ArticleThe international sports law journal2025
Restricting sports participation on public health and individual well-being grounds: a critical analysis of sport-related rights.
Article in The international sports law journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Enhancing national fitness legislation in the context of promoting a healthy China.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Discussions on restricting participation in sports on public health and individual well-being grounds are not new to the sporting context. Over the past decade, such restrictions have ranged from containing infectious diseases to excluding athletes with noncommunicable diseases. This article addresses the question of whether and to what extent it is ethically and legally defensible for sport bodies and governments to impose such limitations through the lens of human rights, a crucial framework in public health ethics. In doing so, an analysis of normative instruments was performed to understand the articulation of sports-related rights in both sport-specific and non-sport-specific international rights declarations. The analysis yielded four primary observations: (1) an inconsistent depiction of sports as a right; (2) a broad and ambiguous definition of sports solely linked to positive values; (3) an absent differentiation between levels of participation; and (4) variations in the origin, scope, and binding nature of instruments. Such imprecision hinders the effective implementation and comprehension of the rights articulated in and the values upheld within these instruments and creates a fragmented legal landscape. Our work contends that the recognition of rights in relation to sports is fundamentally unrelated to debates concerning eligibility and public health in organized sports at all levels. The most comprehensive rights to participate in sports are stated at the most basic level of participation, specifically granting individuals the right to take part in recreational and leisure pursuits. Greater conceptual clarity is needed to resolve ambiguities and strengthen protections for individuals across all levels of sport.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.