Soc (2011) 48:517–525
DOI 10.1007/s12115-011-9488-6
GLOBAL SOCIETY
The International Institutionalization of Sport Ethics
Yoan Grosset & Michael Attali
Published online: 12 October 2011
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011
Abstract The institutionalization of sport ethics was kept on
the fringes where sports organizations were concerned until
the 60’s when it became an important issue and a powerful
tool for international sport leadership. Initiated by the French
and the International Council of Sport and Physical Education,
an organization linked to United Nations for education,
science and culture (UNESCO), the International Fair Play
Committee (IFPC), created on September 7, 1963, initially
kept on the sidelines by the International Olympic Committee
(IOC) under the presidency of Avery Brundage. With the
election of Lord Killanin then of Juan Antonio Samaranch,
new relations spawned between the IOC and UNESCO by
way of the IFPC. In 1988, Fair play and more generally
sporting education became an integral part of the Olympic
ideal, accepted by intergovernmental organizations.
Keywords Ethics . IOC . UNESCO . Institutionalization .
IFPC . Governorship
Sport is seen as a messenger of principles which are used to
increase its social visibility. It was thus structured on the basis
of a determined allegiance to humanistic principles making it
possible to train a man who corresponds to recognized social
standards. Its promoters thereby advocated moral principles
such as respect, amateurism and sporting spirit (Simon 2010).
Reality however often calls the honorable position of sport
into question. Confronted by professionalism (Vamplew
2004), with doping (Houlihan 1999; Boyes 2001) and
violence (Leizman 1999; Morgan et al. 2001), sport provided
structures that were meant to define and reinforce the
Y. Grosset (*) : M. Attali
SENS laboratory, University of Grenoble 1, UFRAPS,
BP 53, 38041 Grenoble cedex 9, France
e-mail: yoangrosset@wanadoo.fr
exemplary social nature of its practice. At the international
level, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) thus took
on the role of organizer and regulator (Chappelet and Kübler-
Mabbott 2008) by creating the Court of Arbitration for Sport
in 1984 (Blackshaw et al. 2006) and the World Anti Doping
Agency in 1999 (Chappelet 2002; Houlihan 2001).
On September 7, 1963, in the form of the Provisional
International Committee for the Organization of the Sports
Fair Play Award was created. Pierre de Coubertin and the
International Fair play Committee (IFPC) were in line with
the perspective of regulating a developing sports world that
was constantly subjected to external pressures which
necessarily needed control. Compelled by representatives
of the United Nations for education, science and culture
(UNESCO), the International Association of Sports Press
(AIPS), the International Council of Sport and Physical
Education (ICSPE) and several International Federations
(IF), the analysis of its transformations, networks, the role
of its protagonists particularly brings to light the power
struggle between the IOC and UNESCO at a time when
sport had become a geopolitical issue and where control
was strategic. The archives of the IOC, UNESCO and
French National Olympic and Sporting Committee
(FNOSC) are used to reveal the means which brought
about the creation of the IFPC outside the Olympic ideal,
the process which then led the IOC to gradually take part in
the recognition and the direction of the IFPC as well as
every other institution related to sport education.
On the Fringes of the IOC: An Ideal in Question
(1963–1972)
The IFPC originated in 1963 during a seminar at the
UNESCO Youth Institute in Gauting, organized at the
518
request of the AIPS and the ICSPE. At the meeting,
“Journalists, teachers, representatives of international fed-
erations and various personalities concerned with sports
studied the method to be used to repress cheating, violence,
chauvinism and other active demonstrations undermining
the integrity of the sport” (Borotra 1986, p.95). ICSPE and
AIPS joined forces in order to increase awareness of
competitors and the general public, they called on the
authorities and sport governing bodies for the need to take
action where repression and education are concerned, “once
we become aware, an ever increasing awareness, that the
future of the sporting movement is greatly threatened by a
multitude of deviations” (IOC archives. International Fair
Play Committee 1980–1981. Newspaper article from
l’Equipe titled “Le Fair Play et les “turbulences”” not dated
but approximately Septembre 11, 1980).
Indeed, the “said serious threats such as political,
ideological, racial or commercial exploitation of sport,
linked to a rise in disloyalty and violence in the world, weighs
heavily on fair play and as such, on sports” (IOC archives.
Comité International Fair Play 1980–1981. Elocutions from J.
Borotra at the 1979 Pierre de Coubertin Fair play Trophy
Ceremony, September 11, 1980). Faced with this situation,
some key people in the sports world decided to meet at the
Inter-allied Circle in Paris on September 17, 1963. This
preliminary meeting was organized for the creation of “The
Pierre de Coubertin International Fair Play Trophy” “designed
to reward athletes and teams, or even the public, who have
shown remarkable sport spirit” (IOC archives. Comité
International Fair Play 1980–1981. Elocutions from J. Borotra
at the 1979 Pierre de Coubertin Fair play Trophy Ceremony,
September 11, 1980).
Despite the association of the award to Pierre de Coubertin
(founder of the Olympic ideal) (MacAloon 1984), the
formation of the IFPC occurred outside the IOC framework.
Absence of the IOC was not the result of an IFCP tactic but
rather a refusal by the committee to join any such enterprise.
One month after its creation, at a meeting in Baden Baden in
October 1963, the IOC executive committee actually refused
a request for collaboration made by UNESCO concerning
the award that it offered to hand out (IOC archives. IOC
Executive Committee Report organized in Baden Baden in
October 1963, p. 3). This request was renewed by the
UNESCO “Committee for “Fair play”” in October 1965
during the executive committee meeting in Madrid (IOC
archives. IOC Executive Committee Report organized in
Madrid in October 1965, p. 4). As the title suggests, the IOC
saw the IFPC as a UNESCO faction organization controlled
by the ICSPE and therefore, as a competitor. Moreover, with
the question “Shall we join “Committee for Fair Play”?”,
Avery Brundage (Guttmann 1984) “explains that it is a
French organization, founded in Paris under the auspices of
UNESCO” (IOC archives. IOC Session Report organized in
Soc (2011) 48:517–525
Madrid from 6 to 9 October 1965, p. 11). Ultimately, the
assembly decides “not to associate ourselves with the award
of the DE COUBERTIN TROPHY because we ourselves
have several cups and trophies to bestow” (IOC archives.
IOC Session Report organized in Madrid from 6 to 9
October 1965, p. 11).
The decision illustrates relations between the IOC and
UNESCO. Because of the corruption with which sports was
confronted, UNESCO leaned toward the need for education,
in terms of amateurism, nationalism, diplomatic relations,
doping and international aide. Sports as well as the Olympic
ideal became the focus of UNESCO. Encouraged by the
French and UNESCO, the ICSPE, a “smoke-screen” organi-
zation of UNESCO had an ultimate goal in the long run, to
reinforce State power, or even to control world sport. As a
nongovernmental structure without any true apparent link to
government, this council had to become a means for
UNESCO to control the sports movement. Urged, for the
most part, by the ICSPE, the IFPC embodies an institution
derived from the United Nations (Valderrama 1995), demon-
strating its ambition to be totally involved in the organization
of international sports. Out of the spotlight until then,
UNESCO acknowledged its commitment to become a major
player in its own right. In line with the new policy of
UNESCO’s “permanent education” (Desplechin-Lejeune et
al. 2008), the IFPC is a continuation of the educational
policy UNESCO had committed to since 1952. More
precisely, it was the youth and education section of
UNESCO which participated in the promotion of the
organization.
In fact, Pierre Francois, founding member of the IFPC,
was the director of “the Youth Section of the International
Community Education Division Department of Education”.
Similarly, William Jones was the director of the UNESCO
Youth Institute. The bond between UNESCO and the IFPC
is more obvious in appraising the role and position the
ICSPE held in the emergence of the IFPC. Prompted,
recognized and supported by UNESCO since 1958, the
ICSPE (Bailey 1996) was the organization at the origin of
the IFPC. Beyond the Fair play cause, the IFPC took part in
bringing the ICSPE, and therefore UNESCO, closer to
international federations. The IFPC thus seemed to model
after the ICSPE as a means of coordinating international
organizations interested in the problems of physical and
sports education by calling on them “to work together in
order to ensure close relations between education and
sport” (UNESDOC. Minutes of the consultative meeting for
the possibility of coordination of international organizations
interested in problems of physical education and sports.
Helsinki, 17 August 1959, p. 6). The IFCP thus represented
the dawn of competition with an IOC desirous to maintain
its domination. All the more so as its trophy in competition
with IOC trophies, bears the name of the founding father of
Soc (2011) 48:517–525
the Olympic ideal. Although the IOC had been informed of
the existence of the trophy since 1963, through its General
Secretary, J. W. Westerhoff, in 1968, in a letter to the IOC
lawyer, Pierre Chavan, he challenged the use of the name
Pierre de Coubertin by the IFPC. According to Westerhoff,
“a certain ambiguity in the mind of the public may prevail
when one sees the name Pierre de Coubertin invariably
associated with the Olympic Movement, now associated with
UNESCO” (IOC archives. International Committee for Fair
Play 1968–1979. Correspondence from J. W. Westerhoff to
Pierre Chavan 13 May 1968).
The second reason for IOC aloofness related to the
implication of France at a time when the country planned to
distinguish itself on the international scene. Embodying
General of Gaulle’s (Clift 2008) inclination, since its
creation, whose attitude has generated and maintained a
mistrust of the Olympic institution in France (Grosset and
Attali 2009). The centennial celebration of the birth of
Pierre de Coubertin organized in Paris under the honorary
presidency of General of Gaulle on the initiative of the
High Commissionership for Youth and Sports reflects both
the interest taken in sports and the ambitions of French
politicians therein. Indeed, the ceremony was held at the
time when France used its candidacy for the Olympic
Games in Grenoble as a tool to promote its image
worldwide (Arnaud and Terret 1993, pp. 136–138).
UNESCO joined in by holding an international conference
promoting the sports ideal (FNOSC Archives. Les Sport en
France, Bulletin du Comité National des Sports, June 1963)
on 28, 29 and October 30, 1963. The constitution of the
founding members of the IFPC as well as their
institutional integration emphasizes French influence
through its five representatives: Jean Borotra, Liliane
Miller, Rene Bazennerye, Marie-Therese Eyquem, and
Jacques Ferran. Nevertheless, the ICSPE was not the
only organization present within the IFPC.
From the creation of the trophies, the ICSPE partnered
with the sports press by way of the AIPS. This organization
(Grosset and Attali 2007, 2008) (This organization was
created during the Paris Olympic Games 22 July 1924
initiated by Frantz Reichel, Founding President, sports
journalist and charismatic leader of several French sports
federations. He was at the heart of the organization of
French sports and notably the creation the National Sports
Committee in 1908), also founded in France, was headed
by Felix Lévitan. Jacques Ferran, member of AIPS and
founder of Sports Correspondents Union of France is
named General Secretary of the IFPC. Other advocates
committed to the creation of the IFPC were the Interna-
tional Federations such as, Football, Rugby and Wrestling
Federations who from the beginning, joined unofficially,
through W. Jones International Basket Federation (FIBA)
General Secretary and executive member of ICSPE.
519
Nonetheless, the creation of the IFPC took place during
an economic situation where the IOC was caught up in
issues that not only weakened it but also brought into play
individuals from within the IFPC. The Olympic movement
was increasingly confronted with the interference of
politics. In fact, sport evolved in a strained international
situation due to geopolitical issues. Sports institutions were
confronted with nationalism from emerging countries which
made sport an identity mechanism, such as, competition
between the two Germanys, the question “of two Chinas”, the
beginning of the cold war between Western and Eastern blocs,
and apartheid in South Africa (Lapchick 1977; Platt 1976). In
addition, the IOC was faced with questions concerning its
leadership. National Olympic Committees (NOCs) and IFs
were structured in fact, to counter balance its influence. The
NOCs met in Rome for their first general assembly from
September 30 to October 2, 1965. The IF held its first
assembly in Lausanne from April 21 to 23, 1967. These
initiatives led to the creation of the AGFIS in 1967 promoted
by French Roger Coulon (MacDonald 1998) and the
European Olympic Committee (EOC) (Formerly titled
“Continental Association NOCs in Europe” in 1968 then in
1975 became “Association of European NOCs” then in 1995
“European Olympic Committee”) in 1968 with the partici-
pation of France. The EOC launched a process of assembling
the NOCs which in turn, would make up the Association of
the National Olympic Committees (ANOC) in 1979.
Education through sport, the fight against violence in
sport and as a consequence of sport, as well as the
promotion of Fair play thus became, in the years just prior
to 1970, the subject of institutional conflict. Sport ethics
and its promotion then became a political tool for the
control sport worldwide. Yet, if UNESCO, through ICSPE
and IFCP, tried to take control of private sport organiza-
tions, the IOC had no intention of allowing UNESCO to
have exclusive rights in this domain. The Olympic
Committee could not ignore the ethical aspects of sport
without taking the risk of seeing its authority weaken: “We
consider this task of the utmost importance and urgency in
view of the fact that many an international body concerned
with Sports has drawn up or is engaged in drawing up,
programme materials concerned with the conception of
modern sport, which might spread confusion into the world
sports movement” (IOC archives. IOC Report Executive
Committee organized in Lausanne in February 1970, p. 34).
In 1964, in co-operation with UNESCO and after consul-
tation with governments, the ICSPE did in fact publish,
“the Sport Manifest”. The role of Fair play in this document
was so important that a Frenchman, Rene Maheu, the
General Director of UNESCO at the time, introduced the
document, saying “delighted to see the Manifest stressing
the importance of the fair play”. One year after the
constitution of the IFPC, fair play seemed to be a major
520
factor in education policy undertaken by UNESCO. The
creation of the IOC commission for the Olympic Interna-
tional Academy (Müller 1998, pp. 8–20) and the Olympic
international aide commission (Charitas 2008, 2009) tes-
tifies to the IOC attempt at to reestablish a foothold in the
field of education.
Shared Interests between UNESCO and the IOC
(1972–1980)
Between 1972 and 1980, relations between UNESCO and
the IOC changed with the election of the Lord Killanin to
the presidency of the IOC at the closing of the Munich
Games in 1972. Even though it refused interference from
UNESCO or the ICSPE at the Olympic Congress (IOC
archives. IOC Report Executive Committee organized in
Lausanne in February 1973, p. 50), with help of its new
president, the IOC, tried to renew contact. Rivalry between
the IOC and UNESCO emerging in the 1960s excluded the
IOC from meetings assembling people from the worldwide
sport. At the Olympic Congress in Varna the program
highlighted UNESCO’s new position in proposing to study
the “introduction of collaboration with UNESCO” (IOC
archives. IOC Report Session organized in Munich in
September 1972, p. 116). One year later, in June 1974, this
request was confirmed by Lord Killanin during the IOC
Executive Committee meeting in Lausanne. In fact, the
president of the IOC “felt that cooperation with UNESCO
was very important and that in future this should be
maintained, as he thought it is ridiculous to have two large
organisations doing the same things” (IOC archives. IOC
Report Executive Committee organized in Lausanne in
June 1974, p. 29). It was a question of resuming
communication in order to agree upon a joint venture or
separation of fields of activity which rely on mutual support
from both organizations. The IFPC then became a
privileged intermediary in the process of bringing
UNESCO and the CIO together.
In the name of J. Borotra, Mr. Berlioux suggested the
president of the IOC become member of the IFPC on June
11, 1974 (IOC archives. Comité International Fair Play
1968–1979. Letter from Monique Berlioux to Lord Killanin
11 June 1974). One month later, in a letter addressed to
Lord Killanin, he asked for his authorization to nominate
him as honorary president alongside Rene Maheu at the
next meeting of the IFPC (IOC archives. International Fair
Play Committee 1968–1979. Letter from J. Borotra to Lord
Killanin July 20 1974). During the meeting between R.
Maheu and Lord Killanin, M’Bow, future successor of R.
Maheu as General Director of UNESCO, “showed great
interest in the joining of forces between the IOC and
UNESCO in the fields where those two great organizations
Soc (2011) 48:517–525
have the same aims” (IOC archives. International Fair Play
Committee 1968–1979. Letter from J. Borotra to Lord
Killanin October 2 1974). During the 75th session in
Vienna (IOC archives. IOC Report Session organized in
Vienna from 21 to 24 October 1974, p.22), the IOC
awarded three Olympic diplomas of merit to J. Borotra,
the “champion of “fair play”” (president of the IFPC and
ICSPE delegate president), Philip Noël Baker, “a sports
humanist” (founder and president of the ICSPE) and
Stanley Rous, the “exemplary sports leader” (former
president of the International Football Association Federa-
tion (FIFA) and vice-president of the IFPC) (Olympic
Review, 85–86, November-December 1974, 595–596).
The meeting between the IOC Chairman, Lord Killanin
and the General Director of UNESCO, M’Bow, was held
for the first time on June 6, 1975 during the award
ceremony for the Fair Play Trophy organized by the IFPC
at UNESCO headquarters. Following this initial meeting,
M’Bow invited Lord Killanin to take part in the first
International Conference of the ministers and senior
officials responsible for physical education and sport
organized in Paris in 1976. During his speech, Lord
Killanin addressed the criticism expressed concerning the
IOC since the 1960s in order to emphasize its affirmative
progress: the definition of amateurism, the legitimacy and
selection of IOC members, the immenseness of the Games,
the importance of victory, the supremacy of great powers.
The involvement of the IOC in the IFPC in, for example,
the creation of Olympic fraternity for developing countries
was marked as an ambition of the IOC to develop an ethical
perception of the sports world. In a power play between
UNESCO and the IOC, Lord Killanin once again confirmed
the authority of the IOC over international sports placing it
ahead of the FI and the NCO. Whereas Avery Brundage
rarely accepted the intrusion of government in sport
policies (Schantz 1995), Lord Killanin wanted to be more
open deeming that “it is greatly hoped that governmental
authorities will grant their support and any possible
assistance for the development of sport”. Faced with
pressure from government and the ever present danger of
political organizations like UNESCO or the “Games of
New-Emerging Forces” (GANEFO), the chairman of the
IOC broke with the policy of opposition and chose “a
policy of co-operation with all those who share its ultimate
goal”. Lord Killanin, in agreement with the need for control
of public finances, on several occasions had insisted on the
fact “that sport is not a plaything for domestic or
international politics and that the National Olympic
Committees have free reign and are not subject to political
considerations or manipulation which would seriously
jeopardize an athlete.” Profiting from agreements between
governments, the IOC chairman had every intention of
developing sport and the Olympic movement while trying
Soc (2011) 48:517–525
to protect it from politics and the repeated attempts of
interference. In order to succeed with this endeavor, the
IOC chairman, drew on a definition of sport as being
“above politics”, a definition that UNESCO constantly
promoted to establish peace. The foundation of these
agreements between public and private organizations was
based on the introduction of co-operation for a common
goal: to develop sports without violence (in the broad sense
of the word) to make it a “fundamental element of any
education and social system”. The conference brought
about the creation, in 1978, of a supervisory entity for
international co-operation such as the development of an
International Charter or the Intergovernmental Committee
for Physical Education and Sport (IGCPES).
If the IFPC was used as an instrument to bring the IOC
and UNESCO together, between 1977 and 1980, it was
involved in a number of enterprises drawing on the
support of the two international organizations and which
obligingly, led to its legitimacy and expansion. The IFPC
was composed of 28 members at the time of its first
general assembly in 1977 [Composed 28 members, 13
international organizations of which 8 international sport
federations, 9 national associations of which 8 national
olympic committees (FRG, Colombia, France, Lybia,
Luxembourg, Poland, Sweden, Tchecoslovakia), and 6
individual members]. By October 1979 the IFPC counted
“82 members including 25 international organizations, 33
national associations (including 26 NOCs), 24 members
on a purely individual basis and 2 benefactors” (IOC
archives. International Fair Play Committee 1968–1979.
Record of proceedings of IFPC General Assembly,
October 4 1979). Even though there was a major
increase in the number of members, the affiliation of
individual members and that of the NOCs demonstrates
the major significance of the development of the IFPC.
In truth, NOC membership was essential in order to
reinforce support of the IOC. Nevertheless, the IFPC
remained European for the most part and evidently
manifests its French influence with four French repre-
sentatives out of the six members on the Board of
Directors (Board). French representation was all the more
emphasized by the nomination of Pierre Ferri on September
26, 1977 to the executive office and Rene Bazennerye to the
Board with the title of founding member of the IFPC (IOC
archives. International Fair Play Committee 1974–1979.
Record of proceedings IFPC Board, September 26 1977).
Nevertheless, tentative to internationalize the structure of its
executive, the assembly recommended the appointment of
additional Board members to offer the other seats to
representatives of all five continents.
Indeed, this represented strong criticism of the IOC with
regard to the IFPC. The expansion of the board of directors
was carried out in July 1977 with the appointment of
521
Mohammed Mzali, IOC Vice President and President of the
Tunisian NOC and Gorges Vichos from Greece, President of
the ISU (IOC archives. International Fair Play Committee
1974–1979. Record of proceedings IFPC Board, June 3
1977), replaced by João Havelange from Brazil, President of
the FIFA in April 1978. The presence on IFPC Board of
members of the Olympic movement increased in 1979 to a
ratio of six members out of 13: Monique Berlioux (France;
IOC Director), Louis Guirandou-N’Daye (NOC President,
Ivory Coast, member of the IOC Executive Committee),
Mzali (1st IOC Vice-President and President of the unisian
NOC), A. de O. Sales (President of the Hong Kong NOC),
Willi Daume (Vice-President of IOC and President of GFR
NOC) and Janusz Piewcewicz (General Secretary of the
Polish NOC). In addition to M. Berlioux, director of the IOC,
3 Board members were on the IOC Executive Committee and
4 were Presidents of NOCs from African, European or Asian
Continents [IOC archives. International Fair Play Committee
1968–1979. Record of proceedings IFCP General Assembly,
October 4 1979].
To establish its authority, the IFPC tried to encourage each
member country to create national Fair Play committees. In
line with its recruitment policy, the IFPC and its president
favored the creation of structures within the NOCs. Thus, in
1977, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Hungary,
Luxembourg, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Tunisia set up a
National Committee or a Commission for Fair Play. During the
International Conference on Sport Violence organized on
September 7, 1977 in Brussels by the Dutch and French
Culture Ministers, J. Borotra had a resolution adopted which
recommended “that each national sports community shall
create an organization representative of all the concerned
competent authorities (including mass communication). An
entity that may be a pre-existing branch of the organization
with shared concerns, and which will have the role of
stimulating, supporting, coordinating educational campaigns
for the protection and promotion of Fair Play, without
however, disengaging sport authorities from any of their
responsibilities in this domain” (IOC archives. International
Fair Play Committee 1974–1979. Record of proceedings IFPC
Board, September 26 1977). Following this resolution, on
September 26, 1977, the IFPC Board of Directors decided to
send a circular accompanied by R. Bazennerye’s project for the
French Committee in order to facilitate the establishment of
national committees for fair play (IOC archives. International
Fair Play Committee 1974–1979. Record of proceedings IFPC
Board, September 26 1977).
Nevertheless, it goes without a saying that in 1979, “the
establishment of national committees for Fair play was only
partially successful” (IOC archives. International Fair Play
Committee 1968–1979. Record of proceedings IFCP
General Assembly, October 4 1979. Report by J. Borotra,
President of IFPC). Their number, 26 NOCs affiliated to the
522
IFPC is small in comparison to the 130 committees
recognized by the IOC. For a number of the NOCs it came
down to a preference for the creation of commissions
within their organizations rather than having committees.
This attitude forecasts a new phase where, sport ethics were
gradually controlled by the sports organizations.
The Fair Play: A Tool at the Service of the Olympic
Ideal (1980–1988)
The IOC, the IFPC and the Alliance became organizations
serving the Olympic ideal because of the sympathetic ear of
the new IOC Chairman, J. A. Samaranch. In a fragile sports
movement, fair play and the fight against violence
represented a means, for the IOC to be at center stage in
the system of world governorship of sports. As he was
aware of the benefits that the question of fair play
represented where IOC authority and legitimacy were
concerned, J. A. Samaranch did not hide his ambition to
control the movement which, given the situation and with
time, had become recognized, legitimate international
organizations. While his predecessor had defined a specific
sphere of activities for each participant, J. A. Samaranch
not only intended to protect himself from government but
also to extend his power over the entire world of sports
through the recognition and the support of UNESCO. For
the IOC, the fight against violence and fair play through
Olympic education represented a formidable means not
only for recognition by government and a safeguard of the
Games but also as a means of influence on the media and
sponsors, who played a major role in the financial
development of the IOC.
An “International Alliance for sports without violence
and fair play” was created on June 17, 1981. The alliance
united not only the IFPC but also the International
Association against Violence in Sport (AICVS) created in
Monaco in 1968 promoted by Charles Drago and the
International Association against Violence associated with
Sports created under the aegis of the Council of Europe in
Brussels on June 26, 1978 by Rika de Baker Van Ocken,
Minister of Dutch Culture in Belgium. The idea of an
agreement between the various organizations in the fight
against violence and for Fair play was suggested by the
IOC at a meeting organized between J.A. Samaranch, and a
delegation of the AICVS on January 19, 1981 in Lausanne.
The role of the IOC was confirmed a few months later
when its president declared: “You know that, a few months
ago the IOC invited you to work together so that you could
mutually assist each other, feel stronger and not spread
yourselves too thin with all your efforts” (IOC archives.
Fair play/symposium 1982–1984. Elocution from Juan
Antonio Samaranch. Documents relative to the Symposium
Soc (2011) 48:517–525
“Le sport mondial et la lutte contre la violence et pour le
Fair-Play: Comment agir efficacement?” Monte-Carlo,
November 16 and 17 1982).
Admittedly strengthened by the course of this act, fair
play became standard policy of the Olympic ideal. It was
actually integrated in rule 26 of the Olympic Charter: “[…]
those who, in the opinion of the IOC, in their sporting
practice, will have obviously breached the spirit of fair play,
in particular while using violence or doping will not be
allowed to take part in the Olympic Games.” Even if P. de
Coubertin had never written the word fair play, J. Borotra
and J. A. Samaranch associated it with the Olympic
coubertinian ideal. The Olympic ideal seen as the root of
sport ethics had to be a precaution in view of the changes
that J. A. Samaranch intended to make in the movement
(Miller 1992). He believed that winning over youth, would
be a vital future concern for the image of the Games.
During his speech at the award ceremony in 1981, he did in
fact proclaim that “violence, cheating, doping, excesses of
all kinds, if they become the rule of thumb, will naturally
turn enthusiastic youths desperate for an ideal away from
stadiums and the practice of the sport. It is up to us to fight
against this affliction. It is up to us to be aware of its
dangers. It is up to us to join together, to win the fight.
Lastly, it is up to us to instill and to promote the spirit of
fair play.” The IOC no longer wished to allow UNESCO to
have a monopoly over the question of education and sports
for everyone (Grosset 2010). March 20 1975, the Council
of Europe launches a draft of “European Charter of sport
for all” officially adopted September 24 1976.
The Fair Play award ceremony organized at the
UNESCO House at end of 1980 needed to be an initial
connection between UNESCO and the IOC (IOC archives.
International Fair Play Committee 1980–1981. Telegram
from Amadou-Mahtar M’Bow to Antonio Samaranch
September 5 1980). The meeting however, did not take
place due to the unavailability of J. A. Samaranch who was
still the ambassador in Moscow. Nevertheless, the IFPC
continued in its role as mediator between the two
organizations. J. Borotra actively worked to organize a
meeting between the two presidents outside IFPC meetings
(IOC archives. International Fair Play Committee 1980–
1981. Correspondence from J. Borotra to J. A. Samaranch
September 12 1980). As a guest of the Olympic Congress
in Baden Baden from September 23 to 28, 1981, the
Director General of UNESCO, M’Bow stressed the impor-
tance of collaboration between UNESCO and the IOC. The
two organizations found a favorable common ground for
collaborative action in taking hold of the initiative of working
toward world peace through the education of a sport founded
on fair play. M’Bow did mention that “UNESCO’s purpose is
to contribute to international understanding in all the fields
that come under its responsibility, and, in particular will never
Soc (2011) 48:517–525
cease working with the Olympic Intergovernmental Committee
and any other concerned organizations, for education based on
the ideals of fair play” (IOC archives. Fair play/symposium
1982–1984. Elocution of M’Bow cited in elocution of J.
Borotra Trophy ceremony on October 4 1983 at UNESCO
headquarters).
The use of “Olympic Intergovernmental Committee”
rather than “Olympic international committee” was a sign
of recognition of the IOC as the highest governing body in
the world of sports. This new relationship brought about the
signing of a memorandum on September 18, 1984, by the IOC
and UNESCO, for co-operation for the diffusion of the
Olympic concept of sport, in particular through teaching at all
school and sport education levels (“Presidential Activities”,
Olympic Review, n°205, November 1984, pp. 860–861). As
a result, the ICSPE acquired the status of “an IOC
recognized organization” following a draft-agreement signed
between the president of the IOC and August Kirsch,
president of the ICSPE (“Presidential Activities”, Olympic
Review, n°205, November 1984, pp. 860–861). Having
acquired recognition from UNESCO, the IOC adopted an
affirmative attitude in order to influence governmental
structures. In truth, the president of the ICSPE, A. Kirsch,
closely linked to the Olympic movement since his vice-
presidency of the NOC for the Federal Republic of Germany.
In addition, since its reorganization at the end 1980s, the
ICSPE and other recognized committees such as the IFPC
held seats, had a notable number of votes as well as advisory
and intellectual authority. For the IOC, having authority at
the heart of the IFPC was another means “of influencing” the
ICSPE.
In this dynamic, the IOC had to prove its authority over
the sports movement. A symposium was organized in
Monte Carlo on 16 and 17 November, 1982. Entitled
“World Sport Fair Play and the fight against violence: How
to work effectively?”, its purpose, borne by J. A.
Samaranch, was “to have the association of the fight
against violence and governing bodies confront [at the
outset the project only involved the AICVS, the Alliance
had not yet been created],—the IOC, IFs, NOCs, athletes,
organizers of sporting events” in order to “take stock of
what we have accomplished over the past few years and to
make if perfectly clear to sports organizations”. In his
opening speech, J. A. Samaranch showed the IOC’s attach-
ment to defending the idea of fair play: “The Olympic
International Committee […] is concerned with the numerous
attacks whether they be directed at the Movement ideal that it
administers, or the ethics of sport in general.” Uniting with
UNESCO and the Alliance at the task of education, he
asserted, “We do indeed have a task (…) of safeguarding the
education of youth through sport in a spirit of mutual
understanding and the spirit of friendship, thereby helping to
build a better and more peaceful world (…)”. The 23e special
523
session of the IOC for the members and executives of the
NOCs and FIs from June 23 to July 1, 1983, in Olympia was
entitled, “The Olympic ideal confronted with violence and fair
play”. This theme was chosen by the IOC commission for the
AIO July 13 1982 by recommendation of J. A. Samaranch.
This was another opportunity to challenge the sporting
movement with the struggle against violence and the fight
for fair play.
Gradually, awareness took hold of all the sport
protagonists concerning the fight against violence in
sports. Even though specialized institutions such as the
IFPC were willingly involved in the process, context
played an important part. Undoubtedly, specific events
challenged public opinion such as the tragedy in Heysel
which occurred in Brussels on May 29, 1985 (Young
1986). Confronted by the risk of sport being associated
with violence and its events being deserted, sport
protagonists needed to react. From this point on, aware
of what was at stake they all took part in meetings and
proposed measures that were, at times, encouraged by
members of the Alliance. Thus, the executive committee
of UNESCO discussed “the problem of violence in sports”
in order to raise the subject at the UNESCO General
Assemble in Sofia. A European convention on violence
and misbehavior among spectators during sporting events
was adopted on July 24, 1985 by the Committee of
Ministers at the Council of Europe. At a meeting of the
ACNO on 7 and 8 November, 1985 in Mexico City,
Amadou Rolls Lamine Ba, General Secretary of the
ANOC of Africa and a member of the IFPC, requested
that a special program for the fight against violence and
the promotion of fair play be noted as a priority where the
IOC, ANOC the FIs and the NOCs are concerned.
Within the international federations, FIFA adopted a
resolution relating to the fight against violence. The
International Federation of Field hockey created its own
Fair play Award. The International Ice Hockey Federa-
tion took measures against violence. The Modern
Pentathlon and Biathlon International Union planned to
create a prize for fair play. The International Federation
of Volleyball created a prize for best sportsmanship.
Lastly, the International Committee of the Military Sports
planned to create a fair play challenge. Interest in the
defense of fair play was equally visible over the
continents. In December 1986, the African High Council
of Sport recommended to its Member States that they
organize an annual fair play week and the Pan-American
Sports Organization created a commission on Fair play in
August 1987. At the end of 1987, the integration of fair
play and the fight against violence in sports or
intergovernmental institutions caused the IFPC and the
Alliance to lose their influence while the structures
reaped the benefits on their own.
524
By recommendation of the IOC President, at the end of the
second symposium of the Alliance, organized in Monaco on
January 19, 1984, J. A. Samaranch told the Alliance of his
intention to create within the IOC, a “commission responsible
for the fight against violence and the promotion of fair play”
(IOC archives. Fair play/symposium 1982–1984. Elocution
by J. Borotra at the Fair Play Trophy ceremony on 4 October
1984 at UNESCO House) in which, the Alliance organiza-
tions would take part. The two parties met in April 1984 in
Lausanne in order to finalize the details of their collaboration.
It was named by the president of the IOC, “Commission of
sport ethics” and set up for the end of 1985. J. Borotra
informed J.A. Samaranch of his hope that it be an advisory
commission for the IOC executive committee. He also hoped
to open the commission so “that every sport be represented”
(IOC archives. International Fair Play Committee 1985.
Correspondence from J. Borotra to J. A. Samaranch June 21
1985). For this reason, he suggested to J.A. Samaranch that
the commission have qualified representatives from non
Olympic federations. J. Borotra also suggested that the IOC
president regroup all the organizations for Olympic education,
the fight against violence and the fight for fair play. In fact, he
asked that it be comprised of presidents or representatives
from each of the three organizations that make up the Alliance
as well as the president or representative of the AIO and the
CIPC. In order to ensure the authority of the IOC, he also
asked J.A. Samaranch to take the presidency of the “commis-
sion for sport ethics and the Olympic ideal” (IOC archives.
International Fair Play Committee 1985. Correspondence
from J. Borotra to J. A. Samaranch June 21 1985).
Continuing along these lines, the appearance of fair play
in IOC policies and activities increased. The notion of the fair
play for example, was introduced into the project, the athlete’s
code of conduct. Similarly, a special chapter in the handbook
of the touring school for sport leaders of Olympic solidarity
was devoted to the promotion of fair play and the fight against
violence. On several occasions, the bureau of the Olympic
movement commission expressed its concern with respect to
growing violence. By invitation of J.A. Samaranch (IOC
archive. International Fair Play Committee 1986–1988. IFPC
General Secretary’s Report to the General Assembly, October
1st 1987), the Alliance then organized a day for cooperation
on 20 and 21 October, 1987 programmed in Lausanne, at
IOC headquarters uniting all the participants governing
international sport (IOC archive. International Fair Play
Committee 1986–1988. Report on proceedings to IFPC
General Assembly, October 1st 1987). Lastly, the fight
for fair play and the fight against violence were
programmed on the agenda of the Olympic congress of
1990 in Tokyo.
At the end 1980s, the Alliance became a political
propaganda tool under the total control of the IOC when,
in 1988, J. Borotra withdrew from the presidency of the
Soc (2011) 48:517–525
IFPC he was replaced by, IOC member, Willi Daume, on
November 3, 1988. This nomination conveyed the
success of J. A. Samaranch’s policy in mastering the
politics of sport ethics. Though it was both strategic and
mirrored the structure of the IFPC, it was nonetheless
symbolic. Fair play a product of UNESCO and ICSPE
policy had become an integral part of the Olympic ideal
and the IOC.
Responsibility in International Sports
Taking responsibility for fair play which brought about the
institutionalization of sport ethics highlights the IOC’s
strong interest in the international management of sports.
The involvement of UNESCO thus led to a power struggle
for the control of a practice whose philosophical appreci-
ation, through fair play, emphasized its symbolic impor-
tance. The IOC, in the background initially, needed to
reclaim the matter of fair play at the risk of seeing its
influence diminish. Preferring to avoid direct conflict with
an intergovernmental organization like UNESCO, at the
risk of seeing governments challenge its supremacy, IOC
leaders initially joined the IFPC to sway its direction and to
reinforce its influence. Later, they made fair play an
Olympic goal in order to integrate it as an inseparable
component. It gave the Olympic movement a new crucial
legitimacy at a time when the IOC saw its foundation
contested.
The first Youth Olympic Games organized in Singapore
in 2010 reflects the constant effort of the IOC for Olympic
education and sports ethics. UNESCO, as with other
organizations, in partnership prior to and during the Games,
supported and took part in this project without managing
the event. Organizations taking part in the cultural program
of the Games are: Association of the National Olympic
Committees, International Olympic Academy, World
Anti-Doping Agency, Association of Summer Olympic
International Federations, International Council of Sport
Science and Physical Education, International Fair Play
Committee, International Pierre de Coubertin Committee,
IOC Athletes Commission, IOC Commission for Culture
and Olympic Education, IOC Medical Commission,
CGF, International Gymnastic Federation (FIG), Interna-
tional Tennis Federation, OLYMPAFRICA, United
Nations, Panathlon International (Youth Olympic Games,
Bulletin n°2, January 2009, p. 2). The organization of the
Youth Olympic Games thus reveals the continuity of the
recognition of the role of education in the Olympic ideal
engineering education through UNESCO. This legitimacy
participated in giving the IOC a key position in the
governorship of sport whether it is with private or public
protagonists in the field of sport.
Soc (2011) 48:517–525
Further Reading
Arnaud, P., & Terret, T. 1993. Le rêve blanc: Olympisme et sport
d’hiver en France, Chamonix 1924, Grenoble 1968. Talence:
Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux.
Bailey, S. 1996. Science in the service of physical education and
sport: The story of the International Council of Sport Science
and Physical Education, 1956–1996. Chichester: Wiley.
Blackshaw, I. S., Siekmann, R. C. R., & Soek, J. 2006. The Court of
Arbitration for Sport, 1984–2004. The Hague: TMC Asser Press.
Borotra, J. 1986. Le Comité International pour le Fair Play. In
Association Française pour un sport sans Violence et pour le Fair
play (Ed.), Rassemblement contre la violence dans le sport et
autour du sport (31 octobre 1985). Paris: AFSVFP.
Boyes, S. 2001. The International Olympic Committee, transnational
doping policy and globalization. In J. O’Leary (Ed.), Drugs and
Doping in Sport: Socio-Legal Perspective (pp. 167–179).
London: Cavendish Publishing.
Chappelet, J.-L. 2002. L’Agence mondiale antidopage: Un nouveau
régulateur des relations internationales sportives. Relations
Internationales, 111, 381–401.
Chappelet, J. L., & Kübler-Mabbott, B. 2008. The International
Olympic Committee and the Olympic System: The Governance of
World Sport. London: Routledge.
Charitas, P. 2008. La naissance d’une solidarité: Les conditions
d’émergence de l’aide au développement sportif olympique (la
Commission d’Aide Internationale Olympique, 1950–1964),
STAPS: Revue internationale des sciences du sport et de
l'éducation physique, 29(2), 23–32.
Charitas, P. 2009. La Commission d’Aide Internationale Olympique
(CAIO): Un instrument de propagande soviétique? (1951–1962).
Sport History Review, 40(2), 143–166.
Clift, B. 2008. The Fifth Republic at Fifty: The Changing Face of French
Politics and Political Economy. Modern and Contemporary France,
16(4), 383–398.
Desplechin-Lejeune, B., Lebecq, P.-A., & Saint-Martin, J. 2008.
L’UNESCO, l’éducation physique et le sport: Genèse et évolution
d’une éducation corporelle internationaliste (1952–1978). Stadion,
International Journal of the History of Sport, 34, 119–142.
Grosset, Y. 2010. Sport pour Tous. In M. Attali & J. Saint-Martin
(Eds.), Dictionnaire culturel du sport. Paris: Armand Colin.
Grosset, Y., & Attali, M. 2007. La création du Comité National des
Sports en France (1908–1922): Témoin de l’affirmation d’une
identité nationale? In B. Kratzmüller, M. Marschik, R. Müllner,
H. D. Szemethy, & E. Trinkl (Eds.), Sport and the Construction
of Identities (pp. 493–501). Vien: Verlag Turia + Kant.
Grosset, Y., & Attali, M. 2008. The French National Olympic and
Sports Committee: A History of the Institutionalization of Sport
and Olympism (1908–1975). The International Journal of
Olympic Studies: Olympika, 17, 133–152.
Grosset, Y., & Attali, M. 2009. The French Initiative towards the
Creation of an International Sports Movement 1908–1925: An
Alternative to the International Olympic Committee? Journal of
Sport History, 36(2), 245–262.
525
Guttmann, A. 1984. The Games must go on: Avery Brundage and the
Olympic Movement. New York: Columbia University Press.
Houlihan, B. 1999. Dying to Win, Doping in Sport and the
Development of Anti-doping Policy. Strasbourg: Council of
Europe Publishing.
Houlihan, B. 2001. The World Anti-Doping Agency: Prospects for
Success. In J. O’Leary (Ed.), Drugs and Doping in Sport:
Socio-Legal Perspective (pp. 125–146). London: Cavendish
Publishing.
Lapchick, R. E. 1977. Apartheid Sport: South Africa’s Use of Sport in
its Foreign Policy. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 1(1), 52–79.
Leizman, J. 1999. Let’s Kill’Em: Understanding and controlling
Violence in Sports. Lanham: University Press of America.
MacAloon, J. J. 1984. This great symbol: Pierre de Coubertin and the
origins of the modern Olympic games. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press.
MacDonald, G. H. 1998. Regime Creation, Maintenance, and
Change: A History of Relations between the International
Olympic Committee and International Sports Federations,
1894–1968. Ph. D dissertation, University of Western Ontario.
Miller, D. 1992. Olympic Revolution: The Olympic Biography of Juan
Antonio Samaranch. London: Pavilion Books.
Morgan, W. J., Meier, K. V., & Schneider, A. J. (Eds.). 2001. Ethics in
Sport. Champaign: Human Kinetics.
Müller, N. 1998. The International Olympic Academy Trough its
lectures 1961–1998. Lausanne: IOC.
Platt, A. R. 1976. The Olympic Games and their Political Aspects:
1952 to 1972. Ph. D. of Philosophy, Kent State University.
Schantz, O. 1995. The Presidency of Avery Brundage. In R. Gafner
(Ed.), The International Olympic Committee one hundred years:
1894–1994. The Idea, the Presidents, the Achievements, vol. 2
(pp. 77–187). Lausanne: IOC.
Simon, R. L. 2010 [1985]. Fair Play: The Ethics of Sport. Boulder,
Colorado: Westview Press.
Valderrama, F. 1995. A History of UNESCO. Paris: UNESCO
Publishing.
Vamplew, V. 2004. [1988]. Pay Up and Play the Game: Professional Sport
in Britain, 1875–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Young, K. 1986. “The Killing Field”: Themes in Mass Media
Responses to the Heysel Stadium Riot. International Review for
the Sociology of Sport, 21(2–3), 253–266.
Yoan Grosset holds a doctorate from the University of Grenoble 1
Sport and Social Sciences Laboratory (SENS) (EA 3742). He
currently holds a temporary teaching and research position at the
University of Marne-la-Vallée. His main topic of research interests
concerns the studies of organisations related to sport and the
institutionalization of sport and Olympism.
Michaël Attali is a lecturer authorized to direct research at the
University of Grenoble 1 Sport and Social Sciences Laboratory
(SENS) (EA 3742). His research deals on process diffusion of sport in
France and at the international during the Twentieth century.