Search

With this document FIFA lays down the main principles of its tobacco-free policy in relation to FIFA’s own international football competitions and other related events organised by FIFA (“FIFA Events”) and the official sites where such FIFA Events take place, to the extent that FIFA has the exclusive use or control of such sites (“Event Sites”).

Key dates in FIFA's work towards smoke-free sporting events:

1986: FIFA announces it will no longer accept advertising from tobacco-industry sponsors.

1999: At the FIFA Women’s World Cup™ in the USA, FIFA supports an anti-smoking campaign launched by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

2002: FIFA supports a smoke-free campaign launched by WHO and the HHS. World football’s governing body is consequently bestowed with the WHO Director General’s Award for an anti-smoking campaign.

2002: Korea/Japan becomes the first smoke-free FIFA World Cup, meaning it has no links whatsoever to tobacco. Every FIFA World Cup since has followed suit.

2010: FIFA, the LOC and other stakeholders develop and adopt the ‘Stadium Code of Conduct,’ which describes the applicable measures and policies for stadium visitors and staff, including prohibition of smoking in the stands and around the pitch.

2011: FIFA provides input to the European Healthy Stadia Network for policy position and enforcement guidelines for UEFA, concerning a smoke-free UEFA EURO 2012.

2013/2014: The FIFA Confederations Cup and FIFA World Cup in Brazil take place as tobacco-free events.

2015: World No Tobacco Day celebrated as 'World Smoke Free Day' at the FIFA U-20 World Cup New Zealand 2015.

2017/2018: Both the FIFA Confederations Cup and the FIFA World Cup in Russia are tobacco-free events.

A total of 11 White Papers have been produced, clustered into four themes referring to key stakeholder groups. These White Papers aim to present the latest thinking, practice, and debate in relation to key human rights issues involved in the planning, construction, delivery, and legacy of MSEs. Each paper also considers the case for, and potential role of, an independent centre of expertise on MSEs and human rights.

Broadcasting plays an important role in MSEs. It is the conduit by which a global audience accesses such events. Opinions differ on the role broadcasters should take when faced with broadcasting events which take place in challenging human rights contexts. Some argue that broadcasters should use this role to raise awareness of human rights issues in the host country. Others say that broadcasting the events is a tacit endorsement of local Governments whose policies may have an adverse impact on local communities. There is also a view that broadcasting MSEs allows local athletes to reach a global audience and exercise their human right to sporting activity.

This is a difficult balancing act. Aside from this broader question of whether to broadcast MSEs, there are also human rights considerations while broadcasting live events, such as ensuring freedom of expression, not propagating discrimination, protecting the right to privacy and avoiding self-censorship. These decisions have to be made on-the-spot, often in the context of regulatory requirements for impartiality, and with the potential for third party complaints.
Furthermore, broadcasters often do not have control over the material they broadcast.
There are different types of broadcasting models, ranging from sole editorial control over material, through to broadcasting clips from other broadcasters which may be based in different countries.
Broadcasters also do not control how a MSE is run, particularly as they only tend to become involved once a MSE has been awarded to a host city or country.

Sports governing bodies and the hosts have the greatest influence over the event.
Broadcasters therefore welcome the fact that sports governing bodies are increasingly looking to incorporate respect for human rights into their governance values and hosting requirements. This represents an opportunity, in turn, to embed human rights considerations into the fabric of an MSE. This approach can then be flowed down to corporates such as broadcasters, who can introduce ancillary human rights protections through their own operations.

Nevertheless, whilst a broadcaster’s role in a MSE is of a more supporting nature, their commercial significance to the MSE business model should still be recognised.
Broadcast licence fees are a major source of income for sports governing bodies.

Broadcasters should anticipate increasing scrutiny about their role in MSEs.
With reference to the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), this White Paper therefore explains the relationship between broadcasters and MSEs, identifies where human rights issues might arise, and discusses potential mechanisms which could be used – and in some cases already are being used – to address them.

Reflecting its contributors’ businesses, this discussion has an emphasis on the UK and European markets. It is intended that these examples can be supplemented by examples from the wider global market in subsequent discussions.

A total of 11 White Papers have been produced, clustered into four themes referring to key stakeholder groups. These White Papers aim to present the latest thinking, practice, and debate in relation to key human rights issues involved in the planning, construction, delivery, and legacy of MSEs. Each paper also considers the case for, and potential role of, an independent centre of expertise on MSEs and human rights.

Access to remedy is one of the three pillars of UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UN Guiding Principles). It is also a key component of the mandate of National Contact Points (NCP) for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and National Human Rights Institutions (OECD Guidelines). In the context of international sport, specific dispute resolution mechanisms exist. In some cases, they address human rights issues such as the right to a fair trial. However, they have not been designed to address all the human rights-related issues that may arise from Mega Sporting Events (MSE), be it human rights issues within sports events themselves, or human rights impacts related to the organisation and holding of sports events. On the other hand, a range of other mechanisms exist which complement sports-related ones, including judicial mechanisms, such as national courts and tribunals, as well as a range of non-judicial mechanisms.

This paper maps out various means of access to remedy in a sport-related context, including mechanisms within selected sports bodies and institutions, and identifies current gaps in dealing with human rights-related issues, as well as judicial and nonjudicial mechanisms that may be used to deal with human rights issues. For each mechanism, the strengths and challenges in dealing with human rights-related issues are briefly indicated. The paper then identifies the gaps in access to remedy, suggests how they might be filled and provides recommendations on the role that a mega sporting events centre or mechanism (MSE Centre) might play in providing guidance on existing mechanisms, in addressing gaps and in providing access to a remedy for the victims of human rights abuse in connection with a MSE.

Three major gaps have been identified:
• There is presently an absence of a binding and standing human rights policy and capacity across international sport within major international sports organisations
(ISOs) and, as a consequence, no recourse to dispute resolution through such channels can be had for cases related to human rights
• Notwithstanding the capacity of ISOs to protect, promote and enforce human rights through a sports-based grievance mechanism, such a mechanism has not been created
• There is a lack of recognition and promotion by ISOs of external dispute resolution mechanisms. All mechanisms for remedy need to be promoted and accessible in the event that more consensual mechanisms fail. As this paper identifies, in addition to sports specific mechanisms, a range of other mechanisms exist, which, if functioning well, could provide access to remedy in a range of situations

A total of 11 White Papers have been produced, clustered into four themes referring to key stakeholder groups. These White Papers aim to present the latest thinking, practice, and debate in relation to key human rights issues involved in the planning, construction, delivery, and legacy of MSEs. Each paper also considers the case for, and potential role of, an independent centre of expertise on MSEs and human rights.

Despite commitments from a number of the leading sports governing bodies to include human rights in future bidding processes for events, there is presently no mega-sporting event (MSE) in the pipeline that was awarded hosting status premised on explicit human rights commitments, beyond limited criteria touching on labour standards in the supply chain and broader questions of non-discrimination. The timescale for putting such measures is evolving, but even if and when human rights measures are in place, not all adverse impacts caused by the lifecycle of developing and delivering an event will be preventable. Where there is potential for harm to occur, stakeholders must identify, mitigate and remediate those impacts, as outlined in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and related international standards.
Mitigating human rights risks means identifying salient human rights impacts and taking steps to reduce the adverse effects of those impacts. While the range of human rights risks associated with delivering a major event is broad, the MSE Platform Steering Committee has identified (a) forced labour and human trafficking and (b) security and policing as areas of high priority for stakeholders, and pertinent risks in the context of currently awarded events.

Accordingly, this paper is divided into two sections, first focusing on human trafficking and forced labour, and second on security and policing
Several of the issues raised are expanded upon in the appendices and annexes.

The various sections of this paper draw a number of conclusions and propose a series of recommendations, especially with regard to the potential function of an independent centre of expertise on MSEs and human rights.

A total of 11 White Papers have been produced, clustered into four themes referring to key stakeholder groups. These White Papers aim to present the latest thinking, practice, and debate in relation to key human rights issues involved in the planning, construction, delivery, and legacy of MSEs. Each paper also considers the case for, and potential role of, an independent centre of expertise on MSEs and human rights.

This White Paper examines the human rights roles and responsibilities of host governments, organising committees and delivery partners, with respect to risk mitigation and remedy. Within this broad framework, authors were asked to specifically identify better ways to integrate human rights due diligence into procurement practices for mega-sporting events (MSEs).

This White Paper seeks to address this task by considering:
• The likely range of procurement activities across the MSE life-cycle and diversity of suppliers, including SMEs, as well as assessing the potential for leverage with suppliers and construction companies.
• Emerging good practice and the extent to which lessons have been learnt and/or could be transferable across events and between sporting traditions.
• Existing tools / models for improving human rights good practice and responsible business conduct that can be tailored to MSE delivery needs and different geographies.
• The need for leadership by sports governing bodies (SGB) to ensure leverage with suppliers over the long term.
• The scope for, and potential merits of, approved supplier lists.
• The linkage with and implications of human rights due diligence requirements being built into SGB tendering documents.

The White Paper concludes that human rights due diligence has a role to play in the commissioning and management of suppliers, contractors and other providers essential for the delivery of mega sporting events. It highlights a number of good practice examples, many of which have been shared and replicated by host organisations across MSEs. The adoption of a standard sourcing code (such as ETI’s Base Code, or WFGSI’s Model Code) against which to measure supplier performance is a good example of this. The application and effectiveness of supporting monitoring processes and grievance mechanisms, however, show a mixed picture of performance, especially in terms of satisfying broader stakeholder concerns. And although the embedding of human rights due diligence requirements into formal tendering procedures for events is being advanced, for example by FIFA, it has yet to become a reality.

It identifies six areas where an independent centre / entity could potentially assist organisers and sporting bodies, by:

1. Capturing, recording and sharing best practices across the sporting organisations and governments that play host to MSEs, or desire to bid for MSEs.
2. Developing an operational blue print, offering clarity about the respective roles and responsibilities of the organisations involved in the procurement of goods and services for an MSE, and the due diligence processes, remedies and complaint mechanisms needed to protect rights at each stage in the MSE lifecycle.
3. Analysing and promoting applicable international standards, or acting as a standard-setter in its own right, to help drive greater consistency and better outcomes for stakeholders around MSEs.
4. Design of effective human rights based operational grievance mechanism for construction activities that address community concerns during land acquisition, as well as in the subsequent construction and operational stages of new venues or facilities. There are already tools and guidance available for large scale development projects that could be modified for this purpose.
5. Where appropriate, facilitating in the appointment of independent Ombudsmen or advisors to support grievance processes.
6. Developing annual indices to benchmark the adoption of human rights due diligence approaches and the reported performance of vendors and their suppliers in the lead-up to an event.

In seeking to promote the use of human rights due diligence in relation to MSE procurement, the paper also concludes that is important to define where the respective responsibilities lie between host governments, organising committees, and the SGB. Ideally for local communities, accountability must reside with the organising committee delivering the event, and the government backing it. Ultimately it is the organising committee that locally awards, and thereafter manages, the procurement contracts and service agreements that are essential for a successful event. In contrast, SGBs are best placed to act as enablers, encouraging the responsible behaviour of host governments and embedding human rights due diligence requirements into the contract terms for each event, and thereafter providing high-level oversight to track their on-the-ground delivery.

An independent centre / entity could play a very different role in each of these areas.

Subject of course to the willingness and interest of the respective SGB, and the MSE host organisation, to tap into the available expertise and knowledge held by a centre / entity.

A total of 11 White Papers have been produced, clustered into four themes referring to key stakeholder groups. These White Papers aim to present the latest thinking, practice, and debate in relation to key human rights issues involved in the planning, construction, delivery, and legacy of MSEs. Each paper also considers the case for, and potential role of, an independent centre of expertise on MSEs and human rights.

This paper maps the conduct of MSEs and their impact on athletes by reference to international human rights standards. Necessarily, this paper does so by examining the regulatory control exercised by ISOs, which perform the dual role of governing MSEs as well as governing and regulating the conduct of sport.

This paper then identifies any gap in ensuring that the human rights of athletes are protected, respected and remedied. Finally, this paper suggests how those gaps may be filled and provides recommendations on the role that a Mega-Sporting Events Centre (MSE Centre) might play in addressing them.

Four major gaps are identified:
• There is presently an absence of a binding and standing human rights policy and capacity across professional sport within major ISOs and MSEs that deals with the human rights of athletes.
• A human rights due diligence process is often absent from the governance, regulation and conduct of ISOs and MSEs in relation to the athletes who participate in a MSE, and whose work, careers and livelihoods as athletes are often dependent or greatly affected by that participation.
• Social dialogue and collective bargaining are not widespread, and are commonly and actively discouraged by ISOs even in relation to athletes who are organised into legitimate trade unions and athlete and player associations. Where social dialogue and collective bargaining occurs, however, the outcomes for both the athletes and their sports have been overwhelmingly positive. Where barriers exist to the establishment of social dialogue and collective bargaining, such as in relation to child athletes, there is commonly an absence of structured dialogue with their legitimate representatives.
• Notwithstanding the substantial legal capacity of ISOs to protect, promote and enforce the human rights of athletes through a sports based grievance mechanism, such a mechanism has not been created in connection with MSEs. As a consequence, no recourse to dispute resolution can be had for cases related to human rights.

This leaves athletes with access to judicial remedies (where available) in order to have their human rights upheld, a path prohibited either by sporting regulation or precluded by the time sensitive nature of sport.

A total of 11 White Papers have been produced, clustered into four themes referring to key stakeholder groups. These White Papers aim to present the latest thinking, practice, and debate in relation to key human rights issues involved in the planning, construction, delivery, and legacy of MSEs. Each paper also considers the case for, and potential role of, an independent centre of expertise on MSEs and human rights.

The sports governing bodies (referred to in this report as awarding bodies) espouse high ideals like harmony among nations, humanity, dignity, solidarity, fair-play, and sustainability. They rightly place great emphasis on sport as a driver for peace and development. Less consideration has been given to date to the responsibility these bodies share with others to both understand and address the negative impacts MSEs can have on people.
The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UN Guiding Principles) affirm the obligations of governments to protect against rights abuses involving nonstate actors, and set out the responsibilities of enterprises to respect human rights.
They offer an invaluable roadmap for many businesses active in the MSE space, and for the awarding bodies themselves, who set the terms and criteria upon which these events are run. The concept of human rights due diligence underpins efforts by enterprises to avoid causing harm to people – the workers, communities, athletes, fans, and spectators upon which MSEs rely. But what does that mean in practice? How should awarding bodies go about identifying, preventing, mitigating, and accounting for how adverse human rights impact are addressed, or where necessary remedied, in an MSE context?

This White Paper explores how the provisions laid out in the UN Guiding Principles relate to awarding bodies - drawing on respected sources like the report “For the Game, For the World” prepared by Prof. John Ruggie. It additionally starts to pinpoint some of the areas that may need to be prioritised in order to demonstrate respect for human rights, including around the integration of human rights considerations into the bidding requirements for MSEs.

This White Paper starts to review initiatives by awarding bodies to meet the responsibility to respect human rights. it presents a snapshot rather than an exhaustive analysis, with the examples offered illustrating the kind of work currently being undertaken within sport or on the horizon. The authors welcome and encourage updates and fresh insights from each of the awarding bodies identified, as well as any other international sports federations not yet captured within this report, in order to benchmark the progress being made within the sports sector to advance respect for human rights within an MSE context.

Sport is at the start of a new journey on human rights issues. Like others in business before them, there is an opportunity for the sports sector to learn from ongoing efforts within the wider business community, as well as to take advantage of expertise and insights offered from civil society, trade unions, governments, intergovernmental bodies and other human rights experts. Collective action approaches may offer one avenue for advancing this work going forward.

A total of 11 White Papers have been produced, clustered into four themes referring to key stakeholder groups. These White Papers aim to present the latest thinking, practice, and debate in relation to key human rights issues involved in the planning, construction, delivery, and legacy of MSEs. Each paper also considers the case for, and potential role of, an independent centre of expertise on MSEs and human rights.

The purpose of this White Paper is to analyse data from UN and ILO public sources on human rights and labour standards and assess the extent to which these sources can serve as a basis for preparing “country human rights briefs” on mega-sporting event candidate and host cities/countries. These sources, endorsed by the vast majority of countries, are envisaged as a credible starting point for assessing levels of human rights risks in a country context.
Four countries were selected from the mega-sporting event context in order to gauge whether the research and methodology proposed for this study holds up in practice.
The countries chosen are the four next hosts for the Commonwealth Games (Gold Coast 2018, Australia, and Durban 2022, South Africa) and Commonwealth Youth Games (Nassau 2017, The Bahamas, and Belfast 2021, Northern Ireland). These were chosen because the selection process for these events has already been finalized and because they provide good geographic spread.
We have reviewed a defined list of International Labour Organization (“ILO”) and United Nations Human Rights Council sources (“UN sources”), referred to jointly as “primary sources”.