This post offers a basic literature review on publications on international and European sports law in 2015. It does not have the pretence of being complete (our readers are encouraged to add references and links in the comments under this blog), but aims at covering a relatively vast sample of the 2015 academic publications in the field (we have used the comprehensive catalogue of the Peace Palace Library as a baseline for this compilation). When possible we have added hyperlinks to the source.^[1]

Have a good read.

Books

Stefano Bastianon (ed.), La sentenza Bosman vent'anni dopo. Aspetti giuridico-economici della sentenza che ha cambiato il calcio professionistico europeo (Giappichelli, Torino 2015)

Stefano Bastianon (ed.), L'Europa e lo sport. Profili giuridici, economici e sociali. Atti del 4° Convegno (Bergamo, 26 novembre 2014) (Giappichelli, Torino 2015)

Frédéric Buy & al (ed.), Droit du sport (L.G.D.J, Paris 2015)

Johnny Maeschalk et al., Sportrecht (Die Keure, Brugge, 2015)

Mathieu Maisonneuve (ed.), Droit et olympisme : contribution à l'étude juridique d'un phénomène transnational, (Presses Universitaires d'Aix-Marseille, Aix en Provence 2015)

Despina Mavromati and Matthieu Reeb, The Code of the Court of Arbitration for Sport : commentary, cases and materials (Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn 2015)

David McArdle, Dispute Resolution in Sport: Athletes, Law and Arbitration (Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, London, New York 2015)

Patrick Meier, Dopingsanktion durch Zahlungsversprechen: das Beispiel der Ehrenerklärungen des Weltradsportverbands UCI (Duncker and Humblot, Berlin 2015)

Mario Merget, Beweisführung im Sportgerichtsverfahren am Beispiel des direkten und indirekten Dopingnachweises (Duncker and Humblot, Berlin 2015)

Katarina Pijetlovic, EU sports law and breakaway leagues in football (Asser Press, The Hague 2015)

Moritz Tauschwitz, Die Dopingverfolgung in Deutschland und Spanien. Eine strafrechtliche und kriminologische Untersuchung (Duncker and Humblot, Berlin 2015)

Klaus Vieweg (ed.), Lex Sportiva (Duncker and Humblot, Berlin 2015)

Klaus Vieweg, Gert-Peter Brüggemann, Franz Steinle (ed.), "Techno-Doping": Leistungssteigerung durch technische Hilfsmittel aus naturwissenschaftlicher und juristischer Perspektive (Boorberg, Stuttgart 2015)

Klaus Vieweg (ed.), Impulse des Sportrechts (Duncker and Humblot, Berlin 2015)

Marjolaine Viret, Evidence in Anti-Doping at the Intersection of Science & Law (T.M.C. Asser Press, 2016)

Markus Zimmermann, Vertragsstabilität im internationalen Fußball : unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Rechtsprechung der FIFA und des CAS (Richard Boorberg, Stuttgart 2015)

Academic Journals[2]

The International Sports Law Journal

Antonio Rigozzi, Ulrich Haas, Emily Wisnosky, Marjolaine Viret, Breaking down the process for determining a basic sanction under the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code, June 2015, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 3-48

Elena Atienza-Macias, 2015 WADA code comes into effect: significant changes in the Spanish legal arena, June 2015, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 49-54

Antoine Duval, Cocaine, doping and the court of arbitration for sport, June 2015, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 55-63 

Corinna Coors, Are sports image rights assets? A legal, economic and tax perspective, June 2015, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 64-68

Simon Boyes, Legal protection of athletes’ image rights in the United Kingdom, June 2015, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 69-82

Tom Serby, The Council of Europe Convention on Manipulation of Sports Competitions: the best bet for the global fight against match-fixing?, June 2015, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 83-100

Jonathan Liljeblad, Foucault, justice, and athletes with prosthetics: the 2008 CAS Arbitration Report on Oscar Pistorius,  June 2015, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 101-111

Jacob Kornbeck, Lisbonisation without regulation: engaging with sport policy to maximise its health impact?, June 2015, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 112-122

Sergey Yurlov, Right to participate in sporting competition: a human right or legal fiction and the Russian legal framework for sport, June 2015, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 123-127

SpuRt: Zeitschrift für Sport und Recht

Fabian Stancke, ‘Pechstein und der aktuelle Stand des Sportkartel‘ (2015), Volume 22, Issue 2, 46-51

Jan F. Orth, Martin Stopper, ‘Entscheidungsvollzug in der Verbandspyramide und Ausbildungsentschädigung‘ (2015), Volume 22, Issue 2, 51-56

Philipp Wackerbeck, ‘Das Aus der Spielervermittlerlizenz und das "Dritteigentum an Spielerrechten" - eine erste, kritische Bestandsaufnahme‘ (2015), Volume 22, Issue 2, 56-61

Michael Geistlinger, Julia Schaffelhofer, ‘Die Vierjahressperre nach dem WADC 2015 aus dem Blickwinkel der grundrechtlichen Berufsfreiheit‘ (2015), Volume 22, Issue 3, 101-105

Causa Sport: die Sport-Zeitschrift für nationales und internationales Recht sowie für Wirtschaft

Peter W. Heermann, ‘Related Parties gemäss Financial Fair Play: Erste Erfahrungen‘ (2015), Issue 1, 3-9

Markus Zimmermann, ‘Komplexe Konsequenzen bei Vertragsauflösungen im Fussball‘ (2015), Issue 1, 16-22

Patrick Redell, ‘Spielerverträge mit Minderjährigen: droht ein neuer "Bosman" Fall?‘ (2015), Issue 1, 28-36

Anne-Sophie Morand, ‘Verbote religiöser und politischer Symbole im Sport im Lichte des Persönlichkeitsrechts‘ (2015), Issue 1, 72-81

Luca Beffa & Olivier Ducrey, Review of the 2014 Case Law of the Swiss Federal Tribunal concerning Sports Arbitration (2015), Issue 2, 115-123

Marco Del Fabro, Optionen nach dem Verbot von Third Party Ownerships (2015), Issue 3, 219-230

Ralf Eckert  & Clauia Wisser, Die Genehmigungsgebühr des DLV im Lichte des <Pechstein-Urteils> des OLG München (2015), Issue 3, 238-241

Matthias Neumann, Die Lizenzbox : attraktives Steuerungsinstrument für Fußballklubs im Rahmen des Merchandising (2015), Issue 3,  295-303

Dominik Kocholl, Schiedsklauseln im internationalen Sport : gewollt oder nicht? : Anmerkungen zur Entscheidung des Gerichtshofs vom 18. Februar 2015 3 Ob 157/14f (2015), Issue 3,  311-321

Urs Scherrer, FIFA : Reflexionen zu Fakten, zu Spekulationen und zur Zukunft (2015), Issue 3, 322-325

Jonas Leder, Das Bewerbungsverfahren um die Ausrichtung der Olympischen Spiele nach der IOC-Agenda 2020 (2015), Issue 4, 339-343 

Robin van der Hout & Christian Wagner, Neue Möglichkeiten beihilferechtskonformer Finanzierung von Sportinfrastrukturen (2015), Issue 4, 344-352

Paul Lambertz, Problematische Namensveröffentlichungsregelung in Dopingfällen gemäss WADA-Code (2015), Issue 4, 369-373

Peter W. Heermann, Abstellung von Nationalspielern aus kartellrechtlicher Sicht (2015), Issue 4, 384-391

Revista española de derecho deportivo

Diego Medina Morales, ‘Derecho del deporte y normas de juego’ (2015), Volume 35, Issue 1, 11-18

Sandra L. Echeverry Velásquez, ‘Límites en la actividad publicitaria de naturaleza general y especial aplicada al deporte’ (2015), Volume 35, Issue 1, 55-78

Emilio A. García Silvero, ‘La disciplina deportiva en las federaciones deportivas internacionales: algunos aspectos básicos para su adecuada comprensión’(2015) Volume 35, Issue 1, 79-102

Rivista di diritto ed Economia dello sport

Mario Vigna, La Saga Pechstein : Tremano le colonne del tempio tas ? (2015), Issue 1, 13-30

Alessandro Coni, Le Third-Party Ownership, (2015), Issue 1, 31-68

Michele Spadini, La normativa FIFA a tutela dei minori alla luce del « caso Barcellona »
(2015), Issue 2, 17-46

Piero Sandulli, Acquisizione e valutazione della prova nel processo sportivo : Profili problematici ? (2015), Issue 2, 47-58

Luca Smacchia, Il lodo Mutu : Come il diritto europeo limita la specificità dello sport (2015), Issue 2, 75-88

Gerardo Russo, Lo sviluppo tecnico normativo nella lotta al doping e l’impatto sul rilascio delle licenze world tour UCI : Il caso Astana (2015), Issue 2, 89-116

Salvatore Civale, L'Indennità di formazione e il contributo di solidarietà nei trasferimenti internazionali dei calciatori alla luce della circolare FIFA n.1500 (2015), Issue 2, 117-126

Massimiliano Zampi & Giovanna Tassoni, Il doping tra medicina legale e diritto, osservazioni sulla liceità dei prelievi e sulle modlità di accertamento(2015), Issue 2, 135-148

Alessandro Coni, Il caso RFC Sérésien : La prima condanna per violazione del divieto di TPO (2015), Issue 2, 135-148

Sweet & Maxwell's international sports law review

James M. Dorsey, ‘To watch or not to watch? : Middle Eastern Women's Sporting Rights’ (2015) Sweet & Maxwell's international sports law review

Lauri Tarasti, ‘First International Convention against Sport Manipulation’ (2015) Sweet & Maxwell's international sports law review

Kevin Carpenter & Adam Pendlebury, ‘Tweeting the Game into Disrepute : Regulation of Social Media by Governing Bodies : Lessons from English Football’ (2015) Sweet & Maxwell's international sports law review

Ulrich Haas, ‚The Court of Arbitration for Sport in the Case Law of the German Courts’ (2015) Sweet & Maxwell's international sports law review

Others

Toine Spapens and Marjan Olfers, Match-fixing: The Current Discussion in Europe and the Case of The Netherlands (2015) European Journal of Crime Criminal Law and Criminal Justice; vol. 23, Issue. 4, 333-358

Ulrich Haas, Der Court of Arbitration for Sport im Spiegel der deutschen Rechtsprechung (2015) Zeitschrift fur Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft; vol. 114, issue. 4, 516-544

Andrew Wacke, Spiel und Wette (insbesondere Sportwetten) in der Entwickliung des europäischen Zivilrechts (2015) Zeitschrift für europäisches Privatrecht, Issue 1, 88-104

Valerie Kaplan, UEFA Financial Fair play Regulations and the European Union Antitrust Law Complications (2015) Emory International Law Review, Volume 29, Issue 4, 799-857

Philippe Cavalieros, Janet (Hyun Jeong) Kim, Can the Arbitral Community learn from Sports Arbitration? (2015) Journal of International Arbitration, Volume 32, Issue 2, 237-260 

Ralf Eckert, Maut fürs Laufen : zur Rechtmäßigkeit einer von einem Sportverband erhobenen Abgabe (2015) Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, Volume 65, Issue 5, 480-489

Evelyne Lagrange, L'État et les puissances privées : digressions sur la compétence plénière de l'État et "l'autonomie du mouvement sportif" in Pierre d'Argent, Béatrice Bonafé et Jean Combacau (eds.) Les limites du droit international : essais en l'honneur de Joe Verhoeven, 183-204, 2015, ISBN 9782802742913

Mark Pieth, Ist der FIFA noch zu helfen? (2015) Zeitschrift fur Schweizerisches Recht, vol. 134, Issue. 1, 135-148

Danielle Wood, Giving Competition a Sporting Chance? : The Role for Antitrust Laws in Promoting Competition from New Sporting Leagues in Australia and the United States (2015) Australian Business Law Review; vol. 43, Issue. 3, 206-227

Oliver Budzinski, Stefan Szymanski, Are restrictions of competition by sports associations horizontal or vertical in nature? (2015) Journal of Competition Law & Economics, Volume 11, Issue 2, 409-429

Phinney Disseldorp, Voetballers niet langer te koop!? : Over een verbod op Third Party Ownership (2015) Tijdschrift voor sport & recht, Issue 1, 1-7

Geoff Pearson, Sporting Justifications under EU Free Movement and Competition Law: The Case of the Football ‘Transfer System’ (2015) European Law Journal, Volume 21, Issue 2, 220–238

Ben Van Rompuy, The Role of EU Competition Law in Tackling Abuse of Regulatory Power by Sports Associations (2015) Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, vol. 22, issue. 2, 179-208

Nicolaides Phedon, A Critical Analysis of the Application of State Aid Rules to Sport (2015) Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, vol. 22, issue. 2, 209-223

Antoine Duval, The Court of Arbitration for Sport and EU Law: Chronicle of an Encounter (2015) Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, vol. 22, issue. 2, 224-255

Richard Parrish, Article 17 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players: Compatibility with EU Law, (2015) Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, vol. 22, issue. 2, 256-282

Jacob Kornbeck, The Stamina of the "Bosman" Legacy : The European Union and the Revision of the World Anti-Doping Code (2011-2013) (2015) Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, vol. 22, issue. 2, 283-304

Anna Sabrina Wollman, Olivier Vonk & Gerard-René De Groot, Towards a Sporting nationality? (2015) Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, vol. 22, issue. 2, 305-321

Stefano Bastianon, The Striani Challenge to UEFA Financial Fair-Play. A New Era after Bosman or Just a Washout? (2015) Competition Law Review, Volume 11 Issue 1, 7-39

Beverley Williamson, Premiership Rugby Union: Through the Antitrust Looking Glass (2015) Competition Law Review, Volume 11 Issue 1, 41-60

Oskar van Maren, The Real Madrid case: A State aid case (un)like any other? (2015) Competition Law Review, Volume 11 Issue 1, 83-108

SSRN Articles

Anastasios Kaburakis, Ryan M. Rodenberg, John T. Holden, Inevitable: Sports Gambling, State Regulation, and the Pursuit of Revenue (10 January 2015)

Ben Van Rompuy, The Odds of Match Fixing - Facts & Figures on the Integrity Risk of Certain Sports Bets (22 January 2015)

Craig Dickson, Complex Rules & Inconsistent Interpretation: Duty of Care and Causation in Collision Sports (27 February 2015)

Craig Dickson, Courtsiding' in Sport: Cheating, Sharp Practice or Merely Irritating? (13 March 2015)

Kyle Mulrooney, Katinka Van de Ven, ”Muscle Profiling”: Anti-Doping Policy and Deviant Leisure (23 March 2015) 

Antoine Duval, Ben Van Rompuy, The Compatibility of Forced CAS Arbitration with EU Competition Law: Pechstein Reloaded (23 June 2015)

Michele Giannino, Can Joint Sale Agreements for Exclusive Media Rights to Sport Events Amount to Abusive Conducts? The Simbia/CLT-UFA Case in Luxembourg (10 July 2015)

Dick Pound, Sports Arbitration: How it Works and Why it Works (16 June 2015)

Kathryn Henne, Reforming Global Sport: Hybridity and the Challenges of Pursuing Transparency (20 August 2015).

Kathryn Henne, Defending Doping: Performances and Trials of an Anti-Doping Program (20 August 2015).

Thomas Margoni, The Protection of Sports Events in the European Union: Property, Intellectual Property, Unfair Competition and Special Forms of Protection (August 29, 2015).

Teresa Scassa and Benoit Séguin, Ambush Marketing Legislation to Protect Olympic Sponsors: A Step Too Far in the Name of Brand Protection? (October 7, 2015).

Others:

Bulletin TAS/CAS Bulletin 2015/1

[1] This literature review would not have been possible without the precious support of our former intern Piotr Drabik.

[2] Only the articles deemed relevant from an international sports law perspective are listed here.

‎Editor's Note: Ryan is Assistant Professor at Thompson Rivers University, he defended his PhD at Erasmus University Rotterdam in December 2015. His dissertation examined human rights violations caused by international sporting events, and how international sporting organisations may be held accountable for these violations.

Introduction

On Sunday, August 21, the 2016 Summer Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro will end. The spotlight will dim not only on the athletes who return to their home countries to ply their trade in relative obscurity, but also on the country of Brazil.[1] Once the Games have ended, life will go ‘back to normal’, although for many residents of Rio de Janeiro, what is ‘normal’ is anything but.

Watching the opening ceremonies from the favelas – Andrej Isakovic via Getty Images

“A New World” for Favela Residents

While the world has been preoccupied with Zika, the Brazilian corruption crisis, the cesspool that is Guanabara Bay, and the worrying state of some of the sporting venues, the displacement of persons is perhaps the largest problem not only facing the Games, but is the largest one caused (or at least exacerbated) by the Games themselves. Since Rio de Janeiro was selected to be the host of the Olympic Games in 2009, over 77,000 individuals (22,000 families) have been evicted from their homes. Most, if not all, of these individuals were evicted from their homes in the favelas, or slums, communities that began to appear in earnest in the 1970s as Brazil, and Rio de Janeiro in particular, began to urbanize. Currently, favelas are home to 1.4 million people, or about 22% of Rio’s population. It is very likely that not all of these evictions were related to the Games directly. City officials have stated that only Vila Autodromo was directly-affected by the Games, as this particular favela was turned into a parking lot for the Olympic Park and twenty homes for those who refused to leave (Reuters provides a good before/after comparison).

Vila Autodromo (Olympic Park under construction) - Genilson Araújo / Parceiro/O Globo

However, seemingly taking their cue from Rio 2016’s slogan, “Um mundo novo” (“A New World”), city officials have used the Olympic Games as an excuse to ‘re-imagine’ the city on a broader scale. In a 2012 interview, the mayor of Rio stated that “The Olympics pretext is awesome; I need to use it as an excuse for everything…Now all that I need to do, I will do for the Olympics. Some things could be really related to the Games, others have nothing to do with them.” As such, people from favelas that have nothing to do with the Games have been evicted from their homes, with the Games creating the pseudo-state of ‘emergency’ that has, in other cities that have hosted the Games, been used as an excuse to bypass normal procedures and do away with normal protections, in the mold of Naomi Klein’s “shock capitalism”.

The Rio government has claimed to offer financial packages and resettlement options for those who were displaced. These compensation packages were imperfect, as the government offered less than market value for the homes, and those who were relocated may have been relocated anywhere from several to dozens of kilometers away from their former residence, uprooting their businesses or employment, and their social and family lives. However, the relocation policy appears to be the velvet glove concealing the iron fist. For those who resisted relocation, the city cut off their water, and halted garbage pickup and postal service, while violent clashes between residents and police have also been reported. While not directly-related to evictions, but closely related to conditions in the favelas, there has been a reported spike in police killings of street children to “clean the streets” ahead of the Games. While new housing is being built in Rio, much of it is set to be high-end condos, not affordable housing.

International Standards Regarding Housing

The focus of this particular blog post is not the legality of the displacement, per se. That is an issue best addressed by Brazilian lawyers. However, there are international standards that Brazil should live up to. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises a right to own property, and prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of property. Another international instrument of wide application, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), recognises a right to an adequate standard of living. The ICESCR Committee, in its General Comments in 1991 and 1997, has interpreted this standard to include a right against forced evictions. If an eviction does occur, rights to information and participation by those who are affected arise. Finally, when an eviction does take place, a right to compensation and adequate resettlement attaches.

The case of Rio seems to suggest that forced evictions have likely occurred, based on the sheer scale of those who were evicted. Given the timeline of preparing for the Games, provisions on notice and information appear to have been curtailed or cancelled altogether, given that the city went to work on evicting persons immediately after Rio was awarded the right to host the Games in 2009. While some residents, particularly of Vila Autodromo, received compensation and alternative housing, in many cases there appears to be disagreement as to whether compensation has been offered at all with locals saying they have not received compensation, while city authorities deny evicting families without compensation. Actions such as police raids, and cutting off public services also suggest the evictions approach the threshold of ‘forced’ rather than voluntary/negotiated. Regardless of whether the letter of these international standards has been violated, the scope and pace of the evictions is of great concern.

IOC Stance Regarding Displacement

In particular, it should be distressing to readers to see the International Olympic Committee (IOC) seemingly stand by while these evictions occur in the name of the Games. And it is not as if the IOC has no clue that evictions take place due to the Games. For many Games, at least some displacement occurs to make way for infrastructure, while the 2008 Beijing Games saw an estimated 1.25 million people evicted due to Olympic-related projects.

The IOC has responded to the problems of displacement, pledging in 2009 to intervene with the Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (the OCOG – the actual body that is responsible for Games’ preparations) in situations where people who were displaced due to Olympic venue construction were ‘mistreated’. However, the IOC has not said anything publicly in regards to the evictions, and there is no public information regarding any IOC intervention.

Following the IOC’s Agenda 2020, and its recommendations on ‘social sustainability’, the IOC now requires cities bidding to host the Olympics to identify projects that may require displacement of existing communities, and to confirm that the procedures used to displace persons will conform to national and/or international standards. However, promises made by host cities are not always lived up to, as can be seen by Rio’s failed promises to treat 80% of the water flowing into Guanabara Bay, and treating only 21% on the eve of the Games. Rio is apparently also able to get away with such failed promises consequence-free, despite the risk of harm to athletes competing in and around the waters.

The Games Cannot Fix All Ills, But They Should Avoid Creating New Ones…

Ultimately, the largest problem with the Olympic Games is a lack of accountability. The IOC, an organisation based in Switzerland, holds the rights to the Games and selects the host city, but does not actually organise the Games. As such, the IOC often appears to act as though what happens ‘on the ground’ is neither its concern nor its responsibility. Those who actually organise the Games, particularly the OCOG and Host City (the National Olympic Committee of the host country also participates, but is not relevant here), often have limited accountability to those who are harmed by the Games. The OCOG disbands shortly after the Games are over, leaving the Host City holding the bag. The Host City’s accountability is entirely dependent on the political and legal structures of the country, and in countries like Russia (Sochi 2014, World Cup 2018), China (Beijing 2008, Beijing 2022), but even in more established democracies, Host City officials may have limited accountability.

Now is the time that commentators jump up-and-down to shout that hosting the Olympic Games in a single site would fix all of the problems. By placing the Games in Athens (no permanent Winter Games host is ever suggested), there wouldn’t be a need to host the Games in countries with questionable human rights records, or to watch as every single Olympic Games goes over-budget. However, rarely are suggestions made as to who will pay for the infrastructure, which will likely need to be periodically updated (it might be a bit hard for the Greek government to afford it at this point), cope with the criticism that the Games would be cemented as a Euro-centric enterprise, or the other problems that would arise with a permanent host. The Olympic Games are going to continue to be held in countries with imperfect human rights records (which would be pretty much all of them), and in countries with poor human rights records.

All of this is to say that the IOC needs to begin to actually enforce its ideals, and its own mandate of ensuring an Olympic Games that is socially sustainable. The IOC and the Olympic Games should not be the solution to human rights problems in a host country, for they cannot be. However, the IOC does have a minimum moral responsibility to ensure that the Olympic Games themselves are prepared for with the utmost consideration for human rights. And the IOC already has the powers to enforce this mandate through the Host City Contract, whether by withholding money from the Host City, or at the most extreme end, by removing the Games altogether. The IOC has also arguably set a precedent of withholding its support for a country to host future sporting events as a result of the Russian doping scandal, and it could do the same for Olympic host cities that engage in practices that violate human rights in the name of the Games. Of course, this is ultimately up to the IOC itself, barring pressure from states or sponsors.

The Olympic Games were never going to fix Brazil’s or Rio’s problems. Many of Rio’s problems, including Zika, ongoing sanitation issues, corruption, and political and economic instability, have little to no connection to the Games, and were certainly not caused by the Games. In that vein, it is naïve to believe that the Games could be anything more than a temporary papering-over of the deep divisions in Brazilian society (for more on this point, I suggest reading Dave Zirin’s book, Brazil’s Dance with the Devil). What the Olympic Games can do is serve as an example of how to carry out a socially-sustainable project in an emerging market economy. This applies not only to the displacement of persons, but also to the treatment of those who work on construction projects related to the Games (as opposed to the forced labour used in Beijing and Sochi), the environmental sustainability of the Games, and governmental policies and procedures that enhance accountability. While the IOC has made tentative steps to address these issues, as I have addressed before in this space, it is insufficient. The IOC cannot solve all the world’s ills, but it can at least ensure that the Games, carried out under its name, live up to its own standards.  The Rio Olympic Games could have served as an example of how to carry out a socially-sustainable project in an emerging market economy.

[1] Although the Paralympics will arrive on 7 September, and while London 2012 did an excellent job of promoting those Games it remains to be seen if Rio will follow suit.

On Wednesday 14 July 2021 from 16.00-17.30 CET, the Asser International Sports Law Centre, in collaboration with Dr Marjolaine Viret, is organizing a Zoom In webinar on Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter and the right to free speech of athletes.

As the Tokyo Olympics are drawing closer, the International Olympic Committee just released new Guidelines on the implementation of Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter. The latter Rule provides that ‘no kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas’. The latest IOC Guidelines did open up some space for athletes to express their political views, but at the same time continue to ban any manifestation from the Olympic Village or the Podium. In effect, Rule 50 imposes private restrictions on the freedom of expression of athletes in the name of the political neutrality of international sport. This limitation on the rights of athletes is far from uncontroversial and raises intricate questions regarding its legitimacy, proportionality and ultimately compatibility with human rights standards (such as with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights).

This webinar aims at critically engaging with Rule 50 and its compatibility with the fundamental rights of athletes. We will discuss the content of the latest IOC Guidelines regarding Rule 50, the potential justifications for such a Rule, and the alternatives to its restrictions. To do so, we will be joined by three speakers, Professor Mark James from Manchester Metropolitan University, who has widely published on the Olympic Games and transnational law; Chui Ling Goh, a Doctoral Researcher at Melbourne Law School, who has recently released an (open access) draft of an article on Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter; and David Grevemberg, Chief Innovation and Partnerships Officer at the Centre for Sport and Human Rights, and former Chief Executive of the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF). 

Guest speakers:

• Prof. Mark James (Metropolitan Manchester University)
• Chui Ling Goh (PhD candidate, University of Melbourne)
• David Grevemberg (Centre for Sport and Human Rights)

Moderators:

• Dr Antoine Duval (Asser Institute)
• Dr Marjolaine Viret (University of Lausanne)

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.

Publicly Financing a Stadium – Back in the Saddle(dome)

Calgary, Canada, held their municipal elections on October 16, 2017, re-electing Naheed Nenshi for a third term as mayor. What makes this local election an interesting issue for sports, and sports law, is the domination of the early days of the campaign by one issue – public funding for a new arena for the Calgary Flames. The Flames are Calgary’s National Hockey League (NHL) team, and they play in the Scotiabank Saddledome.

Scotiabank Saddledome, credit to Lorraine Hjalte, Calgary Herald

The team began play in 1972 as the Atlanta Flames, moving to Calgary in 1980. The Saddledome was built in 1983 to support both the newly-arrived Flames, and Calgary’s 1988 Winter Olympic Games. Today, the Saddledome is the oldest arena in operation in the NHL. Due to its age, and the damage caused by floods in 2013, the Flames are looking for a new home. As is the norm in North America, the Flames have no intention of going it alone, but are seeking a deal with the City of Calgary where the city would subsidize part of the arena. Negotiations have been ongoing for several years, with a few possible sites discussed.

Shortly into the 2017 municipal election campaign, negotiations between Calgary and the Flames broke down. The City of Calgary publicly released their proposal for a $555 million stadium, where the city would effectively subsidize 33% of the stadium through a mix of funding, land, and demolition of the old Saddledome. The team would pay 33% of the costs, and the fans would kick in the final 33% through a ticket tax. The Flames responded by releasing their proposal for a $500 million stadium, where the city would provide 45% of the funding through a ‘Community Revitalization Levy’ (a loan from the province of Alberta, paid off by property taxes on new developments around the arena), with the team providing 55% of the remainder. The difference in costs may be that the Flames’ proposal does not appear to consider the demolition of the old Saddledome. While the team’s proposal has the team paying more costs up-front, it would also see the Flames pay no property tax or rent during their tenure in the new stadium, while keeping all revenue generated by the arena.

Canadian national media praised Mayor Nenshi for not simply capitulating to the demands of the Flames. Print media exhorted taxpayers to “Just say ‘No’” to subsidizing the Flames, and called Nenshi’s re-election “a win for every city blackmailed by a sports team”. The Calgary Flames, and the NHL were less sanguine, as NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman blamed Nenshi for not getting a new arena for the Flames, and Flames’ management suggesting that the team would have to move. The night of Nenshi’s re-election saw the communications director of the Flames, Sean Kelso, take a more direct stance:

The ongoing dispute in Calgary is emblematic of a larger problem in North America – the public financing of stadiums for professional sports teams.

Public Financing of Stadiums in North America – A General Overview

North American cities have subsidized stadiums for professional sports teams for decades. However, cities rarely simply transfer cash to a team. Instead, more complex mechanisms are used: issuing bonds, tax increases, lotteries, and the use of “eminent domain”.

First, cities may provide money for stadiums through providing bonds to team owners. These bonds are tax-exempt, and are normally used by cities for public improvements. Cities have been able to justify their use for stadiums, and the tax-exempt nature of the bonds lowers the lifetime borrowing costs for a team. Second, cities may simply increase taxes. Cities used to increase property taxes to raise money for stadiums, but local residents began to resent such increases. Today, cities often increase “sin taxes” (e.g., on alcohol, or gambling), or taxes on hotels, in an attempt to move the burden of increased taxation to out-of-town people who won’t be voting in the next municipal election. Third, cities may set up lotteries, in conjunction with the state or province, to raise money for the stadium. Finally, cities may exercise their use of “eminent domain”. This tactic enables cities to condemn the land, with payment of just compensation (which is often not market value) to the original owner, for the furtherance of a “public purpose” (what constitutes a public purpose is broad, following the US Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)).

After understanding the what, the question remains: why do cities subsidize sports stadiums? Ultimately, there is a limited supply of major-league teams, and cities view being a “major league” city as a benefit. Unlike European professional leagues, where any local team could make it to the top league through promotion, the top leagues in North America are closed leagues, currently limited to 30-32 teams in the “big four” leagues. Cities that want to be home to a professional team must convince a league to expand, placing a new team in their city (as Las Vegas recently did with the NHL), or convince an owner of an already-existing team to relocate (as Las Vegas has done with the National Football League’s Oakland Raiders). One way to encourage expansion or relation is to offer a subsidized stadium. It can be argued that these tactics are no different than a city offering a subsidy to convince a company to establish or relocate an office – like what is happening with Amazon right now – except for the scale of the subsidy.

Boosters of stadium subsidies have argued that cities should be happy to have sports teams, as the teams will generate an economic boost. They claim that the team, and their new stadium, will increase local income, employment rates, property values, and the well-being of citizens. However, economists have generally debunked these claims. While there are examples of successful stadiums, they are generally not as successful as predicted, often not worth the costs, and the few successes are drowned out by every other instance where the economic impact was not realized (sort of like hosting the Olympic Games or FIFA World Cup).

Proposed Legal Solutions to Halt Public Financing of Stadiums

Given the lack of economic benefits generated by stadiums, particularly given the hundreds of millions of dollars of subsidies granted to each stadium, legal scholars have proposed legislative, regulatory, and judicial solutions to halting this gravy train.

In regards to legislative solutions, Canada and the United States could follow the model of the European Union (EU). The EU has restrictions on government assistance to private industries, to prevent the distortion of competition across the EU – these are known as the “State Aid” rules, found in Art. 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In practice, the EU has an uneven history of applying the State Aid rules to sport. However, it has shown more enthusiasm over the past year to find evidence of state aid that is incompatible with the Treaty, including in a case that involved a questionable deal involving land next to Real Madrid’s Bernabéu Stadium. However, legislative solutions are unlikely to be enacted by either the American Congress or the Canadian Parliament (or local legislative bodies). There appears to be no interest to do so, and why would there be? Politicians can benefit from new stadiums by working with business elites who support the stadiums, and the evidence of repercussions at the ballot box appear to be mixed.

Some legal scholars have suggested regulatory or judicial solutions, such as: halting the tax-free status of municipal bonds, ending the use of eminent domain to obtain land for stadiums, and advocated a stronger role for antitrust oversight over the conduct of teams and leagues in this regard. However, courts have construed these particular laws broadly enough to allow the public financing of stadiums to continue.

A Good Governance Approach to the Public Financing of Stadiums – Atlanta Braves Case Study

When even Calgary’s stance, which had the city subsidizing at least 1/3 of the stadium, is considered brave, it seems reasonable to presume that publicly-subsidized stadiums will continue apace in North America. As such, it may be more helpful to consider what happens after a stadium project is proposed. Applying a good governance approach to stadium financing could be a helpful way forward. If stadiums are going to be built, regardless, then it is best to make those who build stadiums – governments and teams – accountable to the taxpayers and fans.

Good governance principles have been increasingly applied to the organization of sport – particularly the governance of international sporting organisations. While good governance can be defined in a myriad of ways, it is often broken down to particular principles. In examining stadium projects, I suggest that four principles should be considered: transparency, public participation, solidarity, and review. These principles closely track those used by the Sports Governance Observer.

One recent stadium project seems to have studiously avoided all of these principles entirely – in a way that demonstrates the need for these principles to be applied in the first place. This project took place in the Calgary Flames’ old home of Atlanta, USA.

                                                                                          Turner Field, credit to Zpb52

In 2013, the Atlanta Braves announced that they were leaving their current stadium in downtown Atlanta. They weren’t moving to a new city, but were moving 32 kilometres north to the suburb of Cobb County. The reason for the move? A brand new, publicly-financed stadium. The Atlanta Braves had played at Turner Field since 1997. Not even twenty years later, the stadium, originally built as the centrepiece of the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, was deemed to be obsolete by the Braves. Enter Cobb County. To pay for a new stadium for the Braves, Cobb County issued $368 million in municipal bonds (originally estimated at $276 million). The Braves, in chasing public money, bucked the trend of teams moving closer to the city centre, as suburbs are not conducive to stadiums.

While the rationale and the dollar figure should raise some eyebrows, the process used to secure funding for the stadium should be deeply disturbing to fans of democratic processes. The deal itself was negotiated in secret between a single Cobb County commissioner, and the Atlanta Braves. The president of the Atlanta Braves, John Schuerholz, stated that if news of the deal “had leaked out, this deal would not have gotten done…If it had gotten out, more people would have started taking the position of, ‘We don’t want that to happen. We want to see how viable this was going to be.’” Eventually, the deal needed to be voted on by Cobb County commissioners. At the public vote held in May 2014, only twelve speaking slots were available to the public. Stadium supporters had lined up by 2pm for the 7pm meeting, and the Commissioners denied any additional speaking slots. The same Commissioners voted 5-0 to fund the stadium. Opponents of the stadium filed a suit in the Georgia courts, alleging that the bonds used to finance the new stadium violated the Georgia state constitution, and various state laws. However, the opponents were defeated in the courthouse, too, as the Georgia Supreme Court upheld the validity of the bonds as they provided at least some plausible public benefit. The stadium opened in 2017 to positive reviews from fans and ballpark enthusiasts.

In examining the Atlanta Braves new ballpark by applying principles of good governance, the results are discouraging. Transparency was almost non-existent throughout most of the process, as the deal was completed in secret, as admitted by the president of the team. Public participation was curtailed throughout the process, and most galling, at the eve of the final vote on the funding. There have been no solidarity benefits that have come to the forefront, although it should be noted that it is possible that money that was raised to pay for public parks was diverted to funding the stadium, which cuts against the idea of solidary benefits. Finally, there will likely be no post facto review of the stadium and any attendant benefits it may claim. While there was review of the deal itself through the courts, the Georgia Supreme Court noted that “we do not discount the concerns Appellants have raised about the wisdom of the stadium project and the commitments Cobb County has made to entice the Braves to move there. But those concerns lie predominantly in the realm of public policy….”.

SunTrust Field, Credit to David Goldman/AP

The Value of Good Governance Principles in the Stadium Debate

The case of Atlanta demonstrates the importance of good governance in the public financing of stadiums. Proponents, critics, and scholars can apply these principles to evaluate and engage in more thoughtful debates over the processes of public financing of stadiums. Since stadiums are likely to receive public funding, regardless of the merits, a better process should improve the benefits to the public, while constraining the costs.

Applying principles, as opposed to enacting legislation, may lead the reader to ask “can these principles be enforced?” In terms of traditional legal enforcement, namely recourse to a regulatory body or a court, a city would probably need to implement these terms into a Memorandum of Understanding with the team. For principles such as solidarity, particulars could be written into the final funding agreement. This has been done, for example, with the Community Benefits Agreement implemented between the City of Edmonton, and the Edmonton Oilers hockey team, for a publicly-subsidized stadium that opened in 2016.

However, even if the city itself refuses to implement these principles, they do provide a framework to hold decision-makers to account. In instances where the government has done wrong by the citizens, but there are no judicial remedies, the remedy is then to vote the government out. In establishing these principles, they then provide standards by which the government can be held to account, if not formally, then at least through the ballot box.

Editor's Note: Pedro is an intern at the Asser Institute and currently studying the Erasmus Mundus Master Degree in Sports Ethics and Integrity (KU Leuven et al.) He worked as a research fellow for the Centre for Sport and Human Rights, and his primary research interests lie in the fields of International Human Rights and sport. 

I.               Introduction

“I can’t do everything and I can’t do it alone. I need allies.” These are the words of the seven-time Formula 1 (F1) world champion, Lewis Hamilton. He was urging more support to advocate for the protection of human rights in the countries visited by Formula 1. During the last years, Hamilton together with Sebastian Vettel, have become the leaders of a movement demanding accountability and greater awareness of the impact of F1 on society.

The inclusion of the Bahrain GP on the F1 racing calendar for the first time in 2004 ignited concerns, which have grown with the inclusion of Abu Dhabi in 2007, Russia in 2014, Azerbaijan in 2017, and Saudi Arabia and Qatar in 2021. The inability and lack of commitment of state authorities to protect and respect human rights, the ineffectiveness of judicial procedures and the systematic repression of political opposition are some of the factors that make these countries prone to human rights violations. Academics and CSOs regularly argue that F1, by signing multi-million dollar contracts with these countries, is complicit in sportswashing. Those pulling the sport’s strings deny these accusations and claim that human rights are at the centre of their agenda when they visit these countries. They claim F1 can drive the improvement of human rights standards in a particular country. However, reality tells a different story. The Bahrain GP has been running for more than a decade and the situation in the country has only worsened, without any signs of F1 contributing to the improvement of the protection of human rights there.

This blog aims to provide an overview of the human rights challenges F1 is facing when hosting a Grand Prix. For this purpose, a case study of the Bahrain GP, one of the longest-running on the modern/current F1 calendar, will be carried out. This will allow us to examine in detail the historical evolution of the GP, the complaints from civil society organisations and the reaction of the Federation Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA) and other stakeholders to the ongoing allegations of human rights violations.

II.              The beginning of the story: 2011 Bahrain GP

The inclusion of the Bahrain GP on the Formula 1 calendar came years before the country ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in 2006 and 2007 respectively. Already before this, several international organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (HRW) were documenting the systematic human rights violations in Bahrain, at least since the 1990s. However, the turning point in the country was the protests in 2011, inspired by the demonstrations in Tunisia and Egypt, in what is known as the “Arab Spring”. As the Report of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry highlighted, people mostly belonging to the Shia community were killed, tortured, unlawfully imprisoned or arrested during the armed repression of the protests.

In the same year, the protests directly impacted the organisation of the Bahrain GP. Initially, the race was postponed because it was to be held during the weekend when the first uprisings began. This measure was applauded by the teams, drivers and the authorities as the priority at the time for the Bahraini royal family was to heal divisions and overcome the tragedy. Nevertheless, three months later, FIA decided to approve the return of the Bahrain GP to the F1 calendar and host the race in December. The decision was taken on the basis of a report drafted by Carlos Gracia, FIA Commissioner, who in May of the same year went to Bahrain to analyse the situation and meet with different stakeholders. The report concluded that there was “NO indication of any problems or reasons why Bahrain’s F1 Grand Prix should not return to the 2021 Calendar”. This report contrasts starkly with the situation that civil society organisations were reporting at that time. Five days after Mr Gracia’s visit, a letter from HRW to Jean Todt, Chair of FIA, and Martin Whitmarsh, Chair of F1 Teams Association, expressed concern about the possible rescheduling of the Bahrain GP. The letter reiterated that the human rights situation in the country had “worsened considerably since the cancellation decision in February”. It explicitly indicated that arrests, tortures and restrictions on the work of CSOs and the media continued to be a daily occurrence in the country.

The response to the decision of the FIA to reschedule the Grand Prix was not unanimous, with some of the drivers expressing their disagreement. Red Bull F1 driver Mark Webber stated, “like it or not, F1 and sport in general isn’t above having a social responsibility and conscience. I hope F1 is able to return to Bahrain eventually but now isn’t the right time.” CSOs also started to advocate for the complete suspension of the race, collecting more than 300,000 signatures on a petition hosted by the organisation Avvaz. Ultimately, following a letter from The Formula One Teams Association (FOTA) to FIA expressing their objections, the event was suspended from the 2011 F1 calendar.

At the beginning of 2012, the situation was still tense, and the successful staging of the Bahrain GP for the new season was still in the air. Some CSOs were putting pressure on the teams to boycott the race while pointing out that the situation concerning human rights violations was similar to or worse than the previous year. In the end, with the support of many of the teams, FIA decided that the Bahrain GP would go ahead as planned.

Obviously, the protests in 2011 had a direct impact on the organisation of the Bahrain Grand Prix, to the extent that they led to its cancellation. This set the bar high for what needs to happen in terms of humanitarian reasons or human rights violations for the cancellation of an event. However, despite the deteriorating human rights situation in the country, the Bahraini authorities, F1 and FIA did not hesitate to reschedule the event from 2012 onwards. These decisions echoed beyond the world of sport and triggered reactions from civil society.

III.            The Bahrain GP and the growing human rights expectations of civil society vis a vis F1

The events of 2011 and 2012 were the perfect breeding ground for CSOs to exert pressure in the years to come. Different organisations since then have been demanding more significant consideration of human rights by F1 and other commercial stakeholders.

In 2013, four Bahraini NGOs stressed, in a letter to F1 race organisers, drivers, sponsors and broadcasters, that the situation in the country did not differ much from previous years. For these organisations, the intention of the government and organisers in hosting the Grand Prix was clear: “to broadcast a false picture of normality to the outside world”. The letter also prompted a political backlash from some British MPs who called for the Bahrain GP to be cancelled. But for the F1 chief executive at that time, Bernie Ecclestone, the allegations had nothing to do with the race. He expressed that “We [F1] don’t go anywhere to judge how a country is run. I keep asking people, ‘What human rights?’ – I don’t know what they are”. Thus, during 2013 and 2014, the race was run despite clear opposition from a number of CSOs.

Given the limited impact of the various reports and letters sent by CSOs to different stakeholders involved in the Bahrain GP, one of these organisations decided to explore a new approach. In 2014, Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB) submitted a complaint to the United Kingdom National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. ADHRB alleged that “companies in the Formula One Group [a company registered in the UK] had failed to address human rights impacts associated with the Bahrain Grand Prix.” After a mediation procedure, ADHRB and F1 reached a common ground. F1 issued a statement including a commitment to respect internationally recognised human rights in all of its operations and to develop and implement a due diligence policy. The statement also states that “where domestic laws and regulations conflict with internationally recognised human rights, the Formula 1 companies will seek ways to honour them to the fullest extent which does not place them in violation of domestic law.” At first, this step was welcomed by the CSOs, but as time passed, it proved to be merely a mirage and not a substantial change in F1 practices.

The consistent violation of human rights in Bahrain continued in the years following the publication of the statement, especially through political repression and the use of violence against demonstrators, media and workers of human rights organisations, and so did the racing in Bahrain. During different demonstrations in 2016 and 2017 against the Bahrain GP, the police used excessive force, resulting in several arrests and even the death of one teenager. This revived the criticisms of the CSOs, who again demanded with more forcefulness and support for the respect of the commitments that F1 itself had published years ago. In a letter by different CSOs, it was highlighted that “failing to exercise due diligence and thus abide by your own Statement of Commitment to Respect for Human Rights risks greater complicity in human rights abuses in Bahrain and the tarnishing of your brand’s [F1] reputation.” In response to the letter, F1 stated that

“We believe that Formula 1’s presence in every country on its calendar is positive and a force for good. Sport engages people from all walks of life and plays an important role in uniting communities and encouraging tolerance and acceptance. We believe too that Formula 1’s global profile shines a light and brings transparency to the internal affairs of every country that we visit.”

It was only at the end of 2018 that F1 publicly expressed its concerns about the human rights situation in Bahrain, more specifically about the imprisonment of the activist Najah Yusuf for protesting against the GP. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) considered this detention arbitrary, unlawful, and in violation of her rights to free speech and to a fair trial. Nevertheless, F1 never took action in the investigation process or strongly condemned the imprisonment. This prompted a large number of CSOs, including HRW and Amnesty International, to call on F1 again in 2019 to cancel the Grand Prix in response to a lack of investigation into Yusuf’s claims and urged drivers to boycott the race.

The second turning point was the postponement of the Bahrain GP in March 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. In November of the same year, seventeen CSOs, including World Players Association, HRW and Amnesty International, issued a statement on the worsening situation in the country and how the pandemic has increased the risk of human rights violations linked to F1. Moreover, the focus was no longer only on the violations directly linked to the GP, but also on the use of the sporting event to whitewash the image of the country, what has been called “sportswashing”. This latter line of argument was also followed by a letter delivered by thirty British MPs to F1 chief Chase Carey. It is at this point that CSOs begin to gain more support from public officials for their demands. For example, 90 parliamentarians from Britain, Spain, Ireland, France, Belgium, Italy and Germany sent a letter in 2022 to Mohammed ben Sulayem, president of FIA, accusing FIA and F1 of actively facilitating sportswashing in Gulf countries.

We have charted ten years of human rights advocacy and demands linked to the Bahrain Grand Prix and directed at the FIA. Initially, these human rights claims were related to the 2011 uprisings, when CSOs claimed that the Bahrain GP could not be held due to the fragile political situation in the country and the constant human rights violations linked to the protests. Subsequently, from 2014 onwards, the discourse focused mainly on the direct links of some human rights violations with the organisation of the GP, with CSOs reproaching F1 for not exercising due diligence and thus failing to comply with its own human rights commitments. The final phase, from 2020 onwards, is mainly characterised by the involvement of other actors, such as politicians and F1 drivers, who protested against the F1 being used as an instrument by authoritarian states to launder their reputations. What has been the impact of such public protests and mobilizations by CSOs and others? Have they triggered transformative changes in the way F1 tackles human rights risks linked to the Bharain GP?

IV.            What has F1 done to improve the human rights situation in Bahrain?

While the human rights expectations of civil society vis a vis F1 are clear and increasingly demanding, as exposed in the previous section, only a few of these expectations have had a practical impact to some degree. In order to analyse these actions, it is necessary first to identify the two organisations with the power to take appropriate measures. On the one hand, the Formula One Group (FOG) is composed of a diverse cluster of companies and, on the other hand, the actions taken by the governing body of F1, FIA.

The position of the FOG until 2015 was highly criticised by CSOs, as the previous section illustrates, not only because of its lack of action but also because of its official discourse, mainly led by Bernie Ecclestone, which belittled human rights. The exit of the British magnate from the FOG prompted a discursive change in the organisation, now recognising certain links between human rights violations and the organisation of the Bahrain GP. Nevertheless, the only real action taken was forced by the ADHRB when they submitted the complaint to the UK National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines, resulting in the F1 Human Rights Commitment.

Now the FOG includes in its Code of Conduct (CoC) a section regarding human rights and modern slavery. Nevertheless, they only refer to what has already been stated in their Human Rights Commitment. In this CoC, they also add that if “you believe that an individual’s human rights may be adversely affected, you must report it to the Compliance Team as soon as possible”. This compliance team is led by two legal counsels, notably without experience in human rights topics that also deal with other areas such as compliance, brand protection, human resources and administration functions. In fact, Sacha Woodward, one of the members of the compliance team, when asked in 2019 about the impact of F1 on human rights, stated that “we [FOG] don’t see ourselves as a political organisation. We just want to bring a great entertainment spectacle to as big an audience as possible to as many countries as we can reach”. This comment clearly shows the priorities of the FOG, profit over human rights, and tries to reinforce the idea that F1 is a bubble free from human rights violations. A change in this dynamic seems unrealistic at this point since the FOG is a sport business entity that seeks primarily economic profit, which Bahrain brings to it in spades.

The passivity of the FOG is not beyond reproach, but the position of the FIA is even more flagrantly disregarding human rights. Since 2011, the sport governing body has not taken any initiative or seriously addressed the human rights issues in Bahrain that CSOs have brought to its attention year after year. Although in recent years, some SGBs are adopting human rights policies (e.g., FIFA) or recognising the importance of their protection (e.g., IOC), the organisation that safeguards motorsports seems unwilling to take that road. This unwillingness was clearly shown by the new FIA president, who recently stressed that drivers should devote more time to driving and less to advocating for human rights problems. Nevertheless, we could be witnessing the end of this passivity, as some signs of change can be glimpsed recently. At the end of 2021, the World Council for Automobile Mobility and Tourism (WCAMT), the body responsible for all FIA issues affecting the automobile in society, hold their Annual General Assembly. In this meeting, Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and Rachel Davis, Vice President of the non-profit organisation Shift, presented a set of recommendations “to take the authoritative international framework – the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights – and apply it to the FIA’s reality”. These recommendations are the result of a process that FIA, in the context of its Diversity, Inclusion and Human Rights Strategic Framework, started to develop in 2020. The group of experts took a look at three spheres of FIA’s activity: FIA “as an employer and procurer of goods and services; as the regulator of world motorsport, and as a major player in mobility”. Unfortunately, both the Framework and the recommendations are not public, which underlines how FIA is still far from achieving the standards of transparency and integrity in governance that society has been demanding of SGBs.

The highlighted actions, or rather inactions, show a clear lack of will from both organisations over the last ten years. Small shoots seem to flourish recently, but it is still necessary for both organisations to commit more human and financial resources to address this problem and improve their governance standards.

V.              Conclusion. What needs to change in Formula 1?

The blog has illustrated how FIA and F1 have come under increasing public pressure from CSOs (and beyond) over the human rights impacts of the Bahrain Grand Prix. Civil society and drivers are increasingly demanding more profound changes in both organisations. Therefore, to conclude this piece, some basic recommendations to FIA and F1 are presented as a point to start with, all of them inspired by the report “For the game. For the world. FIFA and human rights” prepared by John Ruggie at the request of FIFA.

First of all, FIA, like FIFA, has to adopt a Human Rights policy. As of today, the FIA statutes only refer to human rights in article 1.2, which states that “the FIA shall promote the protection of human rights and human dignity […]”. A future human rights policy shall specify and expand on the implications of this commitment. It should not only address the internal organisation of FIA but also consider its business relationship with the FOG. In this context, the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and OECD Due Diligence Guidance seem to be the most appropriate frameworks through which to articulate and implement the policy.

Secondly, as Ruggie mentions in the report, “even the best human rights policy is no more than words on paper without the necessary actions and incentives to make it part of everyday practice”. The Human Rights commitment adopted by the FOG in 2015 is a clear example of this discrepancy between words and deeds. Instead, both organisations should embed their human rights policies and commitments in their daily operations. Decision-making, especially those concerning the decision to host a Grand Prix in a particular country, should be subjected to detailed human rights impact assessments.

Lastly, once these actions have been adopted, it is necessary to adopt mechanisms to monitor their effects and effectiveness. Without it, the policies will not cover the new challenges and will not adapt to the changing circumstances of the countries hosting a Grand Prix.

For all of the above reasons, both FIA and the FOG must stop ignoring the CSOs working in Bahrain and the rest of the community demanding a change. All stakeholders must work for the common good: the protection of human rights.