The case centers on a dispute between the Fédération Française de Gymnastique (FFG) and the Sydney Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games (SOCOG) over the enforcement of Rule 61 of the Olympic Charter, which regulates commercial logos on athletes' clothing. The conflict arose when SOCOG concealed the LI-NING logo on French gymnasts' costumes during medal ceremonies, claiming it violated the rule by exceeding the permitted size of 12 cm² as specified in Bye-Law 1.4. The FFG argued the logo complied with the size limit when measured on the clothing as manufactured, not as worn. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel, composed of Michael Beloff QC, Maidie Oliveau, and Dirk-Reiner Martens, first addressed jurisdictional issues, confirming its authority to hear the case. It dismissed objections regarding the absence of the French National Olympic Committee (NOC) and the manufacturer, noting the NOC's alignment with the FFG and the manufacturer's lack of involvement in agreements granting CAS jurisdiction. The panel also rejected claims that the FFG failed to exhaust other legal remedies, as no viable alternatives were identified.
On the substantive issue, the panel interpreted Rule 61 and its Bye-Laws, emphasizing the rule's purpose of limiting commercial identification on Olympic equipment. The key question was whether the logo's size should be measured on the clothing as manufactured or as worn. Adopting a purposive interpretation, the panel concluded the measurement must be based on the clothing as worn, as this aligns with the rule's objective of preventing conspicuous advertising during the Games. Since the logo exceeded 12 cm² when worn, SOCOG's decision to conceal it was upheld. The panel clarified that each clothing item could bear a logo up to 12 cm², as per Bye-Law 1.1, and that "identification" included names and logos under Bye-Law 8. The ruling underscored the strict application of Rule 61, leaving no discretion once the limit was exceeded.
The FFG raised concerns about inconsistent enforcement, noting similar logos on other athletes, such as Chinese gymnasts, had not been penalized. While the panel acknowledged this inconsistency, it maintained the decision was correct, stressing that prior lapses did not justify non-compliance. The panel also highlighted the lack of prior warning to the athlete as a procedural shortcoming. Responsibility for enforcing Rule 61 primarily lay with the International Gymnastics Federation (IGF), though SOCOG officials acted on IGF instructions in this case. The FFG sought the withdrawal of SOCOG's decision and reimbursement of legal costs, but both requests were denied. The panel upheld SOCOG's decision, noting the CAS ad hoc Division's rules did not provide for cost awards in such proceedings. The application was dismissed, affirming the importance of consistent and strict application of Olympic advertising regulations to maintain fairness and integrity in the Games. The case illustrates the CAS's role in resolving disputes over Olympic rules and ensuring uniform enforcement.