The case revolves around the eligibility of Swedish hockey player S. during the 1998 Nagano Winter Olympics. S., who had acquired U.S. citizenship in 1995, automatically lost his Swedish citizenship under Swedish law, rendering him ineligible to represent Sweden. Despite this, he played three games for the Swedish team, which advanced to the quarterfinals. The International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) later discovered his ineligibility and barred him from further participation but allowed Sweden to retain its wins. The Czech Olympic Committee appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking forfeiture of Sweden's victories, while the Swedish Olympic Committee appealed to overturn the IIHF's decision. The CAS panel, composed of impartial arbitrators, consolidated the appeals and held a hearing involving representatives from both committees, S., the IIHF, the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the Russian Olympic Committee, and the NHL.
The legal framework included the IIHF By-Laws, the Olympic Charter, and Swiss Private International Law. Article 204 of the IIHF By-Laws mandates that players must hold citizenship of the country they represent, with ineligibility leading to dismissal. However, the panel noted that strict enforcement in the Olympic context could unfairly penalize teams not at fault. Rule 46 of the Olympic Charter also requires competitors to be nationals of their representing country. The panel confirmed S.'s ineligibility due to his loss of Swedish citizenship, rejecting his claim of ignorance about Swedish law and highlighting his failure to complete necessary declarations on his IIHF Player Entry Form. While upholding the IIHF's decision to bar S., the panel agreed that Sweden should not forfeit its wins, as the rule's purpose was to sanction the offending team without disrupting the competition's fairness for others.
The Czech Olympic Committee argued for forfeiture under IIHF rules, but the IIHF Directorate invoked Article 43 of its Statutes, granting final authority over championship decisions. The panel found this reasoning persuasive, as strict forfeiture would harm innocent teams. The Swedish Olympic Committee's claim of unequal treatment was dismissed, as this was a clear case of ineligibility, not dual nationality. The panel emphasized that teams like Belarus or the U.S., which lost to Sweden, had legitimate grievances but did not appeal. The Czech Committee's attempt to improve its standing was deemed contrary to Olympic fair play, as it would unjustly benefit them at the expense of fairly competing teams like Russia.
The panel upheld the IIHF's decision, recognizing the need for flexibility in the Olympic format to avoid unintended consequences. It criticized the IIHF for not anticipating such conflicts but found its approach reasonable under the circumstances. The final ruling dismissed both appeals, awarded no costs, and declared the decision final. The case underscored the importance of adherence to eligibility rules while balancing fairness and competition integrity in international sports.