The architecture of sporting justice: mapping the judicial bodies of international sports federations

Sport federations occupy a unique space of quasi-sovereignty, exercising normative and adjudicatory authority through transnational legal systems. This article examines the internal adjudicatory structures of 39 federations through a socio-legal lens, developing a typology of their justice architectures into three distinct models: externalised, centralised, and multi-tiered. Drawing methodological and theoretical inspiration from constitutional frameworks, the study constructs a dataset that facilitates both comparative analysis and theoretical reflection. Yet, this is not a paper solely about institutional form. Rather, its theoretical framework reflects on how the architecture of sporting justice obscures and reveals power. Empirical correlations between model type and publication levels, doping adjudication, or gross income reveal partial truths, but also highlight systemic opacity and the limits of formal structures. The paper argues that internal justice systems are less about neutral dispute resolution and more about the institutionalisation of authority under the guise of procedural justice. These systems, which mimic constitutional orders, operate without the democratic legitimacy or public accountability typically found in public spheres. Thus, the paper makes a dual contribution: it maps the adjudicatory infrastructures of international federations and offers a critical reading of their role in sustaining transnational private power. The findings suggest that adjudicatory form should not be mistaken for function, and that justice in sport requires not only better design but deeper scrutiny.