The Applicant, a professional athlete (the Athlete) was not selected as a team member to represent Australia at an International Competition, in the Respondent National Sporting Organisation’s (NSO) sport, instead being named a reserve. Pursuant to the NSO’s National Selection Policy (Selection Policy), the appeal was referred to the National Sports Tribunal (NST) on 23 April 2024. Two selected athletes were joined as Interested Parties.
The Athlete sought to appeal their selection status on the grounds that the NSO Selection Committee (Committee) had failed to apply various sections of the Selection Policy, by picking the other athletes over them.
The matter was heard by a sole Member in the NST General Division on 2 May 2024.
The Athlete submitted that the Committee had failed to apply the selection criteria as set out in the Selection Policy correctly, providing evidence of their superior performances over the other selected athletes. The NSO submitted that the Athlete had not established sufficient grounds for appeal, maintaining that the Selection Policy had been correctly applied. It argued that the Committee had exercised its discretion under the selection criteria to select what it considered the most competitive team for the competition, in line with both immediate performance goals and longer-term policy objectives.
After considering the evidence and submissions of the parties and examining the Selection Policy in detail, the NST Member delivered its determination on 3 May 2024. The NST Member noted that the issue was not whether the Athlete was the stronger performer based on past results, but whether the Committee had properly considered the objectives of the Selection Policy.
The NST Member found that each policy aim was properly considered and that there was no evidence to suggest the NSO had incorrectly applied the Selection Policy. The NST Member accepted that there were reasonable grounds for the Committee to select the other athletes over the Applicant.
The appeal was therefore dismissed.