In recent years, the growing complexity and tension between the autonomy of sports federations and governmental interventions have posed both theoretical and practical challenges to public law regulation. This issue is particularly pronounced in countries like Iran, where sports structures are semi-public. This article adopts a comparative approach to examine the legitimate scope of state regulation over sports federations in the legal systems of Iran, France, and the United States. Using an analytical–comparative method grounded in theories of state regulation, governance, and institutional independence, the study analyzes legal documents, administrative practices, and institutional models of the three countries. Findings indicate that France, by delegating public authority to federations, presents a state-centered model with conditional autonomy; the United States relies on self-regulation and judicial oversight; and Iran occupies a transitional and tense position between structural dependence and international obligations. Government interventions in Iran often lack institutional boundaries, leading to suspensions or international threats in sports. Based on this comparative analysis, the article proposes a conceptual model to limit state intervention, where the boundaries of regulation should be guided by public dignity, the independence of sports institutions, and adherence to international commitments.