Halep, former world no. 1 in women`s tennis. In 2023, the International Tennis Integrity Agency (“ITIA”) imposed a four-year suspension following a positive test for Roxadustat at the 2022 US Open and irregularities in her Athlete Biological Passport. Halep appealed to CAS, which held hearings in February 2024.

In its award, CAS upheld her argument that the substance had been ingested unintentionally through a contaminated supplement and reduced the sanction to nine months, backdated to include her provisional suspension. This enabled her immediate return to competition.

A significant domestic case has been the long-running conflict between the now “FCSB” and CSA (“Army Sports Club”) Steaua București, concerning the use of the “Steaua” name, brand and historical records. The litigation began in 2011 and has spanned multiple proceedings before the Bucharest Tribunal, the Bucharest Court of Appeal and the Romanian High Court of Cassation and Justice. The representatives of the CSA Steaua Bucuresti successfully argued that the intellectual property rights over the “Steaua” mark belong exclusively to CSA, which had registered the trademark. As a result of these rulings, the now “FCSB” could no longer use the name of “Steaua” and, in 2017, changed its official name to FCSB. Separate proceedings have also addressed the question of historical honours (championship titles and trophies won before 2003), with courts holding that these belong to CSA, not to FCSB.

Another landmark matter in Romania in the last year was that of Ana Maria Bărbosu, concerning her disputed third place in the Gymnastics floor exercise final at the Paris 2024 Olympics. Jordan Chiles had filed an inquiry that raised her score after the competition, which would have moved her into the bronze medal position over Bărbosu. However, Romania successfully appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Ad Hoc Division – Games of the XXXIII Olympiad in Paris, arguing the inquiry was submitted after the one-minute deadline specified in Article 8.5 of the FIG Technical Regulations. CAS upheld the argument, furtherly reinstated the original score and ordered medal reallocation. Bărbosu was ultimately awarded the bronze medal. At the moment, actions challenging the CAS decision are pending before the Swiss Federal Tribunal.

One of the most pressing discussions in Romanian sports law concerns the modernisation of Law no. 69/2000 on Physical Education and Sport, a law that has been repeatedly amended but is increasingly out of step with present realities. Among the key issues under debate are the clarification of the legal forms available for sports structures, the transparency and sustainability of federation financing, and the proper regulation of contractual models for athletes. Calls for the inclusion of emerging fields such as e-sports further underline the urgency of an update.

At the same time, the need to refresh Law no. 4/2008 on the prevention of violence at sporting events is becoming evident. While the law established an effective safety framework, the passage of time has exposed shortcomings: new technologies in stadium security, the use of digital evidence, and more flexible banning measures are areas where practice has outpaced regulation.

A third area of active debate is the relationship between sport and betting. Betting operators remain among the largest sponsors of Romanian clubs and competitions, yet recent restrictions on advertising illustrate the regulatory uncertainty that surrounds this sector. Policymakers are increasingly challenged to balance the economic importance of betting sponsorships with robust integrity safeguards against match-fixing and clearer standards for responsible gambling.

Taken together, these debates point to the same underlying issue: the legislative framework for sport has not kept pace with the fast-changing conditions of the last years. Reform proposals are discussed regularly but their adoption is often delayed, leaving federations, clubs and sponsors to operate in a grey zone where practice moves faster than the rulebook. The coming years will show whether Romanian lawmakers can deliver the long-awaited alignment of the legal framework with the needs of modern sport.