Discussions on restricting participation in sports on public health and individual well-being grounds are not new to the sporting context. Over the past decade, such restrictions have ranged from containing infectious diseases to excluding athletes with noncommunicable diseases. This article addresses the question of whether and to what extent it is ethically and legally defensible for sport bodies and governments to impose such limitations through the lens of human rights, a crucial framework in public health ethics. In doing so, an analysis of normative instruments was performed to understand the articulation of sports-related rights in both sport-specific and non-sport-specific international rights declarations. The analysis yielded four primary observations: (1) an inconsistent depiction of sports as a right; (2) a broad and ambiguous definition of sports solely linked to positive values; (3) an absent differentiation between levels of participation; and (4) variations in the origin, scope, and binding nature of instruments. Such imprecision hinders the effective implementation and comprehension of the rights articulated in and the values upheld within these instruments and creates a fragmented legal landscape. Our work contends that the recognition of rights in relation to sports is fundamentally unrelated to debates concerning eligibility and public health in organized sports at all levels. The most comprehensive rights to participate in sports are stated at the most basic level of participation, specifically granting individuals the right to take part in recreational and leisure pursuits. Greater conceptual clarity is needed to resolve ambiguities and strengthen protections for individuals across all levels of sport.
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号