Asser International Sports Law Blog

A warning addressed to fans of French teams featuring in the recently launched video game NBA 2K15: Hurry up! The last jump ball for Strasbourg and Nanterre in NBA 2K 15 may occur earlier than expected. The French Labour Union of Basketball (Syndicat National du Basket, SNB) is dissatisfied that Euroleague and 2K Games did not ask (nor paid) for its permission before including the two teams of Pro A in the NBA 2K15 edition. What is at issue? French basketball players’ image rights have been transferred to SNB, which intends to start proceedings before the US Courts against 2K Games requesting 120.000 euros for unauthorized use of the players’ image rights. SNB is clear: it is not about the money, but rather to defend the players’ rights.[1] Strasbourg and Nanterre risk to “warm up” the virtual bench if this litigation goes ahead.

Source: http://forums.nba-live.com/viewtopic.php?f=149&t=88661&start=250

The clash between SNB and 2K Games, albeit unprecedented at the European level, should not come as a surprise. The commercialization of athletes’ image rights has become a sine qua non component of sports marketing.[2] The transfer of professional players’ image rights to their clubs or third parties is for some of them more lucrative than their salaries. In the framework of international basketball, this has led to the proliferation of image rights contracts, signed by the players in addition to their employment contracts. While the legal nature of image rights and their unauthorized use by third parties has been recently extensively debated- in the wake of US College Athletes image rights cases before US Courts which will be discussed in the second part of this blog series[3]-, image rights contracts and their enforcement by basketball players before the Basketball Arbitral Tribunal (BAT)[4] are still very much uncharted territories.

This blogpost will look at the basketball players’ image rights contracts in a three-pronged approach. First, we will explain how image rights contracts in international basketball serve as tax loopholes by the clubs, which increasingly force players to sign them (I). Thereafter, based on BAT’s case law, we will attempt to build a legal roadmap with regard to the enforcement of image rights contracts by players. In this light, we will examine the relationship between the main contract and the image rights contract as well as the role of the different dispute settlement clauses included in the different contracts when assessing BAT’s jurisdiction (II). Finally, we will analyse the position of the BAT in enforcing image rights contracts and the significant impact of its awards in the basketball world, taking into account the unique features of basketball arbitration (III).

I. Image rights contracts in international basketball: Cherchez l’argent!

The use of image rights contracts leads to two possible scenarios. In the first one, which is the most common, a player signs an employment contract with a club indicating the player’s remuneration net of all taxes. This initial contract is usually characterized as the “main agreement”[5] or “master agreement”[6]. Thereafter, the club approaches the player with two additional contracts: the league contract which provides for a remarkably lower monthly salary than the main contract; and an image rights contracts, where the player assigns his rights to a third party, an image rights company. The league contract reporting a much lower wage than the wage actually offered to the player is sent to the league and is used for tax purposes. In parallel, the club signs an image rights contract with the image rights company to which the player has previously assigned his intellectual property rights. According to this contract, the company owns the player’s image rights. This means that the player assigns to the club the use of these rights for commercial and promotional purposes. As a result of this assignment, the club undertakes the obligation to pay a specific amount of money per month to the company. Once the club pays the image rights company, the image rights company transfers this amount to the player.

In order to understand this quite complex scheme, let’s use a concrete example. A player signs with the club a main contract indicating a remuneration of EUR 300.000. Thereafter, the player signs the league contract indicating a remuneration of EUR 30.000 by the club, while the club signs a contract with an image rights company and undertakes to pay a total amount of EUR 270.000. Finally, the player receives the amount of EUR 270.000 by the image rights company. Thus, it is clear that a combination of the league and the image rights contracts amounts to sum foreseen in the main contract (30.000+270.000=300.000). While this fictitious transfer of money through a third party does not seem to have a practical effect on the player’s remuneration, the split of the main contract into two separate agreements helps the club to tailor its tax obligations. In fact, the club would in principle have had to pay taxes on the full amount of EUR 300.000. Nonetheless, by breaking up the payment into different amounts, the club pays taxes and social contributions for the individual income of EUR 30.000 only. True, the club is also obliged to pay the taxes due on the EUR 270.000 transferred to the image rights company. However, taking into account that the tax rate over intellectual property rights is typically much lower than that concerning individual income, the club gains significant tax benefits.[7]

In the second potential scenario, in parallel to the main contract, the player signs a side agreement with the club, which explicitly splits the net compensation into an amount derived from the league contract and an amount derived from the image contract. Subsequently the player enters into an exclusive license agreement with an image rights company to which he assigns the use of his image rights receiving as compensation the amount stipulated in the side agreement. At the same time, the club enters into a sublicense agreement with the image rights company in order to use the player’s image rights, by paying the company the same amount of money that the company then pays to the player under the license agreement.

In short, this scheme is a fiction invented by the clubs in order to get significant tax advantages. While this is done pro forma, without any intent of changing the player’s rights and obligations under the main contract[8], this tax evasion scheme can lead to the club evading also its contractual duties when a club fails to pay the player. In this case, with respect to any outstanding remuneration, can the player enforce the image rights contract against the club in BAT proceedings?

II. How the BAT establishes its jurisdiction on image rights contracts disputes

An overview of the BAT case law shows that players bring a dispute against their club for outstanding payments on the grounds of a broadly drafted arbitration clause in the main contract, which provides for BAT’s jurisdiction over any dispute arising out of, or in connection with the main contract. However, as is already discussed, a player’s remuneration is often based on a matrix of several contracts – the main contract, the league contract, the image rights contract and/or the license agreement-, which may contain a dispute resolution clause of their own that does not refer to the BAT. Therefore, when a dispute for outstanding payments is brought before the BAT, the arbitrator first has to determine whether the claim made by the player falls within the scope of the BAT arbitration clause included in the main contract. Thus, the arbitrator must consequently determine the relation between the main contract and the other contracts, including the image rights contracts.

The difficulty emerges from the fact that the contracts do not define how they should inter-relate. As a result, the BAT has to interpret the contracts and decide whether the subsequent contracts actually supersede the main contract and the applicable BAT arbitration clause or whether they only supplement the main contract. Namely, the clubs, relying on the fact that the image rights contract is signed after the main contract and referring to the legal principle lex posterior derogate legi priori[9], claim that the dispute settlement provision contained in those contracts override the BAT arbitration clause included in the main contract.[10]

In order to decide on its jurisdiction and the underlying relation between the several contracts, the BAT has consistently used a double test based on the common intention of the parties and the wording of the BAT arbitration clause contained in the main contract. At first, the BAT examines whether the main contract includes all the essential elements with regard to the player’s rights remuneration. Then, it elaborates whether these terms reflect the parties’ common intent under the main agreement to guarantee the payment of the full salary to the player, irrespective of any modalities that would be agreed upon in subsequent contracts as to the mode and schedule of payments.[11] If the main contract is seen as containing the common agreement of the parties on the full amount of remuneration, any further agreement referring to the way this payment is organized has only a supplementary function. The second criterion is based on the interpretation of the BAT arbitration clause. The main contract usually contains a broad BAT arbitration provision that covers any dispute arising from the main contract. Once established that the common intent of the parties is to guarantee the salary stipulated in the main contract, the broad terms of the arbitration clause necessarily encompass any dispute relating to the non- payment of any part of the player’s total salary. Once these criteria are fulfilled, the BAT asserts that the outstanding payments deriving from the image rights contracts fall within the scope of the BAT arbitration clause.

Furthermore, in some cases, the BAT has introduced other criteria, such as the necessity to establish a link between the contracts. In the 0115/10 case, the BAT established a close link between the main contract and the image rights contract, in a way that the image rights contract could not exist but for the original contract.[12] Interestingly enough, this rather broad interpretation has been inspired by the liberal case law of the Swiss Federal Tribunal, which requires that the interconnection between different contracts be taken into account when examining the substantive validity of an arbitration agreement.[13]

It is remarkable that until now, when examining the jurisdictional basis, the BAT has consistently adopted a rather liberal approach by piercing the fictitious veil between the club, the player and the third party when using overlapping contractual constructions. However, on the merits, the BAT’s approach is not totally consistent.

III. Enforcing image rights contracts: the BAT’s enigmatic approach

In a series of awards, the BAT has found the clubs liable for the breach of the image rights contract and the subsequent outstanding payment of the player.

Applying the legal roadmap established above, the BAT has addressed the supplementary role of the subsequent contracts in organizing the payment schedule of the full remuneration of the player provided in the main contract. Indeed, from a contractual point of view, the terms of the main contract are deemed sufficient to entitle the player to claim the entire amount owed to him on the basis of that contract alone.[14] In this sense, the fact that image rights payments have been made via a third party does not free the club from its duty to guarantee the full remuneration of the player.[15] To reinforce this argument, the BAT has even asserted that the only case in which the club would not be found liable for breach of image rights contract would be the case where the image rights contract explicitly provided a waiver of the player’s claims against the club relating to image rights.[16]

However, this - until recently- consistent approach has been overturned in the latest BAT award concerning the enforcement of image rights contracts.[17] In that case, the image contract was signed between a company to which the claimant assigned the rights to his promotion and a company managing the image and endorsement rights of the club. Although having confirmed the supplementary role of the image rights contract with regard to the employment contract at hand, the arbitrator chose to deviate from the entrenched interpretation in BAT jurisprudence of the intent of the parties. Namely, the arbitrator interpreted the parties’ behaviour as intending to discharge the club of its obligation to guarantee the full amount of the player’s salary under the main contract.

While, in this particular case, the company to which the player assigned his image rights could have been found liable for not transferring the missing amounts to the player, the BAT’s approach is questionable in that it undermined the club’s liability under the main contract. At this point, it should be highlighted that BAT decides all cases ex aequo et bono.[18] In this light, it is the opinion of the author of this blogpost that it would be contrary to general considerations of justice and fairness to consider that the club could take advantage of a tax-optimising structure to no longer guarantee principal amounts contractually due to the player. In other words, it would be unfair to consider that the player has implicitly renounced the guarantees offered to him by the club under the main contract.

Conclusive Remarks

The system of image rights contracts in international basketball is fragile. Based on the lack of legal certainty in BAT jurisprudence, this blogpost has evidenced the risk that clubs use the BAT to escape their obligations deriving from the image rights contracts. Taking into account that BAT awards are directly enforceable under the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, subject only to an appeal on the limited grounds provided in Article 190 Swiss Private International Law Act (PILA)[19], a denial of the BAT to enforce image rights contracts against the clubs leaves the players deprived of any real legal avenue to vindicate their rights. In this sense, a consistent approach of the BAT with regard to the intimate relation existing between the image rights contract and the main employment contract would not only be desirable, but would also be in line with the ex aequo et bono principle.

[1] Johan Passave-Ducteil, the president of SNB remarks in l’Equipe:"Ce n’est pas une histoire d’argent, on défend le droit des joueurs"

[2] D-R Martens, ‘An innovative System for Resolving Disputes in Sport (only in Sport?)’ (2011) 1-2 International Sports Law Journal 54, 60.

[3] Edward O’ Bannon et al v National Collegiate Athletics Association, Electronic Arts Inc and Collegiate Licensing Company ( US District Court, 08.08.2014) and NCAA Student-Athlete Name and Likeness Licensing Litigation, 724 F. 3d 1268 (9^th Cir. 2013).

[4] The tribunal was established by FIBA in 2006 under the name “FIBA Arbitral Tribunal (FAT)”. In accordance with the 2010 FIBA General Statutes, the tribunal was renamed into “Basketball Arbitral Tribunal (BAT)”.

[5] Vladimir Golubovic v Basketball Club Union Olimpija Ljubljaba, BAT 0174/11, para 6.

[6] Pawel Kikoeski v KK Union Olimpija Ljubljana, BAT 0155/11, para 23.

[7] In the case where the image rights company is seated in a tax haven state, the tax benefits are almost double for the club.

[8] BAT 0155/11(n 6), para 51. See also, 0174/11(n 5) para 10: “The Club suggested the image contract because it served tax driven purposes only. That was the only purpose for such a contract, and it was irrelevant for the player, because his remuneration were settled in net amount (tax free)”.

[9] i.e a subsequent law imparts the abolition of a previous one

[10] Richard Hendrix v Club Baloncesto Granada, FAT 0115/10, para 36.

[11] FAT 0115/10(n 10), para 44, Dalibor Bagaric v Fortitudo Pallacanestro SrL FAT 0105/10 para 49, Lazaros Papadopoulos v Fortitudo Palacanestro Societa’ Sportica Dilettantistica a R.L. FAT 0071/09 para 61, Darryl Eugene Strawberry and Bill Duffy International Inc v Fortitudo Palacanestro Societa’ Sportica Dilettantistica a R.L. FAT 0067/09, para 66.

[12] FAT 0115/10 (n 10), para 41.

[13] Ibid, para 43 where the arbitrator makes an extensive reference to Swiss Federal Tribunal case law: Decision of the Swiss Federal Tribunal of 16 October 2003, reported in ATF 129 III 727, 735 using the

word “liberal” with reference to ATF 121 III 38, 45 and the decisions 4P.126/2001 of 18 December 2001

reported in ASA Bulletin 2002, p. 482; 4C.40/2003 of 19 May 2003 at 4, reported in ASA Bulletin 2004, p.

344; see also decision 4P.230/2000 of 7 February 2001 reported in ASA Bulletin 2001, p. 523.

[14] FAT 0067/09 (n 11), para 83.

[15] FAT 0071/09 (n 11), para 76.

[16] FAT 0115/10 (n 10), para 64.

[17] Steven Smith v Virtus Palacanestro Bologna S.p.A, BAT 0413/13

[18] BAT Arbitration Rules, Article 15.1: "Unless the parties have agreed otherwise the Arbitrator shall decide the dispute ex aequo et bono, applying general considerations of justice and fairness without reference to any particular national or international law ".

[19] In fact, according to Article 190 (2) PILA, only serious procedural defects or rulings on substance that are contrary to international public policy may constitute grounds to set aside an award. See A Rigozzi, ‘Challenging Awards of the Court of Arbitration for Sport’ (2010)1 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 217, 217-254.

Editor's note: Lindsay Brandon is Associate Attorney at Law Offices of Howard L. Jacobs

“Tell the white people of America and all over the world that if they don’t seem to care for the things black people do, they should not go to see black people perform.” – American sprinter and Olympic Medalist John Carlos

On 21 April 2021, the Athletes’ Commission (AC) of the International Olympic Committee (“IOC”) received the “full support of the IOC Executive Board for a set of recommendations in regard to the Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter and Athlete Expression at the Olympic Games.” This came over a year after the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games were postponed due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and almost a year after the IOC and AC embarked on an “extensive qualitative and quantitative” consultation process to reform Rule 50 involving over 3,500 athletes from around the globe.

Since its introduction of the new guidelines in January 2020, Rule 50 has been touted by the IOC as a means to protect the neutrality of sport and the Olympic Games, stating that “No kind of demonstration or political, religious or radical propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues, or other areas.” In other words, the Olympics are a time to celebrate sport, and any political act or demonstration might ruin their “moment of glory”.

In fact, the Rule 50 Guidelines say that a fundamental principle of sport is that it is neutral, and “must be separate from political, religious or any other type of interference.” But this separation is not necessarily rooted in totality in modern sports culture[1], particularly in the United States (“U.S.”). This is evidenced by the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee (“USOPC”) committing to not sanctioning Team USA athletes for protesting at the Olympics. The USOPC Athletes stated “Prohibiting athletes to freely express their views during the Games, particularly those from historically underrepresented and minoritized groups, contributes to the dehumanization of athletes that is at odds with key Olympic and Paralympic values.”

Athlete Demonstrations, Historically

While, unfortunately, many countries have a troubling history of colonialism and slavery, the United States continues to grapple with its racist history. It was not that long ago that Jim Crow laws, legalized racial segregation that replaced slavery, were ended in the United States. Though in 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act that legally ended segregation, de facto segregation has continued through voter suppression tactics, housing discrimination, and lack of access to education and healthcare.

Long before the passage of the Civil Rights Act, some Black athletes held prominence as successful athletes. Despite their fame on the field, they were not treated as equals in society. Naturally, sports became a platform for minorities to speak about the injustices of the racism that plagued America. The following are some examples of athlete-activism that have shaped American sports history.

In 1959, professional basketball player Elgin Baylor was scheduled to play in a game at a neutral site in West Virginia. After the hotel his team was staying at refused to serve him and two of his Black teammates, he sat out the game in protest stating that the game was not more important than his dignity. Mr. Baylor’s act is now considered a defining moment for athlete activism during the Civil Rights Movement. In 1961, following a similar experience by Bill Russell and his Black teammates at an exhibition game in Kentucky, they collectively sat out of the game while their white teammates still played. In response to their actions, Mr. Russell said “We’ve got to show our disapproval for this kind of treatment or else the status quo will prevail.”

In recent times it is common for leagues to change venues for such events as All-Star Games due to the institution of policies perceived as discriminatory. To historians’ knowledge, the first change in venue was in 1965 when twenty-one African American athletes in the American Football League arrived in New Orleans, Louisiana only to find out they could not get service for transportation or food. After a unanimous vote to boycott the game, the AFL moved the location to Houston, Texas.

Shortly thereafter, Muhammad Ali famously refused the draft during the Vietnam War, citing his religious beliefs, and was subsequently stripped of his heavyweight title and banned from his sport of boxing for three years. Athletes such as Mr. Russell stood up to support Mr. Ali, who became an extremely polarizing figure as he was subsequently convicted of draft eviction and sentenced to jail time (which was ultimately overturned by the United States Supreme Court).

In 1967, Kathy Switzer famously ran the Boston Marathon, a male-only event. Despite being physically assaulted by race officials, Ms. Switzer finished the race but the Amateur Athletic Union officially banned women from racing alongside men across all covered events (which remained in effect for the next five years).

In 1968, American athlete activism became the hallmark of the Mexico City Olympic Games when sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos took the podium (as gold and bronze medal winners in the 200-meter dash, respectively) and raised their fists in the air as a symbol of Black Power and the racist mistreatment of Black athletes in America. Together with Mr. Carlos and Mr. Smith, Australian sprinter Peter Norman wore a patch on his jacket from the Olympic Project for Human Rights, an organization founded and comprised by prominent Olympic athletes to expose the mistreatment of Black athletes in America. As a result, Mr. Carlos and Mr. Smith were required to leave the games and suspended from the U.S. National Team (although they were ultimately allowed to keep their medals). Ironically, they are now memorialized at the IOC museum in Lausanne, Switzerland.

In 1973, tennis star Billie Jean King formed the Women’s Tennis Association and threatened to lead a boycott of the U.S. Open if the event refused to pay female prize winners as much as the men. In the early 1991, professional basketball player Craig Hodges tried to organize his fellow Chicago Bulls teammates – one of the greatest NBA teams in its history – to protest the Finals in response to the beating of Rodney King by Los Angeles police. He failed to do so, and after expressing his concerns about racism in the U.S. to President George H.W. Bush at his visit to the White House, was subsequently excluded from the NBA after the next season despite being a league-leader in 3-pointers.

Professional basketball player Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf was suspended in 1996 for failing to stand during the U.S. National Anthem before a game. Afterwards, Mr. Rauf was excluded from the League. Twenty years later, National Football League quarterback Colin Kaepernick took a knee during the anthem in response to racial injustice and police brutality in America. Following this, numerous WNBA players wore “Black Lives Matter” shirts in support of the movement that would become world renowned following the 2020 murder of George Floyd that sparked protests around the world and significant athlete activism in the midst of a global pandemic.

Impetus for Rule 50

During the 2019 Pan-American Games, American athletes Gwen Berry and Race Imboden both made symbolic protests as they took the podium to accept gold medals in their respective sports. Following the protests, USOPC CEO Sarah Hirshland sent letters of reprimand to both athletes and issued a 12-month probation but warned the athletes (and presumably their teammates) that any future acts of protest would be met with more severe consequences.

Though consequences have long been in place for political protests at the Olympic Games, the introduction of the new Rule 50 Guidelines, as outlined below, undoubtedly emerged after the demonstrations by U.S. athletes at the 2019 Pan-Am Games. Of course, the IOC does not want any politically-motivated distractions during the upcoming Tokyo Games, and certainly, at least part of this is motivated not just by the published intent of Rule 50, but also by the IOC’s business interests. Olympic Games organizers and host countries rely on financial investment from broadcast companies and corporate sponsors. That said, the majority of that money comes from U.S.-based companies – home to the demonstrating athletes. In fact, as long ago as 2008, former USOPC chairman Peter Ueberroth said “Make no mistake about it. Starting in 1988, U.S. corporations have paid 60% of all the money, period” when asked “Who pays the bill for the world Olympic movement?”.

Even before the pandemic, the Tokyo Games were to be the most expensive in Olympic history (to the official tune of $US15.4 billion). However, the Associated Press reported that a government audit reported it could be “at least twice that much,” only made worse by the postponement due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Certainly, with so much American corporate investment in the Olympics, and with an unprecedented visibility of American athlete activism, the attention to Rule 50, and its new guidelines, was no sudden coincidence.

However, the May 25, 2020 murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis, Minnesota police and the subsequent demonstrations that followed changed everything, including public corporate stance on racism in America.

Application of Rule 50 to the Athletes

As Rule 50 is written, athletes are still able to express themselves through social media and official press conferences. There are no restrictions for athletes in non-Olympic venues; however, given the restrictions in place due to the pandemic, it is unlikely that the athletes will spend any time in Tokyo outside of an Olympic venue.

When it comes to what is actually prohibited, the examples are targeted and few, and as minority American athletes have rightly criticized – are unclear about what the punishment will be for any infringement or what an infringement might look like, as further explained below. The IOC has provided some non exhaustive examples:

Displaying any political messaging, including signs or armbands
Gestures of a political nature, like a hand gesture or kneeling
Refusal to follow the Ceremonies protocol.

Looking at the examples provided, the “gestures” are certainly reflected in specific demonstrations made by American athletes in response to human and civil rights violations in their home country. In other words, a direct line can be drawn to the rise of athlete activism amongst American athletes and the publishing of the above examples of Rule 50 violations.

For those that disregard Rule 50, the IOC says that “if an athlete or participant is in breach of Rule 50 and the Olympic Charter, each incident will be evaluated by their respective National Olympic Committee, International Federation and the IOC, and disciplinary action will be taken on a case-by-case basis as necessary”. In other words, unlike other global disciplinary codes in place for athletes, there may be inconsistent application of the Rule based upon how signatories decide to handle violations of the Rule.

In response, Ms. Berry, who was previously admonished by the USOPC, stated in July 2020 that “like black and brown people in America it’s unclear how the rules will apply to them and fear is the order of the day”. But, by the end of 2020, the USOPC changed its tone and said that it would decline to punish any other American athlete that demonstrated against racial injustice.

Indeed, since the USOPC’s announcement, it appears that NOCs more favorable to free speech (such as the USOPC) might help “pare back” Rule 50, as it realizes that its survey of global athletes about demonstrations at the Games might not have accurately reflected athletes’ true feelings about its impact, nor perhaps entirely understood that some athletes actually fear mistreatment by their own governments for even answering such a question in a truthful manner.

2020 Changed Athlete Activism in America Forever

On 25 May, 2020, as the pandemic was in full swing and sports were largely on hold, the entirety of America’s focus was on the murder of George Floyd. Even though he was one of over 1,000 people that die by police force in the U.S. each year, Mr. Floyd’s murder was particularly gruesome, and documented in full. What followed was months-long protests and demonstrations all over America, and even worldwide.

As the protests continued, sports resumed and athletes began to compete again, including in the NBA and tennis. With a captive audience desperate for sports content, many of these athletes knew they had a platform to speak out about the injustices and how – despite their fortune as professional athletes – what being a minority in America was like. Given the racial justice reckoning in the U.S., the leagues and event organizers were supportive. For example, Naomi Osaka was allowed to wear masks to each of her U.S. Open matches bearing the names of Black individuals killed by police. Even NASCAR, with arguably the most conservative fan base in America, banned the Confederate flag (the flag of the pro-slavery south that lost the American Civil War) from all of its events.

Indeed, while there was nothing controversial about condemning racism in the U.S., for the first time not only were organizations backing their athletes that engaged in public dialogue about the racism., but countless U.S. companies took to any and every public forum to condemn racism. Many of these companies are the Olympic Games’ biggest sponsors, including Intel, whose webpage on social equity states that “standing on the sidelines is not an option” and features a photo of protested both kneeling and raising a fist in the air.

With overwhelming acknowledgment of systemic racism in the U.S., the USOPC too changed its tune in its approach to Rule 50. But the IOC persists, holding up its Athletes Commission in defense of punishment of athletes demonstrating against the injustices of their home countries. However, the fact that corporate America now publicly supports such demonstrations only shows how out of touch the IOC’s Rule 50 is. How any potential conflicts between the USOPC and IOC on this issue might play out remains to be seen, and any consequences would be purely speculative.

Conclusion

The Olympics have always demonstrated how sports are a unifying force , but they are not insulated from the global events that impact the lives of Olympic athletes every day. Rule 50, it could be said, as outlined by the IOC Executive Board for the 2020 Games, is in response to the rise of U.S. athlete activism , despite the fact that they have the support of Olympic corporate sponsors. At face value, Rule 50 seeks to protect the Olympics from “divisiveness” but only furthers the legitimate criticism that the IOC undervalues the voices of athletes that make the Olympic Games possible.

[1] It is also noted that historically, there have been protests at Olympic games from various athletes for various reasons. See, e.g., https://time.com/5764614/political-protests-olympics-ioc-ban/.

Our International Sports Law Diary
The Asser International Sports Law Centre is part of the

Call for papers: Annual International Sports Law Conference of the International Sports Law Journal - 25 & 26 October - Asser Institute, The Hague

Asser International Sports Law Blog

Our International Sports Law Diary
The Asser International Sports Law Centre is part of the

Image Rights in Professional Basketball (Part I): The ‘in-n-out rimshot’ of the Basketball Arbitral Tribunal to enforce players’ image rights contracts. By Thalia Diathesopoulou

Pingbacks and trackbacks (1)+

Asser International Sports Law blog

Asser International Sports Law Blog

Our International Sports Law Diary
The Asser International Sports Law Centre is part of the

WISLaw Blog Symposium - Stick to Sports: The Impact of Rule 50 on American Athletes at the Olympic Games - By Lindsay Brandon

Related posts

Related posts

Pingbacks and trackbacks (1)+

Asser International Sports Law blog

Related posts