Editor's note: Mark James is Professor of Sports Law at Manchester Metropolitan University and the author of a leading Sports Law textbook.

The opening days of the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022 have already resulted in a number of issues of interest to sports lawyers and human rights lawyers, with FARE’s Piara Powar claiming that this is the most political major sporting event that he has attended. Both FIFA and the local organisers have been active in their suppression of expressions of support for LGBTQIA+ rights by players, fans and journalists alike, calling into question once again the legality of restricting free speech by sporting rules and regulations.

There have been two major flashpoints to date. First, seven European federations had asked FIFA for permission for their captains to wear armbands supporting the ‘OneLove’ campaign. FIFA’s response was to refuse, resulting in the German players covering their mouths for their pre-match photographs in protest at their being silenced. There are several grounds on which FIFA would seek to support its position:

•  Law 4.5 of the Laws of the Game prohibits any playing equipment from carrying any political, religious or personal slogans, statements or images.
• Regulation 4.3.1 of FIFA’s Equipment Regulations and Regulation 27.1 of the FIFA World Cup 2022 Regulations prohibits clothing or equipment that includes political, religious, or personal slogans, statements, or images, or otherwise does not comply in full with the Laws of the Game.
• Regulation 33.3 of the FIFA World Cup 2022 Regulations prohibits the display of political, religious or personal messages or slogans of any nature in any language or form by players and officials.
• Regulation 13.8.1 of FIFA’s Equipment Regulations states that for FIFA Final Competitions, the captain of each Team must wear the captain’s armband provided by FIFA (all Regulations available in the FIFA Legal Handbook 2022).

Although the DFB is considering a challenge to FIFA’s refusal to allow its captain to wear the OneLove armband, which would ultimately be heard before CAS, it is unlikely to succeed in the face of the strict requirements of the above Laws and Regulations. However, what could cause more difficulty for both FIFA and CAS is if the DFB frames its case as a challenge to the compliance of the rules that restrict players’ freedom of expression with Article 3 of FIFA’s Statutes, which states that ‘FIFA is committed to respecting all internationally recognised human rights.’ Article 3, together with the additional detail provided by FIFA’s Human Rights Policy, ensures that freedom of expression as defined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights are limitative rules that can be applied directly to FIFA’s activities, as has been argued by Bützler and Schöddert. Further, if the affected players and associations can define themselves as human rights defenders, then Article 11 of FIFA’s Human Rights Policy states that, ‘FIFA will respect and not interfere with the work of … human rights defenders who voice concerns about adverse human rights impacts relating to FIFA.’ Any challenge using this approach would be the first real test of the enforceability of the human rights protections to which FIFA claims to be committed. It would also be a test of CAS’s ability to require adherence to the human rights commitments made by ISFs and to prove that they are more than simple window-dressing.

Secondly, members of The Rainbow Wall, a contingent of LGBTQIA+ rights-supporting Welsh fans, were prevented from entering the Ahmed bin Ali stadium whilst wearing bucket hats incorporating a rainbow into its design. No explanation for why was given, however, FIFA and the local organisers would argue that openly supporting LGBTQIA+ rights with the aim of promoting legal change in a country where homosexuality is illegal is a political statement on apparel and therefore entry into the stadium wearing the rainbow hat is in breach of the Regulation 3.1.23 of the Stadium Code of Conduct. A similar argument could be used to justify preventing US journalist Grant Wahl from entering the stadium wearing a t-shirt incorporating a rainbow into its design and Danish journalist Jon Pagh from wearing the OneLove armband. However, it must be stressed that no such explanation for the prohibitions applied to these garments was provided to any of the affected fans or journalists. It must also be recognised that the opinion that promoting LGBTQIA+ rights is a political expression is highly contested. In a statement from FIFPRO, the opposing view was stated succinctly: ‘We maintain that a rainbow flag is not a political statement but an endorsement of equality and thus a universal human right.’

It is clear that, as with Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter, the chilling effect that FIFA’s Regulations have on players’ and fans’ freedom of expression is likely to be unlawful, as has been discussed at length both on this blog and on the Verfassungsblog Debate on Freedom of Expression in the Olympic Movement. Instead of revisiting these arguments, which are taken to apply to FIFA’s actions at Qatar 2022, two additional issues related to the FIFA Statutes are explored here.

Articles 3 and 4 of FIFA’s Statutes state that:

3 Human rights

FIFA is committed to respecting all internationally recognised human rights and shall strive to promote the protection of these rights.

4 Non-discrimination, equality and neutrality

4.1 Discrimination of any kind against a country, private person or group of people on account of race, skin colour, ethnic, national or social origin, gender, disability, language, religion, political opinion or any other opinion, wealth, birth or any other status, sexual orientation or any other reason is strictly prohibited and punishable by suspension or expulsion.

FIFA is a long-time supporter of pride events and in its press release for Pride Month 2022 stated:

[The] FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™ will be a celebration of unity and diversity – a joining of people from all walks of life – regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, age, disability, sex characteristics, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression – everybody will be welcome.

Claims that all staff involved in the Qatar 2022 including public and private security forces, would be trained on how to accomplish their tasks in a non-discriminatory manner, seem not to have been operationalised effectively.

This begs the question whether FIFA is in breach of its own Statutes by refusing to allow players to express themselves freely on armbands and failing to protect fans’ freedom of expression by wearing rainbows. At the very least, FIFA should have ensured that a protective LGBTQIA+ regime in the stadiums and the fan zones during the World Cup was implemented to enable the ‘celebration of unity and diversity’ it claims that Qatar 2022 should be. FIFA’s actions in Qatar call into question its claims to be an inclusive and supportive leader on anti-discrimination and human rights, and is likely to see a backlash from the LGBTQIA+ community that it claims to support when it engages with Pride 2023; accusations of hypocrisy and virtue signalling are guaranteed.

With no resolution to the debate at the time of writing, Articles 3 and 4 could provide players and fans with the opportunity to demonstrate their support for human rights and anti-discrimination causes. At the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics, Athlete Ally developed the ‘Principle 6 Campaign.’ Instead of criticising directly Russia's so called anti-gay laws, which are currently in the process of being extended, athletes promoted Principle 6 of the Olympic Charter, which at the time stated that, ‘Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.’ The eventual outcome of this campaign was the addition of sexual orientation to the list of characteristics protected by Principle 6. Unlike at Sochi 2014, there is no need to campaign for a change to either of Articles 3 or 4 of the FIFA Statutes; instead, activists want to ensure that they are being applied. An immediate response for both players and fans would be for them to quote specifically from Articles 3 and 4, as it would be extremely difficult for FIFA to claim that they are making political or personal statements when promoting FIFA’s own foundational values. A creative reminder of what FIFA claims to stand for could enable player and fan activism to continue throughout the tournament, and beyond, whilst affected players and associations can develop a compelling case for the restrictions on freedom of expression to be struck out by CAS, the Swiss Federal Tribunal and/or the European Court of Human Rights.

Shortly after his election as IOC President, Thomas Bach announced his intention to initiate an introspective reflection and reform cycle dubbed (probably a reference to former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder’s publicly praised Agenda 2010) the Olympic Agenda 2020. The showdown of a year of intense brainstorming is to take place in the beginning of December 2014 during an IOC extraordinary session, in which fundamental reforms are expected.
 

Graph 1: The Olympic Agenda’s Timeline

The aims of the Olympic Agenda: Cheaper, Simpler, “Hotter”
The Olympic Agenda 2020 is aimed at securing the short- and long-term success of the Olympic Games. To this end, six main themes, linked to five “clusters of ideas”, were outlined in the IOC’s internal preparatory document: the bidding procedure, the sustainability of the games, the uniqueness (differentiation) of the Games, the Olympic programme, the Olympic Games management and the Olympic Games audience.

The bidding procedure is currently very much under the spotlights, due to the serial withdrawal of cities from their candidacy for the 2022 Winter Olympics. The Olympic Agenda 2020 is first and foremost an exercise designed to respond to this désamour; a process aimed at enhancing the attractiveness of the Games to organizers as well as consumers. Therefore, the IOC foresees an in depth reform of the bidding, making it cheaper and easier for an interested city to candidate.

Moreover, the IOC advocates sustainable Games. By sustainability it means prioritizing the economic viability of the Games. Only in a subsidiary fashion does it entail a concern for their social impact and environmental footprint. Such sustainable Games would be a radical change compared to the latest Sochi Games, which were both very expensive and very environmentally destructive. On paper, this is a noble objective to pursue, but the lack of concrete proposals advanced so far does not bode well for its implementation.

Finally, the IOC is very much concerned with the “hotness” of the Games or, in other words, their attractiveness to consumers and athletes. Thus, it suggests a number of changes to the Olympic Programme, to the relationship of the IOC with other Sports Governing Bodies, to the management structure in the organization of the Olympic Games and to the way it targets its audience (opening up to new markets geographically and technically). As one can see, the IOC had a specific plan in mind when launching the Olympic Agenda 2020 and it focuses very much on the “hotness” of the Games and its economical “sustainability” rather than on its societal responsibility.

A global consultation: For what?
The Olympic Agenda 2020 boasts its responsiveness and openness to the public, embodied in a broad public consultation concluded on 15 April 2014. Thus, the goals and themes suggested by the IOC were, in theory at least, to be complemented and enriched by the opinions raised by participants to the public consultation. Sadly, the contributions to the consultation have not been made publicly available, yet. Only the contributions published on-line by their authors are freely accessible to public scrutiny, this is a regrettable lack of transparency undermining the essence of such a participative endeavour.

From the contributions publicly available one can draw a picture of the demands posed to the IOC in the framework of the consultation and the expectations of the public in this regard. Human Rights Watch, Swedwatch, the Norwegian Olympic Committee, the Swedish Trade Union, and the Gay Games Federation have all submitted substantial contributions advocating  an enhanced protection of fundamental rights during the Olympics. To this end, they suggest for example to impose minimum labour standards at the Olympic building sites, fundamental rights criteria for selecting the host city and an environmentally sustainable management of the Olympic Games. But, is someone listening?

Working Groups: Behind closed doors
Last week, the IOC released the composition of its 14 Working Groups (WGs), tasked with the formulation of theme-specific recommendations. Hence, these WGs will play a decisive role in the substantial outcome of the whole process. Indeed, the detailed recommendations provided will later be compiled and submitted to the IOC session, the body responsible for amending the Olympic Charter and deciding on the IOC’s fundamental political orientations. The WGs include IOC members and external experts. The themes attached to the WG are: Bidding Procedure (WG1), Sustainability and Legacy (WG2), Differentiation of the Olympic Games (WG3), Procedure for the Composition of the Olympic Games (WG4), Olympic Games Management (WG5), Protecting Clean Athletes (WG6), Olympic TV Channel (WG7), Olympism in action including Youth Strategy (WG8), Youth Olympic Games (WG9), Culture Policy (WG10), Good Governance and Autonomy (WG11), Ethics (WG12), Strategic review of Sponsorship, Licensing and Merchandising (WG13), IOC Membership (WG14).

As one can easily judge, the themes covered by these groups are mostly in line with the direction defined a priori by the IOC for the Olympic Agenda 2020. There is little sign of a reflection centered on the role and responsibility of the IOC concerning the enforcement of fundamental rights and standards at the Olympic Games. Furthermore, the scope of competences of each WG is not defined rigorously; thereby, leaving substantial room for interpretation of the scope of remits covering for example fields as broad as ethics. Surely, independent experts like Hugette Labelle (Director of Transparency International) and Leonard McCarthy (Integrity vice-president of the World Bank) are not suspicious of collusion with the IOC, but will they be enough to tilt the balance in favour of the societal concerns expressed? This cherry picking of external personalities supposed to ensure the independence and good faith of the whole process cannot compensate for its procedural deficiencies. In light of the secrecy and vagueness surrounding the WGs agenda, competences and meetings, there is little hope for a responsive reform process to unfold.

Conclusion: Plus ça change, moins ça change?
The IOC is at an institutional crossroad. The Olympic Games are being overtly and loudly contested. Citizens are protesting against their organization, as they have (definitely?) lost their mythical aura and turned into a commercial fair obsessed by its financial returns. Is this state of play going to change with the new Olympic Agenda 2020? It is rather unlikely, but anybody keen on defending the Olympic Games as a unique cosmopolitan and ludic encounter must speak now or forever hold his peace. Indeed, the outcome of the process under way will most likely structure the (political, social, economic) orientations followed by the Olympic Games in the years to come. An intensification of the hunt for economic returns by the IOC would estrange it even more from its societal base and surely intensify the decline of what has been the most successful global happening ever conceived. Public scrutiny and societal irritation are more necessary than ever if the change brought forward by the Olympic Agenda 2020 is to mean real change.