Paris Games: Between Inclusion and Secularism | Paris 2024 Olympic Games

One of the most debated topics in the international sports arena is how much freedom of expression athletes should have. Mbappé’s recent statements calling for responsible voting in the next French legislative elections are one of several examples that can be cited in this regard. In general, the difficulty is to reconcile the individual rights of athletes with the autonomy of federations to regulate competitions and make them as inclusive as possible, which, according to their interpretation, requires abandoning the externalization of different ideologies in favor of embracing only the idea of ​​Olympism, which is much more ecumenical and inclusive because it is based on sporting values. According to the classic justification, this would be the only way to overcome the resentments and offenses that could arise if each athlete or federation expressed their own different values ​​or beliefs. The universality of the sport would then be at risk. However, this policy of neutrality has evolved, and today the IOC is no longer so resolute in opposing forms of expression of athletes’ freedoms, which include the use of religious symbols. Not for nothing did it include Rule 40 in what could be considered the constitutional charter of the Olympic Movement, which now states that “all participants, officials and other team personnel at the Games will enjoy freedom of expression, while respecting the Olympic values ​​and the fundamental principles of Olympism.”

When, a few days before the start of the Paris Olympic Games, it seemed that the problem of recognizing the individual rights of athletes in Olympic competitions had been solved, a third player entered the scene, once again questioning the fundamental right of athletes to freedom of religion. Indeed, “in order to apply the constitutional principle of secularism, members of French sports teams cannot express their opinions and religious beliefs. Therefore, the burqa (or any other accessory or clothing demonstrating religious affiliation) cannot be worn to represent France at a national or international sports event.” With these words, on the public television channel France 3, Amélie Oudéa-Castera, the French Minister of Sports, expected the introduction of absolute neutrality in the French Olympic delegation, and also clarified that there will be no place for any religious proselytism.

As for the members of the other national delegations, for obvious reasons no France has the legitimacy to impose such restrictions on them, and even less are they bound by a regime of strict secularism such as the one they seek to establish. We would thus find ourselves facing a Games in which we could assess a two-speed right to religious freedom, more extensive for non-French athletes, which would cause comparative discontent with unprecedented precedents in competitions of such characteristics.

Will France be able to guarantee the right of athletes to express their religious conscience? Perhaps the lights we are looking for can be found in the IOC regulations. In this light, the firm commitment of the authoritative (political) voices of French sport to religious symbols calls into question the foundations of modern Olympism. If we remember that these include values ​​such as respect, dignity of the individual and commitment to human rights, we can agree that the French sporting guidelines are heading down a more than questionable path. Sport, as it has advanced in recent decades, advocates the search for a balance between diversity and inclusion, and in this sense it should not serve exclusion, but integration, especially since this is where the controversy arises. The Olympic Games. The best argument we can offer as proof is the new Olympic motto. To the classic Altius, Citius, Fortius, Communiter has been added in recent years. A conceptual expansion that does not seek, but rather gives the Olympic world a more favourable, more just and more diverse character, in which, as we understand, there should be no suppression of religious symbols.

Rafael Valencia Candalija is a professor of canon law at the University of Seville.

José Luis Pérez Triviño is Professor of Philosophy of Law at the Pompeu Fabra University (Barcelona).

You can follow EL PAÍS Deportes on Facebook And Xor register here to receive Daily Newsletter of the Paris Olympic Games.