The case revolves around a legal dispute brought by race walk athletes Inês Henriques, Claire Woods, and others against the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) concerning the exclusion of the women's 50km race walk event from the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games. The athletes argued that this exclusion constituted gender discrimination, as the men's event was retained, and sought to have the event included through arbitration at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The central issue was whether CAS had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, which hinged on three prerequisites: agreement by the parties to CAS jurisdiction, the existence of a "decision" by a sports-related body, and the exhaustion of internal legal remedies.
The CAS panel, composed of Prof. Luigi Fumagalli, The Hon. Annabelle Bennett, and Mr. Pierre Muller, found that none of these conditions were met. First, the athletes lacked a direct legal relationship with the IOC that would allow them to invoke the arbitration clause in Rule 61.2 of the Olympic Charter, which applies only to accredited Olympic athletes. The panel emphasized that arbitration requires mutual consent, and the athletes, who were not yet accredited, had not established such consent. Second, the IOC's decision on the Olympic program was deemed a general policy decision rather than a specific ruling affecting the athletes' legal rights. Third, the IAAF's implementation of the IOC's decision did not create a legal obligation toward the athletes, as the IAAF merely finalized qualification standards for events already decided by the IOC.
The athletes based their appeal on Rule 61.2 of the Olympic Charter and Article 84.3 of the IAAF Constitution, arguing that the exclusion of women from the 50km race walk violated principles of gender equality. However, the IOC and IAAF countered that the athletes lacked standing, the appeal was untimely, and the decisions being challenged did not pertain to the inclusion of new events. The IAAF further clarified that it had no authority to decide on the Olympic program, which was solely the IOC's responsibility.
The panel concluded that CAS lacked jurisdiction over both the IOC and the IAAF, as the athletes had not met the necessary legal prerequisites. The decision underscores the limits of CAS jurisdiction in cases involving general policy decisions by sports governing bodies, particularly where no direct legal relationship or specific ruling affecting the claimants exists. The panel dismissed the appeal, highlighting the procedural complexities of challenging Olympic event inclusion and the jurisdictional boundaries of CAS in such disputes. The case illustrates the tension between promoting gender equality in sports and the logistical constraints of Olympic event planning, as well as the legal mechanisms available to address such grievances. Ultimately, the panel's ruling reaffirmed the importance of establishing clear legal relationships and consent to arbitration for CAS jurisdiction.