Latest news with #U.S.OlympicandParalympicCommittee
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Sport
- Yahoo
World Athletics mandates genetic testing for female athletes to determine biological sex
Female athletes who want to compete on the international stage in women's events will be required to undergo a one-time genetic test, the World Athletics Council announced. The new changes take effect Sept. 1, just in time for the World Athletics Championships in Tokyo that begin Sept. 13. The test for the SRY gene, which is located on the Y chromosome and determines male sex in humans and other mammals, can be used to determine biological sex. Female athletes can have the once-in-a-lifetime test conducted via a cheek swab or blood test, whichever is more convenient. "The philosophy that we hold dear in World Athletics is the protection and the promotion of the integrity of women's sport. It is really important in a sport that is permanently trying to attract more women that they enter a sport believing there is no biological glass ceiling. The test to confirm biological sex is a very important step in ensuring this is the case," World Athletics president Sebastian Coe said. In 2023, World Athletics banned transgender athletes who had transitioned male to female and gone through male puberty, and it previously announced earlier this year that changes were forthcoming to determine biological sex in competing athletes. The organization said moving forward it would not judge or question gender identity, respect and preserve the dignity and privacy of individuals, and "never has and never would impose any obligation to undergo surgery." In the United States, President Donald Trump issued an executive order just last week, titled "Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports," with the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee telling the federations under its purview that they had an "obligation to comply" with the order. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Female athletes will undergo genetic testing for competition
Time of India
a day ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Donald Trump‑backed USOPC transgender athlete ban may never take effect as legal challenges intensify
Donald Trump‑backed USOPC transgender athlete ban may never take effect as legal challenges intensify (Image via Getty) The U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC) in July 2025 changed its rules to ban transgender women from women's Olympic sports. The change happened after President Donald Trump's team gave a legal letter explaining it would not break the Ted Stevens Olympic & Amateur Sports Act from 1978. That legal cover let USOPC update policy, but experts say court fights are likely. Jill Pilgrim and other Olympic legal experts warn USOPC policy may face lawsuits In July 2025 in Washington, lawyers from the Trump administration sent USOPC a legal brief. They argued that banning transgender women did not conflict with the Ted Stevens Act, the law that guides Olympic sports in the US. This gave USOPC room to roll out a new Athlete Safety Policy. The policy says all 54 national governing bodies must rewrite their rules to match Trump's February 2025 executive order titled 'Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports'. USOPC leadership- CEO Sarah Hirshland and board chair Gene Sykes sent a letter to all sport groups. They said, 'As a federally chartered organization, we must follow federal expectations,' and that the new policy aligns with the Ted Stevens Act. Only a few sport bodies had rules that already matched the new policy when USOPC released the guidance. USA Fencing was among the first to change, after a woman in Maryland refused to compete against a transgender opponent. Shannon Minter says transgender athletes will challenge new USOPC rule Olympic legal expert Jill Pilgrim, a former general counsel for USA Track & Field, praised the Trump legal brief. She called it 'a well thought‑out, well‑reasoned set of arguments for people who want to look at it from that perspective.' Yet she added she would be 'pretty shocked if this doesn't get challenged' by a trans athlete at world championship or Olympic trials. Also Read: Khabib Nurmagomedov Shuts Door On UFC Return With Honest Message About Fight Life Shannon Minter, legal director at the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, said it will not be hard to find a transgender athlete harmed by the change. She predicted the legal brief 'will be challenged and is highly unlikely to succeed.' Minter explained some international federations allow transgender women under specific conditions and USOPC cannot override that. Traditional process means an athlete first goes through Section IX arbitration before suing in U.S. courts. Pilgrim explained that if an athlete wins arbitration and USOPC bans them anyway, then legal action is almost certain. FAQs What is the USOPC transgender athlete ban? It's a new rule from the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee that stops transgender women from competing in women's sports. Why did USOPC change its transgender athlete policy? USOPC updated the policy after Donald Trump's legal team said it would not break the Ted Stevens Act. Can the USOPC transgender athlete ban be challenged? Yes, experts say transgender athletes could challenge the ban in court or through Section IX arbitration. Catch Rani Rampal's inspiring story on Game On, Episode 4. Watch Here!
Washington Post
a day ago
- Politics
- Washington Post
Trump gave the USOPC cover on its transgender athlete policy change. It could end up in court anyway
In its push to remove transgender athletes from Olympic sports, the Trump administration provided the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee a detailed legal brief on how such a move would not conflict with the Ted Stevens Act, the landmark 1978 federal statute governing the Olympic movement. That gave the USOPC the cover it needed to quietly change its policy, though the protection offers no guarantee the new policy won't be challenged in court.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump can't save Olympic sports through executive order, but he can by funding them
There is probably little good that can come from President Trump's executive order on college sports given that it's legally questionable, vaguely written in terms of enforcement and an unpredictable stick of dynamite thrown into the middle of legislative movement on the current SCORE Act making its way through the House of Representatives. But rather than trying to limit by presidential edict how and what college athletes get paid, there is something Trump could do that would address one of the major concerns for his administration. Much of the executive order focuses on protecting opportunities for Olympic sport athletes. With athletic budgets getting squeezed by up to $20.5 million going directly to athletes thanks to the House vs. NCAA settlement, there's widespread fear that non-revenue programs across the country will be on the chopping block. And given the NCAA's role as the de facto development system for much of America's success at the Olympics every four years, a significantly smaller allotment of scholarships could mean both fewer educational opportunities for young people and an erosion of America's standing on the medal table. So here's a suggestion for the Trump Administration: Want to leave a legacy for Olympic sports? Use government money to fund them. Dan Wolken: Attempts to curb payments to college athletes keep failing. There's only one way forward. In nearly every country around the world except the United States of America, federal dollars are funding Olympic sports programs. But here, it's the responsibility of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee and college athletic departments. The former is funded by corporate sponsorships and private donations. The latter is funded by college football. That system, imperfect as it may be, has worked for a long time. If it doesn't work anymore because the economics of college sports have changed, then we need to tweak the system. And if international domination of swimming, track and field and gymnastics is a priority for America, then what's the problem with taxpayers having a little skin in the game? It's not as if public dollars paying for sports is a new concept in this country. You can find the evidence by driving past nearly any pro stadium or arena if you live in a major city. Surely there are some smart people who can figure out how to build a federally funded joint partnership between the USOPC, various National Governing Bodies and the NCAA that coordinates and supports elite athlete development in a handful of Olympic sports that matter most, allowing schools to focus on providing opportunities and educating those who need athletic scholarships to attend college. Admittedly, this idea is a little radical, potentially impractical and rife with unintended consequences. But one way it could work, at least in theory, is that a certain percentage of the top American recruits in the key Olympic pipeline sports would go into a recruiting pool. When they choose a school, this government-funded organization would pay for the four-year scholarship, attach an NIL payment for the athlete to represent the organization and provide a grant to the school as reimbursement for the development cost. To make it more equitable, schools would be limited to a certain number of recruits every year from that elite pool of athletes. The rest of the roster would be filled with either foreign athletes or non-elite American recruits that they must pay for themselves. One obvious criticism of this plan is that smaller schools would get squeezed out even further, given that they're more likely to have a budget crisis than a Texas or an Ohio State and less likely to recruit elite athletes. This might require the NCAA to rethink how it stratifies schools into three divisions and instead move toward a two-tiered model where you either meet certain scholarship and funding standards to be in the Olympic development division or compete in the non-Olympic division, which would functionally be more like intramural or club sports. And maybe none of this is workable. But the point is, it's time to come up with some creative, bold solutions rather than just whining about how schools can't afford to pay for their non-revenue sports anymore. For many, many years, the USOPC has gotten a free ride on the back of the NCAA system, which has only been possible because universities illegally colluded not to share revenues with the athletes that played a significant role in generating them. But the good news is, all the systems are in place to keep Team USA's supremacy intact. There has to be a way for more formal collaboration between the USOPC and the NCAA that can save scholarships, development opportunities and teams from being cut. It just needs the funding. And the federal government can make that happen. Trump can make that happen. If he wants a real and lasting legacy as a president who kept the Olympic movement stable at a time of necessary change in college sports, that's how he can do it. Not an executive order destined to be picked apart and ultimately made irrelevant. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Donald Trump can't save Olympic sports through EO, but could do this
USA Today
6 days ago
- Business
- USA Today
Trump can't save Olympic sports through executive order, but he can by funding them
There is probably little good that can come from President Trump's executive order on college sports given that it's legally questionable, vaguely written in terms of enforcement and an unpredictable stick of dynamite thrown into the middle of legislative movement on the current SCORE Act making its way through the House of Representatives. But rather than trying to limit by presidential edict how and what college athletes get paid, there is something Trump could do that would address one of the major concerns for his administration. Much of the executive order focuses on protecting opportunities for Olympic sport athletes. With athletic budgets getting squeezed by up to $20.5 million going directly to athletes thanks to the House vs. NCAA settlement, there's widespread fear that non-revenue programs across the country will be on the chopping block. And given the NCAA's role as the de facto development system for much of America's success at the Olympics every four years, a significantly smaller allotment of scholarships could mean both fewer educational opportunities for young people and an erosion of America's standing on the medal table. So here's a suggestion for the Trump Administration: Want to leave a legacy for Olympic sports? Use government money to fund them. Dan Wolken: Attempts to curb payments to college athletes keep failing. There's only one way forward. In nearly every country around the world except the United States of America, federal dollars are funding Olympic sports programs. But here, it's the responsibility of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee and college athletic departments. The former is funded by corporate sponsorships and private donations. The latter is funded by college football. That system, imperfect as it may be, has worked for a long time. If it doesn't work anymore because the economics of college sports have changed, then we need to tweak the system. And if international domination of swimming, track and field and gymnastics is a priority for America, then what's the problem with taxpayers having a little skin in the game? It's not as if public dollars paying for sports is a new concept in this country. You can find the evidence by driving past nearly any pro stadium or arena if you live in a major city. Surely there are some smart people who can figure out how to build a federally funded joint partnership between the USOPC, various National Governing Bodies and the NCAA that coordinates and supports elite athlete development in a handful of Olympic sports that matter most, allowing schools to focus on providing opportunities and educating those who need athletic scholarships to attend college. Admittedly, this idea is a little radical, potentially impractical and rife with unintended consequences. But one way it could work, at least in theory, is that a certain percentage of the top American recruits in the key Olympic pipeline sports would go into a recruiting pool. When they choose a school, this government-funded organization would pay for the four-year scholarship, attach an NIL payment for the athlete to represent the organization and provide a grant to the school as reimbursement for the development cost. To make it more equitable, schools would be limited to a certain number of recruits every year from that elite pool of athletes. The rest of the roster would be filled with either foreign athletes or non-elite American recruits that they must pay for themselves. One obvious criticism of this plan is that smaller schools would get squeezed out even further, given that they're more likely to have a budget crisis than a Texas or an Ohio State and less likely to recruit elite athletes. This might require the NCAA to rethink how it stratifies schools into three divisions and instead move toward a two-tiered model where you either meet certain scholarship and funding standards to be in the Olympic development division or compete in the non-Olympic division, which would functionally be more like intramural or club sports. And maybe none of this is workable. But the point is, it's time to come up with some creative, bold solutions rather than just whining about how schools can't afford to pay for their non-revenue sports anymore. For many, many years, the USOPC has gotten a free ride on the back of the NCAA system, which has only been possible because universities illegally colluded not to share revenues with the athletes that played a significant role in generating them. But the good news is, all the systems are in place to keep Team USA's supremacy intact. There has to be a way for more formal collaboration between the USOPC and the NCAA that can save scholarships, development opportunities and teams from being cut. It just needs the funding. And the federal government can make that happen. Trump can make that happen. If he wants a real and lasting legacy as a president who kept the Olympic movement stable at a time of necessary change in college sports, that's how he can do it. Not an executive order destined to be picked apart and ultimately made irrelevant.
