Series
Blogs
No medals for tactical spying – the Canadian soccer spying saga
Up nextNo medals for tactical spying – the Canadian soccer spying saga
10 September 2024
Series
Blogs
10 September 2024
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.
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.
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 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 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.
This is not football’s first encounter with spying. The Canadian team highlighted the cases of (i) Leeds United, which led to it being fined £200,000 and subject to a formal reprimand by the English Football League (“EFL”) after its manager, Marcelo Bielsa, arranged for a member of staff to spy on Derby County’s training session; and (ii) Liverpool, which did not receive any punishment following an FA investigation in 2020 for use of a scout’s login details to allegedly hack into Manchester City’s player database in 2012-2013.
The Canadian team argued that these instances show how its treatment from the FIFA AC was unfair. The CAS took a different view – in respect of the latter case, no sanctions were imposed because of a settlement agreed between the Clubs. In respect of the former, the CAS acknowledged FIFA’s speculation, (which the CAS commented was “not without basis”), that if it had been the relevant regulatory body overseeing the Bielsa/Leeds allegations, it would have imposed harsher sanctions.
The remaining question is whether Canada’s case serves as a signal of future clamping down on spying in football – particularly given FIFA’s marker about the Bielsa/Leeds case. Other football governing bodies, such as the Premier League and the EFL, already have restrictions in place which would bite on equivalent conduct and disciplinary bodies hearing future cases may view the FIFA AC and CAS decisions as at least persuasive. However, it remains to be seen how any ‘Olympics factor’ amplified the sanctions, given the FIFA AC stressed that Canada had violated the values of the Olympic charter.
Nonetheless, for those found in breach of rules of this kind, the ramifications might also extend off the pitch. The image of a team will be central to a sponsor’s decision to invest in lucrative commercial agreements. Unethical conduct, particularly on a systemic basis, could risk compromising those relationships and teams’ financial lifeblood. Canada Soccer will no doubt be keen to show sponsors that the scandal is far behind it as the nation prepares to co-host the 2026 Men’s World Cup.
In an era where scouting footage and data is widely accessible to all, the Canadian saga should serve as a reminder to teams and officials to think twice when pondering whether a peek over the fence might be worth it for a marginal gain – individuals involved risk bans, whilst teams risk sizeable legal costs, significant fines, reputational damage (together with an associated commercial impact), and the real threat of sporting sanctions.