With the 2022 Winter games underway in Beijing, Richmond Law professor Andy Spalding, an expert in the Olympics, corruption, and human rights violations, says global sporting events capture people’s interests in a way that politics can’t.

“Part of the anti-corruption movement is to change the way people think — not just about corruption, but about the possibility of reducing corruption,” he said. “We can use sports to talk about anti-corruption reforms, but also, as with China, human rights reforms.”

Spalding is chair of the Olympics Compliance Task Force and collaborates with a team of international academics and practitioners, along with the International Olympic Committee, to design and promote Olympic host country anti-corruption and human rights measures. His forthcoming book, A New Megasport Legacy, explores how the Olympics, the World Cup, and other major sporting events can have a lasting legacy in host countries through anti-corruption and human rights reforms. The book draws on Spalding’s research during recent events in Brazil, South Korea, France, and Qatar.

Here, Spalding talks about how mega sporting events raise awareness of human rights violations, and how future events can better leverage their global platform. 

What are some of the issues you’re studying in relation to the Beijing Olympics?

In mega sports, we see how the very hosting of events causes human rights violations. Think of Brazil clearing shanty towns to make way for infrastructure projects of questionable value [before the 2016 Summer Olympics].  

But China’s different because the question is whether mega sports should tolerate preexisting human rights problems in a country. Should we be willing to let the events be hosted in countries where we see these systemic problems?

Do you expect to see changes in China as a result of your work, or the global attention from the Games?

When the Olympics are over, I think China’s posture in relation to human rights will probably be better off, even if it makes no reforms. We’re all talking about these issues in ways that we otherwise wouldn’t. Now, I’m not sure that’s a reason to award mega sports to egregious human rights violators. But we do have to recognize that the Olympics have called attention to human rights violations in China in a way that very few other events could have.

China may be an intractable problem, but it represents the end of an era. With the Qatar World Cup later this year, the dominant narrative is that China and Qatar are two examples of a problem that we have known about for decades: endemic human rights and corruption violations in mega sports.

I think that’s wrong. I think we have to understand China as the end of an era in which mega sports coincide with serious systemic corruption and human rights violations. I would like to change the narrative around what mega sports are — or can be — moving forward.

What makes Qatar different?

When Qatar was awarded the World Cup in 2010, by its own admission, it had a bad labor rights record. A number of media outlets and [humanitarian organizations], labor unions, even the International Labour Organization began putting pressure on it to change its labor practices. Qatar adopted systemic reforms around worker safety, freedom, and self-expression and is in a radically different place today than it was 12 years ago. So, what we see in Qatar is the ability of mega sports to become a lever that the world can use to pressure countries to adopt reforms.

We can look at [potential host] countries and know in advance which way they’re likely to go. We shouldn’t be surprised that Russia didn’t change. We shouldn’t be surprised if China doesn’t change. We should recognize that Qatar did.

How do you involve your students in your work?

My students have helped tremendously to conduct research. Some small sections of my new book have been written by students. I am a big believer that if I pick the students carefully, and give them the right support, they can do exceptionally good work on these topics.

One student, Ave Grosenheider, found that China and the United States are actually two of the world’s leaders in fielding female Olympic athletes. But how is it that China, despite being authoritarian, despite snubbing its nose at Western human rights norms, is so successful? And I think the best answer is that China wants to use Olympic glory to project its political image. It believes it can make more progress with female athletes, particularly against these countries where sports are more popular for males.

Now that the Beijing Olympics are underway, what are you focused on next?

After the World Cup in Qatar, we see the FIFA Women’s World Cup in 2023, hosted by Australia and New Zealand. I think the Women’s World Cup deserves a place in the mega sport conversation. We’ll look at what they’re doing around equal pay and women’s rights. With the Men’s World Cup, you have to twist some arms to get people to think of the human rights implications, but with the Women’s World Cup, it’s inherently a human rights event, and everybody understands that. 

In the time between Qatar, to Australia and New Zealand, to the Paris 2024 Olympics, we can build substantial momentum for this idea that mega sports not only should prevent corruption and human rights scandals, but can deliberately build legacies. For example, the Paris Olympics will have 70,000 volunteers and staff. Let’s say we have to train them in basic anti-corruption, human rights, practices, norms, and procedures. That’s 70,000 people who might be exposed to new ideas and new practices. They’re going to go into business, government, civil society, education, and they now have a heightened familiarity with these ideas. That’s a legacy.