Which organization is easier and which one is harder?
Tams: In the Olympic Charter, for example, this reference to values, the emphasis on peace and the values of Olympism, is particularly pronounced. And if you now react to aggressive wars that blatantly violate the Olympic Truce and the values of Olympism, then it is easier to crack down on associations or athletes. Other associations have more technical statutes that don’t make the connection to peace so clear, so it’s more difficult. What is reflected in the statutes of many international sports associations in the Olympic Charter of the I.O.C, also found in the FIFA Statutes, is the reference to two aspects: on the one hand, a ban on discrimination, on the other hand, an obligation for sports associations to promote and respect international human rights. And in almost all cases, a war of aggression also involves massive violations of human rights.
The I.O.C has prominent Russian members, the former world-class athlete Yelena Isinbaeva or as an honorary member Vitaly Smirnov. Do you see a way to take action against the members on the basis of the charter, to exclude them, although that I.O.C defined them more as Olympism’s own ambassadors in Russia?
Tams: Basically, you can take action against members of sports bodies. Most articles of incorporation contain provisions that permit, for example, the suspension or expulsion of members who have breached their duties. You have to check: what did the sports officials say, how did they express themselves, have they made solidarity addresses, for example by approving the war of aggression? Then an exclusion is certainly possible. If they haven’t done that and, in principle, only have the nationality of a state that you are critically examining, then it’s more difficult.
Accordingly, for example, would simply the contact that Munich Mayor Reiter had with his chief conductor be enough? So associations like that I.O.C simply write to the affected Russians with a deadline and demand an explicit distancing from Putin and his war of aggression and, if this is not received, that can then be regarded as the relevant breach of duty?
Tams: Now, I’m not a labor or constitutional lawyer. But it also seemed problematic to me that the Munich conductor demanded that the war be condemned, i.e. a very specific expression of opinion, and that sanctions were threatened. The difference between the two cases is certainly that one concerns an employment or employment relationship and, in the case of sports federations, the status of elected committee members. But in both cases it seems to me delicate that people are forced to express themselves in a certain way politically. That’s going too far for me. Which is certainly possible: one can consider whether they have positioned themselves in favor of aggressive war by a regime that tramples on international law.
“Sport is always interrelated with politics.”
To what extent have sports associations, despite the numerous armed conflicts in recent years, such as in Georgia in 2008, given insufficient consideration to possible sanctions in their statutes?
Tams: I think it’s basically right for the sports federations to judge the appropriateness of their sanctions themselves – as they are doing now. And the statutes do provide for sanctions. But one of the lessons of the case is that sports federations find it difficult to respond to wrongdoing outside the realm of sport itself and to ‘crack down’ on sports federations and athletes when a state violates international law. The statutes of the sports associations should now be specified: Under what circumstances are members obliged to take a stand against blatant violations of the ban on violence, for example? Under what circumstances can something nominally outside of sport be legally relevant to a sport official?
Sport always says it keeps politics out. To what extent is sport per se political and cannot stay out of it?
Tams: Yes, that’s a myth. Sport is always interrelated with politics. Sometimes that’s useful to him, sometimes he wants to ignore it. But cases like this actually show how naive the thesis of apolitical sport is. At the Olympic Games in Beijing, we again heard many sports officials emphatically acknowledge the apolitical role of sport, which must be neutral in relation to big politics. And a few weeks later, sport is rightly joining in when political pressure is being exerted on Russia, showing solidarity in favor of Ukraine’s victims of the war of aggression and excluding Russian sports officials and teams. Within a month, sports officials have filled both positions.
“Doping-related sanctions are simpler“
What possibilities would have existed, for example, to sanction the Russian state doping, which also contradicts all values of sport, even mocks them, like now with a total exclusion of all Russian associations and athletes?
Tams: Doping-related sanctions are simpler compared to the current issues. Unlike a war of aggression, where the misconduct is outside of sport, systematic doping is a direct violation of sporting regulations. I know that some have said that international sports federations have been too lenient in allowing Russian athletes to compete through the back door. In retrospect, one can perhaps view this more critically, but one must also take into account that many of the sanctions were imposed before the CASthe International Court of Arbitration for Sports, were reviewed and mitigated.
Are there legal ways to steal funds due from Russian federations, officials, club owners or athletes to use for a special reparations fund for the reconstruction of Ukraine?
Tams: Organized sport can set up solidarity funds, for example to support Ukrainian victims. Can he also use funds that would otherwise flow to Russian institutions, such as prize money or bonuses? That’s not clear to me. This may increase the symbolic value of a support service, but it seems legally complicated to me.
The interview was conducted by Jörg Winterfeldt