Show jumping occupies a prominent place in the Olympic programme and attracts substantial commercial and media attention globally. The discipline has expanded steadily over recent decades, drawing participants from regions far beyond its traditional European heartland. That growth, however, has also intensified a recurring debate: whether the show jumping qualification system governing who is permitted to compete is fit for purpose.
The question is not new, but it gains renewed force after each major championship where the gap in experience between the strongest and weakest combinations becomes visible to a wide audience. At the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games, the format had already been restructured. The team size was reduced from four to three riders and the team and individual competitions were resequenced with the stated aim of increasing the number of nations represented at the Games.[i] While that objective was achieved, the tournament also produced performances that drew critical attention to the standard of some combinations in the start list. A commentary published at the time before the Games described the scene as a “countdown to show jumping disaster.“[ii] The welfare implications, and the reputational risk to the sport, did not go unnoticed.
Horse welfare is the thread running through all of these discussions. The FEI Code of Conduct, binding on all those involved in international equestrian sport, is direct on the point: “Participation in competition must be restricted to fit Horses and Athletes of proven competence.“[iii]
But how does one prove their competence? The gap between the expectation of that principle and the practical reality of entry requirements at many international events is what continues to drive the debate.
The Current Show Jumping Qualification System
Some competition in show jumping require previously obtained qualifications while others do not.
At the Olympic level, participation in show jumping is governed by Minimum Eligibility Requirements (MERs) which an athlete and horse must satisfy as a combination before they may compete. The requirement that qualifications be achieved as a combination is a deliberate acknowledgment of the partnership-based nature of the discipline.
At the Olympic Games, MERs generally have to be achieved at selected events during a span of about 1.5 years (Tokyo 2020 being the exception due to the COVID-19 Pandemic).[i] For Paris 2024 multiple qualifying pathways were available: completing rounds at Continental Championships within an eight-penalty threshold, completing the first round of three FEI World Cup competitions at 1.55m or 1.60m within specified fault limits, or achieving results at selected Grand Prix or Nations Cup events.[ii] Furthermore, the FEI is required to receive completed Certificates of Capability from the National Olympic Committees (NOCs) confirming that nominated combinations possessed “the necessary experience and ability to participate at the required standard.“[iii]
For the Los Angeles 2028 Olympic Games, the structure follows the same general model. Athletes must have been born on or before 31 December 2010 (at least 18 years of age), and horses must have been born on or before 31 December 2020 (at least eight years of age).[iv] MERs must again be achieved as a combination at selected events between 1 January 2027 and 11 June 2028.[v] The NOC Certificate of Capability must confirm that at least three athlete/horse combinations from each NOC have achieved the MER during a certain period and must be submitted to the FEI by 10 January 2028.[vi] Twenty NOCs will obtain team qualification: one as the host country (USA), and nineteen through FEI Olympic Group Qualification Events. Fifteen quota places are reserved for individual athletes.[vii]
Comparing the three most recent Olympic cycles, the qualification framework has remained broadly consistent in structure, though it has been refined in its technical specifications and adapted to circumstances such as the pandemic. The core architecture – MERs achieved as a combination, Certificates of Capability, and geographic qualification groups – is unchanged across Tokyo, Paris, and LA28.
The most significant controversies surrounding MERs have concerned the special qualifying events at which qualification results could be achieved. In the lead-up to Tokyo, certain CSI2* Grand Prix competitions with notably small starter fields awarded their participants the same points as other CSI2* Grand Prix events held on the same weekend with significantly larger and more competitive fields. In addition, competitions held in Damascus, Syria – which were practically inaccessible to most competitors due to the restrictions – enabled a small amount of riders to accumulate sufficient points to rise rapidly through the FEI world rankings. Events such as these, together with other tailored competitions organised specifically for riders who had yet to achieve their MERs, drew widespread criticism and cast serious doubt on the integrity and actual worth of the qualification system.[viii]
Outside the Olympic context, the picture is considerably different when it comes to MERs. At the broader international level – CSI and CSIO events – the right to enter is, as one industry source has put it, “lightly regulated.”[ix] In practice, national federations make entries for their riders based on invitations from event organisers. Horses and riders must be registered with the FEI and their national federation under FEI Jumping Rules Article 272, and minimum age requirements apply.[x] But there is no universal system requiring riders to demonstrate through objective results that they are ready for the level at which they intend to compete. One partial exception exists: FEI Jumping Rules Article 219.3.5 states that to take part in a CSI5/CSIO5/CSI5*-W Grand Prix or FEI Jumping World Cup competition, riders must have recorded a result of four penalties or less at minimum 1.50m level with the relevant horse within the previous twelve months.[xi] This applies at the very top of the domestic international calendar; it does not extend down the competition pyramid.
What the Industry Is Saying
The criticism of the current show jumping qualification system comes from a range of respected voices within the sport, and it is largely consistent in its direction.
Leopoldo Palacios, an FEI Level 4 course designer and one of eleven FEI Honorary Vice-Presidents, has been unambiguous: “In our sport, one of the worst things that can happen to a horse is for it to be ridden by an inexperienced rider at a height the rider is not ready for. That’s a big welfare issue.“[i] He has called for the FEI to introduce an international show jumping qualification system requiring riders to compete at each height before advancing to the next, and for riders to hold a licence in order to compete at international level. His suggested model mirrors existing requirements in several other sports.[ii]
Philippe Le Jeune, the 2010 World Champion, has framed the issue in terms of horse welfare and financial inequality: “Allowing riders that are not experienced to bring horses into classes that the riders are not capable of doing should not be allowed, and this is also a horse welfare issue. The only one who’s paying the bill is the horse.“[iii] He points to a shift in the culture of the sport, noting that in earlier decades progression through the heights was enforced through results requirements, while today financial resources can effectively substitute for those requirements.
Olympic gold medallist Henrik von Eckermann has been among the most prominent voices, describing the variation in standard at international events in direct terms: “We really need a better system, that isn’t just cosmetic – like some of the current minimum requirements, such as those for the Olympic Games. Another good example of standards that are not strong enough is those for the FEI Jumping World Cup Final. Every year, we can clearly see how varied the field is on the first day of competition.“[iv] Von Eckermann has also articulated the central tension: “We need to decide what matters most: being a top sport that tries to protect our horses as much as possible, or wanting as many flags as possible competing at the Olympics.“[v]
The format changes made ahead of Tokyo (reducing team size and restructuring the competition order specifically to increase national representation)[vi] are a concrete illustration of the institutional pressure on the FEI to prioritise breadth of participation. That pressure does not dissipate easily, and it sits in direct tension with the welfare and competitive standards that the same institution is committed to upholding.
At Paris 2024, the debate around performance standards also touched on the format itself. The International Jumping Riders Club stated ahead of the Games that it was necessary to “avoid seeing badly-ridden rounds and unpleasant scenes from combinations not capable of providing an acceptable performance,” while also noting concerns about the consequences of elimination for smaller federations.[vii] The FEI’s proposed response – giving ground juries discretionary power to eliminate riders where continuing would be “contrary to the principles of horse welfare” – reflects an attempt to manage the problem at the point of competition rather than at the point of entry.[viii]
Pros, Cons, and What Other Sports Do
The case for a structured, progression-based show jumping qualification system is supported by both welfare and integrity arguments. Requiring riders to demonstrate results at a given level before advancing would reduce the risk of placing underprepared combinations in competitive environments for which they are not ready, with direct welfare implications for the horses involved. It would create greater consistency in the standard of fields across the competition calendar, which in turn benefits competitive integrity. It would also provide a transparent development pathway that national federations and coaches could use to structure rider progression objectively.
The case against, or for caution, rests on a different set of concerns. Access to qualifying opportunities is not equal across the world. A rider based in the Netherlands or Germany has access to a depth of competitive infrastructure (frequent international events, experienced trainers, a large pool of quality horses) that simply does not exist in many other regions. A qualification system that does not account for structural inequality risks entrenching the dominance of already well-resourced equestrian nations, while effectively closing the door on riders from developing equestrian markets. The FEI’s own seven-region geographic group structure for Olympic qualification[i] reflects an institutional recognition of this reality. Any new framework would need to be designed with the same sensitivity.
Administrative complexity is a further consideration. A universal MER system for CSI and CSIO events would require robust verification mechanisms such as the capacity to confirm, for every entered combination, that the relevant qualifying results have been achieved. This would need to be allocated clearly between the FEI, national federations, and event organisers.
Other sports offer models worth examining. Motorsport operates a tiered licensing system: progression from lower categories to Formula 1 requires the accumulation of superlicence points through performance at defined lower levels, and participation at the top level is not possible without them.[ii] Tennis uses a ranking system in which results directly determine access to the most prestigious events.[iii] In both cases, the framework is performance-based, transparent, and consistently enforced.
Whether a direct analogue is achievable in show jumping is a legitimate question. The discipline’s combination of horse and rider as a single competitive unit complicates any purely rider-based progression system. The availability of horses capable of compensating for rider limitations adds a further variable. And the global variation in competitive infrastructure means that any system must be built with sufficient flexibility to avoid being discriminatory in practice, while still being meaningful as a standard.
Where Things Stand Now
The FEI has confirmed that the possible introduction of MERs at CSI3* level, and the development of clearer qualification criteria to “preserve the integrity of the competition, improve safety, and ensure all starters are adequately prepared for the challenges of higher-level events” was a key topic at the 2025 FEI Sports Forum.[i] The matter remains under active review by the FEI Jumping Committee, with the FEI stating that its aim is to find “practical solutions that support athlete development while safeguarding safety and fair play.“[ii] The FEI has acknowledged that any future system must take into account the variability in access to training and competitions across different countries.[iii]
If regulatory change follows, the implications for participants will be significant. Competition organisers would need to verify that entered combinations meet published standards, and a clear allocation of that responsibility – between the FEI, national federations, and organisers – would be essential. Organisers who accept entries from combinations that fall below published standards may face exposure if those combinations are involved in welfare incidents or safety failures.
For riders and owners, a structured progression system would require competition programmes to be planned around qualification milestones in a more deliberate way. The commercial and insurance arrangements around horse ownership would need to reflect the changed risk profile. National federations would be required to exercise a more active gatekeeping function.
From a broader legal perspective, any new framework will need to satisfy standards of proportionality and non-discrimination to withstand challenge. A show jumping qualification system that is designed or administered in a manner that disproportionately disadvantages riders from particular regions through the choice of qualifying events, the technical specifications required, or the allocation of quota places could be vulnerable to challenge. Careful legal drafting and transparent implementation will be essential.
Conclusion: Is the show jumping qualification system still fit for purpose?
The debate over qualification standards in show jumping has moved from the margins to the centre of the sport’s governance discussions. The FEI’s own governing principles already require that participation be restricted to athletes of proven competence. The question now being asked is whether the operational systems at both Olympic and broader international level actually deliver that outcome.
The evidence from industry professionals, and from the FEI’s own acknowledgment of the issue, suggests they do not, at least not consistently. The direction of regulatory travel is towards greater structure and clearer progression requirements. What remains to be determined is how that structure can be designed to be genuinely effective, equitably applied, and legally robust.
Disclaimer
This article serves as an introduction to the subject matter addressed and is provided solely for general informational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship between the reader and our firm. No rights may be derived from the contents of this article.
Although every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, no warranty is given as to the completeness or currency of the information presented. The law is subject to change, and its application will vary depending on the specific circumstances of each situation.
Readers should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of this article without first seeking specific legal advice tailored to their situation. Our firm excludes all liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the information contained herein, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable Dutch law.
For legal advice specific to your situation, please contact our office at info@schelstraete.com.
Written by: Lara Schönherr; Luc Schelstraete; Piotr Wawrzyniak
Sources
[1] World of Showjumping. (2021, July 29). A guide to Tokyo – a walk through the new jumping format. World of Showjumping. https://www.worldofshowjumping.com/Olympic-Games/A-guide-to-Tokyo-a-walk-through-the-new-jumping-format.html
[2] Gilmore, E. (2019, September 13). Tokyo 2020: Countdown to show jumping Disaster?. Heels Down Mag. https://heelsdownmag.com/tokyo-2020-countdown-to-show-jumping-disaster/
[3] Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI). FEI Regulations for Equestrian Events at the Olympic Games (Paris 2024). Approved FEI GA 2022, updated 17 July 2024. https://inside.fei.org/system/files/FEI%20Olympic%20Regulations%20Paris%202024%20Equestrian_Approved%20at%20FEI%20GA%202022_Updated_17July2024_Clean%20Version.pdf
[4] Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI). (2021, June 24). Qualification System – Games of the XXXII Olympiad – Tokyo 2020. https://inside.fei.org/system/files/Tokyo%202020%20-%20Revised%20Qualification%20System%20-%20JUMPING%20-%2024June2021.pdf
[5]Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI). (2024, July 02). Qualification System – Games of the XXXIII Olympiad – Paris 2024. https://inside.fei.org/system/files/Jumping%20-%20OG2024%20qualification%20system%20-%2002July2024.pdf
[6] Ibid. Article 632.
[7] Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI). (2025, December 10). Qualification System – Games of the XXXIV Olympiad – LA28. https://inside.fei.org/system/files/EQU%20JPG%20-%20LA28%20Qualification%20System.pdf
[8] Ibid
[9] Ibid
[10] World of Showjumping. (2025, December 15). FEI publishes Olympic jumping qualification system for LA28. World of Showjumping. https://www.worldofshowjumping.com/en/News/FEI-publishes-Olympic-jumping-qualification-system-for-LA28.html
[11] Gilmore, E. (2020, March 3). Let The Tokyo 2020 Controversies Begin: Part 2. Heels Down Mag. https://heelsdownmag.com/let-the-tokyo-2020-controversies-begin-part-2/
[12] World of Showjumpin. (2026, March 10). WoSJ Focus: Should there be minimum requirements for entering at FEI CSI & CSIO events?. World of Showjumping. https://www.worldofshowjumping.com/en/Exclusives/WoSJ-Focus/WoSJ-Focus-Should-there-be-minimum-requirements-for-entering-at-FEI-CSI-CSIO-events.html#:~:text=This%20rule%20states%20that%20in,horse%20they%20want%20to%20enter
[13] Ibid
[14] Ibid
[15] World of Showjumping. (2026, January 13). Leopoldo Palacios: “A big welfare issue is horses being ridden by inexperienced riders at heights they are not ready for”. World of Showjumping. https://www.worldofshowjumping.com/WoSJ-Exclusive-interviews/Leopoldo-Palacios-A-big-welfare-issue-is-horses-being-ridden-by-inexperienced-riders-at-heights-they-are-not-ready-for.html
[16] Ibid
[17] World of Showjumpin. (2026, March 10). WoSJ Focus: Should there be minimum requirements for entering at FEI CSI & CSIO events?. World of Showjumping. https://www.worldofshowjumping.com/en/Exclusives/WoSJ-Focus/WoSJ-Focus-Should-there-be-minimum-requirements-for-entering-at-FEI-CSI-CSIO-events.html#:~:text=This%20rule%20states%20that%20in,horse%20they%20want%20to%20enter
[18] Ibid
[19] Ibid
[20] World of Showjumping. (2021, July 29). A guide to Tokyo – a walk through the new jumping format. World of Showjumping. https://www.worldofshowjumping.com/Olympic-Games/A-guide-to-Tokyo-a-walk-through-the-new-jumping-format.html
[21] Horse Sport staff. (2022, October 5). Teams to compete first in jumping at Paris 2024. Horse Sport. https://horsesport.com/horse-news/teams-compete-first-jumping-paris-2024/
[22] Ibid
[23]Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI). FEI Regulations for Equestrian Events at the Olympic Games (Paris 2024). Approved FEI GA 2022, updated 17 July 2024. Article 631. https://inside.fei.org/system/files/FEI%20Olympic%20Regulations%20Paris%202024%20Equestrian_Approved%20at%20FEI%20GA%202022_Updated_17July2024_Clean%20Version.pdf
[24] Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FiA). (2022, November 16). F1 Explained: How does the Super Licence system work – and what does Sargeant need to do to qualify?. https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/f1-explained-how-does-the-super-licence-system-work-and-what-does-sargeant.IXyLbO00195LXtCo3YIOU
[25] Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP). ATP Rankings FAQ. https://www.atptour.com/en/rankings/rankings-faq
[26] Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI). (2025, March 31). FEI Sports Forum 2025, Session 4: FEI Jumping Rules full revision. https://inside.fei.org/fei/sports-forum/2025/session-documents/session-four
[27] World of Showjumpin. (2026, March 10). WoSJ Focus: Should there be minimum requirements for entering at FEI CSI & CSIO events?. World of Showjumping. https://www.worldofshowjumping.com/en/Exclusives/WoSJ-Focus/WoSJ-Focus-Should-there-be-minimum-requirements-for-entering-at-FEI-CSI-CSIO-events.html#:~:text=This%20rule%20states%20that%20in,horse%20they%20want%20to%20enter
[28] Ibid
