Five Canberra projects missed out on more than $1.1 million of funding under the controversial community sports grants program, despite being among the most highly scored by Sport Australia.
Sport Australia has knocked back a request to release its full list of projects and scores under freedom of information laws.
But redacted documents provided to the Senate show how nearly 200 highly-ranked projects missed out on more than $58 million of requested funding.
Sport Australia ranked applications out of 100 based on how well they addressed three criteria - community participation, community need and project design.
Projects needed to address an identified need or gap, improve inclusiveness, demonstrate an economic impact and show appropriate design and planning.
The Australian National Audit Office said based on the assessment scores, all program funding could have been allocated to applications that received a mark of 74 or more.
However former sport minister Bridget McKenzie's office used a "parallel" assessment process to determine where grants went, drawing on a colour-coded spreadsheet and the club's electorate instead of Sport Australia's merit list.
One project in Canberra was rejected for $50,000 of funding, despite receiving a score of 82.
Another project missed out on $500,000 of funding, despite a ranking of 80.5.
Another had a $200,000 application rejected despite a score of 77, while a different project with the same score was also knocked back for $90,678 of funding.
The final project was scored 75, but still lost out on $279,300 of funding.
Ultimately, 13 projects were funded in the ACT under the community sports grants program, worth a collective $1.6 million.
Woden Valley Gymnastics managed to score $200,000 in both the first and third round of the program, even though Sport Australia had planned on capping grants to one per organisation.
It is unclear how these successful projects scored, given the full list has not been made public.
Clubs and councils have cried foul over how the merit assessments were sidelined in favour of the minister's alternate assessment process.
Gippsland Ranges Roller Derby scored 98 of out 100 - the highest of all 2000 applications - but it missed out on funding.
Meanwhile Pakenham Football Club in the Liberal seat of La Trobe scored just 50 out of 100 but still received $500,000 in funding.
In a submission to a Senate inquiry into the scandal, Gippsland Ranges Roller Derby president Bodye Darvill said its rejection was "discriminatory and politically motivated".
The club, which has struggled to find a venue for seven years, had asked for $44,000 to build unisex bathrooms at its rink, which was a former sheep shed.
The rejection meant the club had no way to finish the project. While the male toilet was turned into an accessible toilet and baby change room through Latrobe Valley Authority funding, the female toilets could not be completed. A stated aim of the community sports grants program was to build more female change rooms.
Glen Eira City Council in Melbourne told the inquiry it was considering its legal options, after its application was knocked back despite attracting a score of 83.
The council's chief executive Rebecca McKenzie said it applied for $21,675 for new lights at Caulfield Oval, to extend playing hours in order to introduce new women's and junior teams.
"We have recently written to the Prime Minister, Treasurer and Minister for Youth and Sport seeking their intervention to ensure that Council will be able to access the funding that we should have been awarded on merit. We are also seeking advice on any legal redress," she wrote.
Casey City Council - whose application for female changerooms at the Sweeney Reserve Soccer Pavilion was rated 97 out of 100 but still rejected - said there needed to be more transparency around how decisions were made.
"Projects should be funded based on the rating they have received, i.e. highest rating funded first," the Victorian council said in its submission.
However Sport Australia executives told the inquiry on Thursday the minister ultimately had the final say over where grants went.
Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.