I. Introduction: COVID-19, fair play and the Olympic Games

COVID-19 has caused many sporting events to be canceled or postponed indefinitely. In particular, the biggest sporting event of 2020, the Tokyo Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games, were officially postponed until 23 July 2021. A total of 11,090 Olympic athletes from 204 countries and 4,400 Paralympic athletes from 164 countries were expected to attend. Although initial plans were to continue the Games amidst a global pandemic, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Japan eventually announced the postponement when athletes and National Olympic Committees (NOCs) expressed concerns over the health and well-being of those in attendance, especially athletes. The Canadian Olympic Committee and Team Canada led the charge to postpone the Games by announcing that they would not attend in 2020. There were many unintended, yet potential consequences for athletes arising from the postponement of the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

After postponement, worried qualified athletes were concerned about how the postponement would impact their qualifications status. Others were concerned about their age eligibility status after the postponement (IOC, 2020). The IOC quickly responded to the fears of the athletes and announced a new qualification system and deadline (IOC, 2020). A new qualification deadline was set to 29 June 2021, based on the Olympic Games starting on 23 July 2021 (the day of the Opening Ceremony). The problem of age eligibility was also addressed. “If a qualification system specified age eligibility criteria, the criteria should be extended to cover the new dates, allowing athletes who were eligible in July 2020 to remain eligible in 2021. All eligibility and age criteria would be at the discretion of the respective IFs” (IOCa, 2020). Other changes were planned for the format and structure of the Tokyo 2021 Games. The Torch Relay would occur with no spectators and with altered routes (Tokyo 2020a, 2021). For the first time in modern Olympic history, no overseas spectators would be allowed at the Olympic Games (Tokyo 2020b, 2021).

Questions nonetheless arose regarding the safety measures taken by the IOC and the host city to ensure the safety of the athletes given the postponement (Al-Tawfiq & Gautret, 2020). Both the IOC and the host city attempted to reassure everyone that the Games would commence on the planned date (Parry, 2021). One major question in late 2020 and early 2021 was, would the IOC require that all athletes and support staff be vaccinated against COVID-19 (Kyodo, 2021). Athletes from all the countries in the world would live, eat, sleep, and compete in the same place. The risk of a single infection starting a chain reaction would be very high. The emergence of new COVID-19 mutated variants added more risk. People from every single corner of the world, perhaps carrying different strains of COVID-19, would congregate and live together for two weeks. The IOC released the “playbook” for Tokyo 2021 that outlined expectations (IOC, 2021). Vaccinations were recommended by the IOC but were not mandator (IOC, 2021). The playbook stressed the basic precautions for infection control, e.g., no socializing, no handshakes, and definitely no hugs. Athlete testing for the virus would be required at least once every four days, and any athlete who tested positive would be removed from competition.

II. Education about Fair play in the Olympic Games

What makes the Olympic Games different from any major championship, e.g. the World Championships, is the celebration of Olympism.¹ Olympism has been defined by the Olympic Charter as “a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal principles. The goal of Olympism is to place everywhere sport at service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to encouraging the establishment of a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of encouraging human dignity”. The first principle of Olympism explains that the Olympics Games are both a sporting contest and a celebration of Olympism, and while other competitions do have values, the Olympic Games are unique in attempting to be more than just a sporting event.² This duality of purpose complicates the analysis of fair play at the Olympic Games, especially in the context of a pandemic. The concept of “fair play” is mentioned twice in the Olympic Charter. It is mentioned in the mission statement of the IOC, which states that “the spirit of fair play prevails”.³ It is also mentioned in the fourth principle of Olympism, which speaks of a requirement for “mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play” .⁴ However, there is not a clear explanation of what the IOC means by the concept of “fair play”. “Fair play” can be explained literally as “how” one plays a game, but the Olympic Games are more than just ’games’ – an adequate account must also at least acknowledge the role of the Olympic Movement and the concept of Olympism.

The concept of “fair play” is widely understood to be important in sport and there are many different interpretations of the concept of fair play in the literature (Sheridan, 2003). Butcher & Schneider (1998) critiqued a formalist approach to fair play – just focusing on “games”, summarising it as “respect for the rules”, and as being is inadequate. Acts that do not break the formal rules of the game exhibit this kind of fair play (Sheridan, 2003). Although clear, simple, and easily applied, Butcher & Schneider argue this conception of fair play is insufficient to capture the more positive nature of fair play and cannot account for situations which fall outside of the rules. And although Olympism is a somewhat vague concept, to attempt to describe or evaluate it using only the formal rules of the game is a mission that is destined to fail. While the Olympic Charter tries to sort all the values, principles, and rules of the Olympic Games, “respect for the rules” lacks the normative power to interpret vague concepts like Olympism. The alternative definition proposed by Butcher and Schneider (1998) construes “fair play” as “respect for the game”, having internal values (i.e. intrinsic) of their own that entail an assumption and transformation of interests by practitioners. “Sports are practices and practices are the sorts of things that can have interests” (Butcher and Schneider, 1998). A “practice” is a form of cooperative activity in which internal goods (can only be achieved through it, versus external goods) to the activity are realised in pursuit of the appropriate/definitive standards of excellence. To enter into a practice is to accept the established standards of excellence and be judged by them (hence the transformation of interests in substituting the interests of the game for one’s own). In a similar sense, the Olympic Games can be explained as a practice that can have internal goods and interests. The interpretation of sport practices as having interests can be more easily applied to the dual-interest nature of the Olympic Games. It also offers a structured framework for the evaluation of fair play. The interest of the Olympic Games is represented by the Olympic Charter, in addition to the interests that are inherited by any sporting contest. The Olympian (the athlete) swears the Olympic Oath and thus accepts the transformation of interests. The Olympic Charter represents the values, principles, and rules that define and govern Olympism at its best. One may use the Charter as a key reference in the analysis of fair play, along with Butcher and Schneider’s (1998) examples of necessary conditions for the ideal sporting contest:

For any game or sporting contest, it is possible to describe an ideal against which other contests might be measured. While the particular description will naturally vary from sport to sport, we can identify some necessary conditions. Each item on the list can be justified and explicated in terms of promoting the interests of the game:

1. The contestants should be evenly matched. The ideal contest requires that the contestants be at comparable levels of skill and fitness.

2. The contestants should play at or near their best.

3. The outcome of the contest should be in doubt until the end.

4. The outcome of the contest should be determined by sporting skill or ability, not extraneous factors such as egregious luck, or errors in officiating. Conditions of play, such as weather, may create additional obstacles but must not be so severe as to undermine the exhibition of skill.

5. The match must be fairly contested, that is, played within the rules of the game. For an ideal match the contestants must have a high degree of skill. Good contests can, however, take place between evenly matched opponents at any level of skill.

6. The structure of sports and games is such that skills cannot be tested or demonstrated in isolation. The interests of both athletes, and the game itself, are in having excellent competitions. (Butcher and Schneider, 1998)

The advantages of this definition of fair play are that: Olympic sport forms the conceptual grounding for it; it becomes a conceptually coherent concept; motivation for acting fairly is found in the activity (Olympic sport) itself; and there is a logical framework for discussions of fairness (fairness and fair play are very close but not identical) of particular practices. So, for the purposes at hand, fair play at the Olympic Games will be interpreted as “respect for the Olympic contest”. The Olympic Games are viewed as an entity with a dual interest; namely, respect for Olympism and for the sporting contest. Two commonly used senses of respect are: i) the weaker sense, respecting by merely observing or following; and ii) the stronger sense carrying connotations of honouring, holding in regard, esteeming or valuing. Here, the idea is that one should, from a moral point of view, value the interests or rights, preferences etc. as one values one’s own (Burcher & Schneider 1998). Some of the characteristics of what this outcome will look like are: Olympians playing their best and striving for victory (agon) against other Olympians doing the same; Olympians are fairly matched and there is a “good victory;” if an Olympian cheats, he/she ceases to play; Olympian opponents are ‘co-questers’ (in Delattre’s sense). This interpretation will guide our attempt to evaluate the possible impact of COVID-19 and the measures taken in response to the pandemic on the competitors. The next step is an overview of this potential impact that is informed by the relevant scientific evidence to date.

III. Education on Physiological, Psychological and Financial effects

The prioritisation of the health of Olympic and Paralympic athletes was a significant factor in the decision to postpone these Games. Due to the shutdown of facilities, some athletes did not have suitable training equipment to maintain their fitness. Not all athletes could afford the recommended equipment and food to maintain their fitness, a fact that highlights the disparities based on the socioeconomic status of various athletes. To a certain extent, training reversibility occurred, causing either partial or complete reversal of previously developed adaptations that negatively impacted Olympic sport performance and resulted in even greater disparity between the “have” and “have not” athletes both within countries and among countries around the world. This disparity may result in further “unleveling” the playing field and possibly impact point 2. The contestants should play at or near their best.

Given that, some athletes will be disadvantaged, and some more than others, there is an unfairness here. But, as with the other areas, does the responsibility for the resulting international unfairness lie at the feet of the IOC? How much is the pandemic itself as cause of unfairness (just as many natural phenomena are – not least the genes the athlete is born with), and how much does the IOC have an obligation to mitigate this unfairness – as well as a duty of care to the potential Olympic athlete? Some might even argue that in terms of fairness, and ethics in general, there is a moral imperative on the IOC, host governments and sport governing bodies to do their best to ensure that athletes are not infected, which is what they claim the “playbook” was designed to do.

IV. Conclusion

In this presentation, on the most basic level, we have reviewed important educational highlights of the natural impact of COVID-19 itself on athletes and sport. This natural impact is ‘unfair’ in itself, in that it disrupts athletes’ training, expectations, finances and plans. But as a natural event, it is akin to the unfairness that is so characteristic of other aspects of sport (winning or losing the genetic lottery – so genetic and physiological differences between athletes, on this level, might be unfair). But most significantly, with COVID-19 to accidentally acquire infection or injury from it, is unfair. But this is part of the inevitable misfortune that plagues sport (and broader society). Thus, the human responses to the pandemic can (and have) add an additional level of unfairness.

General policies (such as cancelling the Olympic Games, however necessary that cancellation might be) will impact differently on different athletes (because of their location, age, access to resources and so on). The question then arises, at perhaps a third level, as to exactly what should be done about this unfairness –and specifically, in the context of this chapter– what should be done by the IOC in order to sustain its own standards of fair play and respect for Olympism and the Olympic contest, identified above. The IOC and sport governing bodies do not have the most significant responsibility for addressing the kind of unfairness generated by the natural impact of COVID-19, but they are responsible for the “playbook” they design and support to deal within the context of the Tokyo Olympic Games.

In our discussion, we looked at some evidence for the impact of COVID-19 on Olympic athletes and the potential implications for fair play at the Olympic Games. We defined fair play at the Olympic Games as “respect for the Olympic contest.” Overall, the evidence indicates that the pandemic has contributed to not only increasing existing inequities but also to creating new ones. In order to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on the fair play at Tokyo 2021, some questions will need to be answered after the games. The issue here is not only whether the results at the Tokyo Olympics will have been affected, to which the answer is probably, yes, obviously!, but also whether the difference between the results that will arise in July/August 2021 are unfairly different to the results that would have happened in 2020. Were particular groups denied Olympic success and other groups unfairly given opportunities for Olympic success? The goal of Olympism “is to place everywhere sport at service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to encouraging the establishment of a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of encouraging human dignity.” Was it in the best interest of Olympism to hold the games during a global pandemic?

Further, were the contestants at comparable levels of skill and fitness, playing at or near their best? It seems that there are world and Olympic records still falling. The outcome of the contest will still probably be in doubt until the end, and determined by sporting skill or ability, not extraneous factors such additional obstacles created by COVID-19. Although there may well be cases so severe as to undermine the exhibition of skill. It is likely that the contests will be fairly contested, that is, played within the rules of the game for the most part. Good contests can, however, take place between evenly matched opponents at any level of skill. It still remains the case for the Tokyo Olympic Games that: the structure of sports and games will be such that skills cannot be tested or demonstrated in isolation; and that the interests of both athletes, and the game itself, are in having excellent competitions. Were the contestants really competing at their best? We are limited by the information available at the time of this analysis. We will need to take a closer look at the impact of COVID-19 on the celebration of Olympism during Tokyo 2021 as compared to the previous games. We should also undertake a statistical analysis of athletes’ performances to see if the necessary conditions for the ideal sporting contest were impacted by COVID-19. But at the end of the day at the Tokyo Olympic Games, there is also no question that the vast majority of Olympic athletes destined for Tokyo wanted to go forward and take their chances.

‍

References

Al-Tawfiq, J.A. and Gautret, P., 2020. The Tokyo Olympic Games and the risk of COVID-19. Current tropical medicine reports, pp. 1-7

Andreato, L.V., Coimbra, D.R. and Andrade, A., 2020. Challenges to athletes during the home confinement caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Strength and Conditioning Journal.

Axon, Rachel, “Without any competitions, Olympic athletes feel financial squeeze as they train for Tokyo Games.” USA Today. Last modified: 13 May 2020. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2020/05/13/tokyo-olympics-athletes-struggle-financially-no-competitions/3113035001/

Butcher, R. and Schneider, A., 1998. Fair play as respect for the game. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 25(1), pp. 1-22.

“Coronavirus shutdown: Sharp rise in players reporting depression symptoms,” FIFPRO Organization. 20 April 2020. https://www.fifpro.org/en/health/coronavirus-covid-19-page/coronavirus-shutdown-sharp-rise-in-players-reporting-depression-symptoms.

Dantas, M.J.B., Dantas, T.L.F.S., Júnior, J.D.P.D., de Oliveira Neto, L. and Gorla, J.I., 2020. COVID-19: Considerations for the disabled athlete. RevistaBrasileira de Fisiologia do Exercício, 19(2), pp. 30-34.

Ewing, Lori, and Donna Spencer. “COVID-19 Exposing the Thin Financial Margins of Canada’s Olympic Athletes.” The Globe and Mail, 26 March 2020. https://www. theglobeandmail.com/sports/olympics/article-covid-19-exposing-the-thin-financial-margins-of-canadas-olympic/.

Graupensperger, S., Benson, A.J., Kilmer, J.R. and Evans, M.B., 2020. Social (un) distancing: teammate interactions, athletic identity, and mental health of student-athletes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Adolescent Health, 67(5), pp. 662-670.

Gwin, Matt, “The Olympics is a side gig: These Olympians have day jobs (winter edition).” Vocatio. last modified: 21 February 2018. http://vocatio.com/2018/02/21/the-olympics-is-a-side-gig-these-olympians-have-day-jobs/

Hagen, J., Stone, J.D., Hornsby, W.G., Stephenson, M., Mangine, R., Joseph, M. and Galster, S., 2020. COVID-19 surveillance and competition in sport: utilizing sport science to protect athletes and staff during and after the pandemic. Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology, 5(3), p. 69.

Håkansson, A., Moesch, K., Jönsson, C. and Kenttä, G., 2021. Potentially prolonged psychological distress from postponed olympic and paralympic games during COVID-19 career uncertainty in elite athletes. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(1), p. 2.

Håkansson, A., Jönsson, C. and Kenttä, G., 2020. Psychological distress and problem gambling in elite athletes during COVID-19 restrictions – A web survey in top leagues of three sports during the pandemic. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(18), p. 6693.

Håkansson, A., Fernández-Aranda, F., Menchón, J.M., Potenza, M.N. and Jiménez-Murcia, S., 2020. Gambling during the COVID-19 crisis–a cause for concern. Journal of addiction medicine, 14(4), p.e10.

Håkansson, A., Kenttä, G. and Åkesdotter, C., 2018. Problem gambling and gaming in elite athletes. Addictive behaviors reports, 8, pp. 79-84.

Hull, J.H., Loosemore, M. and Schwellnus, M., 2020. Respiratory health in athletes: facing the COVID-19 challenge. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 8(6), pp. 557-558.

IOC, 2020 , “IOC announces adapted Tokyo 2020 qualification systems for each sport”, https://www.olympic.org/news/ioc-announces-adapted-tokyo-2020-qualification- systems-for-each-sport#:~:text=A%20new%20qualification%20deadline%20of,of%20the%20Opening%20Ceremony)%3B

IOC, 2021, “The Play Book”, https://stillmedab.olympic.org/media/Document%20 Library/OlympicOrg/Games/Summer-Games/Games-Tokyo-2020-Olympic-Games/Playbooks/The-Playbook-Athletes-and-Officials.pdf#_ga=2.101685057.191223964.1619320695-209384421.1617570456

Jukic, I., Calleja-González, J., Cos, F., Cuzzolin, F., Olmo, J., Terrados, N., Njaradi, N., Sassi, R., Requena, B., Milanovic, L. and Krakan, I., 2020. Strategies and solutions for team sports athletes in isolation due to COVID-19.

Kar, S.K., Arafat, S.Y., Sharma, P., Dixit, A., Marthoenis, M. and Kabir, R., 2020. COVID-19 pandemic and addiction: Current problems and future concerns. Asian journal of psychiatry, 51, p. 102064.

Koyodo, 2021, “Thomas Bach reiterates that vaccination not required for Tokyo Olympics” https://www.japantimes.co.jp/sports/2021/03/13/olympics/summer-olympics/thomas-bach-vaccinations-tokyo-olympics/

“Little-Known Consequences of COVID-19 on Athletes.” https://sportaide.ca/en/blog/2020/03/27/little-known-consequences-of-covid-19-on-athletes/, 27 March 2020.

Mehrsafar, A.H., Gazerani, P., Zadeh, A.M. and Sánchez, J.C.J., 2020. Addressing potential impact of COVID-19 pandemic on physical and mental health of elite athletes. Brain, behavior, and immunity, 87, p. 147.

Parry, R. 2021, “Japan looks for a way out of Tokyo Olympics because of Covid”, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/japan-looks-for-a-way-out-of-tokyo-olympics-because-of-virus-lf868xfnd

Pillay, L., van Rensburg, D.C.C.J., van Rensburg, A. J., Ramagole, D.A., Holtzhausen, L., Dijkstra, H. P. and Cronje, T., 2020. Nowhere to hide: the significant impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) measures on elite and semi-elite South African athletes. Journal of science and medicine in sport, 23(7), pp. 670-679.

Rehm, J., Kilian, C., Ferreira-Borges, C., Jernigan, D., Monteiro, M., Parry, C.D., Sanchez, Z. M. and Manthey, J., 2020. Alcohol use in times of the COVID 19: Implications for monitoring and policy. Drug and Alcohol Review, 39(4), pp. 301-304.

Sarto, F., Impellizzeri, F. M., Spörri, J., Porcelli, S., Olmo, J., Requena, B., Suarez- Arrones, L., Arundale, A., Bilsborough, J., Buchheit, M. and Clubb, J., 2020. Impact of potential physiological changes due to COVID-19 home confinement on athlete health protection in elite sports: a call for awareness in sports programming. Sports Medicine, 50, pp. 1417-1419.

Schinke, R., Papaioannou, A., Henriksen, K., Si, G., Zhang, L. and Haberl, P., 2020. Sport psychology services to high performance athletes during COVID-19.

Sheridan, H., 2003. Conceptualizing Fair Play’: A Review of the Literature. European Physical Education Review, 9(2), pp. 163-184.

Simons, C., Martin, L. A., Balcombe, L., Dunn, P.K. and Clark, R. A., 2021. Mental health impact on at-risk high-level athletes during COVID-19 lockdown: A pre-, during and post-lockdown longitudinal cohort study of adjustment disorder. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 24(4), p. 329.

Sport’Aide, 2020 “Little-Known Consequences of COVID-19 on Athletes.” Sport’Aide, https://sportaide.ca/en/blog/2020/03/27/little-known-consequences-of-covid-19- on-athletes/.

Stambulova, N. B., Schinke, R. J., Lavallee, D. and Wylleman, P., 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic and Olympic/Paralympic athletes’ developmental challenges and possibilities in times of a global crisis-transition. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, pp. 1-10.

Taku, K. and Arai, H., 2020. Impact of COVID-19 on athletes and coaches, and their values in Japan: repercussions of postponing the Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Journal of loss and trauma, 25(8), pp. 623-630.

Tayech, A., Mejri, M. A., Makhlouf, I., Mathlouthi, A., Behm, D.G. and Chaouachi, A., 2020. Second wave of COVID-19 global pandemic and athletes’ confinement: Recommendations to better manage and optimize the modified lifestyle. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(22), p. 8385.

Toresdahl, B. G. and Asif, I. M., 2020. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): considerations for the competitive athlete.

Tokyo 2020a, 2021, “Tokyo 2020 announces changes to Olympic Torch Relay format in Osaka”. https://tokyo2020.org/en/torch/news/tokyo-2020-announces-changes- to-olympic-torch-relay-format-in-osaka

Tokyo 2020b, 2021, “Statement on Overseas Spectators for the Olympic and Paralympic Games Tokyo 2020”, https://tokyo2020.org/en/news/statement-on-overseas-spectators-for-the-olympic-and-paralympic-games-tokyo-2020

Touitou, Y., Touitou, D. and Reinberg, A., 2016. Disruption of adolescents’ circadian clock: the vicious circle of media use, exposure to light at night, sleep loss and risk behaviors. Journal of Physiology-Paris, 110(4), pp. 467-479.

‍

SCNEIDER Angela J., "Emerging sports and emerging education in the Covid-19 era: Implications on fairness and fair play for Olympic athletes training for the Tokyo Olympic Games", in:K. Georgiadis(ed.), Olympic Games and the Pandemic:Opportunities, Challenges and Changes , 61th International Session for YoungParticipants (Ancient Olympia, 17-23/09/2021), International OlympicAcademy, Athens,2022, pp.59-69.

‍

‍

‍

‍