London 2012 and the Impact of the UK's Olympic and Paralympic Legislation: Protecting Commerce or Preserving Culture?
| Date | 01 May 2011 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2011.00853.x |
| Author | Guy Osborn,Mark James |
| Published date | 01 May 2011 |
LEGISLATION
London 2012 and the Impact of the UK’s Olympic and
Paralympic Legislation: Protecting Commerce or
Preserving Culture?
Mark James and Guy Osborn
n
The general commercial rights associated with the Olympic Movement are protected in the UK
by the OlympicSymbols etc (Protection) Act1995. In addition, the UKGovernment, in response
to a requirement of the HostCity Co ntractwith the International Olympic Committee, created
the London Olympic AssociationRight under section 33 and Schedule 4 of the London Olym-
pic and ParalympicGames Act 2006. These provisions enable the London Organising Commit-
tee of the Olympic Games toexploit, to the fullest extent, the commercial rights associated with
the London OlympicGames. This article questions whetherthe IOC’srequirement for legislative
protection and state enforcement of the commercial rights are compatible with the Fundamental
Principles of Olympism as de¢ned in the OlympicCharter, and its stated aim of being a celebra-
tion of sporting endeavour, culture and education.
INTRODUCTION
The Olympic Games is a sporting and cultural event unparalleled in terms of its
global reach, outstripping even the FIFA World Cup Finals tournament in terms
of popularity.
1
As such, it is subject to the same commercial forces that attach to all
mega-events and can be seen as part of a growing commercialisation of sport that
is linked to the developmentof technologies that have facilitated the globalisation
of the consumption of sport.
2
However,this i ncreased commercialisation of sport
and sporting events has not been without its critics; the commercial imperatives
associated with staging the most popular sporting events often create di⁄culties
in reconciling the drift towards abusiness -oriented mindset with the history and
ethosofthesportitself,
3
or where the Olympic Games is concerned, with the
n
Reader in Lawat Salford Law Schoola ndProfessor of Law at the Universityof Westminster.
1Totalaggregate audiences are said to reach upto 4.7 billion viewers and the Games arethe world’s
largest peacetime event,see A. Miah and B.Garcia,‘The Olympic Games:Imagining a New Media
Legacy’(2010) 15 British Academy Review 37. See also S. Essex and B. Chalkley,‘Olympic Games:
catalyst of urban change’(1998) 17 LeisureStudies 187, 187.
2As regards the Olympics, see for example K.Tooheyand A.Veal,TheOlympic Games:A SocialScience
Perspective (Oxford:CABI, 2007) especially chapter 11. See also the examples given in R. Stokvis,
‘Globalisation, Commercialisation and Individualisation:Con£icts and changes in elite athletics’
(2000) 3 Culture Sport Society 22, 24^26.On the Olympics speci¢cally,see A. Tomlinson,‘The com-
mercialisation of the Olympics: Cities, corporations and the Olympic commodity’ (2005) in
K. Young and K.Walmsley (eds), Global Olympics: Historical and Sociological Studies of the Modern
Games, (Oxford: Elsevier, 2005) 179^200.
3See C. Grattonand P.Taylor,Economics of Sportand Recreation(E & FN Spon: London, 2000) and also
T.Slack,‘Studying the Commercialisation of sport: the need for critical analysis’(1998) Sociology of
SportOnline at http://www.physed.otago.ac.nz/sosol/v1i1/v1i1a6.htm (last visited11February 2011).
r2011The Authors.The Modern Law Review r2011The ModernLaw Review Limited.
Published by BlackwellPublishing, 9600 Garsington Road,Oxford OX4 2DQ,UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
(2011) 74(3) 410^429
Fundamental Principles of Olympism.
4
As Toohey and Veal note:
The ‘spirit’ of Olympism is oste nsibly non-materialist: the all iance between
Olympism and commerce is therefore potentially a fragile one . . . Olympism
enshrines certain ideals which, as with a religion, its custodians are swornto uphold.
Many see commercialisation as undermining these ideals.
5
This di⁄culty is perhaps most marked with respect to the Olympic Games.The
Games are thepublic manifestation of Olympism, a notion de¢ned by the Inter-
national Olympic Committee (IOC) as being‘a philosophy of life, exalting and
combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind’.
6
The
increasinglegal and commercial relevanceof the OlympicGames, and their rami-
¢cations for the ethos and spirit of Olympism, and indeed sport more generally,
are the points of departure for this article.
Following the successful bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games in London, Parlia-
ment passed the London Olympic and Paralympic Games Act 2006 (LOPGA 2006)
to enable the e¡ective organisation of the Games and to provide further protection
for the iconography of the Olympic Movement.The protection of the words and
symbols most commonly associated with the Olympic Games in general, and the
London 2012 Games in particular, builds on those granted to the British Olympic
Association by the Olympic Symbols etc (Protection) Act 1995 (OSPA 1995). These
provisions will enable the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games
(LOCOG) to maximise the commercial exploitation of these words and symbols as
a central part of its sponsorship and merchandising strategies. Inherent in the expla-
nations for passing these two pieces of legislation is the apparent need to protect and
promote the sporting, cultural and educational values of the Olympic Movement
from unwanted commercialisation.
7
This tension between what are often seen as
being the competing interests of commerce and culture has been a central theme
for sport, especially football,
8
for a number of years.
In this article, the public justi¢cations for enacting some of the more contro-
versial parts of the 2006 Act will be examined in order to determine whether the
legislation does in fact protect these sporting, cultural and educational aims, or
whether they simply provide extensive statutory protection for the commercial
rights vested in the Olympic Movement and their exploitation by the IOC and
LOCOG. Speci¢cally, the law regulating the use of the Olympic Properties and
the provisions to prevent ‘ambush marketing’
9
around Olympic venues will be
4See further, IOC,The Olympic Charter (Lausanne, Switzerland:IOC, 2010) 11at http://www.olym
pic.org/Documents/Olympic%20Charter/Charter_en_2010.pdf (last visited 4 May 2010).
5Toohey and Veal,n 2 above 278^279.
6First Fundamental Principle of Olympism inThe OlympicCharter n4above.
7First Fundamental Principle of Olympism inThe Olympic Charter ibid. See also Department for
Culture, Media and Sport FOI Response ^ CMS case number 106119 at http://www.culture.
gov.uk/images/freedom_of_information/106119_Annex_A_.pdf (last visited 4 May 2010).
8On football and the arguments fromboth sides as regardsplayer movement,see P. Morris S.Mor-
rowand P.Spi nk,‘EC Lawand Professional Football:Bosman and its implications’(1996)59 Modern
Law Review 893 and more generally S. Green¢eld and G. Osborn, Regulating Football: Commodi¢ca-
tion, Consumptionand the Law (Pluto: London, 2001).
9Ambush marketing is the unauthorised association with an event byan advertiser with a view to
exploiting its goodwill for commercialpurposes. See further the discussion below.
Mark James and Guy Osborn
411
r2011The Authors.The Modern Law Review r2011The ModernLaw Review Limited.
(2 011) 74(3 ) 410 ^42 9
To continue reading
Request your trial