{"id":2469081,"date":"2019-12-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-12-20T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.outsideonline.com\/uncategorized\/olympic-swimming-court-ruling\/"},"modified":"2022-05-12T13:18:20","modified_gmt":"2022-05-12T19:18:20","slug":"olympic-swimming-court-ruling","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.outsideonline.com\/outdoor-adventure\/water-activities\/olympic-swimming-court-ruling\/","title":{"rendered":"Swimming’s Governing Body Is in Hot Water"},"content":{"rendered":"
On December 16, a\u00a0San Francisco court ruled that the F\u00e9d\u00e9ration Internationale de Natation<\/a> (FINA), the body based in Lausanne, Switzerland,\u00a0that governs Olympic swimming, has to answer to\u00a0allegations that it has been operating an illegal monopoly, in part by financially punishing athletes who want to compete in events that it doesn\u2019t recognize or control.<\/p>\n The judgment came after a year of hearings in a suit jointly filed by the International Swimming League<\/a> (ISL), a new global swimming competition, and three champion swimmers pursuing a class-action suit against FINA, a subsidiary of the International Olympic Committee<\/a> (IOC). The swimmers are U.S. Olympic butterflyer Tom Shields<\/a>, U.S. world-champion individual-medley swimmer Michael Andrew, and multiple gold medalist\u00a0Katinka Hossz\u00fa, from Hungary.<\/p>\n Denying FINA\u2019s attempt to dismiss the case and keep sealed internal communications disclosed during the discovery process, San Francisco District Court magistrate judge Jacqueline Scott Corley ruled that, in their attempt to show that FINA was operating \u201ca global anti-trust conspiracy\u2026 the plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of making a prima facie\u201d case. The court will hold an initial case-management conference to\u00a0determine the\u00a0next steps\u00a0in mid-January 2020.<\/p>\n ISL founder and owner Konstantin Grigorishin, who has accused the Olympic establishment of violating European and U.S. antitrust law, said the decision will have wide-ranging\u00a0ramifications. Shields, Andrew, and Hossz\u00fa, he said, could now be joined by thousands of other elite swimmers in suing FINA for compensation for earnings they lost\u00a0due to FINA\u2019s ban on participation in commercial, non-Olympic events. In addition, Grigorishin said, \u201cWe can also apply this judgment to all Olympic sports and the IOC.\u201d<\/p>\n If the plaintiffs ultimately prevail,\u00a0<\/b>this case and another legal precedent\u2014in 2017, there was a similar ruling in Europe involving speed skaters and the International Skating Union\u2014could open the way to American and European commercial operators who, before now, have been effectively barred from promoting Olympic sports.<\/p>\n Alex Haffner, a sports-law specialist in London who has followed the case closely, cautioned that a finding that FINA has\u00a0a case to answer was not a final verdict. But, he added,\u00a0\u201cIt is clear that FINA now faces a very significant battle to justify the stance taken to the International Swimming League. This in turn raises the further possibility that the substantive\u00a0<\/strong>hearing\u2014if matters proceed to that stage\u2014will set an important precedent.\u201d<\/p>\n A spokesman who was reached for comment\u00a0at the IOC\u2019s offices in Lausanne referred the matter to FINA, but at press time, FINA had not responded to an interview request.<\/p>\n The broader commercialization of Olympic sports<\/a>, should it happen, would spell an end to the IOC\u2019s insistence that participants be amateurs for the duration of the Games. While this is no great sacrifice for professionals playing tennis, soccer, and basketball\u2014who earn millions during a typical career\u2014the IOC\u2019s domination of swimming and track and field, and its threat to outlaw any competitions it sees as a rival, have left athletes and swimmers relatively impoverished.<\/p>\n During this dispute, the IOC has claimed that it\u2019s protecting the purity of sport from commercialism<\/a>. But in an era when the governing body makes $5.7\u00a0billion from sponsorship and television, as it did in the four-year cycle leading up to the Rio Games in 2016, swimmers and runners have complained that they\u2019re being exploited. While the IOC\u2019s accounts show that officials spend millions a year on travel expenses, many athletes struggle to finance their training and Olympic appearances. Some swimmers have even sold their medals to stay in the sport.<\/p>\n Monday\u2019s judgment follows decades of athletes\u2019 and coaches\u2019 frustration with the IOC\u2019s rule. The modern Olympics<\/a> are often associated with corruption, <\/b>on and off the track, because of a series of scandals involving doping, bribery, embezzlement, and money laundering, particularly at the 2014 Sochi Winter Games, the 2016 Rio Games and, more recently, the run-up to the Tokyo Olympics in July and August next year.<\/p>\n Such associations\u00a0and the multibillion-dollar sport and transport infrastructure that the IOC insists be created anew for every Olympics have\u00a0left the IOC struggling to find candidates prepared to host the event. The Olympic TV audience is also rapidly aging<\/a>, a symptom, critics say, of the IOC\u2019s format of parades, podiums, and long speeches by elderly officials.<\/p>\n