The use of the Olympic Stadium for the European Athletics Championships in summer was praised by many as sustainable. But the term is used incorrectly, says Sylvia Schenk.
Photo: imago/MIS
In late summer, many athletes, officials and politicians raved about the European Championships in Munich. Since then they have been dreaming of a new German Olympic bid. Allegedly, Munich would have shown great sustainability by recycling the old Olympic sports facilities from 1972. This week you spoke to the Bundestag sports committee about the difference between sustainability and heritage, which is often not recognized in Germany. What do you mean exactly?
In addition to economics, sustainability includes ecology and social aspects, including human rights. Concrete like in the Olympic Village in Munich is not ecologically sustainable. Eleven participants from Israel who were murdered were in human rights terms of the GAU, i.e. not sustainable or acceptable at all. Women could only take part in eight out of 22 sports and were totally underrepresented and discriminated against. I could continue this. But one thing is clear: Munich 1972 cannot be classified as »sustainable«. Nevertheless, there was a positive heritage with the infrastructure in Munich such as the subway, the Olympic Park, the good subsequent use of the village and all the positive impulses in sports. Internationally, a clear distinction is made between sustainability and heritage. This should at least be known to the sports officials and taken into account in official statements by the DOSB.
In which of the three sustainability fields you outlined does Germany have the most catching up to do?
With a comprehensive understanding of sustainability, i.e. above all the social dimension. Many see sustainability as synonymous with environmental protection. This has also been shown in previous Olympic applications, where it was said: »We are sustainable because we protect the environment.« But that is not enough. The international debate on this, including in sport, has made significant progress, which many in Germany have not yet understood.
You said anyway that the DOSB had to position itself completely differently internationally.
Yes, for years he hardly bothered about international sports politics. There is a lot of catching up to do there.
They generally criticize too much internal perspective: In Germany, major events are always viewed from the perspective of what they could bring to us. The focus could also be on what we have to offer international sport. How could Germany contribute to positive change?
The internal perspective is primarily taken by the sports organizations. The DOSB and its member organizations usually ask what the benefits are for them and for the sport, and less what it benefits all of Germany and the Olympic movement when games take place in our country. If you see international sporting events in general as an important contribution to international understanding and as a possible force for positive change – and this is the opinion of large human rights organizations – then German sport must also contribute to developing these positive opportunities in politically difficult times. There is no magic formula. However, not taking part in the debate at all, instead only asking about your own benefit, does not do justice to the role of German sport and its own claims.
As can be seen from the example of the 2032 Summer Games in Brisbane, the IOC has introduced a new application process. Suddenly the games were taken, even before the German association had decided whether it wanted to apply with the Rhine-Ruhr region at all. What was missed here?
The DOSB has not really noticed the debate and the gradual adoption of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights by the IOC since 2017. Only now has he begun to concern himself with the guiding principles and to make them the basis of his own work. What had already happened in Australia, especially with the comprehensive concept for the Commonwealth Games 2018 in Brisbane, was largely unknown here. That’s why the DOSB was so surprised when the Olympic and Paralympic Games were awarded to Brisbane.
Once again, the German association wants to debate concepts with citizens before submitting another application – at the earliest for the 2034 Winter Games or the 2036 Summer Games. You, on the other hand, demand that he should also speak to the IOC at the same time. Isn’t there a risk of public criticism that the result of the discussions is already certain?
The »application« in the traditional sense with a declaration of intent, submission of the documents and then the examination and award by the IOC no longer exists. Instead, the IOC is already in initial talks with possible applicants for 2036. Possibilities are jointly explored and design alternatives discussed. It’s a dialogue process. When and how then what kind of participation of the citizens makes sense – nationwide or only in a federal state, a city, a region – still has to be discussed. The plans are developed together with the IOC, which requires a completely different national approach than before.
The IOC apparently no longer wants to be accused of only making demands. For a number of years, potential applicants have been supported early on in planning and in fulfilling award criteria such as those of the UN Guiding Principles. So also on the subject of human rights. In the end, will decisions no longer be based on the current situation, but only on the best concepts of how organizers want to tackle the topic?
Yes, the current situation also plays a role. The human rights risks for a major sporting event can only be assessed and preventive measures, i.e. a human rights concept, developed from the concrete situation in a country. The world football association Fifa requires an independent human rights assessment for the candidate country when applying for a World Cup, obtains another independent expert opinion and then, based on this, demands a detailed human rights concept for implementation.
Will the IOC and Fifa then also monitor compliance with these concepts?
The control consists of different elements. The IOC and Fifa cannot see what is happening everywhere themselves. You must therefore ensure that national, regional and international stakeholders are involved from the very beginning, eg trade unions for working conditions, child protection organizations for children’s rights. Civil society is closely involved in many issues, knows the problems on the ground and can participate in corrective measures. The IOC and Fifa must ensure coordination, take up information and eliminate any irregularities that have been identified. But important information comes from many local experts and organizations for those affected.
Before the World Cup in Qatar, independent complaints bodies are now also required.
Yes, there must be effective complaints mechanisms where individuals – regardless of whether they are affected themselves or just observers of possible violations of the law – can safely point out violations. The inquiries must then be processed professionally and then remedial action taken and, if necessary, compensated. The comprehensive control then takes place on the basis of the public reporting that belongs to such a concept. That was the description of a highly complex process in a nutshell!
It all sounds nice, but especially in 2022 the IOC (because of the Winter Games in Beijing) and Fifa (Men’s World Cup in Qatar) are rightly criticized for earlier awards to hosts with a poor human rights record. To what extent will the organizers already offer other games and world championships in the coming years?
It’s not just about the actual event. Human rights concepts cover the entire life cycle of an event, from the announcement to the application process, the preparation, the event itself to the execution and the final report. And a lot has changed there. The first event set in motion from the start will be the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Canada and Mexico. All events up to that point are still “interim solutions” because the UN Guiding Principles were only applied for the first time after they had been awarded, in the middle of the preparatory process. Incidentally, this is a global learning process, nobody has ready-made solutions for all questions that arise.
You are in favor of a worldwide distribution of major events, but then Germany shouldn’t bang on other hosts, and we wouldn’t set a good example there? Does that mean that the criticism of Beijing and Qatar is exaggerated?
That’s not how I phrased it. But anyone who, like a member of the sports committee, calls for distribution across all continents must see that the human rights situation in the majority of countries is far worse than in our country. Major sporting events can trigger change if approached systematically. But then you have to acknowledge progress, even if not everything corresponds to our ideas. In the case of Qatar, there is a lack of a differentiated view in some discussions, which is counterproductive. In doing so, we are not strengthening the reform forces in the country, we are stabbing them in the back. Due to the size of the country, the form of government and the recently increased repression, China cannot be compared to Qatar. Rather little can be achieved there with a simple concept of human rights. The question is whether major sporting events should therefore no longer take place there. Does this make sense? Or is the Olympic movement even risking a split? We should not underestimate China’s influence. I don’t have the one solution, but these questions must be dealt with in depth if the Olympic Movement, the IOC and thus also the DOSB want to become fit for the future.
Even in Germany, not everything runs smoothly. You recently criticized the preparations for the 2024 European Football Championship in relation to the handling of the human rights issue. What went wrong?
There were problems in the interaction of the various participants – Uefa, DFB, federal government, states, cities – to agree on a centrally designed approach to human rights. There has been significant progress in the last two weeks. I’m now confident that we can do it in one final sprint.
