“Can the Law Balance Protest Rights with the Safety and Integrity of Sport?”

The Vuelta a España rarely commands global attention in the way the Tour de France does, let alone the Olympic Games or World Cup. Yet this year, the race has made headlines, not for its cycling, but because protesters forced its premature cancellation in Madrid. Pro-Palestinian demonstrators rallying against the inclusion of the Israel-Premier Tech team quickly became a symbol of the tension between the right to protest and the duty to protect the safety and integrity of such major events. The global visibility of sport makes it an irresistible – and often effective – stage for political protest. At the same time, that visibility places a heavy burden on organisers to safeguard athletes, spectators, and the competition itself. The key legal and ethical question, then, is how protest can occur on the margins of sport, without allowing the fundamental right to expression to jeopardise public order, safety, or the integrity of competition.

Sport is often portrayed as a politically neutral space, but history demonstrates that it has always been a stage for political struggles. From boycotts of apartheid South Africa to the Black Power salute at the 1968 Olympics, athletes and activists have long used sport as a platform for protest. With today’s ever-increasing audience, ubiquitous live broadcasts, and the amplifying effect of social media, attention to sport has never been greater. In this context, the past decade has seen a surge in political statements in sport from both athletes and spectators. Racial justice has been championed through acts such as players kneeling before games, both in the NFL and across global football. Simultaneously, groups like Just Stop Oil have repeatedly disrupted events such as Wimbledon, the London Marathon, and Premier League matches in the name of climate justice. These actions illustrate a simple fact: sport’s stage is too big, too visible, and too symbolic to remain untouched by wider social conflict.

La Vuelta, however, presents quite a distinct and complicated case. Unlike protests on broad social issues, here it stems from a highly charged geopolitical conflict, intensified by diplomatic tensions and political leaders weighing in on the question of Israel’s participation in sport. The Spanish PM, for one, has called for Israel to be excluded from international sport, praising the protestors for their mobilisation. At the same time, reports suggest tht UEFA and FIFA (football’s governing bodies) are looking to ban Israel from international football. These developments highlight the difficulty faced by sporting bodies and organisers. When protests spill into such contentious terrain, they push organisers to the very limits of what the law allows in balancing freedom of expression, safety, and institutional autonomy.

The rights to freedom of expression and assembly are enshrined in both international and national law. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), for example, protects these rights under Articles 10 and 11. These rights are not absolute: restrictions may be imposed, but only if they are lawful, necessary, and proportionate. In practice, this means that while protesting is a protected right, organisers, and to a lesser extent governments, retain authority to regulate demonstrations when safety or public order is at risk. The critical question is proportionality. The restrictions must not be intrusive. Blanket bans rarely withstand legal scrutiny, whereas confining demonstrations to designated zones outside of venues often does.

The particular challenge that sport faces is that it occupies a blurred legal space. Sporting venues and race routes are quasi-public spaces, typically controlled by private organisers. Yet because they are broadcast worldwide and attended by thousands, courts sometimes view them as public spaces where expression should be permitted. A legal tension therefore emerges, whereby protest inside the venue may be lawfully restricted, but outright bans on protest in the wider vicinity may breach international law. In Appleby v United Kingdom, the ECHR ruled that while there is no absolute right to protest on private property, governments must ensure effective alternatives for expression are available.

The United States offers a useful comparative lens for this issue. The First Amendment protects free speech but permits “time, place, and manner” regulations provided they are politically neutral and narrow in scope. This approach allows stadiums to prohibit unauthorised protests or pitch invasions while still preserving space for protest outside venues. This proportionality logic is the foundation of European human rights law, where restrictions are allowed inside cordons, but outside of them, alternatives must be in place.

Returning to La Vuelta, once the streets of Madrid became part of an international sporting event, they created a controlled zone where protestors could be lawfully excluded, similar to how pitch invasions in football are criminalised. The legal line is effectively drawn at the cordons, and within them, the organisers have a duty to protect athletes, provided restrictions are proportionate. When protestors blocked the race route, they moved beyond lawful protest and into disruption of a protected sporting zone. The Spanish government reported that 22 police officers were injured in the confrontations, whilst two protestors were arrested. Several riders had already fallen as a result of the disruptions earlier in the race, and some riders had threatened to quit, citing safety risks. In this case, the proportionality reasoning is straightforward– the danger to athletes justified intervention and removal.

Image by Fibonacci Blue via Wikimedia Commons