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.