The Olympics, transnational law and legal transplants: the International Olympic Committee, ambush marketing and ticket touting

Abstract

This paper concerns the origination, development and emergence of what might be termed ‘Olympic law’. This has an impact across borders and with transnational effect. It examines the unique process of creation of these laws, laws created by a national legislature to satisfy the commercial demands of a private body, the International Olympic Committee (IOC). It begins by critically locating the IOC and Olympic law and examining Olympic law as a transnational force. Using two case studies, those of ambush marketing and ticket touting, it demonstrates how private entities can be the drivers of specific, self-interested legislation when operating as a transnational organisation from within the global administrative space and notes the potential dangers of such legal transplants.

Commercial rights management in post-legislative Olympic sponsorship

“…The study’s findings therefore provide impetus for host NOC’s and the IOC to work in tandem to better protect Games partners, and to move towards a more synergistic and collective rights management approach. As James and Osborn (2016) noted, the institutionalisation and internationalisation of Olympic law and ambush legislation has led to succeeding Games’ legal frameworks building on and adapting those of previous events, in order to plug perceived holes in the legislations and to account for opportunities exploited by non-sponsors.…”

“…In the wake of the Sydney Games, the remit of ambush legislations has increasingly widened over time, drawing on and adapting from previous events and ambush campaigns (James and Osborn, 2016). The London Olympic and Paralympic Games Act (2006), for example, included specific provisions governing associative advertising termed the “London Olympic Association Right”, which prohibited the use of sporting imagery and terminology during the Games period (James and Osborn, 2016; Scassa, 2011).…”

“…The expansion of event-specific ambush legislation to this extent, however, has inspired significant debate and concern amongst citizens, businesses, event stakeholders and the academic community (James and Osborn, 2016; McKelvey and Longley, 2015; Scassa, 2011). The legal and legislative measures enacted have raised concerns over human rights infringements and anti-competitive practices (Louw, 2012), raising doubts over the ethical practices of rights protection.…”

“…The contrasting responses to these two non-sponsor campaigns by the COC offer a valuable case study for commercial rights management practices. In recent years, the IOC and other major commercial rights holders have consistently stressed legislative protection and enhanced intellectual property rights enforcement in response to non-sponsor marketing efforts (James and Osborn, 2016; McKelvey and Grady, 2008; Scassa, 2011). However, following the expiration of Bill C-47 Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act (2007) upon completion of the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympic Games, the COC and Canadian Olympic sponsors now operate in a post-legislative sponsorship environment.…”

Global Sports Law Revisited

“…This tension forms the backbone of this article that explores the nature of global sports law as a private transnational contractual order and the limitations on its configuration as an entirely independent self-regulating and self-governing legal order. Global sports law is viewed as a transnational order that tries, and in some circumstances actually manages, to circumvent the hierarchy of state law (Meier and Garcia, 2015;James and Osborn, 2016). It frequently ignores state law, or claims immunity from its legal order or at the very least proposes an equal coexistence with domestic state law.…”