The Olympic Winter Games (“OWG”), held in February 2026 in Milan and Cortina, brought sporting success to some athletes and significant legal challenges to others. While the spotlight was on athletes competing for medals, legal issues were being resolved behind the scenes with the support of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”). For the purposes of the OWG, a special ad hoc division of this court was established with the aim of resolving cases on an expedited basis.
A particularly interesting case involved Angela Romei, a professional Italian curler, who filed two requests for arbitration, one against the Italian Ice Sports Federation and another against the World Curling Federation.
The Subject of the Dispute
Romei challenged the decision to select another athlete instead of her for the Italian Olympic curling team, claiming that the selection of Rebecca Mariani was the result of a biased and arbitrary decision. Particular attention was drawn to a family connection — the selected athlete is the daughter of the team’s technical director, Marco Mariani.
The Italian Ice Sports Federation explained that the decision had been made in accordance with the authority and technical autonomy granted to the federation under national and international sports regulations, as well as by applying selection criteria previously approved by the competent bodies of the federation. It was further clarified that the technical director’s decision resulted from a reasoned process based on complex and comparative technical assessments that considered multiple sporting and team-related factors, and that there was therefore no need to reconsider the selection.
The Arbitrator’s Position
After reviewing the evidence presented, the arbitrator emphasized that the absence of previously announced criteria does not render a decision unlawful, provided that the other party can demonstrate that the decision was not arbitrary or unreasonable. The selection report stated that Rebecca Mariani is capable of covering several different positions, and such versatility represents a reasonable and purposeful criterion in a team sport, just as it is reasonable to consider the future development of the sport within the relevant country.
The arbitrator further noted that curling is a team sport; therefore, the selection of team members does not depend solely on objective statistical indicators, but also on a subjective assessment of how well an athlete fits into the current team composition. A decision-maker with limited expertise in the particular sport and without access to the internal dynamics of the team should not substitute their own judgment for that of those directly involved in the selection process.
The arbitrator explained that the fact that one athlete may have better statistical indicators, such as higher shot accuracy, does not in itself indicate arbitrariness, just as the fact that one striker has scored more goals than another in the season preceding a major football tournament does not automatically mean that they must be selected for the national team instead of another player.
Romei suggested that the subjective assessments had been fabricated in order to justify the technical director’s desire for his daughter to participate in the Olympic Games. The arbitrator considered it unlikely that the head coach of the national team, whose objective is to assemble the strongest possible team with the best chances of success, would agree to include a less capable athlete in the Olympic team merely to help the technical director have a family member selected. It was considered equally unlikely that the coach would sign false or fabricated statements in the selection report to justify such a decision.
Outcome of the Proceedings
In the first proceeding, against the Italian Ice Sports Federation, the arbitrator concluded that the decision to select Rebecca Mariani instead of Angela Romei was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, and that the first athlete had no legal right to request a change of this decision.
In the second proceeding, against the World Curling Federation, Angela Romei’s request was also dismissed. The arbitrator took the view that even if the criticism of the selection process had been justified, the CAS ad hoc division could not order an international federation to replace a selected athlete, as there is no legal basis for such an order in the Olympic Charter or the applicable regulatory framework, nor is it the role of international federations to review national-level selection procedures.
Where Are the Limits of Legal Review in Olympic Selection?
This case clearly demonstrates how complex the legal aspects of Olympic selection can be, particularly in team sports. Although CAS enables athletes to resolve disputes quickly and efficiently, its role is not to replace the expert assessment of national federations and coaching staff. On the contrary, CAS practice shows that significant deference is given to the discretionary powers of sports organizations when making selection decisions, provided that those decisions are not found to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or in an evident conflict of interest.
In this context, statistical results, while important, are neither the only nor the decisive factor. In team sports, other elements also play a significant role, such as player compatibility within the team, tactical needs, athlete versatility, and the long-term development of the sport within a particular country.
For professional athletes, this case serves as an important reminder that the legal standards in disputes concerning Olympic selection require proof of clear arbitrariness or unfairness in the decision-making process. Otherwise, even when an athlete has legitimate reasons for dissatisfaction, the legal framework will often not allow for the review or alteration of already adopted selection decisions.
Author:
Milena Đukić, Associate at PR Legal