The case involves a dispute between the Irish Bobsleigh & Skeleton Association (IBSA) and the International Bobsleigh & Skeleton Federation (IBSF) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) over the qualification system for the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics. The IBSA challenged the allocation of quota places for skeleton events, arguing it unfairly disadvantaged male athletes from smaller nations, reducing their quota from 11 to 7 places compared to female athletes. The IBSA sought either additional quota places for men’s skeleton or the reallocation of unused bobsleigh quotas, citing a 2010 precedent. The IBSF and IOC countered that the qualification system, approved in December 2019, was final and binding, and that altering it retroactively would violate rules prohibiting exceeding quota limits or reallocating between disciplines. They also emphasized that the IBSA had not raised objections when the rules were initially introduced, making their challenge untimely. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Ad Hoc Division ruled against the IBSA, finding no evidence of discrimination under Swiss law or the Olympic Charter. The panel upheld the autonomy of international federations in setting qualification rules, stating that CAS does not interfere in policy decisions unless they violate legal principles. It dismissed the IBSA’s claims as inconsistent with the established qualification system and noted that the 2010 precedent was irrelevant under the current rules. The decision reaffirmed the importance of adhering to published qualification criteria and the limited role of arbitration in questioning federations’ policy choices. While acknowledging the disappointment for affected athletes, the panel stressed that sympathy could not justify overriding clear rules. The ruling concluded with the dismissal of the IBSA’s application and a directive for each party to bear its own costs, reinforcing the principle that qualifying for the Olympics requires meeting the criteria set by the governing bodies. The case highlights the complexities of balancing fairness, rule adherence, and timely legal challenges in international sports governance.