Search results

After the first transgender athletes participated in the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, some called for the immediate exclusion of transgender women in sports while others argue that this exclusion is discriminatory behaviour in violation of human rights law. Under current standards, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has sought to address the balance between fairness and inclusion by allowing eligibility to be decided on a sport-by-sport basis for all transgender athletes (IOC, 2021). What if an international federation or national governing body concludes that transgender athletes should be prohibited or subjected to rigorous conditions for participation? Would those qualifications stand up to legal challenge by an affected athlete? Will some athletes have better legal protection based on the location of their challenge?

The United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK) have domestic legal provisions that protect transgender individuals from discrimination based on their gender identity whereas the European Union (EU) includes protections based on sex alone (Patel, 2021). This chapter will discuss transgender inclusion policies in Olympic sport and address how potential challenges to the policies will be handled in court using existing case law. Legal precedent in similar challenges is rare. However, when eligibility policies do not explicitly ban transgender athletes or appear to be a targeted response to a specific athlete or individuals, it becomes more likely that those policies will not be considered discriminatory. Courts are hesitant to interfere in a governing body's policies if that organization appears to have a legitimate reason for its sport governance decisions.

This chapter examines the shifting significance of data ownership and athlete rights as they pertain to the growth and expansion of the global sports gambling industry. It provides a nuanced overview of the ‘datafication’ of society, tracing how the omnipresent embrace of digital technologies has expediated new forms of organisational, political and corporate surveillance from which concerns over privacy, rights to ownership and the misuse of personal data arise. The chapter moves on to discuss how the extraction and trade of data has revolutionised how elite sport is performed, manufactured, broadcast and consumed, shedding critical light on the role of the gambling industry in the exchange of human data as a market commodity. These insights inform a series of socio-legal and ethical questions about the relationships between athlete data and the sports gambling industry for the purpose of signposting emerging issues and opportunities for critical sociological research and intervention.

The chapter presents a critical analysis of the functions of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), identifying how athletes who appeal to CAS for resolution of doping disputes face the problems of ‘stacked decks’ and ‘repeat parties’. A detailed critique of CAS's claim that it supports athletes' human rights, in the document titled ‘Sport and Human Rights: Overview from a CAS Perspective’, reveals the shaky ground on which the CAS authors based their argument. Detailed analyses of several recent doping cases reveal chronic problems of inconsistent and subjective awards, and, in the case of Chinese swimmer Sun Yang, issues of racist discrimination.

Political dissent threads through the history of the Olympic Games. Although the International Olympic Committee (IOC) openly prohibits athletes from injecting politics into the Games, Olympians have nevertheless staged protests, using the Olympics to challenge the predominant power structures and institutions. This chapter analyzes outbursts of athlete activism in the context of wider social movements that make these political paroxysms more viable. Social movements scythe political space for athletes, spark athletes' political imaginary, and provide support and cover. From the early days of the Games, Olympic athletes have expressed dissent, as when Irish track-and-field athlete Peter O'Connor rebelled against British colonialism at the 1906 Olympics in Athens. At the Mexico City 1968 Games, Czech gymnast Vera Čáslavská carried out a politically symbolic acts as did US sprinters John Carlos, Tommie Smith, and Wyomia Tyus. At the 1972 Munich Games, US track medalists Vincent Matthews and Wayne Collett protested in nonchalant fashion on the medal stand. At the 1980 Olympics, Polish Olympian Władysław Kozakiewicz issued politically provocative symbology on the pole vault mat that challenged Soviet hegemony. In the twenty-first century, numerous Olympians have made political statements, despite a rule in the Olympic Charter that forbids such activity. In each case, athlete activists were bolstered by vibrant political movements in their home country. In this chapter, I trace the relationship between political Olympians and social movements as well as the wider dialectic of resistance and restriction that encompasses the interplay between dissident Olympians and the IOC.

As advocates and scholars dedicated to advancing equality for women and girls, we believe that sport can empower all people – and to change the world. Exclusion and restrictions for transgender athletes undermine this cause. Transgender athletes are not and have never been a threat to women's sport. There are, however, serious and well-documented threats to women's sport that warrant attention, including unequal opportunities in participation and leadership, inequitable funding and pay, uneven media coverage, a lack of sponsorship opportunities, sexual harassment and abuse and incomplete implementation of gender equality policies (Bisgaard & Støckel, 2019; Cooky et al., 2021; Hindman & Walker, 2020; Lough & Greenhalgh, 2019; Novkov, 2019; Pape, 2020; Raso, 2019; Schultz, 2018; Staurowsky et al., 2020; Yanus & O'Connor, 2016; Zerunyan, 2017).

A close reading of peer-reviewed, researched-based and credible sources allow us to better understand the experiences of trans athletes, to dispel the dangerous misinformation peddled in recent media accounts and political debates, to outline critical legal and policy discussions about trans athletes, and to highlight why access to sport matters for everyone. There is a clear consensus across multiple disciplines: the future of sport includes transgender women and girls.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), created by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in 1983, resolves disputes between athletes and national or international sports governing bodies. The purpose of this paper is to critically examine the history and functions of CAS, with a particular focus on the ways in which athletes’ rights are threatened by the IOC’s Code of Sports-Related Arbitration.

The author reviews relevant law literature and media sources.

The concept of lex sportiva (global sport law), general arbitration practices and controversies concerning CAS’s impartiality are investigated, and the “strict liability” principle that CAS applies to doping allegations is assessed. This analysis points to a long record of inconsistencies and contradictions in the history and function of CAS. The findings lead to questions of arbitration or litigation; confidential or public proceedings; specialist or generalist arbitrators; lex sportiva or international legal principles; precedential or non-precedential awards; and civil or criminal burden of proof.

These unresolved issues demonstrate how the IOC struggles to maintain supremacy over world sport by promoting sport exceptionalism, and provide possible grounds for athletes’ future challenges to CAS.

This chapter explores the relationship between athletes and sports law within the anti-doping narrative. The World Anti-Doping Code is the most important reference to understand this relationship. Athletes are constantly pressured to meet standards beyond reasonable expectations. This chapter explores the anti-doping narrative from the athletes' perspective, mapping out the inherent legal hurdles impeding delivery of equitable outcomes for the athletes. Such hurdles are the result of lack of bargaining power by the athletes. This chapter critically evaluates the existing literature on the anti-doping narrative and identifies the gaps in the structures affecting the athletes, Sports Governing Bodies and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). This chapter then focuses on the usurpation of athlete's rights through the instrumentality of the WADA Code that appears to predominantly promote and protect the interests of the governing class against those it governs. It is one of the first to analyze the existing anti-doping narrative and its impact on athlete's right within the 2021 WADA Code, which has not introduced any fundamental changes to the existing anti-doping narrative. The chapter argues for a more equitable treatment of the athletes while enforcing the 2021 Code, and for revising the existing anti-doping measures vis-à-vis athletes and opens possible areas of future research.