The Enhanced Games from a Human Rights Perspective

Can you imagine the Olympics but with doping allowed? In the US, this has become a reality. On May 24, 2026, the first-ever edition of the Enhanced Games started in Las Vegas. The Enhanced Games are a privately funded multi-sport event in which athletes are permitted to utilize performance-enhancing substances. However, the substances used in the Games must be legal under the rules of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Athletes participating in the Games receive a sort of salary as well as substantial prize money: up to $250,000 for event winners and a $1 million bonus for breaking a world record. Professional athletes, including Olympic medallists, have joined the competition. This is the case, for instance, of the 2022 world champion British swimmer Ben Proud. In short, the main (declared) vision behind the Enhanced Games is that “[t]he idea that athletes should compete substance-free is a 20th-century invention, not a timeless moral principle” (minute 0:53). But should the State allow this type of event? In this post, I argue that International Human Rights Law does not necessarily prohibit such competitions. However, it requires States to monitor and, where appropriate, regulate them in light of the potential health implications for both athletes and the wider public. From a human rights perspective, the decision to permit these events should be evidence-based, subject to ongoing review and monitoring, and adopted through a transparent and participatory process. At the same time, the use of performance-enhancing drugs raises a series of philosophical, ethical, and sociological issues that call for perspectives extending beyond the law.