This article was first published in LawInSport in April 2022.
At the launch of the ‘We Love 2023 Tour’ in Paris, Rugby World Cup France 2023 CEO Claude Atcher declared:
“France 2023 has embraced a vision: to have a positive impact for rugby, the planet and France by delivering a responsible event that addresses the challenges of today and tomorrow. Rugby World Cup 2023 will be more than a sporting event. It will leave a legacy.”[1] (emphasis added)
His bold statement encapsulates an ever-growing trend in major sporting events (MSEs): what positive impact will an MSE make and leave in the host city, nation or globally? While legacy and sustainability considerations are nothing new, there has in recent years been a refocusing of the concept around the new trend of ‘ESG’ – namely environmental, social and governance issues. Organisation of MSEs touches upon a plethora of ESG issues including gender / diversity inclusion, human rights, environmental impact and urban redevelopment.
This article considers the various ways such issues are addressed through the implementation of both explicit and implicit ESG requirements that have been included in MSE bid processes. Specifically, it looks at:
- what ESG criteria are;
- the nature and scope of ESG criteria within current bid requirements for the Olympic Games, and the Football and Rugby World Cups; and
- whether there has been meaningful compliance with the criteria.
Answering these questions will help us understand the evolution in legacy and sustainability requirements for MSEs; the present-day requirements for any nation looking to host an MSE; and whether the requirements are having a lasting impact on ESG issues in the host country.
What are ESG criteria?
Broadly speaking, ESG criteria are a set of standards that indicate whether an organisation operates in a socially conscious manner. In recent years, there has been a move away from the traditional focus on purely shareholder capitalism – that is to say, a company’s success is no longer judged solely on the monetary returns it generates for its shareholders.
Instead, there is a growing emphasis on companies creating long-term value, rather than short-term monetary gain, through stakeholder capitalism.[2] Stakeholder capitalism is the concept in which an organisation looks at creating broader value for all of its key stakeholders – this includes shareholders but goes further and includes its customers, suppliers, employees, local communities and others.[3]
It is through this microscope in which ESG has risen to prominence and plays such an important role in how organisations are run today. Given its breadth, it provides a way in which to consider a wide array of issues that, if addressed and managed well, will ensure that long-term value is created for the various stakeholders affected by an organisation. Defining ESG is not easy – there is no universally accepted definition of ESG. However, for the purposes of this article, we can consider each element of ESG as follows:
- Environmental – this governs a vast array of environmental considerations. This element considers the energy and natural resources an organisation may use, but also its broader contribution in respect of carbon emissions, climate change and the effect it has on the local environment. By way of example, following the 2016 Olympics that took place in Rio, it was estimated that the event required (i) 28,500 athletes and staff to be flown in, (ii) 17,000 tonnes of food waste to be produced and (iii) 3.6 million tonnes of carbon emitted in total across the games – showing the huge impact on the environment that just one MSE can have.[4]
- Social – this element focuses on the relationships an organisation has. The Covid-19 pandemic has undoubtedly placed spotlight on this element of ESG in respect of how employees and customers are treated.[5] But this element also goes further and concerns the relationships and reputation the organisation fosters with people, institutions and the communities in which an organisation conducts its business.[6]
- Governance – this element refers to the internal system of practices, controls, and procedures implemented by an organisation to ensure good governance. This relates to issues such as ensuring policies are transparent and fair, avoiding bribery and corruption issues and effectively managing risks.[7]
The criteria are widely used in today’s investment industry by socially conscious investors to screen potential investments. For example, Larry Fink, CEO of asset management company Blackrock, wrote an open letter to CEOs emphasising the importance of ESG considerations in investing and noted that:
“Our conviction at BlackRock is that companies perform better when they are deliberate about their role in society and act in the interests of their employees, customers, communities, and their shareholders.”[8]
Indeed, in an institutional investor survey carried out by EY in 2020, it was observed that “ESG information has never been more important” and companies who failed to meet investor expectations on ESG factors risked losing access to capital markets as “ESG is fundamental to investment decision-making”, with higher equity returns from those companies who paid attention to ESG concerns. Out of 98% of investors surveyed who assess ESG, EY observed that 72% of these investors carry out a structured review of ESG performance – up from just 32% in the same survey conducted two years earlier.[9]
It is no surprise then that ESG considerations are becoming increasingly important in the planning of MSEs. To an extent, a large part of this is due to the fact that sports has a strong public element to this – in that the huge number of spectators an MSE tries to attract mean that their views and perceptions on key issues will inevitably be something MSEs will want to be in line with. However, another key driver in ESG issues coming to the fore is the fact that sports is becoming an ever-increasingly commercialised industry. In the US alone, more than USD $2 billion was invested by private equity firms into sports leagues in 2021.[10] Therefore, there is not only public pressure but also investor pressure to ensure ESG concerns are factored into the organising of MSEs.
The next section therefore looks at the current ESG considerations within bidding processes and the extent to which this has evolved over time.
Current bid processes – to what extent are ESG considerations included in bidding criteria?
Olympics
The Olympics, perhaps the world’s most prominent sporting competition, appears to have the most developed ESG criteria set out in its bidding process. In fact, the idea of a “Green Games” has been attempted as far back as 1994 at the Norwegian Olympic Games, and the microscope on environmental and other ESG issues more broadly has become even more magnified since.
For example, in the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) evaluation report for the 2000 Olympic Games[11], it specifically notes that one of the ‘themes’ by which it evaluated bidders was ‘environmental protection’. Although only a short paragraph for each country, the IOC’s evaluation report noted that one of the bidders, China, fell far below international standards and that in response China had even tried to take steps to rectify this by ensuring that all constructions and renovations are carried out with a view to improving the environment.[12]
By 2012, we can clearly see the IOC’s bid requirements’ growing emphasis on ESG considerations. In its 2012 bidding document for prospective hosts, the ‘Environment and Methodology’ section is extremely detailed in its requirements from bidders. By way of illustration, it requires a country’s bid to describe, amongst other things, the country’s ‘planned environmental management system’,[13] to provide detailed information on air quality and quality of drinking water,[14] and to integrate its environmental approach into contracts with suppliers and sponsors.[15]
Not only can MSE qualification rules and regulation require concerted focus on ESG issues, it also encourages innovation in the field. The 2012 Olympics requirements included an environmental pilot or development projects, or environmentally friendly technology relating to the Olympics Games.[16]
Today, the huge focus on ESG issues within Olympic bidding requirements is clear. In its bid to host the 2024 Olympics, which eventually led to it being awarded the 2028 Olympics instead, Los Angeles in their candidate file have six pages dedicated to how it is seeking to implement ‘sustainability’ through its hosting of the games. Amongst other things, it aims to ensure sustainable procurement processes, deliver a ‘low-carbon games’, and increase inclusion and diversity engagement within sport.[17] In having such a detailed inclusion of ESG issues within the bidding framework, it seeks to set a standard by which bidding nations need to match – and the more investor and public pressure puts focus on certain issues, in this instance sustainability, the more concrete objectives there will be set out within bidding frameworks that bidders will have to attain.
The IOC has published guidance as to how countries should procure their infrastructure when hosting MSEs.[18] In its guidance, it explicitly states that one of the IOC’s aims is to ensure that its objectives of ‘corporate social responsibility, environment and health and safety’ are met by responsible sourcing. Its decision to publish guidance in addition to the requirements themselves suggests the emphasis placed on ESG issues not just from the bidding country but also from the organising committees of such events, and that the IOC actively wants to support MSEs to meet ESG-related objectives.
Despite its considerably developed framework, one significant omission from the Olympics’ bidding requirements was how human rights are (or are not) addressed. Hosting countries’ bids for the Olympics are often dogged by human rights controversies, particularly in relation to workers’ rights. Indeed, several countries including Canada, the US and the UK announced a diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Winter Olympics in 2022 in protest at China’s human rights record.[19] What is striking is that the phrase ‘human rights’ was not even mentioned in the IOC’s bidding criteria until its bidding requirements for the 2026 Winter Olympics, published in late 2017.[20]
This demonstrates a temporal issue with addressing ESG issues through the procurement process of MSEs. MSEs are bid for years in advance of the actual hosting of the event – the 2026 Winter Olympics had the bidding process opened in 2017, just shy of 10 years before the event was set to take place. Given the broad range of issues that ESG considerations can cover there will always be a gap between what society considers the significant ESG issues are at the time when bids are placed, and the shift in perceptions of ESG issues at and after the MSE takes place. One point to consider is whether there are, or should be, any ongoing obligations on winning bidders so that as ESG issues materialise (or indeed, public perceptions shift) and become more significant, they are addressed at or after the MSE takes place.
Football
Like the IOC did in late 2017 for the 2026 Winter Olympics, UEFA in May 2017 for the first time explicitly referred to human rights as a specific criterion by which bidders will be evaluated for the European Championships taking place in 2024.[21] It required that bidders
“have the obligation to respect, protect and fulfil human rights and fundamental freedoms, with a duty to respect human, labour and child rights during the Bidding Procedure and, if appointed, until the end of the dismantling of UEFA EURO 2024.”
It then goes on to state that bidders should aim at “culturally embedding human rights; proactively addressing human rights risks; [and] engaging with relevant stakeholders and implementing means of reporting and accountability.”[22] The similar timing of UEFA and the IOC’s introduction of human rights as a specific bidding criterion is indicative of attitudes and values in society at the time.
The inclusion of human rights is an important step taken by UEFA. There was vocal criticism in the run up to the World Cup in Brazil in 2014 for its restriction on basic freedoms and prevalence of police brutality[23] and the aforementioned threats to boycott the upcoming Winter Olympics 2022 in Beijing has again brought spotlight on China’s treatment of Uighur Muslims.[24] The broad obligation to ‘culturally embed’ and ‘proactively address’ human rights shows the intention to not just be limited to, for example, worker rights in the construction of stadiums in the run up to the event, but actually address a host country’s obligation to fix wider human rights issues such as those in Brazil and China.
In UEFA’s tournament requirements, there are specific examples given of what actions can be taken – such as evidence of meaningful consultation of stakeholders and vulnerable groups that would be affected by the tournament, or a complaint mechanism and effective remedies for human rights infringements. Indeed, Germany sought to actively address this in their bid by holding meetings with various human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, to try to learn from the perceived human rights failings that were being levied against Russia in their hosting of the upcoming 2018 World Cup at the time.[25]
However, the sometimes-sporadic way in which ESG considerations are dealt with can be seen from FIFA’s guidance on its bidding regulations for the 2023 Women’s and the 2026 Men’s World Cup.[26] Despite being produced by the same organisation, for the same competition (just played by two different genders), there is a difference in the detail in which sustainability requirements are covered in their guidance. While the 2023 Women’s World Cup guidance provides a general overview of the sustainability aims required, the 2026 Men’s guidance provides specific issues that a bidder’s sustainability strategy must address. In addition, there is a separate page dedicated to human rights in the Men’s 2026 World Cup guidance, as opposed to the one bullet point in the 2023 Women’s guidance. The provision of specific, concrete objectives that a sustainability strategy must achieve demonstrates that a bidder’s ability to achieve this can and must be measured, rather than just a tick-box exercise.
What this difference in treatment may demonstrate then is that ESG considerations being built into bidder processes for MSEs are not yet part of the fundamental framework – the extent to which a concrete set of ESG objectives will be included appears to be reliant on the scale of media, fan attention and investment that the event gets.
Rugby
The Rugby World Cup 2023 (RWC 2023) appears to have a bidding framework that matches the ambitions outlined by Claude Atcher in the introduction of this article. It had five categories of evaluation criteria and within the first of these criteria, ‘vision and hosting concept’, there is specific mention of sustainability. In fact, there are two specific sub-areas of evaluation relating to sustainability within this evaluation criteria.
The first is that the bid “outlines sustainability initiatives that will be implemented, and provides sufficient evidence that the host will deliver a sustainable event”. The second is that the bid “sets out an Impact Beyond 2023 Programme that will enhance rugby participation and contribute to the development of rugby across the host nation, region and the globe.”[27]
Eventual winners of the bidding process, France, scored highest in this respect. Amongst other things, their bid outlined ‘innovative initiatives’ to ensure a good environmental impact such as its food management (ensuring healthy, diverse food from local and/or organic suppliers) and waste management (i.e. by using paper free accreditation). Additionally, their bid sought to promote equal opportunities by ensuring diversity and the promotion of gender equality.[28]
Interestingly, the ‘vision and hosting concept’ is worth 10% of the bidding criteria – a significant proportion.
Additionally, the emphasis on such criteria from a public relations perspective is clear. There was much optimism and, more importantly, emphasis at the ‘We Love 2023 Tour’ on the legacy that hosting a tournament can and should leave behind.
This was encapsulated by World Rugby Chief Executive Brett Gosper who built on the sentiments expressed by Atcher by proclaiming:
“In a world of change and uncertainty accelerated by the global COVID-19 pandemic, it is important that major events are not just a cathedral of sport, a showcase of world-class performance, but a symbol of unity, diversity and change.”[29] (emphasis added)
This demonstrates a growing public opinion that ESG issues should be increasingly taken into consideration when planning MSEs and these are progressively being built into bidding criteria for MSEs.
How effective are MSEs in implementing ESG change?
With the increasing focus on ESG criteria within bidding processes, it leaves the question: how successful are MSEs at making positive impact? By building in ESG criteria into such processes, do MSEs effectively implement change in respect of ESG issues and, as a result, leave lasting legacies?
The optimism for the RWC 2023 largely stems from the Rugby World Cup 2019 (RWC 2019) in Japan, which has been heralded for the legacy it has left behind. For example, a record-breaking £2 million was pledged to Childfund’s ‘Pass It Back’ programme, which seeks to improve the lives of children and youth in disadvantaged communities in Asia by
- encouraging rugby in communities where children have little or no access to sport and
- promoting learning opportunities around social issues such as leadership, gender equality, and planning for the future.
The importance that fans attribute to such issues is clear – the funds contributed to this £2 million (by way of opt-in donations when purchasing tickets) raised by 50% compared to the previous Rugby World Cup in 2015.[30]
Further, when Typhoon Hagibis struck in Kamaishi, the RWC 2019 demonstrated the very real impact an MSE can have. The Canadian rugby team were due to play in the area before the typhoon hit – and when it did, the Canadian team assisted in the clean-up of the terrible damage caused by the landslides and flooding. More importantly, World Rugby and Childfund, the RWC 2019’s chosen charity partner, worked together to put in place initiatives that supported the areas affected even after the RWC was finished – such as the distribution of hygiene packs to women at evacuation centres and the donation of furniture, books and other basic items to help locals re-build the community.[31]
There was an interesting observation in a 2010 Deloitte report on legacies in MSEs, that noted how the Olympics were often used by its host countries as a catalyst for change in respect of environmental issues.[32] The Beijing Olympics in 2008 provide a good example to test this and determine the strength of how important environmental issues were in reality valued. In its bid, which was submitted in 2000, there were several environmental issues that Beijing sought to address with ambitious measures envisaged, most notably the tackling of its vast air pollution problems.[33]
An independent report produced by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) looked at how successful Beijing was at implementing its environmental targets. Key issues, amongst others, for Beijing was improving air quality, becoming more ‘green’ in its energy use by reducing reliance on coal, and addressing chronic and severe water shortages.[34] The UNEP report concluded that significant progress was made in each of these issues.
Two central themes that can be drawn from the report were
- the catalytic effect that the Games had in driving change in these issues and
- the concentrated thought that is given to organising events means that new and innovative measures and solutions are used to address issues that a country grapples with.
For example, it noted that Beijing’s long-term plans for improving air quality were accelerated as the Olympics provided ‘impetus for aggressive implementation’. In addition, the Games was considered crucial in oil refineries agreeing to produce fuel to meet higher European standards than those currently set in Beijing. Further, in respect of water management, the report recommended that Beijing should ‘continue to build on the innovative water-efficiency measures’ used for Olympic venues more widely across the city. Importantly, the report concluded Beijing’s measures provided a good case study for other cities grappling issues with air quality – demonstrating the wider impact an MSE can have beyond just the host city / country.
The chance for renewed, concentrated focus that an MSE brings, along with the fact that such events encourage innovative ideas to implement change shows the real positive impact that an MSE can have. Therefore, the more ESG criteria are built into bidding requirements, the more likely MSEs can be a real driving force in addressing changes in issues that are pertinent to society.
Yet, there have been examples where an MSE has not been as successful in bringing about change. The run-up to Sochi’s hosting of the Winter Olympics was dominated by international media scrutiny[35] around the recent law introduced in Russia that banned the promotion of “non-traditional sexual relationships.” The introduction of the law and its subsequent heightened media scrutiny was followed by a wave of homophobic attacks but despite repeated lobbying from athletes and other stakeholders in the Olympics, the Russian government refused to repeal the law.[36] Instead, some news outlets reported that the situation for members of the LGBTQ+ community deteriorated following implementation of the law and its heightened coverage in the media in the run up to the Olympics.[37] Provisions on anti-discrimination were not part of the bidding criteria, nor were there any ongoing obligations on winning bidders in relation to ESG issues.
Encouragingly, following the controversy, the IOC introduced a specific anti-discrimination clause to the contract entered into it by the IOC and the winner of an Olympic bid, that reads:
“Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic movement.”[38]
Furthermore, for all the renewed focus and push for change that hosting an MSE can bring as highlighted by the report on Beijing above, what cannot be denied is the scale of the impact that hosting such a major event has on the environment at the actual time of the event taking place, regardless of the sustainable construction methods and improvements to a city or country’s infrastructure that has been attempted.
For example, following the FIFA Men’s World Cup 2014 and 2018 in Brazil and Russia respectively, FIFA published sustainability reports[39] after each competition that sought to examine and account for the greenhouse gas emissions that the football events produced. Despite Brazil’s attempts to be a “Copa Verde” (Green Cup), it has since been noted as one of the World Cups with the highest carbon footprints. The Brazil FIFA sustainability report reported that Rio 2014 had generated around 2.72 million tonnes of CO2 emissions – which is the equivalent amount of CO2 emissions produced by 560,000 cars in a year. Although the total amount of emissions for the Russia World Cup in 2018 were in total lower (around 2.2 million tonnes of CO2 emissions) than Brazil, the Russia FIFA sustainability report did note that ‘some aspects of this carbon footprint are comparable to the estimated carbon emissions of the 2014 FIFA World Cup’.[40]
One key statistic stood out from the Russia FIFA sustainability report that shows the root of the problem (at least environmentally) that MSEs will no doubt always struggle with – a huge 57% of the greenhouse gas emissions produced by the 2018 Russia World Cup was caused by the international travel from participants and spectators attending the event. The next closest factor was inter-city travel at only 15% - see the graphic below. This demonstrates two very competing objectives that organisers of MSEs (and their investors) will have to reconcile. Undoubtedly, one of the measures of success of an MSE is its global reach and ability to attract participants and spectators from all over the world. With international travel making up more than 50% of the Russia World Cup’s carbon footprint, organisers of MSEs will have to find strong ways to off set their environmental impact – as reducing or discouraging global participation will not be in their interests.
Conclusion
Despite these controversies, the hosting of such events shines a spotlight on countries’ approach to ESG issues. The UNEP report on Beijing noted above highlighted how the hosting of the Olympic Games encouraged public awareness and debate over issues that would previously have been taken for granted. This is significant in itself – there will be undoubtedly instances where hosting an MSE and the resulting media scrutiny does not serve to improve ESG issues, as we have seen with Russia in the examples above, but it provides a very real trigger for re-evaluation.
As investors continue to devote more time and money to the sports industry, compliance with good ESG practice will be a significant value point. In fact, the organising of MSEs may uniquely be placed to allow investors to monitor whether MSEs are complying with ESG considerations. As noted in the introduction, it is increasingly important for investors to carry out structured reviews of ESG performance and bidding processes necessarily involve a structured way of measuring a candidate’s credentials. Taking the 2026’s Men’s World Cup guidance on sustainability requirements as an example, we can see that it provides a way of providing concrete objectives where success in achieving these objectives can be measured.
What is clear is that although there is still considerable progress to be made, the importance of ESG to investors and the commercialisation of sports means that they are becoming inherently linked and as such are being increasingly included within the framework of bidding processes.
The current crisis in Ukraine serves as a reminder of the drastic steps an organising body can ultimately take – as UEFA have taken away the Champions League Final from St Petersburg. The huge media attention and public outrage at the events that have transpired thus far could mean that renewed focus on the ‘S’ in ESG criteria is made for the next round of bidding processes for MSEs.
However, the strong enforcement stance taken in relation to Ukraine is unsurprising and likely not the best barometer of how seriously MSEs take ESG considerations. The fact that human rights were such a late addition to bidding process frameworks, and both Beijing and Russia have received criticism in the run-up to their hosting of events without any tangible consequences, suggests that without a world-changing event like the Russian invasion of Ukraine, policing ESG considerations is not necessarily within a MSEs’ remit, or not a role it is willing to take on.
This will be a fascinating space to watch, in particular what lines will be drawn by MSEs as to actions deemed unacceptable, and those which apparently can be accepted without significant consequence.
[1] ‘France 2023 aims to deliver positive impact and unite the host nation with three years to go’, rusgbyworldcup.com, 7 Sept 2020, https://www.rugbyworldcup.com/2023/news/583891/france-2023-aims-to-deliver-positive-impact-and-unite-the-host-nation-with-three-years-to-go (last accessed 4 April 2022)
[2] ‘Why ESG performance is growing in importance for investors’ ey.com, 9 March 2021,
https://www.ey.com/en_uk/assurance/why-esg-performance-is-growing-in-importance-for-investors
[3] ‘Stakeholder Capitalism’, Investopedia.com,
https://www.investopedia.com/stakeholder-capitalism-4774323 (last accessed 4 April 2022); ‘From principle to practice: Making stakeholder capitalism work’, mckinsey.com, 26 April 2021,
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/from-principle-to-practice-making-stakeholder-capitalism-work (last accessed 4 April 2022)
[4] https://esgclarity.com/investors-can-make-large-sports-events-more-sustainable/ (last accessed 4 April 2022)
[5] ‘Why Coronavirus puts a new lens on ESG investing’, moganstanley.com, 6 april 2020, https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/coronavirus-corporates-esg-investing (last accessed 4 April 2022)
[6] ‘Five ways that ESG creates value’, mckinsey.com, 14 Nov 2019, https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/five-ways-that-esg-creates-value (last accessed 4 April 2022)
[7] ‘Governance, the G in ESG’, rl360.com, https://www.rl360.com/row/funds/investment-definitions/g-in-esg.htm#:~:text=The%20assessment%20of%20how%20a,the%20'G'%20in%20ESG (last accessed 4 April 2022)
[8] ‘The Power of Capitalism’, blackrock.com,
https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/larry-fink-ceo-letter (last accessed 4 April 2022)
[9] ‘How will ESG performance shape your future?’, ey.com, https://www.ey.com/en_uk/assurance/how-will-esg-performance-shape-your-future (last accessed 4 April 2022)
[10] Jabari Young, ‘Private equity invaded sports in 2021 with nearly $2 billion in deals, and the NBA was in high demand’, cnbc.com, https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/06/private-equity-sports-investments-neared-2-billion-in-2021-nba-hot.html (last accessed 4 April 2022)
[11] International Olympic Committee’s evaluation report for the 2000 Olympic games, available to view here: https://issuu.com/thatsnotmypuppy/docs/2000evaluationreport (IOC Report) (last accessed 4 April 2022)
[12] Page 10 of 2000 IOC report
[13] Q5.5 of the Candidate and Procedure Questionnaire for the 2012 Olympic Games, available here: https://stillmed.olympic.org/media/Document%20Library/OlympicOrg/Documents/Host-City-Elections/XXX-Olympiad-2012/Candidature-Procedure-and-Questionnaire-for-the-Games-of-the-XXX-Olympiad-2012.pdf
[14] Ibid, Q5.2 and Q5.3
[15] Ibid, Q5.9
[16] Ibid, Q5.8.
[17] Los Angeles 2024 and 2028 Candidature questionnaire: Games delivery, experience and venue legacy (February 2017) (here) (last accessed 4 April 2022)
[18] IOC Procurement Guidelines, available here: https://stillmed.olympic.org/media/Document%20Library/OlympicOrg/IOC/What-We-Do/Leading-the-Olympic-Movement/ipacs/Procurement-Guidelines-EN-v4.pdf (last accessed 4 April 2022)
[19] https://www.espn.co.uk/olympics/story/_/id/32822193/canada-joins-united-states-united-kingdom-australia-beijing-olympics-boycott (last accessed 4 April 2022)
[20] See Candidature Questionnaire – Olympic Winter Games 2026
[21] ‘UEFA Announces New Human Rights Requirements for 2024’, ihrb.org, 1 May 2017,
https://www.ihrb.org/news/uefa-announces-new-human-rights-requirements-for-2024; https://www.dw.com/en/human-rights-in-the-spotlight-for-euro-2024-host-bid/a-45652141; UEFA EURO 2024: Tournament requirements (last accessed 4 April 2022)
[22] UEFA EURO 2024: Tournament requirements (see page 30), https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/OfficialDocument/uefaorg/Regulations/02/46/30/61/2463061_DOWNLOAD.pdf (last accessed 4 April 2022)
[23] ‘Brazil: Protect the right to protest’, amnesty.org,
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/brazil-world-cup-right-to-protest (last accessed 4 April 2022)
[24] ‘Activists urge Beijing Olympics boycott over human rights concerns,’ reuters.com, 19 Oct 2021,
https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/activists-urge-beijing-olympics-boycott-over-human-rights-concerns-2021-10-19/ (last accessed 4 April 2022)
[25] ‘Human rights in the spotlight for Euro 2024 host bid’, dw.com, 26 Sept 2018’,
https://www.dw.com/en/human-rights-in-the-spotlight-for-euro-2024-host-bid/a-45652141(last accessed 4 April 2022)
[26] FIFA Bid Process Guide for Women’s 2023 World Cup, https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/guide-to-the-bidding-process-for-the-fifa-women-s-world-cup-2023tm.pdf?cloudid=gfuxttuixv3s10jvidbn; FIFA Bid Process Guide for Men’s 2026 World Cup, available here: http://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/02/91/88/61/en_guidetothebiddingprocessforthe2026fifaworldcup_neutral.pd (last accessed 4 April 2022)
[27] See page 12 of the RWC Report.
[28] See pages 16 and 18 of the RWC Report.
[29] See Footnote 1
[30] ‘Global rugby family pledges record-breaking £2m to childfund pass it back initiative’, rugbyworldcup.com, https://www.rugbyworldcup.com/news/447658 (last accessed 4 April 2022)
[31] ‘Typhoon Hagibis Recovery: Looking Back’, childfundrugby.org, 7 May 2021,
https://www.childfundrugby.org/2021/05/07/typhoon-hagibis-recovery-looking-back/ (last accessed 4 April 2022)
[32] Deloitte, ‘A lasting legacy How major sporting events can drive positive change for host communities and economies’, 16 Feb 2010, https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Public-Sector/dttl-ps-alastinglegacy-08082013.pdf (last accessed 4 April 2022)
[33] Only 50.7 per cent of the days in 2001 in Beijing were considered ‘blue sky’ days - page 13 of the Independent Environmental Assessment by the United Nations Environment Programme (the UNEP report)
[34] See pages 25, 41, 51 and 70 of the UNEP report.
[35] David R Stone, ‘Russia, Gay Rights, and the Sochi Olympics’, origins.osu.edu,
https://origins.osu.edu/article/russia-gay-rights-and-sochi-olympics (last accessed 4 April 2022)
[36] ‘Olympians urge Russia to reconsider 'gay propaganda' laws’, theguardian.com, 30 Jan 2014,
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/jan/30/olympic-athletes-russia-repeal-anti-gay-laws (last accessed 4 April 2022)
[37] Tarana Stable, ‘Human Rights and International Sporting Events’, brownpoliticalreview.org, 14 Jan 2020,
https://brownpoliticalreview.org/2020/01/human-rights-and-international-sporting-events/ (last accessed 4 April 2022); See also: https://www.reuters.com/article/russia-lgbt-attitudes/feature-arrested-and-harrassed-russias-lgbt-community-fears-crackdown-worsening-idUSL8N1W51TT; https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/01/14/russia-silencing-sochi-critics-intensifies-eve-olympics
[38] Own Gibson, ‘Olympic anti-discrimination clause introduced after Sochi gay rights row’, theguardian.com,
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/sep/25/olympic-anti-discrimination-clause-sochi-gay-rights-row; https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26043872 (last accessed 4 April 2022)
[39] For Brazil, see here and for Russia, see here (last accessed 4 April 2022)
[40] Page 6, FIFA Sustainability Report (Russia)