Standing Up for the Athletes

(ATR) The support for athletes to have a greater say within the Olympic Movement appears to be growing along with the number of issues affecting them.

Currently, the government in Belarus is targeting and persecuting athletes who are among those protesting against the re-election of the country's long-time leader and dictator Alexander Lukashenko, who claimed victory thanks to a rigged vote.

Despite an international outcry, Iran in September went ahead with the execution of a wrestler for murder despite clear evidence that he was tortured to give a false confession.

There are ongoing efforts to ease IOC restrictions limiting how athletes may protest or market themselves at the Olympics.

These are some of the issues Around the Rings discussed with Maximilian Klein, who is the representative for International Sport Policy at Germany’s independent athletes’ body Athleten Deutschland.

Athleten Deutschland currently represents over 1000 national team athletes, with more than 30 of those involved in various working groups and initiatives for the organization.

ATR: Belarus: The protests continue with athletes among those being targeted for voicing their opinion. How bad is it in Belarus? How many athletes are being persecuted? What is your organization doing to help them and to put pressure on the Lukashenko government?

Maximilian Klein: The situation in Belarus is getting worse every day. The documented cases of mass discrimination and reprisals against athletes and individuals associated with Belarusian sport have risen to almost 60. We see ourselves as allies of the Belarusian athletes’ movement [Belarusian Sport Solidarity Foundation (BSSF)] and help implement strategies that put pressure on the dictatorial regime and can persuade the IOC to fulfill its human rights duty of care for Olympic sport in Belarus. It is also clear that political pressure from abroad must be maintained to bring down the last dictatorship in Europe. We help the Belarusian athletes communicate their message and concerns to political stakeholders and the public in Germany. The devastating developments in Belarus must be put on the agenda and kept there.

ATR: The IOC has warned Belarus against political discrimination toward athletes but does not seem willing to go much further, at least yet. How much has your organization been in contact with the IOC and what has the outcome been so far?

MK: The IOC had announced further investigations in early October. So far, by mid-November, the mass discrimination against athletes has not yet been followed by any consequences. However, there has been an exchange between the IOC and the Belarusian diaspora. The Belarusian athletes’ movement was asked to provide more information on specific cases. We are concerned that this information could be forwarded and discussed with the Belarusian NOC, headed by the dictator, and risk putting repressed athletes even more in danger. Instead of initiating an independent investigation, the IOC leadership seems to shift the responsibility to act on the athletes themselves.

You know that Belarusian sport is under the de facto control of the dictator and his son. Both are sport officials and political potentates at the same time. The IOC should at least cut all financial ties with all Belarusian individuals who are on international sanctions lists – such as the dictator and his son. Equally important, sporting organizations such as the IOC or the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) must finally fulfill their duty of care for human rights in their sphere of influence.

ATR: Iran: What is the latest on the aftermath of Iran executing Navid Afkari? Have you been in touch with the IOC since the execution? Any progress?

MK: With this latest crossing of a red line, it was clear to us that the Iranian regime must be excluded from the Olympic Games and international sports, while Iranian athletes should continue to be allowed to compete under a neutral flag. The regime has a long history of discrimination in sport and the politically motivated persecution of athletes. However, the IOC leadership made it clear that it was outside their mandate and jurisdiction to impose sanctions on Iranian sport. The IOC’s and federations’ responsibility to act was hastily brushed aside.

In Germany, our stance and our calls in the Afkari case have resulted in conversations with our political stakeholders about human rights in sport in more general terms. Sport policy is, in principle, human rights policy: We of course have to talk about the working conditions of construction workers ahead of mega sporting events, or about the prosecution and execution of athletes. Additionally, there is also a multitude of everyday human rights violations in the sphere of sport all over the world – also in Germany. For example, the rules of sport, such as the Olympic Charter or the WADA Code, contain regulations that potentially conflict with human rights. That is why we need a systematic review and risk analysis of sport regulations for their compatibility with universally recognized human rights. We have been calling on the Olympic Movement to make a coherent commitment to respect and implement human rights in its sphere of influence. To this end, the support of public authorities and sponsors is crucial.

ATR: Rule 50 (limiting athletes right to protest) and Rule 40 (limiting athletes marketing opportunities) of the Olympic Charter: Any updates on these two efforts? Which one stands a better chance of being changed in some fashion first?

MK: In both cases, the IOC remains reactive: Following the Black Lives Matter Movement and athlete protests from the US, a consultation process for Rule 50 was announced. Adjustments to Rule 40 were allowed following our antitrust complaint in Germany. Both cases show that privately created sport law can conflict with competition law and universally applicable human rights. However, it must clearly remain within these legal frameworks.

With regard to Rule 50, the IOC has committed itself to a consultation process through the IOC Athletes Commission. A change of the rule is therefore possible from the outset. Over the last few months, we have developed a German position with our members, assisted by a human rights expert. For Athleten Deutschland, the far-reaching and general restriction of the human right of freedom of expression in the context of sports competitions is no longer acceptable. A change in Rule 50.2 is imperative and should include least-intrusive and duly justified restrictions on the expression of opinions by athletes.

With regard to Rule 40, the antitrust complaint by Athleten Deutschland, individual athletes and the sporting goods industry forced a rule change in Germany because our Federal Cartel Office raised concerns that Rule 40 constitutes a breach of competition law. Afterward, the IOC made some amendments to the rule, but made it clear that its implementation may need to vary from country to country. After first changes by various NOCs, we are observing with growing concern that a regulatory patchwork could now be emerging. This could result in different interpretations of the rule from country to country and thus, different marketing opportunities for athletes – depending on the country for which they compete. This is, among other reasons, why we continue working on the issue of Olympic finances and revenue distribution.

ATR: Athlete representation: It appears as if some IFs and other Olympic Movement stakeholders are working toward improving athlete representation. How is this overall effort going at the moment?

MK: Our current priority as the German athletes’ representative body is to empower federation-level athletes’ representatives and strengthen athletes’ representation. We are already making great progress with the federations at eye level. In Germany, our voice is now being heard and carries weight. Our membership numbers are growing steadily, and we have just broken the 1,000-member mark.

Internationally the situation is, of course, somewhat different. Some federations are indeed making progress toward better athlete engagement. Nevertheless, the traditional model of athletes’ commissions does not solve their inherent representation problem. Athletes must be able to choose their representatives freely in a democratic chain of legitimacy. However, athletes’ commissions are oftentimes appointed and not elected – sometimes only through the endorsement of sport organizations or governments. In the worst-case scenario, they cannot act independently of their respective organizations. There are also International Sports Federations without any form of formally established athlete representation, such as in the recent examples of the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) and International Wheelchair Basketball Federation (IWBF). Here, we are also trying to work together with German athletes’ representatives toward better athlete representation.

ATR: Sexual abuse: even as the US government moves to make things safer for athletes, other issues keep coming up in other countries. What is Athleten Deutschland doing on this front?

MK: We have committed ourselves to the three strategic pillars of athlete representation, empowerment and protection. The issue of violence and abuse in sport falls under the latter. In this regard, we are working toward providing a safe space and professional support for top-level athletes who have experienced any form of violence or abusive behavior. The distressing revelations in many countries clearly show that, despite all efforts, sport cannot and should not regulate themselves. The very structure of the sport system, its dependency and power dynamics, can facilitate abusive behavior toward athletes. This is why we suggest establishing an independent institution in Germany as a central agency for Safe Sport in Germany. While a speak-up culture on the ground remains imperative, we observe that the discussions in other countries are moving in a similar direction. We are therefore following the legislative developments in the U.S. and their Center for SafeSport even more closely.

ATR: On a broader level, how is the effort coming along to get all these various athlete groups and organizations to work more closely together? Which of the above issues are the ones that get more parties pulling in the same direction?

MK: As you can see, there is less and less space on the letterhead of our joint statements. [Laughs]

Overall, our cooperation and coordination with other athlete groups have increased significantly. Because a large number of relevant issues in sport are decided at the international level, my position allows me to exclusively devote my time to issues of international sport policy and then work with others to grow networks at the European and global level. We are committed to taking on a thought leadership role internationally together with athletes' representatives from other countries, learn from each other and bring about positive changes in sport.

To give weight to our voice, it is especially important at the international level to forge alliances within the athletic community and athletes’ representatives, but also with other stakeholders such as human rights organizations, sponsors and public authorities. Up to now, cooperation and coordination have tended to take place in a loose network. For example, many athlete groups are currently rallying behind a common position on the global anti-doping system or have worked on the recent dispute between the IWBF and the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) that puts wheelchair basketball players at risk of being excluded from the upcoming Paralympic Games. In the future, I believe that these forms of cooperation could be more even more structured and powerful. This is a process that has only just begun. Just imagine what we will be capable of in a couple of years!

ATR: Many of the above issues involve the IOC in some form or fashion. Do you feel the IOC should be doing more on some of these issues? If so, which ones?

MK: Mr. Bach does not have an easy job, especially in the current crisis. We know that the Olympic Games do not only involve liberal democracies, and that the mission of the Games is to bring people together in peace, regardless of the political situation in their home countries. At the same time, we believe that this does not relieve the Olympic Movement of its human rights duty of care for athletes and other groups of people in the sphere of sport. We should stop seeing the current issues of sport as isolated problems, and instead, embed them much more deeply into a larger human rights context. All these issues – athlete representation, Rule 40, Rule 50, equal pay, the persecution of athletes, abuse, etc. – are fundamental human rights questions. Within the Olympic Movement, however, the implementation of human rights frameworks has not yet been consistent and coherent. The IOC’s human rights strategy is proceeding far too slowly. We would like to see more proactivity and courage from the IOC.

ATR:There are those who believe that the IOC warning the likes of Italy or the USA for issues tied to NOC governance while essentially ignoring Belarus and Iran is the height of hypocrisy. Do you agree? If you don’t agree, is it because you understand the reasons behind why the IOC does what it does, even if it looks to some like it is hypocritical?

MK: Of course, we understand how the arguments of the IOC develop and what reasoning they result from. However, this does not mean that we follow the IOC’s line of argumentation. It is indeed hypocritical that autocratic and dictatorial regimes, such as Belarus and Iran, do not face any consequences after violating athletes’ human rights and the sport’s own rules. In other cases, when governments, such as those in the U.S. or South Korea, take action to increase the protection of athletes, the IOC makes use of those very similar arguments and threatens consequences that it previously did not pursue. This irresponsible behavior encourages us, alongside a growing number of athlete groups, to call attention to these contradictions and demand accountability and human rights due diligence toward athletes. Following the motto: change or be changed.

Maximilian Klein is Representative for International Sport Policy at Germany’s independent athletes’ representative body, Athleten Deutschland, and a Master of Public Policy candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School. Previously, he worked for a Berlin-based public affairs consultancy where he helped build up the German athletes' association as coordinating Interim Manager.

Homepage photo: Athleten Deutschland

For general comments or questions,click here.

Your best source of news about the Olympics is AroundTheRings.com, for subscribers only.