Search

All companies have a responsibility to respect human rights when they carry out their business. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights guide companies in how to meet their responsibilities, and due diligence is a critical component.

This tool, "Sport, Broadcasting and Human Rights - Guiding Questions", is intended to help broadcasters identify and, if necessary, mitigate any potential human rights impacts that may occur when broadcasting a sporting event. It builds on the White Paper "Broadcasters and Human Rights in the Sports Context", which identified potential risks to people and their rights arising from broadcasting a sporting event. 

This tool can be used alongside existing planning and risk processes, such as health and safety assessments, and is intended to be practical, flexible, and to help identify ways to address the particular risks identified.

Download the tool here

What makes sports events sustainable. This module is part of a 12 clips guide created by SportAccord, AISTS, PI, and IOC, to help us understand sustainability as a whole, and look at what it means. It looks at the risks and opportunites, the business case of sustainable sports events. It introduces the benefits, ISO 20121 management system, reporting and impact assessment. (Video 1/12)

This report outlines the ongoing results of monitoring and reporting of the UIAA's carbon footprint, which is in response to our signed commitment in early 2019 and participation under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Sports for Climate Action.

Sponsors have a responsibility, within their own operations and throughout their supply chains, to respect human rights. Sporting events are no different from any other business relationship in terms of needing to proactively take account of potential human rights risks.

'Sport, Sponsorship and Human Rights - Guiding Questions' is a tool intended to prompt the identification of issues to consider at the earliest stages of developing a sport sponsorship relationship, and in the sponsor agreement itself. Building on the white paper on ‘Sponsors and Human Rights in the Sports Context’, these questions should help sponsors consider how they might create effective leverage to address human rights risks throughout the lifetime of the sponsorship.

Download the Sport, Sponsorhip and Human Rights Guiding questions

As an international organisation, FIFA takes its responsibility to protect, cherish and limit its impact on the environment seriously. FIFA aims to lead by example and inspire greater awareness and best practices in sustainability standards with regard to FIFA World Cups™ and within FIFA as an organisation. That is why, since the 2006 FIFA World Cup Germany™, it has been continuously implementing environmental projects and engaging with its stakeholders and other institutions to find sensible ways of addressing environmental issues, mitigate the negative environmental impact of its activities and increase its activities that have a positive impact on the environment.

Sports bodies are critical actors in delivering mega-sporting events, setting the expectations and standards to which events should be delivered. Through implementing human rights within their own governance and operations, sports bodies can take important steps towards protecting the values of sport and implementing respect for human rights.

A human rights guide for sports bodies of all sizes was launched at the General Assembly of the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF), on the eve of the 2018 Commonwealth Games in Gold Coast, Australia.

"Championing Human Rights in the Governance of Sports Bodies" introduces human rights to sports bodies, large and small, drawing on lessons from the International Olympic Committee, FIFA, UEFA, and the Commonwealth Games Federation and outlining four tangible steps that sports bodies can take to build human rights into the governance of their organisations. Focussed explicitly on governance, this Guide is intended for consideration at executive and board level of sports bodies.

This guide introduces human rights to sports bodies, large and small, drawing on lessons from the International Olympic Committee, FIFA, UEFA, and the Commonwealth Games Federation and outlining four tangible steps that sports bodies can take to build human rights into the governance of their organisations. Focussed explicitly on governance, this Guide is intended for consideration at executive and board level of sports bodies.
The four steps are as follow :

1. Commit and Embed : make public commitment to respect human rights and ensure this is embedded within standards and practices
2. Identify risks : identify any actual and potential risks and prioritise for action those that are most salient (or severe)
3. Take action : Take appropriate action to address risks to human rights and provide access to remedy when necessary
4. Communicate : Report and communicate how the organisation is addressing risks to human rights

Download the English version of the guide

Download the French version of the guide

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 gives an overview on the most frequent corruption risks linked to mega-sporting events (MSEs), including:

• Corruption within bidding processes
• Corruption in contracting
• Corruption undermining due diligence and regulations.

Over the last three decades as MSEs have become a more and more a sought after instrument by which to demonstrate a country’s economic and political strength, its ability to organise big events, and its status in the international community, the risk of corrupt practices to win bids to host these events has increased enormously.

As a bidding city and the respective country have to invest a huge amount of money and prestige in order to stage an MSE, the pressure to succeed is high and may increase the risk of achieving the goal - not just by fair lobbying.

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.