No medals for tactical spying – the Canadian soccer spying saga
As the sun sets on another brilliant summer of sport, the Paris 2024 Olympics will live long in the memory of many. However, very few would have anticipated that spying in women’s football would be amongst those memorable moments.
Canada, the reigning champions, exited at the quarter final stage following a remarkable journey. Despite being deducted six points by the FIFA Appeal Committee (“FIFA AC”) during the group stage, the team defied the odds to qualify for the knockout stages. However, as all England fans know, you are never too far from a defeat to Germany on penalties, and so it was for the Canadians. Despite a laudable on-pitch performance, the scandal cast a shadow over Canada’s participation, and the fallout continues. Canada Soccer’s independent review is ongoing, including into potential spying practices in both the women’s and men’s teams.
In this blog post, we consider the decisions of the FIFA AC and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”), and whether their impact could be felt in other football competitions.
What happened?
On 22 July 2024, police arrived at New Zealand’s Olympic football training session following an alert about a drone hovering over the pitch.
Joseph Lombardi, the operator of the drone and a Canadian performance analyst, was arrested. Mr Lombardi was given an eight-month suspended prison sentence by the French courts after pleading guilty to offences relating to the drone usage. New Zealand also filed a complaint to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee. As an urgent, mid-tournament case, the matter was referred directly to the FIFA AC.
As the days passed, further information surfaced regarding Canada’s use of drones against other opponents predating the Olympics. Canada Soccer suspended the team’s head and assistant coaches and the Canadian Olympic Committee removed them, and Lombardi, from the team.
FIFA’s Decision
The FIFA AC determined that using a drone to obtain information on an opponent’s training session was a breach of Article 13 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code (which states that football clubs, associations, and any member or person associated with the same must “comply with the principles of fair play, loyalty and integrity”), as well as similar requirements in place under the regulations for the women’s football tournament at the Olympics. The FIFA AC found that tactical espionage amounted to “violating the rules of decent conduct”, “behaving in a way that brings the sport of football and/or FIFA into disrepute” and breaching its prohibition on the use of drones.
The FIFA AC found the actions to be “inexcusable and unacceptable”, bringing the game of football into disrepute at one of the most distinguished sporting events in the world. The FIFA AC also found that the Canadian team had been repeatedly informed of the prohibitions regarding drone usage, noted press reports alleging numerous instances of Canadian spying and considered evidence which included an internal email from its head coach stating that spying was something that was “always done” and can be the “difference between winning and losing”.
The Canadian team was hit with (i) a six-point deduction, (ii) a CHF 200,000 fine and (iii) a one-year suspension for each of Lombardi, and the team’s head coach and assistant coach.
Canada’s legal counterattack
Canada appealed to the CAS, arguing that the Canadian players were being unfairly punished and subjected to a “poorly reasoned scapegoating exercise”.
Although the Canadian Olympic Committee and Canada Soccer apologised and accepted responsibility, they also argued that:
- the players were being punished for their “mere association” to the offending officials and the sanction was “extremely unfair";
- the six-point deduction was grossly disproportionate, and a much harsher sanction than in other cases of espionage; and
- the FIFA AC failed to take the Canadians’ cooperation into account as a mitigating factor.
“Evidently and grossly disproportionate?” – the CAS decision
The CAS gave judgment upholding the FIFA AC’s decision and dismissing the appeal. It found that the sanction was appropriate and the appeal did not meet the legal test before it – whether the FIFA AC’s decision was “evidently and grossly disproportionate” compared to the violation. The CAS found the FIFA AC’s decision to be fully reasoned and not arbitrary.
Additionally, the CAS found that the FIFA AC could have imposed harsher sanctions, including expulsion or forfeiture of games played and that, in any case, it had utmost discretion in determining the sanction.
Although the CAS expressed sympathy to the players, it considered that harshness alone was not enough for the sanctions to be classified as grossly disproportionate. The gravity of the actions, combined with the logic applied by the FIFA AC, meant that the sanctions were appropriate.
