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: Tomáš Grell is currently an LL.M. student in Public International Law at Leiden University. He contributes to the work of the ASSER International Sports Law Centre as a part-time intern.

In its press release of 28 February 2017, the International Olympic Committee ('IOC') communicated that, as part of the implementation of Olympic Agenda 2020 ('Agenda 2020'), it is making specific changes to the 2024 Host City Contract with regard to human rights, anti-corruption and sustainable development. On this occasion, IOC President Thomas Bach stated that ''this latest step is another reflection of the IOC's commitment to embedding the fundamental values of Olympism in all aspects of the Olympic Games''. Although the Host City of the 2024 Summer Olympic Games is scheduled to be announced only in September this year, it is now clear that, be it either Los Angeles or Paris (as Budapest has recently withdrawn its bid), it will have to abide by an additional set of human rights obligations.

This two-part blog will take a closer look at the execution of the Olympic Games from a human rights perspective. The first part will address the most serious human rights abuses that reportedly took place in connection with some of the previous editions of the Olympic Games. It will also outline the key characteristics of the Host City Contract ('HCC') as one of the main legal instruments relating to the execution of the Olympic Games. The second part will shed light on the human rights provisions that have been recently added to the 2024 HCC and it will seek to examine how, if at all, these newly-added human rights obligations could be reflected in practice. For the sake of clarity, it should be noted that the present blog will not focus on the provisions concerning anti-corruption that have been introduced to the 2024 HCC together with the abovementioned human rights provisions.

Examples of Olympic Games-related human rights abuses 

The large majority of Olympic Games-related human rights abuses fall into one of the following categories: (i) violations of labour-related rights; (ii) forced evictions; and (iii) repressions of civil rights, in particular the right to freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly. In addition, the execution of the Olympic Games can entail negative environmental impacts.

Violations of labour-related rights 

International labour standards are primarily laid down in a number of conventions and other instruments adopted by the International Labour Organization ('ILO'). The ILO identifies four cornerstone principles, namely the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining, the elimination of all forms of forced labour, the abolition of child labour and the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.[1] These principles are also reflected to a certain extent in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ('UDHR'),[2] the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ('ICCPR'),[3] the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ('ICESCR')[4] and regional human rights treaties, such as the European Convention on Human Rights ('ECHR').[5] Other fundamental labour-related rights include, for instance, the right to rest, leisure, fair wages or safe and healthy working conditions.[6]

Thousands of workers coming from both inside and outside of the Host Country are recruited in the run-up to the Olympic Games to ensure that Olympic venues are built on time. Regrettably, these workers are often subjected to multiple violations of their labour-related rights. A report published by Human Rights Watch ahead of the 2008 Summer Olympic Games in Beijing revealed, inter alia, that internal migrant workers frequently faced delayed payment of their wages and were denied basic services linked to China's household registration system, known as Hukou.[7] Furthermore, the freedom of association of these workers was restricted as they could not join China's only legal trade union body, the state-sponsored All-China Federation of Trade Unions.[8] The 2014 Winter Olympic Games in Sochi received a significant influx of migrant workers coming to Russia mostly from Central Asia. Several reports demonstrated that, in addition to unpaid wages or excessive working hours, migrant workers in Sochi were also prevented from moving to another employer as their work permits or personal identity documents were often withheld.

Forced evictions 

The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ('CESCR') defines the term 'forced eviction' as ''the permanent or temporary removal against their will of individuals, families and/or communities from the homes and/or land which they occupy, without the provision of, and access to, appropriate forms of legal or other protection''.[9] The CESCR further specifies that forced evictions might be permissible if the individuals concerned are provided with an adequate compensation for any affected property or, in cases where forced evictions result in the individuals concerned being rendered homeless, an adequate alternative housing, resettlement or access to productive land.[10] Moreover, forced evictions should be carried out in conformity with general principles of reasonableness and proportionality.[11]

Some of the previous editions of the Olympic Games have seen whole communities being removed from their homes to make way for stadiums, accommodation facilities and infrastructure. According to research conducted by the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, at least 1.25 million people were displaced prior to the Beijing Games.[12] Thousands of families had been relocated from favelas in Rio de Janeiro before the 2016 Summer Olympic Games were opened. Doubts have been raised whether the affected individuals were provided with an adequate compensation and other guarantees as referred to above.[13]

Repressions of civil rights

Rule 50 (2) of the Olympic Charter stipulates that ''no kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas''. Based on this provision, the Host Country may adopt laws and take measures restricting the right to freedom of expression[14] and the right to peaceful assembly.[15] The Chinese government was accused of curtailing the right to freedom of expression of domestic and foreign journalists prior to the Beijing Games. In February 2014, four LGBT-advocates from Russia were detained when they were about to protest against discrimination at the Sochi Games.

Rule 50 (2) of the Olympic Charter also prevents athletes from making political statements in any Olympic sites or venues. At the 1968 Summer Olympic Games in Mexico City, the IOC showed no tolerance for the black power salute, a political demonstration conducted by Afro-American athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos (gold and bronze medallists in the 200-meter sprint) with the view of supporting their compatriots in the struggle against racial segregation. At the Sochi Games, the IOC did not allow Ukrainian athletes to wear black armbands in commemoration of those who died during the conflict in the country. It is arguable that such examples constitute an unlawful interference with the freedom of expression of athletes competing in the Olympic Games.[16]

Negative environmental impacts

Despite not being generally accepted as a human right per se, the right to a safe and healthy environment might be inferred from other human rights, including, for instance, the right to life or the right to food and water.[17] It should also be noted that environmental concerns are closely intertwined with the concept of sustainable development, as exemplified in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development which provides that ''environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it''.[18]

The first Olympic Games that were widely criticized for disregarding environmental considerations were the 1992 Winter Olympic Games in Albertville.[19] By contrast, it is widely recognized that the 1994 Winter Olympic Games in Lillehammer were executed in an environmentally-sustainable manner, arguably in response to the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development which was agreed upon only few months after the closing ceremony of the Albertville Games.[20] Insofar as the more recent editions of the Olympic Games are concerned, the Rio Games faced serious difficulties relating to the polluted waters of Guanabara Bay, an Olympic venue for sailing events. In a similar vein, preparations of the upcoming 2018 Winter Olympic Games in Pyeongchang have been marred by allegations of destroying 500-year-old virgin forest to make room for a ski slope.

Introduction to the HCC

The previous section has portrayed some of the most serious human rights abuses associated with the execution of the Olympic Games. These abuses call for an adequate response from the IOC. Before proceeding to analyse whether the human rights provisions recently introduced to the 2024 HCC may constitute an effective remedy, it is essential to take a cursory look at the HCC as one of the main legal instruments linked to the execution of the Olympic Games.

What should be known in the first place

Following the completion of the selection procedure, the HCC is entered into by the IOC on the one hand and the successful Candidate City ('Host City') and the National Olympic Committee of the Host Country ('Host NOC') on the other hand. Within five months after the execution of the HCC, the Host City and the Host NOC shall form the Organising Committee of the Olympic Games ('OCOG'), an entity endowed with legal personality under the laws of the Host Country.[21] The Host City and the Host NOC shall subsequently ensure that, within one month after the OCOG's formation, the OCOG becomes a party to the HCC and adheres to all its terms.[22] Even though the Host Country itself is not a party to the HCC, it plays an important role in fulfilling the obligations contained therein. For instance, the Host Country Authorities are required to take all necessary measures to guarantee the safe and peaceful celebration of the Olympic Games.[23]

As such, the HCC in its current form consists of four separate documents which apply in the following order of precedence: (i) The HCC – Principles; (ii) The HCC – Operational Requirements which provides a detailed description of the main deliverables and other obligations to be performed by the Host City, the Host NOC and the OCOG, including, inter alia, obligations relating to finances, media or the Olympic Torch Relay; (iii) The Games Delivery Plan which outlines the main planning framework, timelines and milestones to be respected by the Host City, the Host NOC and the OCOG; and (iv) The Candidature Commitments which concerns all guarantees and other commitments contained in the Host City's candidature documentation.[24] Since the present blog deals exclusively with the HCC – Principles, all references to the HCC throughout this post should be taken to include the HCC – Principles only.

The HCC is governed by the domestic laws of Switzerland.[25] The parties thereto undertake to submit all their disputes concerning the validity, interpretation or performance of the HCC to the Court of Arbitration for Sport ('CAS'). If, for any reason, the CAS refuses to exercise its jurisdiction in a particular case, the domestic courts in Lausanne shall be competent.[26]

The main purpose of the HCC is to delegate the execution of the Olympic Games from the IOC to other actors, namely the Host City, the Host NOC and the OCOG.[27] As a general rule, these actors shall be jointly and severally liable for all their obligations, guarantees and other commitments under the HCC, whether entered into individually or collectively.[28] The Host City is primarily tasked with delivering the public infrastructure. It may create and grant powers to an Olympic Delivery Authority[29], a public entity that ''combines the functions of a local council, planning authority, transport executive, trading standards office and police service''.[30] The Host NOC is concerned predominantly with sport-related matters, whilst the OCOG is responsible for hiring suppliers and contractors to build Olympic venues, lodging athletes and officials or elaborating reports on a regular basis.[31] This is not to say, however, that the IOC is not involved in the execution of the Olympic Games. Given that the Olympic Games are the exclusive property of the IOC,[32] the IOC provides significant financial and other benefits to its agents, determines the core requirements, exercises supervision and takes measures in case of non-compliance with the HCC.

Core requirements

First and foremost, the Host City, the Host NOC and the OCOG undertake to respect the Olympic Charter and the IOC Code of Ethics. By signing the HCC (or acceding thereto), they also agree to carry out their operations ''in a manner which promotes and enhances the fundamental principles and values of Olympism as well as the development of the Olympic Movement''.[33] Other core requirements laid down in the HCC relate mostly to human rights, anti-corruption, environmental protection and sustainability, security, betting and prevention of manipulation of competitions, intellectual property rights, entry and stay of athletes and Games-related personnel, taxes, media and marketing. The provisions concerning human rights, environmental protection and sustainability will be specifically examined at a later stage.

IOC's supervision of the execution of the Olympic Games

In order to monitor the progress of, and provide guidance to, the OCOG, with respect to the planning, organisation, staging and financing of the Olympic Games, the IOC creates a Coordination Commission with members representing the IOC, the International Federations, the National Olympic Committees, OCOGs from the past, the IOC Athletes' Commission and the International Paralympic Committee, as well as experts designated or approved by the IOC.[34] As part of their mandate, members of the Coordination Commission conduct site inspections and meet with representatives of the OCOG and the Host Country on a regular basis.[35]

Measures in case of non-compliance with the HCC

The most serious measure contemplated by the HCC in the event of non-compliance therewith is its termination by the IOC and subsequent withdrawal of the Olympic Games from the Host City, the Host NOC and the OCOG. Termination of the HCC might be prompted by a failure on the part of the Host City, the Host NOC and/or the OCOG to perform ''any material obligation pursuant to the HCC or under any applicable law''.[36] That being said, the HCC sets out a two-step procedure for its termination and subsequent withdrawal of the Olympic Games. First, the IOC notifies the Host City, the Host NOC and/or the OCOG and calls upon the relevant party to remedy its failure within 60 days of receiving the notification. This time limit is shortened to 30 days if the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games is less than 120 days away.[37] Second, if the relevant party does not respond to its failure in a timely and accurate manner, the HCC shall be terminated and the Olympic Games withdrawn with immediate effect.[38] Apart from termination of the HCC and subsequent withdrawal of the Olympic Games, the IOC may decide, for example, to withhold any grant to be made to the OCOG in accordance with the HCC.[39]

Conclusion

Against the background of the reform proposals embodied in Agenda 2020, the initial failure of the 2024 HCC to incorporate human rights obligations, other than those relating to non-discrimination, was presented as an astonishing omission. Although the IOC has recently surrendered to public pressure and it has finally added human rights obligations to the 2024 HCC, its role does not end here. The second part of this blog will examine whether the insertion of human rights obligations to the 2024 HCC is to be regarded as a turning point in history of the Olympic Games or risks being an empty promise.

[1]    ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work; Article 2.

[2]    UDHR; Article 23.

[3]    ICCPR; Articles 8, 22, 26.

[4]    ICESCR; Articles 2, 8.

[5]    ECHR; Articles 4, 11, 14.

[6]    ICESCR; Article 7.

[7]    Human Rights Watch, 'One Year of My Blood: Exploitation of Migrant Construction Workers in Beijing', March 2008, at 22, 39.

[8]    Ibid., at 42.

[9]    CESCR General Comment No. 7; para. 3.

[10]   Ibid., paras. 13, 16.

[11]   Ibid., para. 14.

[12]   Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, 'Fair Play for Housing Rights: Mega-Events, Olympic Games and Housing Rights', June 2007, at 154.

[13]   R. Gauthier, The International Olympic Committee, Law and Accountability, Routledge, 2017, at 90.

[14]   ICCPR; Article 19 (2), (3).

[15]   Ibid., Article 21.

[16]   F. Faut, 'The Prohibition of Political Statements by Athletes and its Consistency with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Speech is Silver, Silence is Gold?', (2014) 14 (3) ISLJ 253.

[17]   A. Boyle, 'Human Rights and Environment: Where Next?', (2012) 23 (3) EJIL 613, at 617.

[18]   Rio Declaration on Environment and Development; Principle 4.

[19]   S. Samuel, W. Stubbs, 'Green Olympics, Green Legacies? An Exploration of the Environmental Legacies of the Olympic Games', (2012) 48 (4) International Review for the Sociology of Sport 485, at 487.

[20]   Ibid.

[21]   2024 Host City Contract – Principles; Article 3.1.

[22]   Ibid., Article 3.3.

[23]   Ibid., Article 17.1.

[24]   Ibid., Article 1.1.

[25]   Ibid., Article 51.1.

[26]   Ibid., Article 51.2.

[27]   Ibid., Article 2.

[28]   Ibid., Article 4.1.

[29]   In practice, an Olympic Delivery Authority might operate under different names.

[30]   M. James, G. Osborn, 'London 2012 and the Impact of the UK's Olympic and Paralympic Legislation: Protecting Commerce or Preserving Culture', (2011) 74 (3) Modern Law Review 410, at 419-420.

[31]   Gauthier (supra note 13) at 65-66.

[32]   Olympic Charter; Rule 7.2.

[33]   2024 Host City Contract – Principles; Article 13.1.

[34]   Ibid., Article 27.1. See also Olympic Charter; Rule 37.

[35]   A. Geeraert, R. Gauthier, 'Out-of-control Olympics: Why the IOC is Unable to Ensure an Environmentally Sustainable Olympic Games', (2017) 19 Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 10.

[36]   2024 Host City Contract – Principles; Article 38.2. (d).

[37]   Ibid., Article 38.3. (a).

[38]   Ibid., Article 38.3. (b).

[39]   Ibid., Article 36.2. (b).