On 25 and 26 October 2022, the Asser Institute in The Hague will host the 2022 edition of the International Sports Law Journal (ISLJ) Conference. The ISLJ is the leading academic journal in transnational sports law and governance and is proud to provide a platform for transnational debates on the state of the field. 2022 has put a number of complex issues and disputes on the top of the transnational sports law agenda, which will be at the heart of the conference.

Sports governing bodies react to Russia's invasion of Ukraine
First, Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine in February triggered a swift and decisive reaction by a wide range of international sports governing bodies (SGBs), leading in particular to the exclusion of Russian teams and athletes from many international sporting competitions, including most prominently the FIFA World Cup 2022 in Qatar. These reactions have shown, once again, that sport is far from immune from the turbulences of international relations and raise the question of its alleged neutrality and apolitical nature. To engage with these issues, we have invited Prof. Jonathan Grix (Metropolitan Manchester University) to deliver a keynote speech and will dedicate a specific panel to discussing the intersection between transnational sports law and international law/relations.

Monopoly of sports governing bodies
Second, the organization of international sports is also currently threatened by challenges to the traditional monopoly position of international SGBs raised under EU antitrust law. Early July 2022, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union heard two crucial cases (International Skating Union and Superleague) concerning the compatibility of the rules of international SGBs aimed at sanctioning athletes and clubs who participate in unauthorized third-party competitions. Dr. Van Rompuy (Leiden University), the driving force behind the ISU case, will be discussing with us the potential impact of competition law on the governance of sport and what to expect from the pending decisions of the CJEU. Additionally, we will host two panels dedicated to the application of competition law to sports governance, both at an international and national level.

Human rights and mega-sporting events
Third, with both Beijing and Qatar hosting mega-sporting events this year, it is difficult to ignore the human rights issues raised by international sporting competitions. A fast-growing social movement aimed at urging the SGBs to abide by their human rights responsibilities has been developing around the activism of some NGOs and the creation of the Centre for Sport and Human Rights (CSHR). The CEO of the CSHR, Mary Harvey, will be joining us to share her thoughts on the role of sports lawyers and sports law academics in this discussion. Her intervention will be followed by a panel dedicated to the intersections between human rights and transnational sports law and governance.

Trans and queer participation in sporting competitions
Finally, the question of the participation of transgender athletes in sporting competitions has become an extremely contentious issue of debate in recent years, especially in the United States. Furthermore, International SGBs, such as FINA recently, have started to impose specific requirements to the participation of trans athlete in international competitions. Our closing panel will take a fresh look at this question by foregrounding the way in which trans and queer participation in sporting competitions has been accommodated in South Asia.

Online participation available
For the first time this year, we will allow online participation to the conference for an affordable price. Our aim is to internationalise and diversify further our audience and to reach people who in light of the current challenges, be it Covid-19 or climate change, are not in a position to come in person to The Hague.

Programme
Download the full programme.

Register HERE! (Early Bird Registration is available only until 1 October, 23:59CET)

Editor's note:

Daniela is a researcher at the Asser Institute in the field of sport and human rights. She has a background in public international law and human rights law and defended her PhD project entitled “Blurred Lines of Responsibility and Accountability – Human Rights Abuses at Mega-Sporting Events” in April 2021 at Tilburg University. She also works as independent consultant in the field of sport and human rights for the Centre for Sport and Human Rights, or the European Parliament among other clients from the sports ecosystem

As Head of Policy and Outreach, Guido is in charge of the Centre for Sport & Human Rights engagement with governments, international and intergovernmental organisations and sports organisations. He represents the Centre at conferences, events and bilateral dialogues to reach new audiences and partners and raise public awareness and understanding of the Centre’s work .

On February 24, 2022, the Russian military invaded Ukrainian territory. What followed was an escalation of the war, day by day, causing thousands of victims and forcing millions of people to flee. On March 2, the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly adopted a resolution deploring "in the strongest possible terms" Russia's aggression against Ukraine by a vote of 141 to 5, with 35 abstentions. On March 29, Russian and Ukrainian representatives met in Istanbul for another round of negotiations. No ceasefire has been agreed and hostilities continue.

Many states, international organizations and corporations quickly took measures in response to this invasion. Hundreds of companies decided to withdraw from Russia. Some countries decided to strengthen economic sanctions against Russia and Belarus and to provide military and economic help to Ukraine. Many civil society actors mobilised to organize and provide humanitarian support for Ukraine. Interestingly, international sports organisations like the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), World Athletics and many other international federations, issued statements condemning the invasion and imposed bans and sanctions on Russian and Belarussian sports bodies and athletes.

This blog post provides an overview of the measures adopted by a number of international sports federations (IFs) that are part of the Olympic Movement since the beginning of the war and analyses how they relate to the statements issued by the IOC and other sanctions and measures taken by international sports organisations in reaction to (geo)political tensions and conflict.

Unprecedented Action: An Overview

The table (pages 9-11), updated by the Centre for Sport and Human Rights on March 30, shows that eight different kinds of measures and decisions have been taken by a number of international sports federations:

1. Condemnation of the invasion

On the day the invasion and attack started, the IOC issued a statement condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a breach of the Olympic Truce. The same day, World Athletics and the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) issued similar statements. Almost all IFs have issued such statements by now, although with notable differences in language. While most of them condemned the invasion (see World Triathlon or World Rugby), some expressed concern for the situation hoping for a rapid peaceful resolution (see International Ski Federation or International Table Tennis Federation).

2. Cancellation and relocation of events from Russia and Belarus

On the following day, February 25, the IOC published a new statement, in which it recommended to international federations to cancel or relocate sport events that were supposed to take place in Russia or Belarus. This triggered all IFs that had events planned in those countries to cancel or relocate these. Events like the International Volleyball Federation Men’s World Championship were removed from Russia. Moreover, some IFs that had no events planned yet committed to not including Russia or Belarus as candidates for any future events (see World Skate).

3. Participation of Russian and Belarussian teams and athletes

On February 28, “to protect the integrity of global sports competitions and for the safety of all the participants”, the IOC issued new recommendations, this time concerning the prevention of participation of Russian and Belarussian athletes and officials in international tournaments, and where that is not possible anymore, making clear that they can only participate if no association with their country is being made. At least 39 federations followed this recommendation and issued a ban or a partial ban of Russian and Belarussian athletes, among them the Union Cycliste Internationale, the World Curling Federation, the International Handball Federation, and the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG).

The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) had initially decided to allow Russian and Belarussian Paralympians to participate in the Beijing 2022 Winter Paralympic Games of as neutrals. Threats of boycott from other nations and escalating tension in the athletes' village in Beijing led the IPC to issue a new statement 24 hours after the first one denying entry to the Paralympic Games to Russian and Belarussian Paralympians. Similar pressures were observed in football, as a number of players and Football Associations publicly stated they would refuse to play against Russia in 2022 World Cup playoffs. Subsequently, FIFA and UEFA suspended Russian clubs and national teams from all competitions on February 28. It is also worth noting here that FIFA’s and UEFA’s statements so far have not mentioned Belarus nor Belarussian athletes.

The International Judo Federation decided to provide Russian athletes with the opportunity to participate in its events only under the IJF flag, logo and anthem. Nevertheless, the Russian Judo Federation announced its withdrawal from all international events due to safety reasons.

4. Suspension of Russian and Belarussian federations

Some IFs went beyond those recommendations and took additional actions. Five organizations, the International Tennis Federation, World Athletics, World Rugby, the International Biathlon Union and the International Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation suspended or expressed the intention to suspend Russian and Belarussian membership, without this being recommended by the IOC. Organisations like World Triathlon had similar measures already in place due to the previous doping scandal with Russia. Even the International Paralympic Committee expressed the intention to discuss the suspension of the National Paralympic Committees of Russia and Belarus at their next general assembly.

5. Suspension of Russian and/or Belarussian leadership representation in federation’s government structures

A handful of IFs also suspended Russian individuals that held leadership positions in their governance structures, such as the International Automobile Federation, or the International Canoe Federation, whereas the International Luge Federation suspended all Russian representatives that held functions in the organization’s Executive Board, Commissions, or Working Groups. All these decisions went beyond what was recommended by the IOC. Alisher Usmanov, the Russian President of the International Fencing Federation, was added to the UK and US sanctions list and decided to suspend exercise of his duties.

6. Suspension and/or cancellation of sponsorship contracts

On February 28, UEFA decided to terminate all agreements with the state-owned Russian energy company Gazprom across all competitions, including the UEFA Champions League, UEFA national team competitions and the EURO 2024. This termination came only one year after it had renewed the sponsorship agreement. So far UEFA seems to be the only sport organization that took measures in relation to their sponsorship deals.

7. Withdrawing sport-related orders of honours

The February 28 recommendations of the IOC also included a decision to “withdraw the Olympic Order from all persons who currently have an important function in the government of the Russian Federation or other government-related high-ranking position”. Three Orders were withdrawn by the IOC, from Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, Dmitry Chernyshenko, Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, and Dmitry Kozak, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office. The International Swimming Federation and World Taekwondo immediately followed this recommendation, while the International Judo Federation and United World Wrestling had already taken these measures before the IOC issued their statement. Also, the IPC withdrew the Paralympic Honour from Vladimir Putin and the Paralympic Order from four other Russian government representatives.

      8. Fundraising/Donating for Ukraine

Finally on March 3, the IOC published a letter from the IOC’s president Thomas Bach calling upon the Olympic Movement to engage in humanitarian support for Ukraine through fundraising and donating. At least 15 federations followed this call, or had already set up such measures. The International Luge Federation set up an emergency aid fund for Ukraine and called upon its National Federations to donate. The International Biathlon Union launched a solidarity programme for Ukrainian biathlon, by hosting training camps for Ukrainian athletes and teams. The International Ice Hockey Federation is supporting efforts that were initiated from their national federations. Some of these efforts are dedicated to Ukrainian people in general, while others are focussing on Ukrainian athletes and teams.

A look at the Past

The unprecedented nature of these actions becomes clear when looking at other situations in which international sports issued similar sanctions and measures against national federations for their government’s political decisions and actions, or did not take any actions. When the apartheid system started in South Africa in 1948, it took the IOC 16 years to exclude South Africa from the Olympic Games and only in 1970 was the South African National Olympic Committee expelled. Another 18 years later the IOC adopted a declaration against apartheid in sports. During the Balkan war, what then was known as Yugoslavia was banned from all international events following a UN Security Council resolution, and consequently the Yugoslavian football team was prevented from participating in the Euro 1992 European Football Championships , while athletes from Yugoslavia could only compete as “Independent Olympic Participants” at the 1992 Summer Olympic Games and were not allowed to compete at the 1994 Winter Olympic Games. This is the precedent that comes closest to the current situation both in terms of its factual context and of the consequences faced by the athletes and sports organisations of the state concerned. However, unlike with the current actions of Russia, the UN Security Council had then adopted a binding resolution requiring states to bar athletes and clubs from Yugoslavia from international sporting competitions taking place on their territory. At the time, unlike now, the IOC negotiated (successfully) with the UN Security Council to allow the Yugoslav athletes to take part in the 1992 Olympics as neutral athletes.

Sadly, situations of war and conflict are currently happening in many areas of the world, particularly in the Middle East, Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. The war in Yemen, for example, has been going on for seven years now, causing what has been referred to by the UN as the largest humanitarian crisis ever. To our knowledge, no action has been taken by the IOC or any other sport body in reaction to this war. While one should be cautious to compare situations of war and conflict, as they all are different and come with unique political dynamics and challenges, this brief historical overview and comparison shows that the sport bodies have acted in similar ways in some similar situations (the Yugoslav case), however not in all situations. It also shows that in the past, the IOC’s decisions took significantly longer, and were responding to a binding request from the UN. This is not the case in this specific conflict, where the decisions were taken with unprecedented speed and without an express UN resolution on the subject. Moreover, while in previous situations it was mainly national sport’s bodies directly impacted by the conflict that took certain measures individually, on this occasion international federations followed the IOC’s authoritative guidance and rapidly took decisions and issued sanctions.

What’s next?

Some commentators argued that these measures were exclusively taken in response to geopolitical and public pressure and thereby challenge the constant claim that sport is neutral and does not get involved in politics. The IOC and other sport bodies in return explained that these measures were adopted in response to the Russian violation of the Olympic truce, to protect the integrity, fairness and safety of competitions and athletes. According to Thomas Bach, “we (the IOC) will not fall into the trap of the cheap argument that this would be a politicisation of sport”.

Whatever the motivation for these actions may be, their long-term effect still remains to be observed. Some of them are currently being challenged before the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which may or may not result in the invalidation of some of these measures. At the same time, new (unprecedented) measures could follow.

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

 On March 05, the T.M.C. Asser Institute hosted ‘Mega-sporting events and human rights: What role can EU sports diplomacy play?’ a Multiplier Sporting Event organized in the framework of a European research project on ‘Promoting a Strategic Approach to EU Sports Diplomacy’. This project funded by the European Commission through its Erasmus+ program aims to help the EU adopt a strategic approach to sports diplomacy and to provide evidence of instances where sport can help amplify EU diplomatic messages and forge better relations with third countries. In particular, Antoine Duval from the Asser Institute is focusing on the role of EU sports diplomacy to strengthen human rights in the context of mega sporting events (MSE) both in Europe and abroad. To this end, he organized the two panels of the day focusing, on the one hand, on the ability of sport governing bodies (SGB) to leverage their diplomatic power to promote human rights, particularly in the context of MSEs and, on the other, on the EU’s role and capacity to strengthened human rights around MSEs. The following report summarizes the main points raised during the discussions.

2.     Context to the Event

Before diving into the panels, the scene was set by a few speakers who described the background and some of the main issues encircling the event. First, Antoine Duval (Asser Institute) kicked the day off by describing the general goal of the project and his role within it. Specifically, Duval strives to explore key questions such as: to what extent are SGB’s diplomatic actors and do they have human rights responsibilities? Also, what is the role of the EU’s sports diplomacy with regard to human rights at MSEs? Can it and should it get involved and if so, what could it do to be most effective?

Having laid the foundation of the event, Richard Parrish (Edge Hill University) described the background to the project ‘Promoting a Strategic Approach to EU Sports Diplomacy’. Parrish explained that while many countries have a clear sports diplomacy strategy, the EU has been rather ‘late’ to the party. He explained that there may be room for a soft power approach to EU sports diplomacy. The project aims to continue the political momentum gained from a 2016 report on EU sports diplomacy and has now held several events across Europe that analyze this subject from different lenses. Parrish concluded by explaining that the EU has started to be more conscious of this issue and has, for example, now included sport in its dialogue with China for the first time.

Simon Rofe (SOAS) then brought some introductory remarks to help frame the discussions that would follow. Rofe started by pointing out how human rights and diplomacy have not exactly gone hand in hand and that many diplomatic instruments are rather silent on human rights, which often has been intentional. Furthermore, there are also issues when trying to identify which and what form of human rights should be promoted, although the UN has played a leading role in this regard. There are also questions regarding what capacity for change there is within SGBs. Rofe also gave the example of how human rights have already been disseminated through sport, such as during apartheid in South Africa. Nevertheless, as SGBs gain greater roles in non-sport matters, their responsibility to respect and further human rights is significantly increased.

3.     The Panels

a.     Panel 1: Leveraging the Diplomatic Power of the Sports Governing Bodies for Human Rights

Now that the stage was set, the first panel took the floor with Antoine Duval acting as chair. Claire Jenkin (University of Hertfordshire) was the first to speak and examined the concept of legacies, especially in terms of children and young people. In other words, how can SGBs help leave positive human rights legacies in the MSEs host nations? Jenkin took the example of the International Inspiration Programme from the London 2012 Olympics, which was the first ever international legacy initiative linked to the Olympics and ran from 2007-2014. Its goal was to reach out to young people and bring sport to the youth beyond the context of the Games. In the end, it helped influence 55 national policies, strategies and legislative amendments. Jenkin highlighted, once more, how defining which human rights values to promote can be challenging. There are also many in a position that can promote human rights through sport but are simply not aware of their position as a ‘sport diplomat’. Hence, creating awareness, defining the appropriate human rights perspective and ensuring that young voices are heard in this process are essential to developing the SGBs’ human rights diplomacies.

Next up was Florian Kirschner (World Players Association/UNI Global Union) who looked at how SGBs have exercised their human rights diplomatic role. Kirschner illustrated how sport has a fundamental role in our society and is naturally connected to several human rights. The sports movement also clings to principles such as fairness, solidarity, equality and inclusion. However, Kirschner argued, SGBs have not always upheld these principles and pointed to several examples, such as widespread corruption, the award of MSEs to countries with questionable human rights records, suppression of free speech and violations of worker’s rights. There have also been instances of ‘sportwashing’, where states use sport events to try to give the impression that they are compliant with human rights, while coming short of their obligations in practice. The World Players Association, NGOs and other trade unions have come together to push SGBs, under the UN framework, to take greater account of human rights. Kirschner closed with the case of Hakeem al-Araibi and highlighted how many actors, including FIFA, were able to use their influence to push for his release.

Lucy Amis (Unicef UK/Institute for Human Rights and Business) then explained to the participants the importance of transferring the policies SGBs have adopted in relation to human rights into actual practice. This means developing strategies that enforce the values SGBs claim to uphold. There are numerous cases where sport has not lived up to these values: including cases where migrant workers are exploited to build MSE sport facilities, cases of child labor, and various instances where fans chant homophobic and racist slurs. Amis highlighted that SGBs must be especially diligent in cases affecting children because they face the highest risk of exploitation. On the other hand, sports diplomacy has helped initiate positive changes in some countries. In Rwanda, sport was used to help rebuild its society amidst significant adversities. There have also been encouraging developments in Qatar. Despite many calls to cancel the World Cup, FIFA’s persistence to hold the World Cup there has helped bring an end to the kafala system. All in all, challenges do remain. For instance, many national SGBs are limited to a very small and amateur staff, which creates greater challenges in creating, implementing and enforcing human rights strategies.

Finally, Guido Battaglia (Centre for Sport and Human Rights) closed the panel and began by giving an overview of the Centre for Sport and Human Rights’ goals and work. Battaglia described how the Centre’s main priority is helping those who are most affected by sports - the athletes, workers, and fans, among others - based on international human rights standards. The Centre promotes and fosters human rights in sport by bringing a wide variety of actors together, including SGBs, local organizing committees, governments, sponsors, broadcasters, international organizations, civil society and trade unions. The aim is to help these groups share best practices, increase their capacities and improve accountability on human rights issues. Battaglia then shared examples of how the Centre has been active in the field. One of these cases concerned Semyon Simonov, a human rights activist in Russia, who had been arrested while interviewing workers building World Cup stadiums in Volgograd. During this time, the Centre held a conference during which Human Rights Watch directly requested FIFA to monitor the situation. This eventually prompted FIFA to attend one of Simonov’s court hearings, acting as a sort of diplomatic pressure and signaling the sports world was watching. Battaglia concluded that pushing human rights through sports diplomacy, while still in its infancy, is gaining momentum and that there is enormous potential to help unite society through sport.

b.     Panel 2: A Human Rights Dimension for the EU’s Sports Diplomacy?

The second panel, chaired by Carmen Perez (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid), then directly confronted the central question of how the EU could develop a human rights-based sports diplomacy. Arnout Geeraert (Utrecht University) launched the panel with a purposively provocative statement that EU sports diplomacy is ridiculous and that fundamentally there should be a deepening rather than a widening of its action in this matter. Since the EU has limited resources to focus on its sports diplomacy, it should work to strengthen its current efforts. Generally, the EU promotes liberal norms such as liberty, anti-discrimination, democracy, human rights and good governance in its actions. In the sports sector, the EU has had the greatest success in steering SGBs through negative integration and soft power measures, and SGB usually comply because they seek to be on good terms with the EU. In the end, Geeraert contends that the EU’s sport diplomacy should be to place more pressure on SGBs through a variety of existing channels, including coordinating EU member state positions in international organizations like the Council of Europe, and forming alliances with non-member states. The EU could then push human rights through these various relationships, which would indirectly compel SGBs to respect human rights.

Agata Dziarnowska (European Commission) took a different view from Geeraert and argued that a widening of the EU’s sport diplomacy should also be a part of the EU’s strategy in this field. Fundamentally, Dziarnowska argued, soft power is the EU’s most effective tool, and when you add the fact that Article 165 TFEU gives the EU the ability to cooperate with third countries on issues related to sport, there is a clear path for the EU to act. When it does so, it should be promoting EU values, including those related to human rights. In this context, the EU has already begun to take action within this strategic framework. For example, promoting the aforementioned values will be part of the new Erasmus programme. Additionally, the Council relatively recently adopted Conclusions related to sports events to ‘enhance integrity, transparency and good governance in major sport events’. These Conclusions specifically addressed business and human rights principles and highlight the importance of the selection process. Dziarnowska closed by underlining that EU action will greatly rely on strong political support, particularly from the Member States.

Alexandre Mestre (Sport and Citizenship) built on Dziarnowska’s contention that there is indeed an avenue for the EU to intervene on human rights. Given the wording of Article 165 TFEU, there are a multitude of areas for EU action. Mestre explained that crucial issues such as fighting against human trafficking, doping, child labor, sexual abuse of athletes, excessive commercial/economic exploitation of athletes are matter that deserve the EU’s attention. Furthermore, recent cases, such as Caster Semenya’s dispute with World Athletics, has shown how the SGBs’ eligibility rules could be another area where the EU could add value, given its previous experience with eligibility. Moreover, the EU has tremendous experience dealing with cases of discrimination and could use this expertise as a basis to promote human rights issues. Like Geeraert, Mestre also sees the EU increasing its cooperation with other entities, such as with the Council of Europe, civil society and third countries hosting MSEs. Mestre, nevertheless, also envisages direct cooperation with SGBs as part of the EU’s sports diplomacy strategy.

Lastly, Christian Salm (European Parliamentary Research Service) gave a historical perspective on the EU’s sports diplomacy, emphasizing the European Parliament’s role. Salm described how the 1970s were truly pivotal in this story, especially since it was the ‘decade of breakthrough’ for human rights. There were two events that placed human rights as a top priority: the World Cup in Argentina in 1978 and the 1980 Moscow Olympics. Concerning the first, the European Parliament’s Political Affairs Committee decided to have a hearing concerning human rights to counter political propaganda from Argentina’s right-wing military regime. While the hearing was blocked by a vote, the socialist group decided to hold its own debate, which created a significant media interest. The hearing generated calls for the release of the opposition leader in Argentina and led to a wider debate concerning sport events, specifically with regards to boycotts. Salm then described how leading up to the 1980 Moscow Olympics the international situation following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the wave of oppression on human rights activists stimulated majority support amongst the European Parliament to boycott the Olympics. While the European Parliament was in many ways limited, it understood its role as a guardian of human rights and was able to generate significant attention to these issues. More recently, in February 2014 the European Parliament also held a public hearing on migrant workers building stadiums. With this perspective, Salm explained, the European Parliament can definitely play a part in developing a human rights dimension to EU sports diplomacy.

4.     Conclusion

After each of the panels, participants were able to ask questions which stimulated many fruitful discussions, such as the importance of including human rights considerations in MSE bidding processes and defining an overall EU diplomatic strategy that would effectively use the EU’s leverage on these questions. On the latter issue, to prevent a fragmented diplomatic approach, the second panel concluded that coordination between all EU actors and informal policy making – such as raising awareness through public hearings and conferences – can help create a cohesive and effective EU sports diplomacy scheme. In any event, from all the discussions, it is evident that human rights will need to play a greater role in any EU sports diplomacy strategy given the inherent human rights concerns that MSEs carry.

On behalf of the organizers, we would like to thank all the speakers and participants for ensuring a remarkably productive and rich event in difficult times. We look forward to seeing you at the Institute again soon!