The Court of Arbitration for Sport was handed the opportunity to create a reasoned sanctioning system for breaches of the principles of fair play, specifically the use of technology to cheat or gain a competitive advantage, but they squandered it.
The following several articles will provide an analysis of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (hereinafter “CAS”) decision titled CAS OG 24/09 Canadian Olympic Committee & Canada Soccer v Fédération Internationale de Football Association & New Zealand Football & New Zealand Olympic Committee Inc. & Fédération Française de Football & Comité National Olympique et Sportif Franc & Federación Columbiana de Fútbol & Comité Olímpico Colombiano (hereinafter the “Soccer CAN decision”).
This article specifically will serve as an introductory piece, laying out events leading up to the proceedings as well as the FIFA Appeal Committee (hereinafter “FIFA AC”) decision.
The Incident
On July 22, 2024, about one hour into New Zealand Football’s training session the team noticed a drone hovering well above the pitch. They stopped training, informed onsite security who then informed the local police. The individual flying the drone was located by police and taken into custody; Mr Joseph Lombardi, an “unaccredited analyst with Canada Soccer.” This was the second time Lombardi had filmed a New Zealand Football training session according to Soccer CAN decision (paragraph 14).
On July 24, 2024, New Zealand Football filed a formal complaint with the FIFA Disciplinary Committee (hereinafter “FIFA DC”) regarding the drone incident on July 22, 2024 (paragraph 5).
On the same day, July 24, 2024, the FIFA DC opened a disciplinary proceeding against Canada Soccer, Ms Beverly Priestman, Ms Jasmine Mander and Mr Joseph Lombardi for the potential breach of Article 13 of the FIFA DC Code and Article 6.1 of the Regulations Olympic Football Tournaments Games of the XXXIII Olympiad Paris 2024 Final Competition (hereinafter “ROFT Paris”) (Paragraph 12).
Once more on July 24, 2024, Canada Soccer and Priestman released media statements regarding the incidents, labelling Lombardi as an “unaccredited analyst” and voluntarily removing Priestman from the match to be played against New Zealand on July 25, 2024 (Paragraph 11).
After a few days on July 27, 2024, the FIFA DC referred the matter to the FIFA AC and requested further internal information from Canada Soccer; which included (paragraphs 15-18):
- An email from March 2024 from Priestman requesting an analyst to fly a drone for scouting purposes
- An email from March 2024 from Priestman indicating the Canadian Men’s Soccer team has an entire drone scouting operation
- Specification from Canada Soccer that the use of drones for scouting purposes has been suspected since before Priestman’s tenure began.
When the second and third pieces of information are read together, some red flags emerge concerning former Canadian Women’s and Men’s head coach John Herdman; which may be indicative of his latest career moves.
On the same day, July 27, 2024, the FIFA AC issued its decision against Canada Soccer, Priestman, Mander, and Lombardi containing the following sanctions (Paragraph 19):
- 200,000 CHF fine to be paid within 30 days of the notification of the decision
- Six (6) point are automatically deducted by FIFA from The Canadian Soccer Association Women’s representative team’s standing in Group A of the Olympic Games
The 6-point deduction ultimately did not affect Team Canada in pool play as they advanced into the knockout round; however, allowing Team Canada to progress from pool play despite the sanction does not make for a nuanced decision when you consider the incident in conjunction with the sanction; it is grossly disproportionate.
Following Articles
In the coming months, several articles will be published on Whistle & Gavel analyzing the Soccer CAN decision while providing commentary and perspectives from others around the world. The aim of these articles is ultimately to promote sports law as well as the CAS in an effort to increase awareness and knowledge regarding decisions that affect fan’s favourite sports and teams.
The aim of this process is not to degrade the CAS or the Soccer CAN decision, but it is hard not to come away from the 19-page decision disheartened about the independent legal body’s ability to handle a real problem within its jurisdiction and create a framework to combat it. This statement is made partially out of context; the context being that the CAS ad-hoc Olympic Games committee was required to make a well-reasoned decision in less than two full days, from the beginning of proceedings to communicating the operative decision, in order to keep the Women’s Football event operational and on-time. That is incredible.
Despite the amazing turnaround of the CAS, the next article will detail the disheartening decision and the reasoning given for dismissing Soccer Canada’s appeal. It will also provide comparatives from other incidents involving drone scouting to provide readers with an analysis of the decision in both the finite context of the CAS as well as the wide-angle lens of sports throughout the world.
Final Notes
- The Soccer CAN decision is publicly available here; as are the majority of CAS decisions. The CAS has made a concerted effort to digitize historical cases in their expansive database here.
- I urge readers to consult the CAS archives when a landmark decision such as this one is handed down as it promotes the collective knowledge of the sports community.
- I have denoted my personal opinion in red during the factual recantation of the Soccer CAN decision so as not to take away from its validity.
- Anytime the citation ‘(Paragraph X)’ is present, it is in reference to the Soccer CAN decision’s specific paragraphs.
Whistle & Gavel 
Leave a comment