Feature: Sport and Human Rights
No.48
September 2006
 
  print / save view 

Paths for Women and Men Towards Human Rights in Sport: The Same, Delayed or Divergent?
Carole Oglesby
 

Introduction
In 1975, the picture in regard to sports rights and equity for women in the USA seemed to be altering for the better. This was the year our federal education program equity steps began to be enacted. Three years earlier, when the landmark Title IX law was actually passed, I had been named to the Executive Board of the group that oversaw the World University Games program in the United States. In the summer of 1975, I attended the World University Games event (a track meet) in Rome, Italy. In the hustle and bustle accompanying the pre-event preparation of a national team for an international event, by default I was assigned to be the “USA Representative to the General Assembly” (governing body of World University Games, FISU). I don’t remember any other women being there in a room of about 100 other country representatives.
Having been a national level participant in softball and leader in national college level sports in the USA, I was keenly aware of the frequent (virtually universal) phenomenon of women’s sport being overseen by men. It seemed to me, rooted as I was in a context of civil rights advocacy for women in sport, that FISU policy and practice was grossly unfair towards women, cutting itself off from the resources of highly qualified women in roles of coach, athletic trainer, team doctor, chef de mission, national representative, game official and others. Thus, although I was quite sure my male colleagues expected me to go to the General Assembly and sit quietly, I was unable to allow this opportunity pass. As the meeting drew to a close, President Primo Nebiolo scanned the Assembly with a final call for “any further business” and I raised my hand. I walked to the microphone and delivered a two-minute pitch for increasing the role of women in the FISU movement. The audience sat in stunned silence and President Nebiolo was livid. As I sat down, he made a comment in Italian to the group (I was told later it was simply “unflattering to women”) and sadly he took out his fury on my male compatriots whom he accused of high stupidity for allowing such a woman in a public role.
It was a classic vignette of the times 30 years ago, but it does illustrate a crucial observation in regard to “human rights.” I felt the FISU movement was “flawed” in that many barriers blocked women from leadership and the result was injustice. Dr. Nebiolo, the Founder of FISU (now deceased) felt I had violated his human rights in that I had introduced “politics” into the world he had created; a world he thought should be free of the “profane political issues” that divide people. How could the two of us view our human rights so differently? While the “ideal,” or the theory, of certain “inalienable human rights” is a universal (etic phenomenon in linguistics), the concrete enactment of our rights is highly time and culture bound (emic). Only in the context of international treaty bodies creating instruments, then ratified by hundreds of countries with built-in self and other monitoring and reporting systems, do we actually begin to see “universal” human rights emerge. The history of the past six decades in the United Nations’ (UN) system gives evidence of a continual expansion, differentiation and increasing specificity of attention to the role of physical recreation and leisure in human development as a human right. Consistently, the benefits to be derived from such lifespan physical activity were initially conceived to be neither necessary nor valuable for women, young girls, older women, or those with disabilities.
Within the United Nations system, Schuler (1995) notes a strong international consensus has evolved and expanded to cover a “growing field of vital concerns and threats to human dignity” (p.2). With the texts and activities advanced through the UN Year of Sport and Physical Education in 2005 and the Secretary General’s Task Force on Sport for Development and Peace, sport can be said to be a new focal human right. The question remains - in what sense is access to sport/physical recreation and its benefits universal and in what sense is it “privileged?”
The dynamic character of human rights concepts must be recognized based on a combination of factors such as evolving definitions of human rights, emerging forms of human relationships, new political forces and technological changes (Schuler, 1995). Feminist scholars and activists (men and women alike) have coined phrases such as “engendering human rights” in order to raise awareness and stimulate action towards three goals:
  1. expand definitions of human rights to include previously neglected groups, especially women;
  2. expand the scope of state responsibility for achieving these rights;
  3. expanding the effectiveness of state and international systems to enforce the enabling of their rights (Schuler, 1995).
While these words were intended to describe the general context of women’s rights as human rights, there are innumerable examples of their exemplification in the sport area.
The ensuing text explores three themes: (a) a brief description of the basis of “play/sport as a human right” within UN treaties and conventions; (b) the Olympic Movement as an NGO (non-governmental organization) actor within human rights systems; and (c) evidence suggesting “sport as a universal human right” is part illusion for women.

Play/Sport as a Basic Human Right
The trajectory of expansion and elaboration of human rights in sport/physical activity is continual as the various task forces and committees of the UN system have generally met annually in attempts to perfect attainment of the broad goals of the treaties and conventions. Focal points along the path can be identified from 1948 (when the process began) to the 1978/79 conventions, to the decade of special action on women’s issues 1995-2005 and the 2005/06 period in which the spotlight falls dramatically upon sport.
In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the UN General Assembly, setting out a framework of rights and duties in the broadest dimensions. Article 1 characterizes all individuals as born free and equal in dignity and rights. The second article describes the entitlements holding without discrimination of many types, including sex. Article 24 calls for the right to rest and leisure to all, while Article 27 enumerates the right to participate in the cultural life of the community (Koenig, 2000).
Three documents prepared in 1978/79 served to particularize the rights accruing from those identified previously as universal. UN bodies issued “The Convention of the Rights of the Child” and “The Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women” (CEDAW) (Koenig, 2000). Children (ostensibly boys and girls alike), were to be granted an education “to prepare for an active adult life…” (p. 70). Children were also granted access to leisure, recreation and cultural activities (Koenig, 2000).
Within the CEDAW framework, two statutes directly mention physical activity and one of the more general statues can be seen as relevant to the discussion. Part III, Article 10 guarantees education equality between men and women including the same opportunities to participate actively in sports and physical education (United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women, 2006). Article 13 identifies the right to participate in recreational activities, sports and all aspects of cultural life. Article 10 contains language calling for the elimination of stereotypical roles of men and women at all levels and in all forms of education. Denial of women’s access to sport/physical activity has been related to stereotypical views of the needs and interests of men and women (International Working Group on Women in Sport, n.d.).
The 1978 Charter on Physical Education and Sport came from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The framers enshrined the notion that the exercise of human rights is predicated on the freedom to develop and preserve one’s physical, intellectual and moral powers and that access to physical education and sport should be guaranteed for all (UNESCO, 1978).
In the period 1995-2005, documents emanating from the 4th World Conference on Women held in Beijing (referred to as the Platform for Action or PFA) and the Beijing+5 Outcomes Document took center stage. As Koenig (2000) states, “The Beijing Platform for Action, prepared and approved by delegates of all governments present at the Conference, is the most complete document produced by the UN relating to women’s rights” (p. 9). Although direct and indirect references to sport/physical activity benefits are scattered throughout the 12 areas of concern addressed in the Platform for Action and Beijing+5 Outcomes, in the interest of brevity, I only mention the three direct application statements in the PFA:
  1. B4, 83 m Education and training of women – Provide accessible recreation and sports facilities…for girls and women of all ages, support the advancement of women in all areas of athletics and physical activity including coaching, training and administration;
  2. C2, 107 f Health – create and support programs in education, workplace and community to make opportunities to participate in sport, physical activity and recreation on the same basis as available for men and boys;
  3. Girlchild L4, 280 d – Promote the full and equal participation of girls in extra curricular activities such as sports, drama and cultural activities.
By 2004, the UN Inter-agency Task Force on Sport for Development and Peace had been created and illustrated the mainstreaming of girls and women’s concerns in a general initiative. A key concern of the Task Force has been the facilitation of the Millennium Development Goals 11 (MDG) of the UN. All of the MDGs impact girls and women and two (maternal health and the empowerment of women) address concerns directly. Sport and physical activity will increasingly be utilized as vehicles for the attainment of MDGs in diverse ways including the following: incorporation of sport in comprehensive development planning; establishment of partnerships within the UN, IOC, sport sector, NGOs and the corporate world; encouragement of the media to actively promote sport for development (UNICEF, n.d.).

The Olympic Movement as an NGO Actor
The identification of sport as an important tool in the civil society search for development and peace must not be seen as a cosmic accident. Sport scholars have, for decades, been producing an important body of evidence for the benefits of life-long participation in sport/physical activity. Many have, individually and collectively, taken “evidence-based advocacy” to the keepers of the Olympic flame as well as policy makers in governments around the world (Oglesby, 2002). The IOC describes itself now as an international NGO in a time when the non-governmental and corporate sectors have become crucial in the effort for an equitable and peaceful world (Bonbright, 2004; Karajkov, 2006).
The IOC posits itself as a “family”, encompassing in its two arms virtually the family of (hu)man. The more familiar arm, the Olympic Games organizational structures, includes the IOC, the International Federations, the National Olympic Committees, the Organizing Committees of each game manifestation, athlete coaches, judges, associations and clubs out of which athletes develop (International Olympic Committee, n.d.). The other arm of the Olympic Movement is Olympism; a less formal use of the various structures to promulgate an overarching philosophy of sport for all. The texts regarding Olympism are perhaps familiar to us: “Olympism is a philosophy of life exalting and combining in a balance whole the qualities of body, mind and will; Olympism places sport at the service of harmonious development including knowledge, competitive spirit, excellence, fair play” (International Olympic Committee, 2004). As we have seen, the admonition of Olympism that the practice of sport is a human right to which all must have the possibility of access, is not new. What is relatively new, however, is the intentional collaboration of the Olympic Movement with the UN, UNESCO and WHO to bring sport to the service of real, concrete development through sport as a tool for local, community, economic development projects, HIV/AIDS education, humanitarian assistance and more (International Olympic Committee, 2006).
The 2004, 10th World Sport for All Congress, an activity of the Sport for All Commission of the IOC, concluded with a declaration enumerating the most important considerations when viewing the benefits of sport for all. These were categorized in areas of health, social and economic benefits and touched on matters such as increased sense of well-being and identity; social skill development; social cohesion; and preventive protection for a variety of diseases of chronic inactivity with a resultant benefit of better quality of life and reduced societal health care costs.
Perhaps Secretary General Kofi Annan expressed the recognition of the power of sport as a development tool best:
“Beyond physical well-being, sport can play an important role for a safer, more prosperous and peaceful society, through its educational values and worldwide network…sport can help bridge cultural and ethnic divides, create jobs and businesses, promote tolerance and non-discrimination, reinforce social integration and advocate healthy lifestyles” (International Olympic Committee, 2006).

In a world where sport is tasked to accomplish all of that, access to its benefits must absolutely be a full and complete right.

Sport for Women: A Universal Right or Illusion?
Before any human rights violation can be challenged and eradicated, it must be recognized. It is well beyond the scope of this paper to document the illusory aspects of a concept such as the universal right of girls and women to sport. This conscious-raising and documenting task has been carried out through the four world conferences on women and sport of The International Working Group (web site = www.iwg-gti.org/e/index.htm), actions of international organizations such as Women Sport International (web site = www.womensportinternational.org) and national organizations such as the Women’s Sports Foundation of the USA (web site = www.womenssportfoundation.org). The Brighten Declaration, serving as a veritable declaration of human rights for women in sport, has now been ratified by 280 organizations in over 100 countries. However, two prime examples of past, and continuing, human rights violations structurally affecting the universal right of girls and women to sport are (a) the low levels of women in sport leadership and (b) sexual harassment in sport.

Women in Leadership in the Olympic Movement
The IOC has accepted/recognized the rhetoric and data coming from its own Working Group on Women (now a Commission) and the aforementioned groups insisting that women’s sport experience is neither full nor complete if it ends at participant levels. Prior to the mid-1990s, it was the rare woman who was an IOC member (Princess Ann of Great Britain). To its credit, the IOC set goals for its constituent bodies in regard to women’s leadership participation. An extensive study by the Institute of Sport and Leisure Policy at Loughborough University, UK has produced an extensive data set of which the following table is the barest beginning.

Women in Sport Leadership – Olympic Movement
Dec. 2004

National Olympic Committees # %
More than 20% women on their Board 54 29.3%
Met the previous 10% target 125 67.9%
Have at least one woman on their Board 181 98.4%


International Federations # %
Have more than 20% women on their Board 10 29%
Have met the previous 10% target 19 54%
Have at least one woman on their Board 32 91%


NOC Continental Associations’ Board Membership
  Women Men % of Women
ANOC-General 1 25 3.8
ANOCA (Africa) 1 13 7.1
EOC (Europe) 2 14 12.5
OCA (Asia) 2 20 9.1
PASO (Pan Amer) 2 15 11.8
ONOC (Oceania) 1 9 10.0


A study of the barriers that account for such data (and reams of other data that have been compiled internationally and country by country) as well as of the suggested means of overcoming difficulties, form the way ahead. It is heartening to see small, but positive, steps and commitments being made to move more rapidly.

Violations through Sexual Harassment in Sport
Within the realm of sport, sexual harassment was seldom spoken of, and certainly never researched, until the past 15 years. Pioneers such as Brackenridge, Leahy, Kirby and Greaves, Fasting and Sundgot-Borgen have lead the way in shining a light on this topic of concern. Their research, only touched on in this paper, carefully documents that (a) sexual harassment in sport exists; (b) both women and men are harassed; (c) women are harassed significantly more often; and (d) harassers are most often (though not always) men. Data from studies in Canada, Australia, United States and Norway indicate between 22% and 45% of women sport participants experience sexual harassment.
The researchers are careful to point out potential flaws in their own research due to factors such as variation in definitional understanding of concepts, sampling problems, ethics and consent difficulties, underreporting/non responses and other factors. (Brackenridge, 2001; Fasting, Brackenridge, & Sundgot-Borgen, 2003). The purpose of noting these excerpts from major works (even with some flaws) is to indicate the importance of our commitment, within a human rights framework, to take note of the need to safeguard women and children through clearer definitions of harassment, abuse, appropriate and inappropriate behaviors within the sport context.
The paths for women and men towards human rights in sport have been presented here as the same when seen in broad, theoretical strokes, and delayed for women as we look at the timelines for the appearance of national/international level policy related to the rights of women. The divergences appear when we take the lens of the microscope to the level of on-the-ground programs. The creativity and persistence of sport scholars, activists, teachers, coaches and interested volunteers is challenged when they attempt to create action programs that overcome economic, tradition and culture barriers and attract girls and women to a sphere only recently opened to them.
But we are on the path.

References
Abaka, C. (1999). Framework for a human rights approach to women’s health: the work of the CEDAW Committee. Retrieved 10 September 2006 from www.un.org/womenwatch/DAW/CSW/rights.htm
Brachenridge, (2001). Spoilsports: Understanding and preventing sexual exploitation in sport. London: Rutledge.
Bonbright, D. (2004). A justice oriented global civic society intrastructure: Vision or Illusion. Civicus. Retrieved 19 September 2006 from www.civicus.org.
Fasting, I., Brackenridge, C., & Sundgot-Borgen, J. (2003). Experiences of sexual harassment and abuse among Norwegian elite female athletes and non-athletes. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 74, (1), 74-97.
International Olympic Committee. (n.d.). Olympic Movement. Retrieved 10 September 2006 from http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/movement/index_uk.asp.
International Olympic Committee. (2004). The Olympic Charter. Lausaunne, Switzerland: Author.
International Olympic Committee. (2006, January 24). News about development through sport. Retrieved from http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/missions/ humanitarian/full_story_uk.asp?id=1610.
International Working Group on Women and Sport. (n.d.). Brighton Declaration. Retrieved 10 September 2006 from www.iwg-gti.org Brighton Declaration.
Karajkov, R. (2006). NGO’s: Who else will do the work. Retrieved 10 September 2006 from www.worldpress.org/europe/2415.cfm.
Koenig, S. (2000). A human rights resource packet, New York, NY: Peoples Decade for Human Rights Education.
Oglesby, C. (2002). Evidence-based advocacy and women in sport/physical activity. Paper delivered at Div. 47 award lecture, Annual Convention of America Psychological Association.
UNESCO. (1978). International charter of physical education and sport. Paris, France: Author.
UNICEF. (n.d.). UNICEF. Girls' education campaigns. Retrieved 9 September 2006 from http://www.unicef.org/girlseducation/campaign_sport_education_girls.html.
United Nations (2004). Sport for development and peace: towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Inter-agency Task Force on Sport for Development and Peace.
United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women. (2006). Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. Retrieved 8 September 2006 from http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/.

Contact:
Dr. Carole Oglesby
WomenSport International (WSI)
California State University
USA
carole.oglesby@csun.edu



http://www.icsspe.org/portal/index.php?w=1&z=5