Editor's note: This report compiles the most relevant legal
news, events and materials on International and European Sports Law based on
the daily coverage provided on our twitter feed @Sportslaw_asser.
The Headlines
IOC Athlete Commission
releases its Rule 50 Guidelines for Tokyo 2020
The IOC Athlete Commission
presented its Rule 50 Guidelines for Tokyo 2020 at its annual joint meeting with the IOC Executive
Board. It comes as Thomas Bach had recently underlined the importance of political
neutrality for the IOC and the Olympic Games in his New Year’s message. Generally, rule 50 of
the Olympic Charter prohibits any political and religious expression by
athletes and their team during the Games, subject to certain exceptions. The
Guidelines clarify that this includes the ‘field of play’, anywhere inside the
Olympic Village, ‘during Olympic medal ceremonies’ and ‘during the Opening,
Closing and other official ceremonies’. On the other hand, athletes may express
their views ‘during press conferences and interview’, ‘at team meetings’ and
‘on digital or traditional media, or on other platforms. While rule 50 is
nothing new, the Guidelines have reignited a debate on whether it could be
considered as a justified restriction on one’s freedom of expression.
The IOC has made the case
that it is defending the neutrality of sport and that the Olympics is an
international forum that should help bring people together instead of focusing
on divisions. Specifically, Richard Pound has recently made the
argument that the Guidelines have been formulated by the athletes themselves and
are a justified restriction on free expression with its basis in ‘mutual
respect’. However, many commentators have expressed their skepticism to this
view (see here, here and here) citing that politics and
the Olympics are inherently mixed, that the IOC is heavily involved in politics,
and that the Olympics has often served as the grounds for some of history’s
most iconic political protests. All in all, the Guidelines have certainly been
a catalyst for a discussion on the extent to which the Olympics can be
considered neutral. It also further highlights a divide between athlete
committees from within the Olympic Movement structures and other independent
athlete representation groups (see Global Athlete and FIFPro’s statements on rule 50).
Doping and Corruption
Allegations in Weightlifting
The International
Weightlifting Federation (IWF) has found itself embroiled in a doping and
corruption scandal after an ARD documentary was aired early in
January which raised a wide array of allegations, including against the
President of the IWF, Tamás Aján. The documentary also included hidden camera interviews
from a Thai Olympic medalist who admits having taken anabolic steroids before
having won a bronze medal at the 2012 London Olympic Games and from a team
doctor from the Moldovan national team who describes paying for clean doping
tests. The IWF’s initial reaction to the documentary was
hostile, describing the allegations as ‘insinuations, unfounded accusations and
distorted information’ and ‘categorically denies the unsubstantiated’
accusations. It further claims that it has ‘immediately acted’ concerning the
situation with the Thai athletes, and WADA has stated that it will follow up
with the concerned actors. However, as the matter gained further attention in
the main stream media and faced increasing criticism, the IWF moved to try to ‘restore’ its reputation. In practice, this means
that Tamás Aján has ‘delegated a range of operation responsibilities’ to Ursual
Papandrea, IWF Vice President, while ‘independent experts’ will conduct a
review of the allegations made in the ARD documentary. Richard McLaren has been
announced to lead the investigation
and ‘is empowered to take whatever measures he sees fit to ensure each and
every allegation is fully investigated and reported’. The IWF has also stated
that it will open a whistleblower line to help aid the investigation.More...
Editor’s
note: Thomas Terraz is a fourth year LL.B.
candidate at the International and European Law programme at The Hague
University of Applied Sciences with a specialisation in European Law. Currently
he is pursuing an internship at the T.M.C. Asser Institute with a focus on
International and European Sports Law.
1
Introduction
The International Olympic Committee (IOC), after many years of ineffective
pushback (see here,
here
and here)
over bye law 3 of rule 40[1] of
the Olympic Charter (OC), which restricts the ability of athletes and their
entourage to advertise themselves during the ‘blackout’ period’[2]
(also known as the ‘frozen period’) of the Olympic Games, may have been gifted a
silver bullet to address a major criticism of its rules. This (potentially) magic
formula was handed down in a relatively recent
decision of the Bundeskartellamt, the German competition law authority,
which elucidated how restrictions to athletes’ advertisements during the frozen
period may be scrutinized under EU competition law. The following blog begins
by explaining the historical and economic context of rule 40 followed by the
facts that led to the decision of the Bundeskartellamt. With this background,
the decision of the Bundeskartellamt is analyzed to show to what extent it may serve
as a model for EU competition law authorities. More...
Editor's Note: Ryan Gauthier
is Assistant Professor at Thompson Rivers University in Canada. Ryan’s
research addresses the governance of sports organisations, with a
particular focus on international sports organisations. His PhD research
examined the accountability of the International Olympic Committee for
human rights violations caused by the organisation of the Olympic Games.
Big June 2019 for Olympic Hosting
On June 24, 2019, the International
Olympic Committee (IOC) selected Milano-Cortina to host the 2026 Winter Olympic
Games. Milano-Cortina’s victory came despite a declaration that the bid was “dead”
just months prior when the Italian government refused
to support the bid. Things looked even more dire for the Italians when 2006 Winter Games
host Turin balked at a three-city host proposal. But, when the bid was presented to
the members of the IOC Session, it was selected over Stockholm-Åre by 47 votes to 34.
Just two days later, the IOC killed
the host selection process as we know it. The IOC did this by amending two
sections of the Olympic Charter in two key ways. First, the IOC amended Rule 33.2, eliminating the
requirement that the Games be selected by an election seven years prior to the
Games. While an election by the IOC Session is still required, the
seven-years-out requirement is gone.
Second, the IOC amended Rule 32.2 to
allow for a broader scope of hosts to be selected for the Olympic Games. Prior
to the amendment, only cities could host the Games, with the odd event being
held in another location. Now, while cities are the hosts “in principle”, the
IOC had made it so: “where deemed appropriate, the IOC may elect several
cities, or other entities, such as regions, states or countries, as host of the
Olympic Games.”
The change to rule 33.2 risks
undoing the public host selection process. The prior process included bids
(generally publicly available), evaluation committee reports, and other
mechanisms to make the bidding process transparent. Now, it is entirely
possible that the IOC may pre-select a host, and present just that host to the
IOC for an up-or-down vote. This vote may be seven years out from the Games,
ten years out, or two years out. More...
My latest article has just been published online by the Journal of Law and Society. It is available open access here.
The article stems from a conference organised by Jiri Priban from Cardiff University on Gunther Teubner's idea of societal constitutionalism applied to transnational regimes. My role was to test whether his descriptive and normative framework was readily applicable to the lex sportiva, and in particular its overarching "constitutional" text: the Olympic Charter.
As you will see my conclusion is mixed. I find that the Olympic Charter (OC) displays many constitutional features and is even able to regularly defend successfully its autonomy vis-à-vis national states and their laws. However, while I document some inception of limitative constitutional rules, such as the ban on discrimination or the principle of fair play, I also conclude that those have limited impact in practice. While constitutional changes to the OC can be triggered by scandal, resistance and contestation, as illustrated by the emergence of environmental concerns after the Albertville Games and the governance reshuffle of the IOC after the Salt Lake City scandal, I am also sceptical that these were sufficient to tackle the underlying problems, as became obvious with the unmatched environmental damage caused by the Sotchi Games in 2014.
In conclusion, more than sporadic public outrage, I believe that the intervention of national law and, even more, European Union law will be capable and needed to rein the Olympic regime and impose external constitutional constraints on its (at least sometimes) destructive operations.
Here is the abstract of the article: This article examines various aspects of Teubner's theory of societal constitutionalism using the lex sportiva as an empirical terrain. The case study focuses on the operation of the Olympic Charter as a transnational constitution of the Olympic movement. It shows that recourse to a constitutional vocabulary is not out of place in qualifying the function and authority of the Charter inside and outside the Olympic movement. Yet, the findings of the case study also nuance some of Teubner's descriptive claims and question his normative strategy.
Good read! (And do not hesitate to share your feedback)
Editor’s note:
Tomáš Grell holds an LL.M.
in Public International Law from Leiden University. He contributes to
the work of the ASSER International Sports Law Centre as a research
intern.
It has been more
than seven years since the FIFA Executive Committee awarded the 2022
World Cup to Qatar. And yet only in November 2017 did the Qatari government
finally agree to dismantle the controversial kafala system, described by
many as modern-day slavery. Meanwhile, hundreds of World Cup-related migrant
workers have reportedly been exposed to a wide range of abusive practices such
as false promises about the pay, passport confiscation, or appalling working
and living conditions.[1]
On top of that, some workers have paid the highest price – their life. To a
certain extent, all this could have been avoided if human rights had been taken
into account when evaluating the Qatari bid to host the tournament. In such a
case, Qatar would not have won the bidding contest without providing a
convincing explanation of how it intends to ensure that the country's poor human rights record
will not affect individuals, including migrant workers, contributing to the
delivery of the World Cup. An explicit commitment to abolish the kafala system could have formed an
integral part of the bid.
Urged by Professor
John Ruggie and his authoritative recommendations,[2]
in October 2017 FIFA decided to include human rights within the criteria for
evaluating bids to host the 2026 World Cup, following similar steps taken
earlier this year by the International Olympic Committee (IOC)
and UEFA in the context
of the Olympic Winter Games 2026 and the Euro 2024 respectively. This two-part
blog critically examines the role human rights play in the new bidding
regulations adopted by the IOC, UEFA, and FIFA. The first part sheds light on
the IOC and UEFA. The second part then takes a closer look at FIFA and aims to
use a comparative analysis to determine whether the new bidding regulations are
robust enough to ensure that selected candidates abide by international human
rights standards.More...
Editor's note: This report compiles all relevant news, events and
materials on International and European Sports Law based on the daily coverage
provided on our twitter feed @Sportslaw_asser. You
are invited to complete this survey via the comments section below, feel free
to add links to important cases, documents and articles we might have
overlooked.
The Headlines
2024 and 2028 Olympic Games to be held in Paris and
Los Angeles respectively
On 13 September 2017,
the Session of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) held in Lima, Peru, elected Paris and Los Angeles as host cities of the 2024 and
2028 Olympic Games respectively. On this occasion, the IOC President Thomas
Bach said that ''this historic double
allocation is a 'win-win-win' situation for the city of Paris, the city of Los
Angeles and the IOC''. The idea of a tripartite agreement whereby two
editions of the Olympic Games would be awarded at the same time was presented
by a working group of the IOC Vice-Presidents established in March 2017. Both
Paris and Los Angeles have pledged to make the Olympic Games cost-efficient, in
particular through the use of a record-breaking number of existing and
temporary facilities. In addition to economic aspects, it will be worthwhile to
keep an eye on how both cities will address human rights and other similar concerns
that may arise in the run-up to the Olympic Games. More...
This is a follow-up
contribution to my previous blog on human rights
implications of the Olympic Games published last week. Together with
highlighting some of the most serious Olympic Games-related human rights
abuses, the first part has outlined the key elements of the Host City Contract
('HCC') as one of the main legal instruments regulating the execution of the
Olympic Games. It has also indicated that, in February 2017, the International
Olympic Committee ('IOC') revised the 2024 HCC to include, inter alia, explicit human rights
obligations. Without questioning the potential significance of inserting human
rights obligations to the 2024 HCC, this second part will refer to a number of
outstanding issues requiring clarification in order to ensure that these
newly-added human rights obligations are translated from paper to actual practice. More...
Editor’s note:
Tomáš Grell is currently an LL.M. student
in Public International Law at Leiden University. He contributes to
the work of the ASSER International Sports Law Centre as a part-time
intern.
In its press release of 28 February 2017,
the International Olympic Committee ('IOC') communicated that, as part of the
implementation of Olympic Agenda 2020 ('Agenda 2020'), it is
making specific changes to the 2024
Host City Contract with regard to human
rights, anti-corruption and sustainable development. On this occasion, IOC
President Thomas Bach stated that ''this
latest step is another reflection of the IOC's commitment to embedding the
fundamental values of Olympism in all aspects of the Olympic Games''.
Although the Host City of the 2024 Summer Olympic Games is scheduled to be
announced only in September this year, it is now clear that, be it either Los
Angeles or Paris (as Budapest has recently withdrawn its bid), it will have to abide by an additional set of human
rights obligations.
This two-part blog will
take a closer look at the execution of the Olympic Games from a human rights
perspective. The first part will address the most serious human rights abuses
that reportedly took place in connection with some of the previous editions of
the Olympic Games. It will also outline the key characteristics of the Host
City Contract ('HCC') as one of the main legal instruments relating to the
execution of the Olympic Games. The second part will shed light on the human
rights provisions that have been recently added to the 2024 HCC and it will seek
to examine how, if at all, these newly-added human rights obligations could be
reflected in practice. For the sake of clarity, it should be noted that the
present blog will not focus on the provisions concerning anti-corruption that
have been introduced to the 2024 HCC together with the abovementioned human
rights provisions. More...
Editor's note: This blog is part of a special blog series on the Russian doping scandal at the CAS. Last year I analysed the numerous decisions rendered by the CAS ad hoc Division in Rio and earlier this year I reviewed the CAS award in the IAAF case.
Unlike
the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), the
International Paralympic Committee (IPC) was very much unaffected by the
Russian doping scandal until the publication of the first McLaren report in July
2016. The
report highlighted that Russia’s doping scheme was way more comprehensive than
what was previously thought. It extended beyond athletics to other disciplines,
including Paralympic sports. Furthermore, unlike the International Olympic
Committee (IOC) the IPC had a bit more time to deal with the matter, as the Rio
Paralympic Games were due to start “only” in September.
After
the release of the McLaren Report, the IPC president Sir Philip Craven was “truly shocked, appalled
and deeply saddened at the extent of the state sponsored doping programme
implemented in Russia”. He immediately announced the IPC’s intention to review
the report’s findings and to act strongly upon them. Shortly thereafter, on 22
July, the IPC decided to open suspension proceedings
against the National Paralympic Committee of Russia (NPC Russia) in light of
its apparent inability to fulfil its IPC membership responsibilities and
obligations. In particular, due to “the prevailing doping culture endemic
within Russian sport, at the very highest levels, NPC Russia appears unable or
unwilling to ensure compliance with and the enforcement of the IPC’s
Anti-Doping Code within its own national jurisdiction”. A few weeks later, on 7
August, the IPC Governing Board decided to suspend the Russian
Paralympic Committee with immediate effect “due to its inability to fulfil its
IPC membership responsibilities and obligations, in particular its obligation
to comply with the IPC Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Code (to which
it is also a signatory)”. Indeed, these “obligations are a fundamental
constitutional requirement for all National Paralympic Committees (NPCs), and
are vital to the IPC’s ability to ensure fair competition and to provide a
level playing field for all Para athletes around the world”. Consequently, the
Russian Paralympic Committee lost all rights and privileges of IPC membership. Specifically,
it was not entitled to enter athletes in competitions sanctioned by the IPC,
and/or to participate in IPC activities. Thus, “the Russian Paralympic
Committee will not be able to enter its athletes in the Rio 2016 Paralympic
Games”. More...
“One day Alice came to a fork in the road and saw a Cheshire cat in a
tree. ‘Which road do I take?’ she asked. ‘Where do you want to go?’ was his
response. ‘I don’t know,’ Alice answered. ‘Then,’ said the cat, ‘it doesn’t
matter.”
Tomorrow the Foundation Board
of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) will gather in Glasgow for
its most important meeting since the creation of the Agency. Since the
broadcasting of a documentary alleging systematic doping in
Russian athletics by the German public broadcaster in December 2014, the
anti-doping world has been in disarray. The various independent investigations
(the Pound Report and the McLaren Report) ordered by WADA into doping allegations
against Russian athletes have confirmed the findings of the documentary and the
truth of the accusations brought forward by Russian whistle-blowers.
Undeniably, there is something very rotten in the world anti-doping system. The
current system failed to register a widespread, and apparently relatively open,
state-sponsored scheme aimed at manipulating any doping test conducted in
Russian territory. Moreover, it was not WADA that uncovered it, but an
independent journalist supported by courageous whistle-blowers. More...