The case revolves around a dispute between the Brazilian Olympic Committee (BOC), the Brazilian Taekwondo Confederation (BTC), and athlete Márcio Wenceslau Ferreira against the World Taekwondo Federation (WTF), the Mexican Olympic Committee (COM), the Mexican Taekwondo Federation (FMT), and athlete Damian Alejandro Villa Valadez. The conflict stemmed from a taekwondo match during the Pan-American Qualification Tournament for the 2012 London Olympics, where Ferreira initially led Villa 7-6. However, judges awarded Villa 3 points for a head kick in the final moments, altering the result. The Brazilian side contested this decision, arguing the kick did not connect and sought a review to qualify Ferreira for the Olympics.
The appellants first appealed to the Pan-American Taekwondo Union (PATU), which went unanswered, and later to the WTF. The WTF upheld the original decision, citing procedural rules: the Brazilian coach had already used his single permitted video review appeal during the match, and the judges had confirmed the result post-match. The WTF emphasized its commitment to fair judging but stated that field-of-play decisions are final unless there is evidence of bad faith or arbitrariness.
The case was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which examined its jurisdiction and the merits. The CAS ruled that only accredited Olympic athletes could invoke Article 61(2) of the Olympic Charter to appeal, and Ferreira, not yet qualified, did not meet this criterion. Additionally, the CAS confirmed that a decision, even if communicated informally, constitutes a binding ruling if it produces legal effects.
On the substantive issue, the CAS upheld the "field of play" doctrine, which prevents arbitral review of referees' decisions unless there is direct evidence of bad faith or arbitrariness. The appellants provided no such evidence, only disputing the judgment call. The CAS also noted that procedural remedies (video review and judge confirmation) had been exhausted, leaving no legal basis for further appeal.
The CAS dismissed the appeal, affirming the WTF’s decision and reinforcing that sports governing bodies retain authority over in-competition rulings absent clear misconduct. The ruling underscores the limited scope for challenging refereeing decisions in sports arbitration and highlights the importance of adhering to established rules and precedents. The Panel emphasized that while referees may make errors, not every mistake warrants review, as the field of play doctrine protects the autonomy of on-field decisions. The decision ultimately reinforced the principle that participants must accept referees' judgments unless there is clear evidence of misconduct.