The case revolves around Siphiwe Baleka, a 50-year-old international swimmer representing Guinea-Bissau, who appealed against the Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) regarding his eligibility for a Universality Place at the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games. Universality Places are reserved for athletes from National Olympic Committees (NOCs) that lack swimmers meeting standard qualification times. FINA's Qualification System required applications for these places to be submitted by June 20, 2021, with performances considered only if achieved by that date. Baleka's initial application, submitted by the Guinea-Bissau NOC on June 17, 2021, was rejected because his participation in the 1st International Masters Swimming event in Cairo was not a FINA-approved qualifying event. A second application, submitted on June 27 after he competed in the Egypt National Swimming Trial (a FINA-approved event), was also rejected for missing the June 20 deadline.
Baleka appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that FINA's strict deadline enforcement was excessive and discriminatory. FINA countered that the deadline was clearly stated and uniformly applied. The CAS Sole Arbitrator, André Brantjes, ruled that the deadline did not violate the Olympic Charter or constitute discrimination, as Universality Places are supplementary, not alternative, qualification pathways. The decision emphasized FINA's transparent and consistent rule application, noting Baleka's late application failed to meet the criteria. The case highlighted challenges in balancing eligibility rules with fairness, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, which delayed the Olympics. However, the arbitrator found no grounds to overturn FINA's decision, upholding the deadline as reasonable and non-discriminatory.
Procedurally, Baleka's appeal faced hurdles. His initial submission was unclear, prompting CAS to seek clarification. He later filed a Statement of Appeal, initially opting for a three-arbitrator panel before switching to a sole arbitrator. FINA agreed to an expedited process but contested the admissibility of Baleka's updated Appeal Brief, arguing it violated procedural rules. The arbitrator deemed the updated brief inadmissible, focusing instead on the original Statement of Appeal. FINA also argued the case was moot due to the passed Olympic registration deadline and refused to cover arbitration costs.
On the merits, the arbitrator upheld FINA's rejection, noting Baleka's first application cited an unapproved event, and the second missed the deadline. The second application was also invalid as it was submitted by the Guinea-Bissau Swimming Federation, not the NOC, as required. Correspondence between the Federation and FINA confirmed submissions between June 21 and July 8, 2021, were void. The arbitrator dismissed Baleka's residency argument as irrelevant, given the procedural non-compliance. The ruling underscored FINA's authority to set and enforce qualification criteria, ensuring consistency in the Universality Place selection process.
Ultimately, the CAS dismissed Baleka's appeal, affirming FINA's decision and ordering him to bear the proceedings' costs. The case illustrates the strict adherence to procedural and eligibility rules in international sports governance, even in exceptional circumstances. While the outcome was unfavorable for Baleka, the arbitrator emphasized the necessity of uniform rule enforcement to maintain fairness in Olympic qualification.