Eligibility, Governance and Risk: Key Legal issues in delivering the Winter Olympic Games
- 27 March 2026
- SLAM
The 2026 Winter Olympics has proved that the 4-yearly extravaganza is among the most prominent global sporting events, demanding complex co-ordination across multiple stakeholders. In the lead-up to the Games, sporting governing bodies must navigate an intricate regulatory landscape shaped by evolving compliance obligations, governance expectations, and commercial commitments. Critical considerations include athlete eligibility, procedural fairness, safety, integrity, and liability, all of which are essential to ensuring the effective delivery of the Games.
This article by Yasin Patel, Ketsia Kayembe, and Caitlin Haberlin-Chambers examines the principal legal challenges confronting governing bodies in the Winter Olympics, exploring governance structures, regulatory compliance, and the intersection with geopolitical factors, while underscoring the importance of proactive risk management within the Olympic framework.
This article by Yasin Patel, Ketsia Kayembe, and Caitlin Haberlin-Chambers examines the principal legal challenges confronting governing bodies in the Winter Olympics, exploring governance structures, regulatory compliance, and the intersection with geopolitical factors, while underscoring the importance of proactive risk management within the Olympic framework.
1. The Winter Olympics as a Regulatory Environment
The regulation of the Olympic Games is shared across several bodies:
- International Olympic Committee (‘IOC’): Serves as the apex body, a private non-governmental organisation that owns and organises the Summer, Winter, and Youth Olympic Games, exercising overarching authority over all National Olympic Committees.
- International Federations (‘IFs’): Non-governmental organisations responsible for the regulation of their respective sports at the international level.
- National Olympic Committees (‘NOCs’): Responsible for selecting athletes, managing national delegations, and representing their countries within the Olympic Movement.
- Court of Arbitration for Sport (‘CAS’): Functions as an independent arbitral forum, issuing binding decisions capable of overturning actions of the IOC, IFs, or NOCs.
This section examines how the Olympic Movement manages the distribution of powers among these bodies, and the mechanisms that ensure coordination, compliance, and accountability across the governance framework.
The International Olympic Committee (‘IOC’)
As the guardian of the Olympic Games and leader of the Olympic Movement, the IOC establishes the institutional framework of the Games through the Olympic Charter, which functions as the constitutional instrument of the Olympic Movement. While the IOC determines the overarching governance structure and core principles of the Games, the technical regulation of individual sports ordinarily remains within the competence of the relevant IFs.
However, the IOC retains direct authority over the participation of Individual Neutral Athletes (‘INA’). Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine commenced four days after the conclusion of the Beijing Winter Olympic Games in February 2022. The subsequent Winter Games marked the first iteration of the Olympics held in the context of the ongoing conflict and prompted the IOC to formalise its approach to athlete participation from Russia and Belarus. The IOC regulates athletes authorised to compete under a neutral designation through strict eligibility criteria adopted by its Executive Board. Eligibility is assessed by a three-member IOC panel, which determines whether an athlete has actively supported the war. “Support” is interpreted broadly and may include public statements, social media activity, or participation in pro-war events.
In the most recent Games, the IOC granted AIN status to 13 Russian and 7 Belarusian athletes. Where neutral status is granted, participation is accompanied by a series of prescribed symbolic and structural limitations. Neutral athletes compete without national flag or anthem representation; any medals obtained are excluded from attribution to a National Olympic Committee in the medal table; and such athletes are not permitted to participate in the Parade of Nations at the Opening Ceremony.
However, the IOC retains direct authority over the participation of Individual Neutral Athletes (‘INA’). Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine commenced four days after the conclusion of the Beijing Winter Olympic Games in February 2022. The subsequent Winter Games marked the first iteration of the Olympics held in the context of the ongoing conflict and prompted the IOC to formalise its approach to athlete participation from Russia and Belarus. The IOC regulates athletes authorised to compete under a neutral designation through strict eligibility criteria adopted by its Executive Board. Eligibility is assessed by a three-member IOC panel, which determines whether an athlete has actively supported the war. “Support” is interpreted broadly and may include public statements, social media activity, or participation in pro-war events.
In the most recent Games, the IOC granted AIN status to 13 Russian and 7 Belarusian athletes. Where neutral status is granted, participation is accompanied by a series of prescribed symbolic and structural limitations. Neutral athletes compete without national flag or anthem representation; any medals obtained are excluded from attribution to a National Olympic Committee in the medal table; and such athletes are not permitted to participate in the Parade of Nations at the Opening Ceremony.
International Sports Federations (‘IFs’)
IFs establish and enforce the technical rules of competition, set qualification pathways and age requirements, and determine the allocation of athlete quota places to NCOs. Although IFs define the number of athlete slots allocated to each nation, the selection of individual athletes remains the responsibility of the relevant NOCs.
In exercising their regulatory authority, IFs are required to ensure that their statutes, practices and activities comply with the Olympic Charter and remain consistent with the principles and governance framework established by the IOC. This supervisory alignment is reflected in the treatment of INAs. Athletes holding Russian or Belarusian passports must obtain approval from their relevant IF in addition to clearance from the IOC’s Eligibility Review Panel. As part of this process, the IF conducts a background assessment to verify that the athlete has not expressed support for the war in Ukraine and does not maintain affiliations with military or state security bodies, before the IOC undertakes its final review. Neutral athletes must also satisfy all applicable anti-doping requirements imposed by their respective IFs. Accordingly, IOC clearance alone is insufficient: participation under neutral status requires cumulative approval at both federation and IOC level.
In exercising their regulatory authority, IFs are required to ensure that their statutes, practices and activities comply with the Olympic Charter and remain consistent with the principles and governance framework established by the IOC. This supervisory alignment is reflected in the treatment of INAs. Athletes holding Russian or Belarusian passports must obtain approval from their relevant IF in addition to clearance from the IOC’s Eligibility Review Panel. As part of this process, the IF conducts a background assessment to verify that the athlete has not expressed support for the war in Ukraine and does not maintain affiliations with military or state security bodies, before the IOC undertakes its final review. Neutral athletes must also satisfy all applicable anti-doping requirements imposed by their respective IFs. Accordingly, IOC clearance alone is insufficient: participation under neutral status requires cumulative approval at both federation and IOC level.
National Olympic Committee (‘NOC’)
NOCs are responsible for representing their respective countries within the Olympic framework and for ensuring participation in the Olympic Games in accordance with the Olympic Charter.
In practical terms, NOCs select and enter athletes for the Games, appoint team officials, and oversee domestic implementation of Olympic rules and principles. They also promote the fundamental principles of Olympism within their jurisdictions, including athlete development, ethical sport governance and compliance with anti-doping and eligibility requirements. While subject to the overarching authority of the IOC and the sport-specific regulations of the relevant IFs, NOCs retain primary responsibility for national selection decisions and the administration of their Olympic delegations.
In practical terms, NOCs select and enter athletes for the Games, appoint team officials, and oversee domestic implementation of Olympic rules and principles. They also promote the fundamental principles of Olympism within their jurisdictions, including athlete development, ethical sport governance and compliance with anti-doping and eligibility requirements. While subject to the overarching authority of the IOC and the sport-specific regulations of the relevant IFs, NOCs retain primary responsibility for national selection decisions and the administration of their Olympic delegations.
Court of Arbitration of Sport (‘CAS’)
CAS is recognised as the primary forum for the resolution of sports-related disputes. Established to provide independent arbitral adjudication, CAS resolves disputes through ordinary arbitration procedures and hears appeals against decisions issued by sporting governing bodies.
The authority of CAS is consent-based: it may only hear disputes where the parties involved have agreed to submit to its jurisdiction. In the context of the Olympic Games, this authority is expressly grounded in Rule 61 of the Olympic Charter, which provides: “any dispute arising on the occasion of or in connection with the Olympic games, must be submitted exclusively to the jurisdiction of CAS, not to ordinary state courts once internal remedies are exhausted.” In practice, this means that all Olympic-related disputes, including eligibility and doping matters, are submitted exclusively to CAS, with athletes formally consenting to arbitration by signing their entry forms.
During the Games, CAS operates a dedicated Ad Hoc Division, established to resolve disputes arising within the Games period. This jurisdiction generally runs from approximately ten days prior to the Opening Ceremony until the Closing Ceremony. The Division is empowered to determine disputes concerning eligibility, team selection, disciplinary sanctions and, in exceptional circumstances, field-of-play decisions. Designed to accommodate the compressed timelines of Olympic competition, the Ad Hoc Division functions as an expedited mechanism. Although athletes and delegations are generally required to exhaust internal remedies before petitioning CAS, the procedural framework ensures that disputes can be resolved within hours or days rather than months or weeks.
This was particularly evident in the case of Angela Romei. Before the Opening Ceremony, Italian curler Romei filed an appeal with CAS’ Ad Hoc Division arguing that both the Italian Sports Federation and World Curling federation made a biased decision in selecting Rebecca Mariani over her for the women’s curling team. Angela had looked to overturn the selection so that she could compete in the games as she had claimed that the selecting process unfairly excluded her despite her qualification. The arbitrator had found no proof of unfairness or unreasonableness in the selection process and as a result, the application was dismissed and Romei’s exclusion from the Olympic team directly impacted her participation in the games.
The authority of CAS is consent-based: it may only hear disputes where the parties involved have agreed to submit to its jurisdiction. In the context of the Olympic Games, this authority is expressly grounded in Rule 61 of the Olympic Charter, which provides: “any dispute arising on the occasion of or in connection with the Olympic games, must be submitted exclusively to the jurisdiction of CAS, not to ordinary state courts once internal remedies are exhausted.” In practice, this means that all Olympic-related disputes, including eligibility and doping matters, are submitted exclusively to CAS, with athletes formally consenting to arbitration by signing their entry forms.
During the Games, CAS operates a dedicated Ad Hoc Division, established to resolve disputes arising within the Games period. This jurisdiction generally runs from approximately ten days prior to the Opening Ceremony until the Closing Ceremony. The Division is empowered to determine disputes concerning eligibility, team selection, disciplinary sanctions and, in exceptional circumstances, field-of-play decisions. Designed to accommodate the compressed timelines of Olympic competition, the Ad Hoc Division functions as an expedited mechanism. Although athletes and delegations are generally required to exhaust internal remedies before petitioning CAS, the procedural framework ensures that disputes can be resolved within hours or days rather than months or weeks.
This was particularly evident in the case of Angela Romei. Before the Opening Ceremony, Italian curler Romei filed an appeal with CAS’ Ad Hoc Division arguing that both the Italian Sports Federation and World Curling federation made a biased decision in selecting Rebecca Mariani over her for the women’s curling team. Angela had looked to overturn the selection so that she could compete in the games as she had claimed that the selecting process unfairly excluded her despite her qualification. The arbitrator had found no proof of unfairness or unreasonableness in the selection process and as a result, the application was dismissed and Romei’s exclusion from the Olympic team directly impacted her participation in the games.
2. Athlete Eligibility and Regulation
Eligibility determinations are of particular significance in the Olympic context, as qualification represents a major milestone in an athlete’s career. Being deemed ineligible can restrict access to international competition, limit exposure, and carry substantial financial consequences, including the loss of sponsorship deals, funding from national federations, or performance-based incentives.
Recent Games have highlighted the political dimensions of Olympic eligibility, revealing the extent to which the IOC’s decisions can reflect implicit positions on international conflicts. In the most recent Games, Israel was represented by ten athletes, despite the treatment of the Palestinian people in Gaza and the surrounding areas whereas Russian and Belarusian athletes are still banned from competing under their national flags due to acts of aggression in Ukraine. The contrasting treatment of these delegations has sparked debate over the consistency and impartiality of eligibility criteria, raising questions about whether the IOC’s decisions effectively take sides in geopolitical disputes rather than applying uniform standards.
In contrast to the discretionary nature of a country’s participation in the Games, the prohibition on political statements is enforced absolutely, as reflected in Rule 50.2 of the Olympic Charter. This principle was clearly demonstrated in the case of Ukrainian athlete Vladislav Heraskevych. At the Games, Heraskevych arrived with a customised helmet intended for political expression and commemoration. Prior to the commencement of competition, the IOC informed him that wearing the helmet would breach the Athlete Expression Guidelines and equipment rules. Heraskevych challenged the decision before the CAS Ad Hoc Division, which heard the matter on an expedited basis to ensure a ruling before his event. The arbitrator upheld the IOC regulations, finding that they struck a reasonable balance between the athlete’s interest in personal expression and the collective interest in maintaining focus on the sport. Consequently, Heraskevych’s application was dismissed, and he was prohibited from competing with the helmet.
These examples illustrate the IOC’s careful balance between competition, governance, and geopolitical realities. While participation decisions may involve discretionary judgment, Rule 50.2 enforces the prohibition of political statements with clear authority. Cases like Heraskevych show how these rules operate in practice, underscoring the IOC’s commitment to neutrality and fairness. Olympic eligibility is therefore shaped not only by athletic performance but also by regulatory, ethical, and political considerations affecting athletes and delegations. Whether the question of neutrality and fairness truly applies in relation to nation states eligibility and participation is something that is questionable.
Recent Games have highlighted the political dimensions of Olympic eligibility, revealing the extent to which the IOC’s decisions can reflect implicit positions on international conflicts. In the most recent Games, Israel was represented by ten athletes, despite the treatment of the Palestinian people in Gaza and the surrounding areas whereas Russian and Belarusian athletes are still banned from competing under their national flags due to acts of aggression in Ukraine. The contrasting treatment of these delegations has sparked debate over the consistency and impartiality of eligibility criteria, raising questions about whether the IOC’s decisions effectively take sides in geopolitical disputes rather than applying uniform standards.
In contrast to the discretionary nature of a country’s participation in the Games, the prohibition on political statements is enforced absolutely, as reflected in Rule 50.2 of the Olympic Charter. This principle was clearly demonstrated in the case of Ukrainian athlete Vladislav Heraskevych. At the Games, Heraskevych arrived with a customised helmet intended for political expression and commemoration. Prior to the commencement of competition, the IOC informed him that wearing the helmet would breach the Athlete Expression Guidelines and equipment rules. Heraskevych challenged the decision before the CAS Ad Hoc Division, which heard the matter on an expedited basis to ensure a ruling before his event. The arbitrator upheld the IOC regulations, finding that they struck a reasonable balance between the athlete’s interest in personal expression and the collective interest in maintaining focus on the sport. Consequently, Heraskevych’s application was dismissed, and he was prohibited from competing with the helmet.
These examples illustrate the IOC’s careful balance between competition, governance, and geopolitical realities. While participation decisions may involve discretionary judgment, Rule 50.2 enforces the prohibition of political statements with clear authority. Cases like Heraskevych show how these rules operate in practice, underscoring the IOC’s commitment to neutrality and fairness. Olympic eligibility is therefore shaped not only by athletic performance but also by regulatory, ethical, and political considerations affecting athletes and delegations. Whether the question of neutrality and fairness truly applies in relation to nation states eligibility and participation is something that is questionable.
3. Safety in the Snow
Athletes competing in the Winter Games are exposed to a higher risk of injury compared to their counterparts in the Summer Games. Research across several Olympic winter games editions finds that an overall injury incidence of about 9.6% of athletes, with snow sports the highest at about 11.3%. The riskiest events include snowboard cross and aerials and slopestyle in freestyle skiing, where injury rates range from approximately 28% to 31%, with the knees, head, and ankles most frequently affected.
Given these risks, liability for injuries is shared and depends on the source of harm. Injuries arising from inherent risks of the sport are generally borne by the athlete, reflecting the acceptance of known dangers inherent to high-performance winter sports. Conversely, injuries resulting from organizational negligence, including inadequate safety protocols, equipment failures, or poorly managed venues, may expose the IOC, Organizing Committees, or IFs to legal responsibility.
Pursuant to Code 5.4 of the Olympic Charter, event insurance covering death or serious injury is mandatory for all athletes, illustrating the IOC’s commitment to risk mitigation and athlete protection. Ensuring adequate coverage for a global sporting event presents significant operational challenges. Allianz, as the official Games insurer, manages claims ranging from routine incidents to severe contingencies, including weather-related disruptions. To improve safety, Allianz has also partnered with the German Bobsleigh and Luge Association to enhance safety standards, including the “Safety Sled,” which allows pre-race assessment of ice and track conditions. While these measures mitigate liability, ultimate responsibility depends on whether protocols were followed and whether harm arose from inherent sport risks or from negligent acts by governing bodies, organizers, or support staff. This framework illustrates the interplay between athlete autonomy, risk management, and legal accountability.
Debates surrounding athlete safety were illustrated by the case of Lindsey Vonn. Prior to the Winter Olympics, Vonn had sustained a serious anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury but nevertheless chose to compete. During the women’s downhill event she suffered a severe crash which resulted in further injuries and forced her withdrawal from the competition. The incident generated debate regarding whether athletes should be permitted to compete while recovering from serious injuries. The International Ski and Snowboard Federation believed that the decision to carry on despite injury has to be made by the individual athlete. President Johan Eliasch said “she certainly knows her injuries on her body better than anybody else.” Her injury had very little impact on safety protocols mainly since it was viewed as an ‘athlete risk’ rather than a flaw by the IOC.
Sports in the Winter Olympic present inherent physical risks that necessitate a careful balance between athlete autonomy and institutional responsibility. While governing bodies and insurers implement extensive safety protocols and risk-management measures, liability ultimately hinges on whether harm arises from unavoidable sport risks or from negligence. Cases such as Lindsey Vonn’s highlight the tensions between personal choice, competitive ambition, and legal accountability, underscoring the importance of clear protocols, robust oversight, and comprehensive insurance frameworks to protect both athletes and sporting organisations.
Given these risks, liability for injuries is shared and depends on the source of harm. Injuries arising from inherent risks of the sport are generally borne by the athlete, reflecting the acceptance of known dangers inherent to high-performance winter sports. Conversely, injuries resulting from organizational negligence, including inadequate safety protocols, equipment failures, or poorly managed venues, may expose the IOC, Organizing Committees, or IFs to legal responsibility.
Pursuant to Code 5.4 of the Olympic Charter, event insurance covering death or serious injury is mandatory for all athletes, illustrating the IOC’s commitment to risk mitigation and athlete protection. Ensuring adequate coverage for a global sporting event presents significant operational challenges. Allianz, as the official Games insurer, manages claims ranging from routine incidents to severe contingencies, including weather-related disruptions. To improve safety, Allianz has also partnered with the German Bobsleigh and Luge Association to enhance safety standards, including the “Safety Sled,” which allows pre-race assessment of ice and track conditions. While these measures mitigate liability, ultimate responsibility depends on whether protocols were followed and whether harm arose from inherent sport risks or from negligent acts by governing bodies, organizers, or support staff. This framework illustrates the interplay between athlete autonomy, risk management, and legal accountability.
Debates surrounding athlete safety were illustrated by the case of Lindsey Vonn. Prior to the Winter Olympics, Vonn had sustained a serious anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury but nevertheless chose to compete. During the women’s downhill event she suffered a severe crash which resulted in further injuries and forced her withdrawal from the competition. The incident generated debate regarding whether athletes should be permitted to compete while recovering from serious injuries. The International Ski and Snowboard Federation believed that the decision to carry on despite injury has to be made by the individual athlete. President Johan Eliasch said “she certainly knows her injuries on her body better than anybody else.” Her injury had very little impact on safety protocols mainly since it was viewed as an ‘athlete risk’ rather than a flaw by the IOC.
Sports in the Winter Olympic present inherent physical risks that necessitate a careful balance between athlete autonomy and institutional responsibility. While governing bodies and insurers implement extensive safety protocols and risk-management measures, liability ultimately hinges on whether harm arises from unavoidable sport risks or from negligence. Cases such as Lindsey Vonn’s highlight the tensions between personal choice, competitive ambition, and legal accountability, underscoring the importance of clear protocols, robust oversight, and comprehensive insurance frameworks to protect both athletes and sporting organisations.
4. Olympism: Integrity and Gender Equality
The protection of sporting integrity is essential to the effective administration of the Olympic Games. Promoting ethics through robust governance, ensuring consistent implementation of rules across sport organisations, and safeguarding clean athletes and competitions through rigorous regulatory processes have long been central priorities of the IOC.[1] Integrity risks typically arise in relation to doping, corruption, match manipulation, and other forms of unethical conduct, each of which has the potential to diminish public confidence in the Olympic Movement and threaten the legitimacy of sport.
Doping
The IOC has established a zero-tolerance policy to combat cheating and hold accountable anyone responsible for using or providing doping products. Since March 2016, alleged anti-doping rule violations at the Olympic Games have been adjudicated by an independent CAS Anti-Doping Division, which replaced the IOC Disciplinary Commission. The IOC’s anti-doping framework includes targeted and risk-based testing programmes, co-ordinated testing strategies with IFs and National Anti-Doping Organisations, and compliance monitoring across participating delegations. These measures are designed to safeguard fair competition and uphold public confidence in the integrity and legitimacy of Olympic results.
Enforcement of anti-doping rules must adhere to the principles of procedural fairness, which require decision-makers exercising regulatory or disciplinary powers to follow fair procedures. As recognised in public law, the requirements of procedural fairness “are not engraved on tablets of stone” rather, their content is context dependent. Core principles include the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing.
The operation of such procedural safeguards can be illustrated by the case of Hannah Auchentaller. On 2 February 2026, the Italian National Anti-Doping Tribunal (‘NADT’) imposed a provisional suspension after the athlete tested positive for the prohibited substance, Letrozole in January 2026. Auchentaller applied to the CAS Ad Hoc Division to have the suspension lifted to compete at the 2026 Winter Olympics. The CAS panel accepted that it had prima facie jurisdiction, given that the provisional suspension had been imposed shortly before the commencement of the Olympic Games. In her appeal, she argued that the positive result was likely caused by inadvertent contamination, explaining that her mother was undergoing treatment with Letrozole for breast cancer and that the substance may have been transferred through a household utensil used the day prior to the test. Auchentaller was subsequently allowed to compete in the Games with WADA stating “contamination is a plausible explanation and the substance would not have any performance benefit” at the Games.
Enforcement of anti-doping rules must adhere to the principles of procedural fairness, which require decision-makers exercising regulatory or disciplinary powers to follow fair procedures. As recognised in public law, the requirements of procedural fairness “are not engraved on tablets of stone” rather, their content is context dependent. Core principles include the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing.
The operation of such procedural safeguards can be illustrated by the case of Hannah Auchentaller. On 2 February 2026, the Italian National Anti-Doping Tribunal (‘NADT’) imposed a provisional suspension after the athlete tested positive for the prohibited substance, Letrozole in January 2026. Auchentaller applied to the CAS Ad Hoc Division to have the suspension lifted to compete at the 2026 Winter Olympics. The CAS panel accepted that it had prima facie jurisdiction, given that the provisional suspension had been imposed shortly before the commencement of the Olympic Games. In her appeal, she argued that the positive result was likely caused by inadvertent contamination, explaining that her mother was undergoing treatment with Letrozole for breast cancer and that the substance may have been transferred through a household utensil used the day prior to the test. Auchentaller was subsequently allowed to compete in the Games with WADA stating “contamination is a plausible explanation and the substance would not have any performance benefit” at the Games.
The ‘Cheating’ Controversy
Integrity concerns may also arise from conduct that undermines the spirit of sport. For example, controversy arose during a curling match between Canada and Sweden when Canadian curler, Marc Kennedy, was accused by the Swedish team of making a prohibited double contact with the curling stone. The incident attracted widespread attention beyond the curling community due to a viral video in which Kennedy directed offensive language at the Swedish player, Eriksson. The controversy was heightened by Canada’s position as a leading curling nation and by the perception that its sporting integrity was being publicly challenged on the global Olympic stage, which emphasises values such as respect and friendship.
The World Curling Federation (‘WCF’) responded by issuing only a verbal warning to Kennedy concerning his inappropriate language. No formal sanction or cheating charge was pursued, although the Federation stated that “further inappropriate behaviour… would result in additional sanctions,” including possible suspension.
The WCF’s decision to impose a verbal warning, rather than a formal sanction, illustrates the boundaries of authority at the Olympic Games. The IOC delegates sport-specific disciplinary matters to the relevant IF, and in curling, this authority resides with the WCF, which is responsible for enforcing rules, investigating alleged violations, and determining appropriate sanctions during Olympic competitions. The Kennedy incident demonstrates how IF discretion, while operating within the IOC framework, can significantly shape public perceptions of integrity and the enforcement of the spirit of the Games.
The World Curling Federation (‘WCF’) responded by issuing only a verbal warning to Kennedy concerning his inappropriate language. No formal sanction or cheating charge was pursued, although the Federation stated that “further inappropriate behaviour… would result in additional sanctions,” including possible suspension.
The WCF’s decision to impose a verbal warning, rather than a formal sanction, illustrates the boundaries of authority at the Olympic Games. The IOC delegates sport-specific disciplinary matters to the relevant IF, and in curling, this authority resides with the WCF, which is responsible for enforcing rules, investigating alleged violations, and determining appropriate sanctions during Olympic competitions. The Kennedy incident demonstrates how IF discretion, while operating within the IOC framework, can significantly shape public perceptions of integrity and the enforcement of the spirit of the Games.
Gender Equality Off the Ice
Closing the gender gap on and off the field of play is a top priority for the Olympic Movement. The 2026 Winter Olympics marked a historic milestone in gender representation, featuring the largest female participation in Winter Olympic history, reflecting the IOC’s ongoing commitment to promoting gender equality.
Notably, the US women athletes secured six gold medals and 17 medals overall, surpassing the US men’s tally of four golds and 12 medals, highlighting the growing prominence and impact of women’s participation in elite sport. However, these advances were overshadowed by the conduct of the US men’s ice hockey team following their gold medal victory over Canada. The USA men’s and women’s ice hockey teams won gold. During a public appearance, players laughed in response to comments by Donald Trump regarding a White House invitation for the women’s team, reinforcing entrenched gender stereotypes. The president ‘jokingly’ stated “I do believe I probably would be impeached” if he didn’t invite the women’s team.
While the Olympic Charter explicitly obliges the IOC and athletes to uphold values of respect and equality, it is questionable whether the men’s team’s celebration were in line with these values. Neither the IOC nor the relevant U.S. governing body imposed formal disciplinary measures. Although not a direct violation of explicit rules, the incident underscores the reputational and social risks associated with conduct that undermines the Olympic Movement’s commitment to gender equality, and illustrates the ongoing need to integrate ethical and equality considerations into governance and disciplinary frameworks.
Notably, the US women athletes secured six gold medals and 17 medals overall, surpassing the US men’s tally of four golds and 12 medals, highlighting the growing prominence and impact of women’s participation in elite sport. However, these advances were overshadowed by the conduct of the US men’s ice hockey team following their gold medal victory over Canada. The USA men’s and women’s ice hockey teams won gold. During a public appearance, players laughed in response to comments by Donald Trump regarding a White House invitation for the women’s team, reinforcing entrenched gender stereotypes. The president ‘jokingly’ stated “I do believe I probably would be impeached” if he didn’t invite the women’s team.
While the Olympic Charter explicitly obliges the IOC and athletes to uphold values of respect and equality, it is questionable whether the men’s team’s celebration were in line with these values. Neither the IOC nor the relevant U.S. governing body imposed formal disciplinary measures. Although not a direct violation of explicit rules, the incident underscores the reputational and social risks associated with conduct that undermines the Olympic Movement’s commitment to gender equality, and illustrates the ongoing need to integrate ethical and equality considerations into governance and disciplinary frameworks.
Conclusion
As the Winter Olympics has now come to an end, the commercial and regulatory lens of the games heightened. The push for eligibility, the governance structures and other regulatory obligations have contributed enormously to the running of the games. The delivery of the games did not solely depend on the sporting excellence of the athletes but, also required transparency and clear structures from the relevant governing bodies so that this year’s games may ultimately be regarded as a success in sporting history and create a lasting legacy.
The environmental impact of global warming was not lost at these Olympics. Artificial snow was used in several venues with environmentalists quite rightly raising the issue of the continuing damage to the planet and the Games not helping the cause. With an ever-increasing threat to winter sports, the IOC and various governing bodies will have to prioritise the necessity that sports and in particular the Winter Olympics contribute to the saving of our natural environment and planet.
The environmental impact of global warming was not lost at these Olympics. Artificial snow was used in several venues with environmentalists quite rightly raising the issue of the continuing damage to the planet and the Games not helping the cause. With an ever-increasing threat to winter sports, the IOC and various governing bodies will have to prioritise the necessity that sports and in particular the Winter Olympics contribute to the saving of our natural environment and planet.