Sports Law

In recent years, the competitive sporting landscape has shifted tremendously.

Increasingly, governing agencies and sporting bodies are becoming beholden to the interests of corporate entities, with Saudi-backed institutions such as DAZN emerging as major players in the sports entertainment industry. Their entry into the market is symptomatic of a broader trend in the sports world, where shock-factor and novelty subsume the place of integrity and tradition in an at times insidious attempt to galvanise public discourse and attention.

The latest—and perhaps most controversial—development in this relentless lust for virality and consumer engagement is the Enhanced Games.

Founded by Aron D’Souza and backed by the likes of billionaire entrepreneur Peter Thiel and Donald Trump Jr, the Enhanced Games (TEG) is a proposed sporting event that would allow athletes to use performance-enhancing substances without being subject to drug tests.

Despite efforts to market itself as a natural evolution of sports entertainment and scientific progress, public sentiment toward the Enhanced Games has largely been marked by contempt and concern.

Notwithstanding the barrage of criticism it has attracted—and its inexorable threats to the status quo of the fragile sporting establishment—the event seems poised to go ahead.

With that in mind, beyond the event’s inherent novelty and the resulting media frenzy engulfing it, a more pertinent analysis can be ascertained from the lens of the law, especially given the myriad legal issues it will inevitably create.

A Legal Grey Area

Whilst the games are set to take place at Resorts World on the Las Vegas Strip in the US, many of the competing athletes will train and be based outside the US. As such, the legal issues within the event’s orbit concern the law not only of the US but also of other competing nations.

1. Anti-Doping Laws and International Treaties

Given the nature of the TEG, they can be perceived as a direct challenge to well-established anti-doping efforts. Most notably:

• The World Anti-Doping Code – a framework for anti-doping policies, rules, and regulations within sport organisations and among public authorities that aims to preserve the intrinsic spirit of sport; and
• The UNESCO International Convention Against Doping in Sport – ratified by nearly 190 countries, this treaty harmonises anti-doping legislation, regulations and guidelines internationally to help ensure a level playing field.

In both instances, hosting, supporting, or promoting an event that permits or encourages perfomance enhancing drugs (PEDs) use could be interpreted as violating these international obligations.

2. Public Health and Medical Regulation

Certain PEDs likely to be used in the TEG—such as anabolic steroids, human growth hormone (HGH), or erythropoietin (EPO)—are classified as controlled substances in many jurisdictions.

If doctors, trainers, or medical staff are found to have supplied these substances, the consequences could be wide-ranging, including potential loss of medical licences and regulatory sanctions. In some instances, criminal charges may result, especially if their actions breach professional ethics or controlled substance laws.

For a helpful overview, see Performance Enhancing Drugs Explained from HealthDirect Australia.

3. Labour and Employment Law

Additional liability for the health and safety of athletes may flow onto TEG organisers if athletes are classified as employees or independent contractors.

The promotion and permission of PED use within the TEG exposes organisers to a multitude of claims such as unsafe working conditions.

The risk of coercion or negligence is particularly pertinent given the inherent pressure athletes may feel to enhance to remain marketable. This concern is amplified by the unique context from which the TEG has arisen, where economic incentives ostensibly remain the priority.

4. Criminal Liability

In many countries, the possession, distribution, or transport of controlled substances—even for non-recreational purposes—may constitute a criminal offence.

Athletes or support staff transporting PEDs across borders may breach drug trafficking laws, customs regulations or export/import restrictions, exposing them to criminal liability depending on domestic laws.

5. Civil Liability

Beyond the potential criminal liability that event organisers may incur, they are also exposed to civil liability—particularly if athletes are harmed, injured, or die as a result of PED use during TEG events. This may include claims for personal injury, wrongful death or negligence.

Within the context of the TEG, this is a particularly pertinent concern given the opportunity for PED use to uneven the playing field between athletes, leading to potential discrepancies in size, strength and skill.

You can learn more about organiser responsibility in this article on legal liability in sport.

6. Insurance Risks

The above concerns may further act as a deterrent for insurance companies to get involved with the event, especially if the legal status remains unclear or if participant safety is in question.

What Does This Mean for Australian Athletes?

Given the inherent novelty of the TEG as well as the fact that they are not scheduled to take place until May 2026, the breadth of its legal impact is yet to be fully realised in an Australian context.

Already, however, governing bodies and agencies have begun to take a stance.

The Australian Olympic Committee has brandished the idea as “dangerous and irresponsible,” whilst the CEO of the Australian Sports Commission stated, “I cannot see any responsible and ethical person thinking the Enhanced Games is even remotely sensible.”

Overall, the Australian response seems to align closely with the pre-existing framework established by the World Anti-Doping Code.

For instance, Sport Integrity Australia is an Australian government executive agency that binds operations of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority and the National Integrity of Sport Unit. Its CEO, David Sharpe, has accused TEG organisers of prioritising profit over athlete health and has delivered a broad warning to Australian athletes that their participation in TEG may place them at risk of being frozen out of organised sport.

Whilst it remains to be seen exactly how the TEG will interact with Australian domestic law, it is clear that a unified response foregrounding the ongoing safety of athletes and the primacy of international anti-doping regulations is beginning to take shape.

Key Takeaway

Ostensibly, the TEG creates more problems than it solves—especially in the context of the law. As its proponents attempt to legitimise it by framing it as the next step in sports entertainment and scientific innovation, it will be interesting to see how it navigates the ongoing tensions between legality, ethics and novelty.

Have questions about how evolving international sports law may impact athletes or organisations in Australia? Feel free to call us on +612 9283 5599 or complete the free and confidential call-back form below. We’re here to help.