CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2026/A/12132 — Greta Small v Snow Australia Limited

"Small v Snow Australia" · CAS dismissed alpine skier Greta Small's appeal against Snow Australia's discretionary non-nomination for the 2026 Milano Cortina Winter Olympics.

What happened in Small v Snow Australia

Greta Small, an Australian alpine skier competing in Downhill and Super-G, challenged Snow Australia Limited's decision of 20 January 2026 not to nominate her for the two female quota spots in Alpine Skiing at the 2026 Milano Cortina Winter Olympic Games. The AOC had allocated two female quota places, which Snow Australia's Selection Panel filled with Madison Hoffman and Phoebe Heaydon, both Slalom athletes. No athlete satisfied Tiers 1–3 of the Nomination Criteria, so all eligible athletes were assessed under Tier 4 (Discretionary), which grants the Selection Panel absolute discretion to nominate athletes most likely to achieve the highest competitive results. Small appealed on two grounds: (B) the Nomination Criteria were not properly applied, and (D) there was no material on which the decision could be reasonably based. She argued her World Cup (Level 0) results were superior to those of the nominated athletes and that the Selection Panel improperly weighted lower-level Europa Cup results. The Sole Arbitrator, The Hon. Dr Annabelle Bennett AC SC, dismissed the appeal, confirming that Tier 4's absolute discretion standard required Small to show the decision was manifestly untenable, perverse, absurd or unreasonable — a threshold she did not meet. The case matters because it affirms the very high bar an athlete must clear to overturn a discretionary Olympic nomination decision under an absolute-discretion Tier 4 framework.

Procedural history of CAS 2026/A/12132

Snow Australia Limited's Selection Panel met on 15 January 2026 and 19 January 2026 and resolved to nominate Madison Hoffman and Phoebe Heaydon to fill the two female Alpine Skiing quota spots for the Milano Cortina Games. On 20 January 2026, Small was notified of her non-nomination. On 21 January 2026, she received the written reasons (the Decision). On 22 January 2026, Small filed a Statement of Appeal with the CAS Oceania Registry under the Fast Track Appeal process in clause 9.9 of the AOC Olympic Team Nomination and Selection By-Law dated 23 March 2023, paying the CHF 500 non-refundable filing fee. On 23 January 2026, the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division appointed The Hon. Dr Annabelle Bennett AC SC as Sole Arbitrator. Snow Australia filed its Response the same day. A hearing by videoconference took place on 25 January 2026. CAS was asked to determine whether the Nomination Criteria were properly applied and whether there was material on which the decision could be reasonably based.

Key holdings in CAS 2026/A/12132

• Under Tier 4 of the Nomination Criteria, the Selection Panel holds absolute discretion to nominate athletes most likely to achieve the highest competitive results, and may have regard to some, none, or all listed considerations.
• An athlete challenging a Tier 4 discretionary nomination decision must demonstrate the decision was manifestly untenable, perverse, absurd or unreasonable, or that no reasonable Selection Panel could have reached it, or that there was no material on which it could be based.
• The Selection Panel was entitled to consider results across the entire Qualification Period (1 July 2024 to 18 January 2026) and was not confined to the 2025/2026 FIS World Cup Season when exercising its Tier 4 discretion.
• The Selection Panel was entitled to treat consistent finishes in the lower decile of World Cup fields as not demonstrating a higher likelihood of Olympic competitiveness, and to prefer athletes with higher competitive potential over athletes with more consistent but less competitive results.
• The Respondent was not obliged to provide the appellant with the minutes of the Selection Panel meetings; the Decision, derived from Annexure A, sufficiently reflected the Panel's reasons, and the appellant suffered no demonstrated prejudice.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator began by identifying the applicable standard of review: because Tier 4 expressly grants the Selection Panel 'absolute discretion', a challenge based on a different analysis or different weighting of the same data cannot succeed. The appellant had to show the decision was manifestly untenable, perverse, absurd or unreasonable. The arbitrator rejected the argument that the Decision's reference to the uncapitalised '2025/2026 season' constituted a binding concession that only FIS World Cup results were relevant; Mr Fleming's evidence that the term is used broadly in FIS materials was accepted. The arbitrator found that Tier 4 contains no limitation to Level 0 events or to the 2025/2026 Season, and that the 'any other factor' provision further widened the Panel's latitude. The complaint that Annexure A was reverse-engineered was rejected on the basis of Mr Wordsworth's unchallenged evidence that it was an iterative document used at both Panel meetings. The arbitrator also rejected the argument that the Panel improperly weighted factors, distinguishing between the Panel's practical exercise of discretion and the Criteria's statement that no priority order is mandated. The eligibility argument was dismissed because the Decision was not based on ineligibility.

Why Small v Snow Australia matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award establishes that where an NF's nomination criteria vest absolute discretion in a selection panel under a Tier 4 framework, CAS will not substitute its own assessment of athletic data. An appellant must clear the high threshold of showing the decision was manifestly untenable or unreasonable. The award also confirms that a selection panel operating under an 'any other factor' provision is not confined to a defined qualification season or race level when making discretionary Olympic nominations.

Frequently asked questions about Small v Snow Australia

Why did Greta Small lose her CAS appeal against Snow Australia's Olympic non-nomination?

Small failed to meet the high threshold required to overturn a Tier 4 discretionary decision. The Sole Arbitrator held that because Tier 4 of the Nomination Criteria granted the Selection Panel absolute discretion, Small had to show the decision was manifestly untenable, perverse, absurd or unreasonable — not merely that a different weighting of the data would have favoured her. The Panel's holistic assessment, including field strength and competitive potential across the Qualification Period, was found to be a legitimate exercise of that discretion.

Did Snow Australia have to give Greta Small the Selection Panel's meeting minutes?

No. The Sole Arbitrator held that the Respondent was not obliged to supply the minutes of the Selection Panel meetings. The written Decision, provided within 24 hours of Small's notice of intention to appeal, was derived from Annexure A, which Mr Wordsworth's unchallenged evidence confirmed reflected the discussions at both Panel meetings on 15 and 19 January 2026. Small also had the opportunity to question both Mr Wordsworth and Mr Fleming at the hearing.

Could Snow Australia's Selection Panel consider results outside the 2025/2026 FIS World Cup Season when applying Tier 4?

Yes. The Sole Arbitrator found that Tier 4 of the Nomination Criteria contains no reference to either the '2025/2026 Season' or the Qualification Period as a limitation on the Panel's absolute discretion. The 'any other factor' provision in clause 6.3(i)(iv) further permitted the Panel to consider results outside the Qualification Period. Small's argument that the Decision's reference to the uncapitalised '2025/2026 season' was a binding concession to use only World Cup results was rejected.

What standard does CAS apply when reviewing a discretionary Olympic nomination decision under an absolute-discretion Tier 4 framework?

CAS will not simply substitute its own assessment of the athletic data. Under the framework applied in Small v Snow Australia, the appellant must demonstrate that the decision was manifestly untenable, perverse, absurd or unreasonable, or that no reasonable Selection Panel could have reached it, or that there was no material before the Panel on which the decision could be based. A challenge based solely on a different analysis or different weighting of the same facts and data will not succeed.

Topics: Transfers, agents, TPO & sell-on clauses at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.