This article introduces the Court of Arbitration for Sport as performing the role of a private global “sports judiciary”. The International Olympic Committee established the CAS to provide the sport sector with an independent and specialized dispute resolution organ. This article provides an evaluation of this alternative in the light of the specifics of sport, and compared to ordinary courts. It first explores concerns about the independence and credibility of the CAS. After this institutional background, the article demonstrates the procedures that the CAS offers, especially the so-called Appeal procedures. This procedure makes the CAS special in comparison with other arbitration tribunals and closer in function to state courts. From there, the article explores the issue of precedent (Stare decisis) in arbitration. In light of the judicial review by the Swiss Federal Tribunal in the Matuzalem case, the CAS is often seen as uneasily straddling the border between sports regulation and general law. A Czech football case described in this article may point the way to a resolution of this dilemma, since it has a similar controversy to the Matuzalem case. An exploration of this case by CAS will allow us to see what remains of the scope of review of the CAS and its reflections in the sports world. The article concludes that this very detailed private dispute resolution is indeed similar to state courts and provides a functioning and effective “Highest court of sports”.