Legal Literacy- The pace of sports development in Indonesia shows rapid dynamics, not only in terms of achievement but also in the management of its organization. One of the interesting phenomena lately is the popularity of Padel. This racket sport, which is a hybridization of tennis and squash, has quickly attracted public interest, triggering the proliferation of facilities and increasing the intensity of organizing tournaments, both nationally and internationally. However, behind this euphoria of exponential growth, a crucial discourse emerges that touches the foundation of national sports governance: To what extent is the legitimacy and authority of the Indonesian Padel Association (PBPI) in regulating and providing recommendations for organizing Padel tournaments? This question became fundamental after the enactment of Law Number 11 of 2022 concerning Sports (hereinafter referred to as Law 11/2022). As a new legal framework, this law brings a stricter paradigm in defining the roles, functions, and limitations of the authority of the parent organization of sports branches. In a state of law, claims of authority cannot only be based on activityde factoor public perception, but must be firmly rooted in juridical legitimacy (de jure). This legal opinion will elaborate in depth the position and authority of PBPI in the context of organizing Padel tournaments, referring to a normative analysis of the provisions of Law 11/2022 and the legal profile of PBPI itself.

  1. Juridical Identity Crisis: Specificity as an Absolute Condition for Legitimacy

The main foundation in analyzing the authority of PBPI lies in its own definition. Article 1 paragraph (24) of Law 11/2022 explicitly stipulates that:"The Parent Organization of Sports Branches is a Sports Organization that fosters, develops, and coordinates 1 (one) type of Sports Branch."This provision requires absolute specificity—the principle of specialization and focus. This is not just an administrative formality, but the essence of accountability and effectiveness in sports development. An organization cannot claim to be the official parent if its articles of association or association profile are still generic or ambiguous. However, if we refer to the profile of the PBPI Association—which is officially recorded at the Directorate General of General Legal Administration (Ditjen AHU)—there is a fundamental void. In the section on the aims and functions of PBPI, it is indicated that there is no specific mention ofolahraga padel. Failure to meet the imperative requirements mandated by Article 1 paragraph (24) has serious implications. Without a clear and specific juridical identity related to Padel, PBPI's legitimacy to act as a "Parent Organization" as intended by the law becomes vulnerable to question, and may even be considered null and void by law.