Agitation over the new IOC host city contract

The International Olympic Committee’s new host city contract, which was released two weeks ago, is now met by harsh criticism from the Sports and Rights Alliance (SRA), a coalition of leading NGOs, sports organisations and trade unions including Amnesty International, Transparency International, the International Trade Union Confederation, Football Supporters Europe and Terre des Hommes.

The alliance’s main worry is the lack of explicit consideration of human rights that can be under pressure in connection to mega-events such as the Olympic Games.

“Research has shown that mega sporting events in Brazil had four main implications on children’s lives: increase of police and army violence, displacement, sexual exploitation and child labour. The omission of human rights in the Host City Contract shows little intention for change,” said Ignacio Parker, Secretary General of Terre des Hommes in a press release from Sport and Rights Alliance.

Eduard Nazarski, director of Amnesty International Netherlands, also pointed to the heightened repression in Azerbaijan and restrictions of free speech and gay rights around Sochi and said that “there is no denying that Olympic Games can and do lead to human rights abuses”.

Nazarski went on to call the omission of explicit references to human rights in the host city contract ‘astonishing’.

“It is essential that the IOC wakes up to the human rights impact of its events - and lives up to the expectations created around Agenda 2020,” he said.

In response to the criticism, IOC spokesman Mark Adams said: “We were surprised by these comments since the changes to the host city contract were publicly welcomed by member groups of this alliance at the time”.

In a statement to the Associated Press he ensured that the contract “explicitly references all three areas highlighted by the Sport and Rights Alliance: LGBT rights, workers' rights and free reporting in the context of the Olympic Games".  

According to The Guardian, the allowance for the media to report freely and theprohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation were noted but turned down by the SRA, who stated that “the changes do not go far enough”.