Jennifer Harding-Marlin, a swimmer from St. Kitts and Nevis, sought to compete in the Tokyo 2020 Olympics under the Universality Place system, which allows athletes from underrepresented nations to participate even if they do not meet standard qualification criteria. The dispute arose when the St. Kitts and Nevis Olympic Committee (SKNOC) refused to submit her entry, despite her eligibility being confirmed by the International Swimming Federation (FINA). Harding-Marlin filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ad hoc Division, challenging SKNOC's decision and alleging discrimination, arbitrariness, and unfair treatment.
The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators from multiple countries, examined the legal framework governing Olympic participation. While the Olympic Charter recognizes sport as a human right, it does not grant individuals an automatic right to compete in the Olympics. National Olympic Committees (NOCs) hold exclusive authority to select and send athletes to the Games. Harding-Marlin, a member of the St. Kitts and Nevis Swimming Federation (SKSF), had represented her country at the 2019 FINA World Championships and met the Universality Place criteria. Despite her qualifications and support from her government, SKNOC did not process her application, citing the SKSF's non-membership in the SKNOC as a reason for exclusion.
Harding-Marlin argued that SKNOC's decision was discriminatory, noting that the committee had historically only entered track and field athletes and that its board was dominated by the St. Kitts and Nevis Amateur Athletic Association (SKNAAA). She also raised concerns about racial discrimination, as she is a white woman in a predominantly Black nation, while SKNOC's decision-makers and selected athletes were Black. FINA supported her eligibility and urged SKNOC to reconsider, but the committee upheld its refusal without providing clear justification.
The CAS panel acknowledged that while SKNOC had discretion in athlete selection, its failure to engage with FINA's communications or provide transparent reasoning was problematic. However, the panel ultimately upheld SKNOC's decision, emphasizing the NOC's broad authority in determining Olympic participation. The ruling found no compelling evidence of discrimination or arbitrariness, though it criticized SKNOC for its lack of cooperation and inaccurate communication with the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The case highlights the challenges athletes face when national committees withhold opportunities without clear reasoning and underscores the tension between NOC discretion and the principles of fairness and non-discrimination in Olympic participation. The panel dismissed Harding-Marlin's claims, reaffirming the SKNOC's decision and rejecting her request for entry into the Tokyo Olympics.