SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kafkas Üniversitesi Spor Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2026

Digital Surveillance, Athlete Rights and Contractual Restrictions in High-Performance Sports: A Human Rights-Based Analysis

Yüksek Performans Sporunda Dijital Gözetim, Sporcu Hakları ve Sözleşmesel Kısıtlamalar: İnsan Hakları Temelli Bir İnceleme

Fethi Yıldırım(Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı)0000-0001-8420-0576
Pages
70–86
Publication Date
2026-07-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: In conclusion, it has been evaluated that the asymmetric provisions and digital surveillance in modern sports contracts excessively violate the fundamental rights of the athlete.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose: The main purpose of this study is to examine the legal legitimacy of the corporate hegemony (asymmetric morality provisions, transfer restrictions and cyber-physical surveillance) established over the civil autonomy and free movement rights of professional athletes through printed contracts in the context of national norms (TBK, KVKK) and international human rights (ECHR, GDPR, EU Law) in high performance sports, which has turned into a global industry.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Method: In this research based on the interdisciplinary traditional (narrative) compilation method within qualitative research designs; Current empirical studies (2024-2026), national sports regulations and case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), European Court of Justice (CJEU) and International Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) were analyzed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: In conclusion, it has been evaluated that the asymmetric provisions and digital surveillance in modern sports contracts excessively violate the fundamental rights of the athlete.
🔬Design:Derleme
📍Scope:2024-2026 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Spor Hukuku · Ahlak Hükümleri · Biyometrik Veri

Abstract

Purpose: The main purpose of this study is to examine the legal legitimacy of the corporate hegemony (asymmetric morality provisions, transfer restrictions and cyber-physical surveillance) established over the civil autonomy and free movement rights of professional athletes through printed contracts in the context of national norms (TBK, KVKK) and international human rights (ECHR, GDPR, EU Law) in high performance sports, which has turned into a global industry. Method: In this research based on the interdisciplinary traditional (narrative) compilation method within qualitative research designs; Current empirical studies (2024-2026), national sports regulations and case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), European Court of Justice (CJEU) and International Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) were analyzed. Results: As a result of the research, it was determined that morality provisions lacking the principle of reciprocity narrowed athletes' freedom of civil expression and FIFA's transfer regulations violated athletes' right to free movement. Additionally, it has been confirmed that biometric data consent has become a legally invalid prerequisite for participation due to the asymmetrical balance of power, that the intersection of this data with the sports betting industry poses serious privacy risks, and that uninterrupted cyber surveillance creates clinical-level technostress in athletes. With the Swiss Grand Chamber decision in Semenya v. Switzerland (July 2025) and the CJEU's Lassana Diarra decision (October 2024), it was determined that the absolute autonomy of Lex Sportiva was broken and human rights and EU law became a mandatory standard of control in sports management. Conclusion: In conclusion, it has been evaluated that the asymmetric provisions and digital surveillance in modern sports contracts excessively violate the fundamental rights of the athlete. For a fair ecosystem, recognition of athlete data sovereignty, use of distributed data systems, and establishment of legal reciprocity in termination and transfers have been deemed necessary.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, küresel bir endüstriye dönüşen yüksek performans sporunda, matbu sözleşmelerle profesyonel sporcuların sivil otonomileri ve serbest dolaşım hakları üzerinde kurulan kurumsal hegemonyanın (asimetrik ahlak hükümleri, transfer kısıtlamaları ve siber-fiziksel gözetim) ulusal normlar (TBK, KVKK) ve uluslararası insan hakları (AİHS, GDPR, AB Hukuku) bağlamındaki hukuki meşruiyetini incelemektir. Yöntem: Disiplinlerarası nitel araştırma desenlerinden geleneksel (narratif) derleme yöntemine dayanan bu araştırmada; güncel ampirik çalışmalar (2024-2026), ulusal spor regülasyonları ile Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi (AİHM), Avrupa Adalet Divanı (CJEU) ve Uluslararası Spor Tahkim Mahkemesi (CAS) içtihatları analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular: Araştırma sonucunda, karşılıklılık ilkesinden yoksun ahlak hükümlerinin sporcuların sivil ifade özgürlüğünü daralttığı ve FIFA'nın transfer regülasyonlarının sporcuların serbest dolaşım hakkını ihlal ettiği saptanmıştır. Ayrıca, biyometrik veri izninin asimetrik güç dengesi nedeniyle hukuken sakat bir katılım ön şartına dönüştüğü, bu verilerin spor bahisleri sektörüyle kesişmesinin ciddi mahremiyet riskleri doğurduğu ve kesintisiz siber gözetimin sporcularda klinik düzeyde teknostres yarattığı doğrulanmıştır. AİHM'in Temmuz 2025 tarihli Semenya v. Switzerland Büyük Daire kararı ve CJEU'nun Ekim 2024 tarihli Lassana Diarra kararıyla Lex Sportiva'nın mutlak özerkliğinin kırılarak, insan hakları ve AB hukukunun spor yönetiminde zorunlu bir denetim standardı hâline geldiği belirlenmiştir. Sonuç: Sonuç itibarıyla, modern spor sözleşmelerindeki asimetrik hükümlerin ve dijital gözetimin sporcunun temel haklarını ölçüsüzce ihlal ettiği değerlendirilmiş olup; adil bir ekosistem için sporcu veri egemenliğinin tanınması, dağıtık veri sistemlerinin kullanılması ve fesih ile transferlerde hukuki karşılıklılığın tesisi gereklilik arz etmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yıldırım, F. (2026). Digital Surveillance, Athlete Rights and Contractual Restrictions in High-Performance Sports: A Human Rights-Based Analysis. Kafkas Üniversitesi Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2026, 70–86. https://ajindex.com/articles/1516519

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (33)

  1. Aydos, O. S. (2013). Sporcu sözleşmesinin feshi. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 62(3), 643-690. https://doi.org/10.1501/Hukfak_0000001722
  2. Carter-Ruck. (2021). Law in sport review: Guidance for athletes on social media use and reviewing historic posts. Carter-Ruck Solicitors.
  3. Carty, A. W. (2022). Canceled: Morality clauses in an influencer age. Lewis & Clark Law Review, 26(2), 565–612. https://lawcommons.lclark.edu/lclr/vol26/iss2/9
  4. Cem, Ç. (2012). Profesyonel futbolcu transfer sözleşmesi (1. bs.). [Yayınevi bilgisi belirtilmemiş]. ISBN 978-605-5373-69-6.
  5. Cooper, J. (2025). Intervention: Semenya v Switzerland (European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber), No. 10934/21. Entertainment and Sports Law Journal, 23(1). https://www.entsportslawjournal.com/article/id/1985/
  6. Court of Justice of the European Union. (2024). Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) v. BZ (Lassana Diarra), Case C-650/22, Judgment of 4 October 2024.
  7. Çiçek, M. (2024). Türkiye’de Biyometrik Veri Güvenliği: Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Kanunu Çerçevesinde Etik Bir Değerlendirme. Kişisel Verileri Koruma Dergisi, 6(2), 54-76. https://izlik.org/JA78XL44UN
  8. De Moya, J.-F., & Pallud, J. (2020). From panopticon to heautopticon: A new form of surveillance introduced by quantified-self practices. Information Systems Journal, 30(5), 940–976. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12284
  9. DeShane, T. (2024). Wearable technology in intercollegiate sport: Ethical and legal considerations of collecting student-athlete biometric data. Western Michigan University, Lee Honors College.
  10. Doré, T. (2025). Impact of social media pressure on the psychological well-being of collegiate athletes.ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395406364_Impact_of_Social_Media_Pressure_on_the_Psych ological_Well-Being_of_Collegiate_Athletes
  11. Epstein, C. (2016, January 6). Morals clauses: Past, present and future. Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law (JIPEL), 5(1). https://jipel.law.nyu.edu/morals-clauses-past-present-and-future/
  12. Erdinç, G. H. (2020). Ölçülülük İlkesi ve Açık Rıza Kapsamında Biyometrik Verilerin İşlenmesi. Kişisel Verileri Koruma Dergisi, 2(1), 1-19. https://izlik.org/JA46GH39FW
  13. European Court of Human Rights. (2018). Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland, Apps. no. 40575/10 and 67474/10, Judgment of 2 October 2018.
  14. European Court of Human Rights. (2025). Semenya v. Switzerland [GC], App. no. 10934/21, Grand Chamber Judgment of 10 July 2025.
  15. Giulianotti, R. (2005). Sport: A critical sociology. Polity Press.
  16. Hasan, N. (2020, September 9). Project Red Card: UK soccer players call foul on the use of their personal data. Inside Sports Law. Norton Rose Fulbright.
  17. Justice for Players. (2025). Justice for Players launches class action following Lassana Diarra ruling. Morgan Sports Law.
  18. Kowalski, J. (2021). Sports data mining: Project Red Card. DAC Beachcroft.
  19. Kwon JW (2025) Athlete data sovereignty: addressing the legal and policy gaps in sports technology. Front. Sports Act. Living 7:1742484. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2025.1742484
  20. Maltseva, K. (2020). Wearables in the workplace: The brave new world of employee engagement. Business Horizons, 63(4), 493–505.
  21. Mendenhall v. Hanesbrands, Inc., 856 F. Supp. 2d 717 (MDNC 2012).
  22. Nader v. ABC Television, Inc. (2005). 150 Fed. Appx. 54 (2d Cir. 2005).
  23. Osborne, B., & Cunningham, J. L. (2017). Legal and ethical implications of athletes' biometric data collection in professional sport. Marquette Sports Law Review, 28(1), 37-84.
  24. Piechowiak, M., Goch, A., Panas, E., Masiak, J., Mikołajewski, D., Rojek, I., & Mikołajewska, E. (2025). The Global Importance of Machine Learning-Based Wearables and Digital Twins for Rehabilitation: A Review of Data Collection, Security, Edge Intelligence, Federated Learning, and Generative AI. Electronics. Practical Law Arbitration, & Schellenberg Wittmer Ltd. (2021, July 20). CAS award in Blake Leeper case upheld (Swiss Supreme Court). Thomson Reuters Practical Law.
  25. Sisk, S. (2025). How gambling interest in player biometric data could disrupt sports privacy laws. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law.
  26. Socolow, B. R. (2008). What every player should know about morals clauses. Moves Magazine, Loeb & Loeb LLP.
  27. Swiss Supreme Court. (2012). Landmark ruling setting aside CAS award for violation of substantive public policy (Case 4A_558/2011). Practical Law.
  28. Türkiye Futbol Federasyonu. (2016). Profesyonel Futbolcuların Statüsü ve Transferleri Talimatı.
  29. van der Merwe, B., & Cloete, R. (2024). The doctrine of proportionality: A proposed solution to human rights infringements in sports adjudication. De Jure Law Journal, 57(1), 160–168.
  30. Valkenburg, D., de Hon, O., & van Hilvoorde, I. (2014). Doping control, providing whereabouts and the importance of privacy for elite athletes. The International journal on drug policy, 25(2), 212–218.
  31. Weible, E., Cerqueira, C., & Viret, M. (2025, October 10). The legal implications of the Semenya ruling from a Swiss perspective. Strasbourg Observers.
  32. Werner, M., & Bischof, A. (2024). The double-edged sword of self-tracking: Investigating factors of technostress in performance-oriented cycling and triathlon. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 6, 146. Yargıtay 9. Hukuk Dairesi. (2010). Esas No: 2010/400, Karar No: 2010/7264. T.C. Yargıtay Başkanlığı.
  33. Yılmaz, A. Ç. (2017). FIFA & CAS Kuralları Çerçevesinde Uluslararası Nitelikli Profesyonel Futbolcu Sözleşmesinin Feshi. On İki Levha Yayıncılık.