The norms of ethics in sport have practically merged with the disciplinary norms of sports federations. However, the apparent identity of ethical duties and disciplinary duties has not resolved the existing problems of law enforcement. Ethical norms enshrined in the acts of sports federations must meet certain standards of law. In this case, we are referring to the general principles of legal certainty and proportionality, as well as some other related principles. These principles are the first and main guarantees for the subject of sport in case of a breach of an ethical obligation. They are used at different stages of disciplinary liability. Legal certainty protects against unclear ethical norms and unpredictable consequences of their use by sports federations. Proportionality obliges the measure of disciplinary responsibility not to exceed the necessary negative effect of coercion. The ethical obligation to abstain from disrepute is widespread in the acts of federations. The practice of non-disrepute has been intensified by geopolitical events of 2022. The examples of the practice on non-disrepute do not allow us to state that legal certainty and proportionality really protect in any situation from improper disciplinary liability. The tendency has appeared to understand the reputation of sports and sports federations through the prism of the public positions of a particular federation. Confrontation with such positions automatically creates the risk of disciplinary liability. Similarly, the test for real harm to reputation is ignored unlike potential harm or harm existing only in subjective judgements.