The case revolves around a dispute between the Japan Paralympic Committee (JPC) and the International Blind Sports Federation (IBSA) and the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) concerning the reallocation of an unused qualification slot for the Football 5-a-side event at the 2012 London Paralympic Games. The slot originally designated for an African team became available after the 2011 IBSA African Championships were not held. IBSA reallocated the slot to Turkey, bypassing Japan and Colombia, which JPC argued was arbitrary and violated the qualification criteria. JPC contended that a fairer method, such as a playoff or random draw involving the three nations, should have been used. IBSA defended its decision, citing logistical challenges and the need to finalize team selections by a deadline set by the London Organizing Committee (LOCOG). The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was brought in to resolve the dispute, with sole arbitrator Michael Beloff QC presiding. The CAS examined whether IBSA’s decision was fair and reasonable, given the discretionary power granted under the qualification criteria. While acknowledging that alternative methods like a playoff could have been used, the arbitrator found that IBSA’s decision to allocate the slot to Turkey was not irregular or unreasonable. The CAS upheld IBSA’s decision, emphasizing that federations have discretion in such matters and that the choice to award the slot to Turkey was within the bounds of fairness. The case underscores the challenges of balancing objective and subjective selection criteria in sports governance and the deference given to federations in exercising their discretionary powers. It also highlights the importance of transparent and consistent decision-making processes in qualification systems for major sporting events. The CAS ultimately dismissed JPC’s appeal, concluding that IBSA’s actions were neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, and the reallocation process was conducted in accordance with the available discretion under the qualification criteria. The ruling reinforced the principle that reasonable discretion exercised by governing bodies should not be overturned unless proven to be unfair or irrational. The case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in managing qualification processes for international competitions, particularly when unforeseen circumstances arise.