The child before the “athlete”: the significance of culture in elite sport for realising children’s rights

By Alyson Evans - Posted on 26 July 2024

The start of the Olympics this week marks the culmination of a summer of sport. We’ve already had the European Championships in football, Wimbledon in tennis and the Open in golf amongst others. For sports fans there is much to celebrate and enjoy as we support athletes from all over the world at the pinnacle of their sport. Some of these athletes are children. Lamine Yamal (football), Mirra Andreeva (tennis), Luke Littler (darts), Sky Brown (skateboarding) and Kamila Valieva (figure skating) have all hit the headlines in recent months to name but a few young ‘sporting stars’ who, international law tells us, are children. This is a fact too often forgotten. 

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is the most ratified human rights treaty in the world, with only the United States not a signatory.  The UNCRC contains the most comprehensive statement of the rights that children have, and these rights apply to all children regardless of their circumstances; “child” being defined as anyone under the age of 18. The UNCRC has four ‘general principles’: 

• the rights in the Convention are to be respected and ensured without discrimination (Article 2)
• in all actions concerning the child, their best interests are a primary consideration (Article 3)
• every child has the right to life, survival and development (Article 6)
• every child has the right to express views and to be heard in matters that affect them (Article 12). 

Alongside these general principles are rights such as to play (Article 31), to the highest attainable standard of health (Article 24), to education (Article 28), to freedom from all types of abuse and neglect (Article 19), to protection from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse (Article 34), and to protection from illicit use of drugs (Article 33). The rights in the UNCRC are indivisible and according to the Convention’s Preamble exist because “childhood is entitled to special care and assistance.” So, it follows that these rights (and all others within the UNCRC) apply to children and young people under the age of 18 taking part in elite sport and state signatories have a duty to ensure the rights are realised in the same way as for any other child or young person. 

However, the culture of elite sport presents a particularly challenging environment for the realisation of children’s rights in (at least) three respects. This culture needs to be recognised and addressed specifically by national and international sporting bodies so that children can experience their rights in elite sport. 

First, adults hold a significant level of power and control in respect of children’s sporting careers and that power is open to abuse. For example, it is adult coaches that make selection decisions, it is adult referees or umpires who decide whether the rules of the sport have been adhered to and, in certain sports, it is adult judges who make subjective evaluations about competitive performance. It is not uncommon for adults who are part of a coaching team to have control over things like a child’s daily activities, their nutrition, their peer group and their health needs, all in the name of supporting the child to reach their full sporting potential. Back in 2001, Professor Celia Brackenridge wrote in her seminal book Spoilsports that “Since…talented children are often defined as adults in terms of performance expectations in sport, it is no wonder that there is confusion about both moral and sexual boundaries in sport.” (p13).  And so, this came to pass with the link between the power held by adults in children’s elite sport and physical, emotional and sexual abuse of children now well documented through a series of Reviews in sports such as football, gymnastics and tennis. The extent of this power is evident in the experience of Irish swimmer Karen Leach, who has spoken about the coach who abused her during her childhood. In an interview to BBC Sport, Karen said “He headhunted me to come and swim in his club … He told me that my dream [to swim at the Olympics] would come true, because he was the best coach in Ireland. He told my mum and dad that he would make my dream come true. I believed him, and my mum and dad believed him.” 

The second feature of an elite sports environment that must be considered to realise children’s rights is the inescapable pressure to ‘make it’; something that is difficult for adults, never mind children. The dedication and sacrifices made by children and young people in pursuit of a dream to succeed in elite sport are documented consistently, which can mean missing out on education, family time, socialising with friends and taking part in other sports. High profile adult athletes have spoken out about the mental health impact of elite support, such as Elise Christie (speed skating), Adam Peaty (swimming), Ben Stokes (cricket), Simone Biles and Max Whitlock (gymnastics). Recent research carried out for the Scottish Football Association in relation to young people’s views of playing football reported the pressures associated with a ‘making it’ culture and the negative consequences this can have for relationships and mental health (p47). One young person involved in elite football described that “players are written off as disposable commodities” (p61). 

The third feature of the culture is that sport’s own processes often are not set up with young people in mind. Recent events surrounding Kamila Valieva provide a sobering realisation that children who are exceptionally talented at sport somehow and somewhere along the way lose respect for the full range of rights that they are owed as children. Kamila, a top figure skater from Russia, tested positive for a banned substance at a competition in December 2021 and so began a series of legal proceedings which culminated in a 4-year ban from the sport. Kamila was 15 years old when her adverse test was returned but yet she was subject to the same disciplinary processes as an adult; albeit by virtue of being 15 at the time she was treated as “a protected person” for the purposes of the sanction, a protection that would have expired on Kamila’s 16^th birthday. It is not known, and may never be known, how the banned substance entered Kamila’s body. It may have been through inadvertent contamination as Kamila argued before the Court of Arbitration for Sport, by administration by Kamila herself (with or without the support of an adult), or it may have been administered deliberately by an adult (with or without Kamila’s knowledge and consent). Regardless of which of these possibilities is true there are children’s rights implications stemming from both the ingestion of the banned substance and from the disciplinary processes that were then followed by the domestic and international sporting bodies; notably processes which do not appear to have included the professional adults around Kamila at the time the substance was ingested. 

Sadly, Kamila’s situation is not unique. A report from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) from January 2024 highlights that since 2012 there have been 1518 positive tests from 1416 persons under the age of 18 years, with the youngest child to be tested as part of the anti-doping regime being 8 years old and the youngest to be sanctioned for a violation being just 12. Yet many countries do not have specific policies or procedures related to children in respect of anti-doping, something which is all the more important since the same report identifies the significant trauma that can follow from a positive test. 

General Comments issued by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child to support the realisation of children’s rights under the UNCRC consistently make clear that states must recognise the evolving capacities of young people while still recognising that they come within the scope of the Convention and are entitled to all the protections within it.  Although not directly comparable to disciplinary processes in sport, General Comment 24 on Children’s Rights in the Justice System says (at page 2) that “children differ from adults in their physical and psychological development. Such differences constitute the basis for the recognition of lesser culpability and for a separate system with a differentiated, individualised approach.” A children’s rights-based approach within elite sport would do well to take account of this guidance. 

Slowly, sporting bodies are awakening to their responsibilities in relation to the rights of children and young people involved in elite sport and to the cultural challenges inherent within that. There is now a plethora of glossy documents, websites and apps setting out commitments to child athletes. But to what extent are these being translated into the experiences of children taking part in sport at the very highest level? To what extent is the culture of elite sport changing to recognise the rights of children and young people? Reforming a well-embedded and long-standing culture is where the hard work for sport really starts. Recent evidence from Review reports, research and anti-doping procedures would suggest there is still some way to go for national and international sporting bodies to recognise the child before the athlete.