Guy Osborn

The Olympic Games, the International Olympic Committee (IOC), and the legal framework that regulates them, have long been the subject of multidisciplinary scrutiny. Despite significant academic critique, the operations of the Olympic Movement, particularly in relation to the IOC’s governance and its interactions with athletes, have been relatively underexplored by legal scholars. The study of lex Olympica and Olympic law is evolving, with a growing emphasis on its application and limitations. Early legal analyses assumed that the Olympic Charter was largely immune to conventional legal challenges, with courts often hesitant to interfere with the IOC’s decisions. However, recent rulings from the Court of Arbitration for Sport and the Bundeskartellamt (the German Competition Authority), indicate that the legality of specific provisions of the Olympic Charter can be challenged under both international sporting-legal frameworks and before national courts and tribunals. This article begins by defining what is understood as the Olympic legal framework, lex Olympica and Olympic law, distinguishing them from their more generally applicable equivalents, lex sportiva and sports law. It then traces the process by which lex Olympica is created by focusing on the IOC's incorporation of its human rights obligations into the Olympic Charter and related secondary and subsidiary documents. The article concludes by proposing ways that the IOC may be able to navigate more effectively these complex legal processes.

This article examines the evolution of the law’s attempts to regulate technological advancements in the entertainment industry in general, and the sale and resale of event tickets in particular. Drawing on the analytical framework developed by Roger Brownsword, where he identifies three stages in the evolution of the law’s regulation of technology, we begin by tracing the key legal interventions in the entertainment industry to demonstrate how there is an increasing dissonance between the development of new technologies and their effective regulation by the law. As a result of this dissonance, a more effective approach could be to use technological developments as a means of regulation, instead of being the subject of regulation. The article then moves on to evaluate how advances in ticketing technology can be used to regulate the unlawful resale of event tickets, known as ticket touting or ticket scalping. It concludes by arguing that although technological developments often shape legal and regulatory environments, law is only ever part of the answer, and that technology should be used as a way of regulating the resale of event tickets.

Since Colin Kaepernick began taking the knee during the American national anthem to protest social injustice and inequality in the USA in 2016, athletes across a range of sports and from diverse national backgrounds have used their high media profiles to draw attention to the causes that they support. The International Olympic Committee, however, has maintained its stance that politics and sport should not mix, and that human rights should not be used as a tool to undermine the political autonomy of sport. Rule 50(2) of the Olympic Charter states that, “No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas”. Anyone in breach of this provision may be disqualified from their event and have their Olympic accreditation removed, a position that was reinforced by the guidance issued to athletes prior to the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games.Using examples of athlete activism at Tokyo 2020 as case studies, this chapter will analyze whether any of these exercises of the right to freedom of expression were in breach of Rule 50(2). It will then examine whether the application of Rule 50(2) at Tokyo 2020 is compatible with Article 10 European Convention of Human Rights and the likely outcome of any challenge before the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the Swiss Federal Tribunal, and the European Court of Human Rights. It concludes by arguing for a complete overhaul of Rule 50(2) so that it promotes, rather than prohibits, freedom of expression.

Ticket touting remains one of the most controversial issues facing the sport and entertainment industries, with diametrically opposed views from both sides on its legality and the need for further regulation. Following the launch of the latest campaign to increase consumers’ knowledge of available protections when engaging with the secondary ticketing market, this intervention reviews the current state of the law and proposes a more holistic approach to any future legislative interventions.

Sharon Hodgson MP’s work with the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Ticket Abuse led to her being approached for an interview with Mark James and Guy Osborn. Their Intervention, ‘A New Dawn for Ticket Regulation,’ details in part the Private Members Bill, the Sale of Tickets (Sporting and Cultural Events) Bill, which Sharon Hodgson attempted to introduce in 2010. The interview below, conducted in October 2023 via email correspondence, attempts to contextualise the genesis of the Bill, its rationale, and why it failed to be passed. It should be read in conjunction with the James and Osborn Intervention linked above. The ESLJ has consistently adopted different models and approaches for its Interventions section, including interviews, see for example, the previously published interview with Ken Foster, and this follows in that tradition.About Sharon Hodgson (adapted from https://www.sharonhodgson.org/about_sharon).This piece was originally submitted on 8 December 2023, and accepted on 15 February 2024. On 14 March 2024 the Labour Party announced their plans to clamp down on ticket touts by introducing legislation.

Participation at the modern Olympic Games was, until the 1980s, grounded firmly in amateurism. As the restrictions on the inclusion of professional athletes were gradually reduced, Rule 40 of the Olympic Charter was implemented to prohibit athletes from being paid to perform at the Olympics or to advertise brands other than official Olympic sponsors whilst the Games were taking place. This chapter explores two aspects of the tension between Olympic culture and commerce. First, it examines the tension between the right of athletes to earn a living through their participation in sport and the commercial protectionism imposed on them by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) through Rule 40. Secondly, it analyses the tension between lex Olympica and its justiciability and legality under national laws. Using the successful challenge to the legality of Rule 40 before the German competition authorities as an exemplar, this chapter explores how lex Olympica can be challenged in national courts as a means of releasing the tension between the commercial imperatives of the IOC and the right of athletes to earn a living and share in the profits of their participation at the Olympic Games.

In this final chapter, we conclude by arguing for a radical reappraisal and rebalancing of the relationships between the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and its key strategic partners. A proactive response that is capable of reducing the tension between the culture of Olympism and the commercial exploitation of the Olympic Games and the athletes is required to ensure that the law is not required to release the current strains. The need to refocus the IOC's indirect law-making capabilities on its relationship with the Fundamental Principles of Olympism is examined through a critical analysis of the effects and implications of this law creation process on commercial protectionism. Drawing on relational contract theory, a more cooperative and accountable approach that could reduce the impact of the tensions identified throughout this book is proposed. This includes a re-evaluation of the role of the Olympic Charter to reflect the broader Olympic community and embedding human rights protections and remedies and the rule of law within the Olympic legal framework.

Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter prohibits athletes from engaging in political, racial, and religious protests and demonstrations at the Olympic Games. This chapter examines the tension that exists between the human rights rhetoric espoused by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and its restriction of athletes’ freedom of expression by the operation of Rule 50. It begins by tracing the evolution of Rule 50 from the iconic protests at Mexico 1968 to the provision of the first formal interpretative guidance on its application at Tokyo 2020. It then moves on to examine the legality of the restrictions imposed on athletes’ ability to engage in protest and activism at the Olympic Games through a human rights lens. Using instances of athlete activism that took place at Tokyo 2020 as exemplars, it is demonstrated how the operation of Rule 50 is incompatible with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and how the law can be used to reduce the tension in the relationship between the IOC and the athletes.

The underpinning premise of the analyses undertaken in this book is that there is a tension at the heart of the Olympic Movement that places an increasingly untenable strain on the relationships between the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and its key strategic partners. This tension is epitomised by the need for the IOC to promote the culture of Olympism, as defined in the Fundamental Principles of Olympism at the start of the Olympic Charter, and its corresponding need to exploit its commercial rights to generate sufficient income to support the Olympic Movement. Using Tokyo 2020 as its point of departure, this chapter examines from a legal perspective how the ‘Olympics divides’ through a series of dialectics and sub-tensions, highlighting in particular how the relationship between the IOC and participating athletes is strained by the tension between Olympic culture and Olympic commerce.