This content has been translated from the original text.
The Olympic Games, the largest international event in sport, can give rise to many legal issues for athletes, organisers and all parties concerned. This article addresses the critical role of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in these processes and, in light of recent events at the 2024 Paris Olympics, emphasises the influence of CAS on fair decision-making and its importance in safeguarding the universal values of sport. You can find the detailed analysis in the article!
INTRODUCTION
Held since antiquity and the sporting event that attracts the greatest interest at the global level, the Olympic Games are undoubtedly the most influential and important modern sporting event. Being the world's largest international multi-sport event, with the participation of thousands of participants, support staff, officials, media representatives, athletes and spectators, brings with it many questions. The organisation, management and fair conduct of this great event have a complex structure. In this context, sports law and dispute resolution mechanisms are of great importance.
This article focuses on the functioning of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which plays a critical role in resolving disputes that may arise during the Olympic Games. While the history, jurisdiction and functioning of CAS are discussed in detail, the article also examines recent events at the 2024 Paris Olympics and the decisions CAS has given in respect of them.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND DISCIPLINARY BODIES
Disputes arising at the Olympic Games are generally resolved by the international regulatory bodies of sport and by independent arbitration panels. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) plays an important role in resolving such disputes. The powers and functioning of CAS are an important part of international sports law.
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
Headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland, and established in Los Angeles under the presidency of the Spaniard Juan Antonio Samaranch, President of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), CAS is the highest international arbitration court of sports justice and operates as an independent institution that finally resolves sports-related disputes. Composed of more than 400 arbitrators of 87 different nationalities, CAS, with an average of 900 cases a year, is one of the busiest international arbitration institutions.
The authority of CAS to resolve disputes arising from the Olympic Games derives from Rule 61.2 of the Olympic Charter. This rule contains the wording “Any dispute arising on the occasion of, or in connection with, the Olympic Games shall be submitted exclusively to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, in accordance with the Code of Sports-Related Arbitration”, and it is accepted that the competent forum for sports disputes relating to the Olympic Games is the CAS tribunals.
The rules used to resolve disputes arising during the Olympic Games have been prepared by CAS and are called the ‘Arbitration Rules for the Olympic Games’ (hereinafter the “Olympic Arbitration Rules”). For the resolution of disputes arising from the Olympic Games, CAS establishes ‘ad hoc’ divisions made up of arbitrators of recognised prestige in the field of sports law and of experts on the Olympic Games. These chambers consist of a President, a Co-President and a secretary.
The ad hoc divisions have the authority to hear any dispute arising during or in connection with the Olympic Games, starting 10 days before the opening ceremony and continuing until the closing ceremony. In this context, Article 1 of the Arbitration Rules applicable to the CAS ad hoc Division for the Olympic Games refers to Article 61 of the Olympic Charter, which provides that the Courts of Arbitration for Sport shall be competent for any dispute that arises, and all athletes accept this dispute resolution method in the entry form that they are required to sign.
Interim measures may be granted by applying the classic arbitration criteria, such as the risk of irreparable harm, the chances of success and the balance of the interests of the parties. For example, the decision to allow the Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva to compete at the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics despite a positive doping test report is an example in which the arbitration criteria can be clearly understood, since the consequences of not allowing the athlete to compete were more significant and irreparable than those of allowing her to compete.
The 2024 Paris Olympics and CAS
In light of all these explanations, the recent events and the decision that went to CAS arbitration at the 2024 Paris Olympics are as follows:
Decision of 31.07.2024: Application by the Canadian Olympic Committee and Canada Soccer (Football)
It would not be wrong to describe the most talked-about event on the agenda as the drone scandal of the Canadian women's football team. The scandal in question first emerged on 22 July, when New Zealand team officials noticed a drone flying over their training session and reported it to the police. Officials traced the drone to Lombardi, an analyst of the Canadian women's football team, and the Canadian Olympic Committee then also acknowledged a separate drone incident at a New Zealand training session on 19 July.
According to the statement made on the official FIFA page on 27 July 2024;
“Following the disciplinary proceedings opened against the Canada Soccer Association (CSA) and its officials Beverly Priestman, Joseph Lombardi and Jasmine Mander, the Chairperson of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee decided to refer the case directly to the FIFA Appeal Committee. This decision was taken pursuant to Article 56.3 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC).
This decision was taken in order to protect the rights of the parties and in view of the possible effects on the ongoing Women's Olympic Football Tournament – Final Competition of the Games of the XXXIII Olympiad, Paris 2024 (OFT).
Accordingly, after assessing all the evidence, the Chairperson of the FIFA Appeal Committee imposed the following sanctions for violations falling under Article 13 of the FDC (Offensive behaviour and violations of the principles of fair play) and Article 6.1 of the OFT Regulations (Responsibilities):
CSA: An automatic deduction of six points from the Canada Soccer women's representative team's Group A standing in the OFT and a fine of CHF 200,000.
Beverly Priestman, Joseph Lombardi and Jasmine Mander: Each official has been banned from taking part in any football-related activity for one year.
The CSA was held responsible for failing to fulfil its obligation to ensure that its officials taking part in the OFT complied with the ban on flying drones over training grounds.
The officials were held responsible for offensive behaviour and violations of the principles of fair play in relation to the use of a drone by the CSA's women's representative team.”
Regarding this disciplinary decision given by FIFA, it was made public, through a statement on the website of the Canada Soccer Association, that the Association had applied to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 29 July 2024 on the matter.
In a statement made on 31.07.2024, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) announced that the six-point deduction imposed on the Canadian women's football team at the Olympic tournament on account of the drone espionage scandal remained valid, thereby upholding the sanction given by FIFA. CAS did not give the reasons for its decision but, acknowledging the urgency of the Games, stated that it would share the details of the decision later, free from the pressure of the tournament results.
Decision of 02.08.2024: Application by the Canadian Figure Skaters, Skate Canada and the Canadian Olympic Committee (Figure Skating)
The Canadian skaters Madeline Schizas, Piper Gilles, Paul Poirier, Kirsten Moore-Towers, Michael Marinaro, Eric Radford, Vanessa James and Roman Sadovsky, together with Skate Canada and the Canadian Olympic Committee (COC), had lodged an appeal with CAS against the re-ranking decision of the International Skating Union (ISU), announced on 30 January 2024, concerning the final standings of the figure skating team event at the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics. The Canadian applicants had asked CAS for a decision re-ranking the figure skating team event as the USA (Gold), Japan (Silver) and Canada (Bronze); however, the CAS panel of arbitrators ruled that the results of the Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva in the Olympic Figure Skating Team Event had been correctly disqualified and that, under the ISU rules, following the retroactive disqualification of Kamila Valieva there was no possibility of reallocating points in favour of the Canadian Team.
The Panel issued the operative part of the Arbitral Award. It was stated that the full text of the award and its reasons would be published as soon as possible.
Decision of 05.08.2024: Applications by Adrien Coulibaly and Dany Brand (Athletics)
The application by the French 400m runner Adrien Coulibaly against the decision of the French National Olympic and Sports Committee (CNOSF) not to enter him in the 4x400m relay event at the Paris 2024 Olympic Games was rejected, as the arbitrator appointed to decide the application stated that CAS had no jurisdiction on this matter. The applicant had asked the CAS Ad hoc Division for a decision annulling the Challenged Decision and including an additional athlete in the list for the 4x400m relay. Arbitrator Carine Dupeyron (FRA) held a hearing with the parties on 3 August 2024 at the Tribunal de Paris. Because of the urgency of the matter, the arbitrator announced only this part of the decision; it was stated that the full decision, together with its reasons, would be published later.
The application by the Swiss athlete Dany Brand to CAS for a decision stating that he was entitled to take part in the Men's 400m hurdles at the 2024 Olympic Games in Paris following the withdrawal of Ludvy Vaillant was rejected.
In his application to CAS, the applicant had argued that he should compete following the withdrawal of Ludvy Vaillant; however, with the agreement of the parties, the arbitrator Lars Hilliger (DEN), on the basis of the parties' written submissions and without holding a hearing, owing to the urgency of the matter announced only the decision rejecting the application. It was stated that the full decision, together with its reasons, would be published later.
CONCLUSION
This article has focused on the role of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in the Olympic process. It has also examined the various legal issues that arose during the 2024 Paris Olympics and the CAS decisions relating to them.
The legal events at the Olympic Games reveal the dynamic nature of sports law and the capacity of the international sporting community to deal with such problems. The rapid and effective decision-making processes of CAS play a vital role in protecting the rights of athletes and other parties concerned. In a large-scale and multi-dimensional event such as the Olympic Games, the effective management of legal processes is of critical importance for preserving the integrity of sport.
In conclusion, the Olympic Games and the related legal processes constitute an important example of how sport is regulated at the international level. By protecting the rights and responsibilities of athletes, organisers and all other parties concerned, these processes ensure that sport continues within a framework consistent with its universal values.
Aleyna Nur Acır, Attorney at Law
