Paris 2024 Olympic Games – Part One
Navigating Legal Challenges: An In-Depth Review of Paris' Preparations for the 2024 Olympic Games
This article forms Part one of a three-part analysis into the Paris 2024 Olympics. In this article, Yasin Patel and Caitlin Haberlin-Chambers explore the legal issues within the context of controversies in the lead up to the 2024 Games.
Introduction
On 23 June 2015, coinciding with the global celebration of Olympic Day, Paris formally announced its bid to host the 2024 Summer Olympics. The 2024 bidding process saw several cities withdraw, leaving Paris and Los Angeles as the final contenders. Subsequently, the International Olympic Committee (“IOC”) decided to award the 2024 Games to Paris and the 2028 Games to Los Angeles, making this the third summer Games hosted by Paris following the successful games of 1900 and 1924.
The Paris 2024 Organising Committee aimed to redefine the Olympic and Paralympic Games by pledging to deliver an “ambitious, spectacular, universal event that is more responsible, more sustainable, more united and more inclusive.” This vision included a commitment to making the 2024 Games the greenest in Olympic history, featuring the first Olympic ceremony to be held outdoors and hosting events in the River Seine (where swimming had been banned since 1923).
Prior to the Paris 2024 Olympics actually beginning, several areas of difficulties were encountered. The lead-up to the Games was marred by strike actions and worker protests over wages and an arson attack on France’s high-speed rail network. The opening ceremony faced harsh criticism, with it being dubbed the “worst in history”. Controversies included accusations of mocking the ‘Last Supper’, confusing South Korea with North Korea, and raising the IOC flag upside down.
The event also faced environmental challenges; efforts to clean the River Seine were nearly futile, as demonstrated when the Men’s Triathlon had to be delayed due to poor water conditions. The inclusion of Steven van de Velde, who was previously convicted of child rape, sparked widespread debate and Bob Ballard’s commentary on Olympic swimming resulted in allegations of sexism.
And politics also had a central role: security concerns were heightened by the decision to include Israel in the Games and the ban on wearing hijabs further showcased the tension between sports federations and the IOC's principles.
Table of Contents
I. “Let Them Eat Cake”: Strike Actions and Worker Protests
II. Addressing the Issue of Security and Safety
III. Hijab Ban: Islamophobia and Gender Discrimination
IV. Steven van de Velde: Criminal Law and IOC Sanctions
V. Conclusion
I. “Let Them Eat Cake”: Strike Actions and Worker Protests
France, particularly Paris, has a well-known history of protests and strikes which have played a significant role in shaping the country's social, political, and economic landscape and this was the case leading up to the Olympics. This tradition of public demonstrations and labour action is deeply embedded in French culture and history. The development of this phenomenon is rooted in notable events including the French Revolution (1789-1799), the 19th century revolutions and movements and the May 1968 Protests.
France has a robust tradition of unionism. Trade unions in France are highly organized and often play a central role in mobilizing workers for strikes and protests. The country's labour laws provide significant protections for striking workers, encouraging a culture of activism. The exercise of the right to strike in the public sector is regulated by law.
In France, the right to strike is a constitutional right. Preamble to the Constitution of 27 October 1946, which guarantees freedom of assembly and expression, provides (as relevant):
“All men may defend their rights and interests through union action and may belong to the union of their choice.
The right to strike shall be exercised within the framework of the laws governing it.”
The "Gilets Jaunes" (Yellow Vests) movement, which began in 2018, is a recent example where protests started over fuel taxes but expanded to include a wide range of economic and political grievances.
Causes of Protest
“Let them eat cake”, a quote attributed to Marie Antoinette, is a journalistic cliché taken to reflect the princess’s frivolous disregard for the starving peasants and her poor understanding of their plight. It became a term used by pro-revolutionary commentators to denounce the Ancien regime.
Protests and strikes are a common feature for host nations during the Games given the sheer revenue the Olympics generates for the host nation. The London 2012 Olympics turned the “Games into gold” generating an insurmountable economic boost which, according to a press release published on 23 July 2014, passed £14 billion. The London 2012 Games were accompanied by protests and strikes over the “corporate dominance” of the Games and the cost of staging the event during a time of austerity.
Protests concerning wages related to the Paris 2024 Olympics primarily involved labour unions and workers advocating for fair compensation and wages. Their argument is that despite the high revenue potential of the Olympics, the wages offered to those working on the ground are not reflective of the profit margins and economic benefits expected from such an international event. The Paris 2024 Olympic Games are set to generate between EUR 6.7 and 11.1 billion in net economic benefits.
Union workers employed by RATP, the Paris and wider Ile-de-France region public transport operator, went on a renewable strike from 5 February 2024 until 9 September 2024, demanding bonuses for work during the Games. On 25 July 2024, a day before the scheduled Olympic Ceremony, saw a strike of workers of the five-star hotel in Paris where members of the IOC were staying. According to the major French union CGT, the IOC paid the hotel where staffers were striking, Hôtel du Collectionneur, 22 million euros ($23.88 million) for exclusive use of the facility. Employees held signs reading, “No 13th month, no Olympics!,” “Luxury hotel, poverty wages” and “Give us back our social benefits.” Workers say that they have not had a pay rise in seven years despite the influx of revenue for IOC members to reside for the duration of the Games.
On 24 July 2024, the event organisers managed to negotiate a deal, preventing a planned strike of hundreds of dancers set to perform at the Olympic Ceremony over pay disparities after reaching a deal with the event organisers. The performers secured a rise in compensation for broadcasting rights during a final round of talks with Paris 2024 organisers. The deal agreed that the lowest-paid dances would receive between EUR 160-240 extra for their performance.
Conclusion
Wage protests related to the Paris 2024 Olympics are part of a broader discourse on labour rights and economic equity: the games organisers were certainly not expecting complaints on the eve of the games. These protests emphasize the need for fair compensation, safe working conditions, and respect for labour rights, particularly in the context of a major international event that involves significant public and private investment. The failure to do so can cause international reputational backlash such as that faced by Qatar following their poor treatment of workers in building the stadiums for the 2022 World Cup. The outcome of these protests can impact not only the success of the Olympic Games but also the long-term social and economic landscape of Paris and the wider region.
II. Addressing the Issue of Security and Safety
The Olympics, as the largest sporting event globally, seeks to bring nations together in the spirit of competition and unity. The colours of the Olympic rings were chosen to represent at least one colour found in every national flag, symbolizing global inclusivity. IOC President, Thomas Bach, ushered in the Games saying, “Let us celebrate this Olympic spirit of living life in peace, as the one and only humankind, united in all our diversity.”
However, the Games cannot entirely escape the realities of international diplomatic tensions. Host countries have a duty to implement extensive security measures to protect athletes, staff, and spectators. This necessity is underscored by the tragic events of the 1972 Munich Olympics, where the Palestinian group Black September tragically killed eleven Israeli athletes.
Security Measures: A History of the Games
Ensuring security at the Olympic Games presents a complex and multifaceted challenge for host countries. These countries must be adaptable, prepared to respond to evolving threats, and capable of coordinating with a diverse range of stakeholders, including international sports federations, national governments, and private security firms.
For instance, during the London 2012 Games, surface-to-air missiles were strategically placed at six sites across London, including residential areas, to guard against potential aerial threats. Approximately 18,200 military personnel, alongside police and private security, were deployed.
In the case of the Rio 2016 Games, the Brazilian government deployed an unprecedented 85,000 security personnel, encompassing both military and police forces, effectively doubling the number used in London 2012. This contingent included specialized units trained in counterterrorism. "Pacification" programs in Rio's favelas aimed to reduce crime and enhance security in preparation for the Games.
At the Tokyo 2020 Games, advanced drone technology and artificial intelligence were employed to monitor crowds and detect unusual activities or potential security threats.
Security Threat: Terrorism – A real threat?
The terrorism threat at the Paris 2024 Olympic Games is a significant concern due to several factors. France has experienced multiple terrorist attacks in recent years, such as the 2015 Paris attacks and the 2016 Nice truck attack, demonstrating the ongoing threat from both domestic and international terrorist groups. Alongside this, the Olympics are a global event, making them a symbolic and attractive target for terrorists seeking maximum media exposure.
Potential threats include groups who have previously targeted France and other Western countries. Other potential threats include radicalized individuals or small groups within France inspired by extremist ideologies or grievances. For example, on 22 May 2024, an 18-year-old was detained in Saint-Étienne for allegedly plotting an Islamist-inspired attack at a football stadium that will be used during the Olympics.
Security Threat: Israel, Palestine and IOC ‘hypocrisy?’
The presence of Israel at the 2024 Olympic Games in Paris has been one of the highest-profile security concerns.
The Olympic Charter emphasizes peace, unity, and the separation of sports from politics. Advocates of Israel’s participation in the Games argued that Israel’s exclusion would undermine the core values of the Olympic movement. Proponents assert that Israeli athletes have the right to compete and showcase their talents on an international stage, embodying the spirit of sportsmanship and fair play. However, this does not align with the IOC's treatment of Russia and Belarus. The 2022 invasion of Ukraine by Russia, supported by Belarus, led to significant geopolitical tensions. In light of this, on 12 October 2023, the IOC Executive Board (“EB”) decided that the Russian Olympic Committee is suspended with immediate effect until further notice. The strict conditions the IOC set out in its recommendations to the International Federations (“IFs”) for the participation of Individual Neutral Athletes with a Russian or Belarusian passport in international competitions are compliant with the Olympic Charter. These measures are a reaction to the breach of the Olympic Charter by the Russian and Belarusian governments.
In March 2024, the IOC President, Thomas Bach, assured Israel that there will be no threat to the country’s Olympic status, saying “there is no question” that Israeli athletes will be allowed to compete. This sparked controversy with some arguing that it legitimizes alleged war crimes. The IOC firmly rejected claims that the suspension of Russia and Belarus amounted to ethnic discrimination. However, the decision to allow Israel to compete has been criticized for perpetuating ethnic discrimination against Palestinians.
With Israel allowed to compete, the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict heightened security threats in the lead-up to the Games. In early March 2024, a terrorist attack in a Moscow concert hall killed over 130 people, prompting France to elevate its terror alert to the highest level. Additionally, on 25 July 2024, Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz warned his French counterpart of a plot backed by Iranian terrorist proxies to disrupt the events. In response, France reduced the number of spectators from a potential 600,000 to 326,000 to minimize the security risk.
Security Threat: Arson Attack
espite extensive security measures, France experienced a significant security breach on 26 July 2024, just before the Olympic Opening Ceremony. An arson attack targeted the LGC Atlantique, Nord, and Est lines of the French high-speed railway system, affecting approximately 800,000 passengers. This incident underscored the global tensions and heightened security concerns surrounding the Games. Al Jazeera’s Bernard Smith said: “Security was always a concern at these Olympics, and here you see why.” The apparently coordinated attacks were “a clear indication of the enormous security challenges France is facing”.
The sabotage, which targeted less guarded sites in rural areas, emphasized the difficulty in preventing such acts in more remote locations. This incident serves as a stark reminder to future Olympic host countries of the comprehensive security measures required to protect both the event and the public.
Security at Paris
Security was a top priority for Paris. The political climate in France has been notably tense, underscored by President Macron's dissolution of the National Assembly and the ensuing snap elections, which have heightened political activism and anti-far-right demonstrations. Furthermore, the global context, particularly the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, complicated the security landscape, amid accusations of Russian-backed cyberattacks targeting French interests. Tony Estanguet, Paris 2024 chief, assured the public that the Games would be safeguarded by an “unprecedented” security operation, and that preparations are “in good shape”.
French authorities were on high alert. Ongoing surveillance and intelligence gathering were used to identify and mitigate threats before they materialized. For example, in late April 2024, a 16 year old was arrested after he announced on social media that he wanted to die a martyr at the Olympics.
In addition to online surveillance and according to a report from Recorded Future’s Insikt Group, “extensive security infrastructure in place for the event will make a successful mass-casualty attack very unlikely.” In preparation for the Games, Paris was effectively transformed into a “city of metal”. One of the most prominent security measures was the enforcement of a restricted zone around the Seine, which was in place for more than a week leading up to the opening ceremony. This anti-terrorism perimeter required individuals to obtain Games Pass QR codes or show Olympic accreditation to access the secured areas. Additional measures included the deployment of up to 75,000 police officers, soldiers, and hired security guards patrolling Paris to protect venues and events.
However, these measures were not without controversy. The activist group Saccage 2024, which opposes the Games on environmental grounds, criticized Paris 2024 as the first-ever "QR code Olympic Games," warning that it could set a troubling precedent for future major events.
Conclusion
While the Olympic Games capture the attention of a global audience of billions, they cannot overshadow the pressing geopolitical events unfolding around the world. The 2024 Paris Games, in particular, highlighted significant contradictions and raised questions about the principles guiding international sports participation. The IOC's decision to ban Russia and Belarus from competing, in response to their roles in the war on Ukraine, was a definitive stance against aggression and violence. However, the inclusion of Israel, despite its ongoing conflict with Palestine, sparked controversy and debate. Critics argued that this selective application of moral standards seemed inconsistent, particularly given the heavy casualties in Palestine, with official estimates saying 40,000 lives being lost but those with greater local insight saying over 100,000 lives lost and the toll still rising.
The Paris Games serve as a reminder that while the spirit of competition and unity can bring nations together, they also provide a platform for expressing and sometimes confronting the realities of geopolitical strife. The inconsistencies observed in the handling of different countries' participation in the Games prompt a deeper reflection on the values and decisions that shape such international gatherings. They also call into question the responsibilities of international organizations like the IOC in addressing or acknowledging the political contexts in which they operate. As the world watches these events, it becomes clear that the Games, though a celebration of human achievement and cooperation, are not immune to the political and ethical dilemmas that pervade global society.
III. Hijab Ban: Islamophobia and Gender Discrimination
Ahead of Paris 2024, France’s secularism rule is forcing female Muslim players to choose between faith and the game. At the 2024 Games, France banned Muslim women from wearing a sports hijab or any other form of religious headgear when they compete for France. The bans have undermined efforts to make sports more inclusive and mean that Muslim players and athletes who wear a hijab in France will continue to be discriminated against.
The Hijab – what is it and what does it signify?
The hijab, a headscarf worn by many Muslim women, carries significant religious and cultural meanings. Primarily, it is an act of faith and adherence to Islamic teachings, fulfilling a religious obligation outlined in the Qur'an, which emphasizes modesty in dress and behaviour for both men and women. The hijab symbolizes commitment to Islamic values and ethical principles of modesty, extending beyond attire to encompass behaviour and interactions.
n Muslim-majority societies, the hijab often serves as a symbol of cultural identity and heritage, representing a connection to community and tradition. In non-Muslim-majority societies, it can signify cultural pride and solidarity. For many women, wearing the hijab is a personal choice that embodies empowerment and autonomy, allowing them to define their identity and control their public image.
The hijab is a complex and multifaceted symbol, reflecting diverse religious, cultural, and personal dimensions. Its significance varies widely among individuals, influenced by personal beliefs, cultural contexts, and societal norms. While it can be a source of empowerment and identity, it can also lead to challenges stemming from societal attitudes or misconceptions. Ultimately, the hijab's meaning is deeply personal, capturing the varied experiences and perspectives of Muslim women globally.
The Law
France’s ruling in this matter acts in accordance with the country’s implementation of various laws and regulations concerning the wearing of hijabs and other religious symbols in public spaces.
In March 2004, the French parliament voted through a ban on headscarves in schools, outlawing “symbols or clothing that conspicuously demonstrate a pupil’s religious affiliations.”
In 2010, France enacted the "Act Prohibiting the Concealment of the Face in Public Space," which bans the wearing of full-face coverings such as the niqab and burqa, forms of Islamic veiling that cover the face. This law applies to all forms of face coverings, and those who violate it may face a fine of up to 150 euros.
French law also restricts public employees, such as teachers and government workers, from wearing visible religious symbols, including the hijab, while on duty.
The recent ban on Olympic athletes from wearing any religious items while competing at the Summer Games, has made the issue more divisive than ever. These laws have sparked considerable debate both within France and internationally.
Protesting the Ban
Diaba Konaté, a rising star in French basketball, has become a prominent advocate for change through her involvement with Basket Pour Toutes (“Basketball For All”), a collective of predominantly young Muslim women in France who wear hijabs and are passionate about the sport. This group is making a concerted effort to challenge the ban on hijabs in basketball and other French sports, which they view as an unjust restriction on their freedom to participate in the activities they love.
Konaté’s efforts are part of a broader movement opposing the hijab ban, reflecting a growing wave of resistance against what many perceive as discriminatory policies. She is joined in this protest by other athletes and activists, including Veronica Noseda, a football player for Les Degommeuses, a Parisian club established to combat discrimination. Noseda has articulated the broader implications of the ban, stating: “The ban on the hijab [a type of headscarf that covers the head and neck, but leaves the face clear] is the consequence of two discriminations: it is islamophobia, but also gender discrimination.”
These athletes and activists challenged not only the specific ban but also broader societal attitudes, advocating for a more inclusive and equitable sporting environment. Their ongoing campaign is a testament to their resilience and commitment to ensuring that all athletes, regardless of their religious attire, have the opportunity to participate fully in their chosen sports.
Islamophobia v Secularism
The question of whether banning hijabs is Islamophobic is complex and context dependent. Islamophobia is the “irrational fear of, hostility towards, or prejudice against the religion of Islam or Muslims in general”.
Supporters of the ban contend that they uphold the country's secular values and ensure equality and neutrality in public spaces. The French government has said the hijab ban reflected the country’s long-held policy of secularism – laïcite– that institutes the separation of church and state. A spokesperson for the French Sports Ministry says that while an athlete “will never be banned from a competition because of their religious beliefs,” its secularism rules act as a “framework” for wearing religious symbols, which it has deemed the hijab to be. If applied equally to all religious symbols, the intent may be to maintain public order and secular governance, rather than to discriminate against a specific group.
Critics, however, assert that the laws disproportionately affect Muslim women and infringe on individual freedoms, particularly the right to express religious beliefs. Muslims make up 10% of France’s population, the largest Muslim population in Europe.
The manner in which the ban is discussed and justified by public officials and media can also indicate whether the policy is rooted in Islamophobia. If the discourse surrounding the ban includes or incites negative stereotypes about Muslims, it could reinforce Islamophobic attitudes. With the IOC allowing athletes to wear hijabs, France’s discontent with such a measure points towards Islamophobia, particularly given that the event is an international sporting event.
IOC and French Law
In the realm of sports, particularly at the national level, France has had instances where wearing religious symbols, including hijabs, has been restricted. For example, the French Football Federation (“FFF”) has historically enforced rules against players wearing hijabs during matches, citing the principles of secularism and neutrality. However, this stance has been controversial and challenged, especially when it comes to international competitions like the Olympics, where the IOC allows athletes to wear religious clothing.
The sports competitions at the Olympics are organised and overseen by the individual international sports federations. Each sport in the Olympic Games is governed by an international federation (“IF”), which sets specific rules and regulations for that sport, including those related to athletes' attire. These federations operate with a degree of autonomy under the umbrella of the IOC. While the IOC oversees the overall organization of the Olympic Games and promotes certain values, including non-discrimination, it generally respects the autonomy of IFs to regulate the technical and safety aspects of their sports.
The IOC emphasizes inclusivity and the accommodation of athletes' cultural and religious expressions, provided they do not interfere with the sport's regulations and safety standards. However, the IOC faces limitations when addressing bans on hijabs or other religious attire imposed by individual sports federations during the Olympics. The IOC may not have the jurisdiction to override the technical rules set by an IF. Directly opposing or overruling an IF's decision can lead to governance challenges and potential conflicts within the Olympic movement. The IOC often prefers to work through dialogue and persuasion rather than imposing top-down directives that could be seen as infringing on the authority of IFs.
The IOC's ability to enforce changes is also constrained by legal and ethical considerations. It must balance respect for cultural diversity and religious expression with the autonomy of IFs and the integrity of the sport. This balance can be challenging to achieve, especially in situations where different cultural and legal norms intersect.
Despite these restrictions, the IOC intervened in relation to the Paris Olympics. On 29 September 2023, the IOC ruled that participants in the 2024 Olympics were free to wear hijabs in the athlete’s village. As stated by an IOC spokesperson, “For the Olympic Village, the IOC rules apply. There are no restrictions on wearing the hijab or any other religious or cultural attire.”
Conclusion
The controversy surrounding France's policies on hijabs underscores the enduring tensions between secular values and religious freedoms, highlighting the challenges of balancing individual rights with state-imposed secularism. France's strict interpretation of laïcité, disproportionately target Muslim women and infringe upon their rights to freely express their religious beliefs.
The debate over these policies is intensified by concerns that such bans may be outdated and fail to reflect the increasingly multicultural and diverse nature of French society. Rather than fostering inclusivity, the bans alienate and marginalize certain communities, exacerbating social divides and contributing to feelings of exclusion among those who are most affected.
In the context of international sports, the autonomy of sports federations further complicates the issue. The IOC, while committed to upholding the values of inclusivity and non-discrimination enshrined in the Olympic Charter, is limited in directly challenging the policies set by national or international sports bodies. The IOC's role is therefore more focused on fostering understanding and encouraging best practices within the sporting community, rather than imposing directives on specific issues like the wearing of hijabs. This approach aims to navigate the delicate balance between respecting cultural diversity and maintaining the integrity of sports regulations.
As France and the international community continue to grapple with these complex issues, the discussion remains a critical part of broader conversations about identity, rights, and the role of state policy in regulating personal freedoms. The evolving nature of these debates reflects the ongoing struggle to find a harmonious balance that respects both secular values and the rights of individuals to express their religious and cultural identities.
IV. Steven van de Velde: Criminal Law and IOC Sanctions
Steven van de Velde, a Dutch beach volleyball player, was convicted of child rape of a 12-year-old girl in 2016. Velde served 13 months of his original four year sentence in a UK prison. In 2017, Velde returned to playing following the Dutch Olympic Committee (“NOC”) announcement that he had satisfied the guidelines set by the Dutch Volleyball Federation (“NeVoBo”) for athletes to resume competing after conviction. In 2018, Velde returned to international competition in and in 2024, he controversially competed in the Paris 2024 Games.
The Dutch Olympic Committee
On 28 July 2024, Velde stepped onto the court with his teammate, Matthew Immers, he was welcomed with a crowd booing him. Following the match, the NOC press attaché, John van Vliet, addressed remarks about Velde’s criminal record, stating that: “We are support Van De Velde to do his sport as best as possible, at a tournament he qualified for.”
The NOC maintain the view that Velde has been successfully rehabilitated and deserves his space in the squad stating that “Van de Velde has fully engaged with all requirements and has met all the stringent risk assessment thresholds, checks and due diligence. Experts have stated that there is no risk of recidivism.”
The controversy surrounding Van de Velde's case has not sparked as much criticism in the Netherlands as it might have elsewhere. According to The Guardian, the news of a convicted rapist playing for the Dutch team did not even make the front pages. One explanation for this reaction is that Van de Velde might not have been convicted of rape if he had been tried in the Netherlands instead of England. In England, engaging in sexual activity with a 12-year-old is classified as rape, as individuals under 16 cannot legally consent. However, after being extradited to the Netherlands, following nearly a year in prison, Van de Velde was released in less than a month. Dutch law considered his crime to be a lesser offense known as "ontucht," which involves sexual acts that violate social and ethical norms. This discrepancy in legal interpretations highlights the differing cultural and legal perspectives on the severity of such offenses.
The International Volleyball Federation
The international reception of Van de Velde’s participation in the Olympics ignited a wave of scrutiny and raised significant questions about his eligibility to compete. This controversy captured widespread attention and led to a cascade of inquiries directed at the International Volleyball Federation (“FIVB”), the global governing body responsible for overseeing all forms of volleyball. Critics were particularly focused on the FIVB’s apparent failure to intervene in the selection process and prevent Van de Velde’s participation in the Games.
The scrutiny surrounding the FIVB intensified as observers and commentators questioned how such a situation could arise under their watch. The spotlight on the FIVB revealed concerns about the effectiveness and rigor of their regulations and oversight mechanisms, and why they were not more proactive in addressing the issue. The organization faced mounting pressure to explain its role and responsibilities in this matter.
In response to this growing criticism, the FIVB issued a statement clarifying its position. The federation explained that, according to their regulations, once an athlete has qualified for the Olympics through the established procedures, the FIVB does not possess the authority to prevent the athlete’s participation.
The Constitution (31 May 2024 version) of the FIVB provides relevant paragraphs and sections. These include clarification on topics such as an athletes eligibility (1.5.2), commitments of an NF3 (1.5.4), Confederations (Article 4.3.2), Article 1 of the FIVB Sports Regulations and Article 5.1 of the Event Regulations
The FIVB indicated that it had no grounds to obstruct the Netherlands from sending Van de Velde to Paris, as he had met all the necessary qualification criteria in the standard manner. This response did little to quell the ongoing debate, as many continued to question the broader implications of the FIVB's stance and the efficacy of the qualification and selection processes within the sport. The situation underscored the complexities and challenges faced by international sports governing bodies in managing and regulating global competitions.
The International Olympic Committee
Criticism also fell upon the IOC amidst growing scrutiny. In response to these criticisms, the IOC issued clarification stating that the responsibility for athlete selection for the Games primarily rests with the individual national Olympic committees, rather than the IOC itself. The IOC does not directly oversee or control which athletes are chosen to compete in the Games, but rather relies on each country’s respective committee to handle these decisions.
Despite this clarification, the participation of athlete Van de Velde sparked widespread and intense criticism. The Sports & Rights Alliance Athletes Network for Safer Sports, The Army of Survivors, and Kyniska Advocacy, released a joint statement calling on the IOC to take action against Steven van de Velde and prohibit him from participating in the Paris Olympics.
The controversy surrounding Van de Velde's inclusion in the Games became a focal point for many, with detractors questioning the criteria and processes involved in their selection. The situation highlighted ongoing debates about fairness, transparency, and the integrity of the Olympic selection process, prompting further examination and discussion within the sports community and beyond.
Comparative Analysis
Van de Velde’s inclusion in the Olympics invites a broader comparative analysis of the IOC’s approach to various issues and policies. This scrutiny brings to light a potential inconsistency in how the IOC applies its principles and regulations.
The core goal of the Olympics, as articulated in its mission, is to “contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport practiced without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity, and fair play.” This mission emphasizes the Olympic values of fairness, respect, and inclusivity, setting high standards for the behaviour and conduct of athletes and officials alike.
However, a notable point of contention arises under Rule 50 of the IOC Charter, which states that “No kind of demonstration or political, religious, or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues, or other areas.” This rule was strictly enforced during the 2022 Tokyo Games, where athletes were prohibited from taking a knee or making any other gestures in support of the Black Lives Matter movement. The ban on such symbolic gestures against racism highlighted the IOC's commitment to maintaining a neutral stance on political and social issues within the Olympic context.
So, what kind of a message is sent to the world to allow a convicted rapist to participate in the Olympic games?
The impact of Van de Velde’s inclusion extends beyond the realm of the Olympics and sports. It sends a troubling message to women and girls, who may feel disillusioned or marginalized by the apparent disparity between the IOC’s stated values and its actions. This situation could undermine the perceived commitment of the Olympic movement to creating a safe and equitable environment for all participants. It highlights the need for a more transparent and consistent application of policies to ensure that the Olympic Games truly reflect the ideals of equality, respect, and fairness that they profess to champion.
Conclusion
The controversy surrounding Van de Velde’s participation in the Olympics serves as a poignant reminder of the complex legal limitations faced by global governing bodies when it comes to imposing restrictions on national governing bodies. It underscores the challenges that the IOC encounters in exercising its authority over the eligibility and conduct of athletes, particularly when these issues intersect with national decisions and legal frameworks.
This situation highlights the inherent limitations of the IOC’s power and the need for a more nuanced approach to managing athlete eligibility and adherence to Olympic values. As the IOC grapples with its role in maintaining the integrity of the Games, it must also navigate the delicate balance between respecting national sovereignty and upholding universal standards of fairness and ethical conduct. Ultimately, this controversy calls for a critical reassessment of the mechanisms and policies governing Olympic participation to ensure that they align more closely with the ideals of justice, equity, and inclusivity that the Olympic movement aspires to represent.
V. Conclusion
Hosting the Olympic Games, whether summer or winter, brings substantial benefits to the host nation. Economically, the Olympics can act as a catalyst for growth. The arrival of athletes, officials, and spectators stimulates the tourism industry, increasing demand for hotels, restaurants, and local attractions. This surge in visitors not only boosts local businesses but also enhances the city's reputation as a premier tourist destination, leading to long-term tourism growth. Additionally, the global media exposure offers invaluable marketing opportunities, potentially elevating the international profile of the host city and country and its international profile as well as fostering increased trade and investment.
Part One of this article series has demonstrated that such economic advantages are accompanied by significant challenges. Hosting the Games often triggers protests and strikes, alongside heightened concerns about security and the safety of participants and spectators. Furthermore, the decisions made by the IOC can have far-reaching consequences. For example, the inclusion of certain countries or individuals can spark controversy and political debates. The intense scrutiny and geopolitical dynamics surrounding the Games can amplify criticisms and affect the host nation's global image. France’s hijab ban faced criticism and called into question the nation’s views of Islam.
Part Two will shift its focus to the legal issues that emerged during the Games, delving into new themes while also revisiting issues previously discussed in this article.