{"id":4578,"date":"2026-07-05T23:44:07","date_gmt":"2026-07-05T23:44:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pju-upj.org\/?p=4578"},"modified":"2026-07-05T23:44:25","modified_gmt":"2026-07-05T23:44:25","slug":"la-controversia-entre-la-institucionalidad-deportiva-de-la-republica-del-ecuador-y-los-planteamientos-del-coi-the-controversy-between-the-sports-institutions-of-the-republic-of-ecuador-and-the-posit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/pju-upj.org\/?p=4578","title":{"rendered":"La controversia entre la institucionalidad deportiva de la Rep\u00fablica del Ecuador y los planteamientos del COI \/ The Controversy Between the Sports Institutions of the Republic of Ecuador and the Positions of the IOC"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Licenciado\"
Licenciado Miguel Vnegas, experto en cuestiones deportivas olimpicas<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

La controversia entre la institucionalidad deportiva de la Rep\u00fablica del Ecuador y los planteamientos del COI.\u00a0<\/strong><\/h3>\n
(Por\u00a0 una noticia aparecida en el Diario La Hora del Ecuador, me he informado de esta controversia jur\u00eddico\/ deportiva, que me obliga a aportar algunas consideraciones legales con la \u00fanica intenci\u00f3n de precisar algunos conceptos legales para que la misma pueda ser analizada con objetividad).<\/div>\n
Autonom\u00eda deportiva, legalidad estatal y l\u00edmites de la gobernanza privada internacional.<\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
El presente art\u00edculo analiza la controversia surgida entre el Comit\u00e9 Ol\u00edmpico Internacional (COI) y la institucionalidad deportiva de la Rep\u00fablica del Ecuador a ra\u00edz de intervenciones estatales en el Comit\u00e9 Ol\u00edmpico domiciliado en dicha naci\u00f3n.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
El estudio examina la naturaleza jur\u00eddica del COI, la Carta Ol\u00edmpica y los Comit\u00e9s Ol\u00edmpicos Nacionales (CON), desde una perspectiva de derecho deportivo y derecho p\u00fablico, destacando los l\u00edmites de la autonom\u00eda deportiva frente al principio de legalidad estatal.<\/div>\n
Se sostiene que la gobernanza ol\u00edmpica, al ser de naturaleza privada, no puede situarse por encima de los ordenamientos jur\u00eddicos nacionales ni condicionar su vigencia.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
La relaci\u00f3n entre el sistema deportivo internacional y los Estados contempor\u00e1neos ha generado tensiones recurrentes, especialmente cuando las estructuras privadas de gobernanza deportiva pretenden extender el alcance de sus normas m\u00e1s all\u00e1 del \u00e1mbito estrictamente asociativo.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
En este contexto, la controversia entre el Comit\u00e9 Ol\u00edmpico Internacional y la institucionalidad deportiva ecuatoriana plantea una cuesti\u00f3n central: los l\u00edmites jur\u00eddicos de la autonom\u00eda deportiva frente a la soberan\u00eda normativa del Estado.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Este conflicto exige una delimitaci\u00f3n rigurosa entre el derecho asociativo privado y el derecho p\u00fablico estatal, evitando la asimilaci\u00f3n indebida de instrumentos estatutarios privados a normas constitucionales.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Naturaleza jur\u00eddica de la Carta Ol\u00edmpica<\/strong><\/div>\n
La denominada Carta Ol\u00edmpica constituye el estatuto interno del COI y del llamado Movimiento Ol\u00edmpico. Sin embargo, su naturaleza jur\u00eddica es inequ\u00edvoca: se trata de un instrumento normativo privado de car\u00e1cter asociativo, sin jerarqu\u00eda constitucional ni naturaleza de tratado internacional.<\/div>\n
En t\u00e9rminos comparados, la Constituci\u00f3n de un Estado:<\/div>\n
* deriva del poder constituyente,<\/div>\n
* organiza el poder p\u00fablico,<\/div>\n
* posee supremac\u00eda normativa interna,<\/div>\n
* y vincula obligatoriamente a todos los sujetos dentro del territorio nacional.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Por el contrario, la Carta Ol\u00edmpica:<\/div>\n
* regula una organizaci\u00f3n privada internacional,<\/div>\n
* carece de potestad p\u00fablica,<\/div>\n
* no emana de los Estados,<\/div>\n
* y no puede prevalecer sobre el derecho interno.<\/div>\n
El uso del t\u00e9rmino \u201cconstituci\u00f3n del deporte\u201d debe entenderse, en consecuencia, como una categor\u00eda metaf\u00f3rica sin valor normativo vinculante en el derecho p\u00fablico estatal.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Naturaleza jur\u00eddica del COI.<\/strong><\/div>\n
El COI no constituye una organizaci\u00f3n internacional de Estados, sino una asociaci\u00f3n privada internacional sin car\u00e1cter gubernamental.<\/div>\n
Su estructura se compone de personas naturales que act\u00faan a t\u00edtulo individual, sin representaci\u00f3n estatal. En consecuencia:<\/div>\n
* no ejerce soberan\u00eda,<\/div>\n
* no posee potestad legislativa internacional,<\/div>\n
* no integra el sistema de Naciones Unidas ni organizaciones intergubernamentales,<\/div>\n
* y no puede imponer obligaciones jur\u00eddicas a los Estados.<\/div>\n
Su autoridad deriva exclusivamente de la aceptaci\u00f3n voluntaria de sus estatutos por parte de entidades deportivas privadas.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
El Movimiento Ol\u00edmpico y la inexistencia de jerarqu\u00eda estatal.<\/strong><\/div>\n
El denominado Movimiento Ol\u00edmpico agrupa a federaciones internacionales, federaciones nacionales y Comit\u00e9s Ol\u00edmpicos Nacionales (CON). Sin embargo, desde el punto de vista jur\u00eddico:<\/div>\n
* los CON no son \u00f3rganos del COI,<\/div>\n
* las federaciones no son entidades subordinadas al COI,<\/div>\n
* no existe relaci\u00f3n de jerarqu\u00eda estatal o supranacional,<\/div>\n
* y no existe membres\u00eda estatal en el COI.<\/div>\n
Se trata de un sistema de coordinaci\u00f3n deportiva basado en adhesi\u00f3n voluntaria, no en subordinaci\u00f3n jur\u00eddica p\u00fablica.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Los Comit\u00e9s Ol\u00edmpicos Nacionales y el principio de legalidad.<\/strong><\/div>\n
Los Comit\u00e9s Ol\u00edmpicos Nacionales \u00fanicamente pueden existir v\u00e1lidamente dentro de un Estado si cumplen con el ordenamiento jur\u00eddico interno.<\/div>\n
En consecuencia:<\/div>\n
* su constituci\u00f3n depende del derecho nacional,<\/div>\n
* su reconocimiento deriva de la autoridad estatal competente,<\/div>\n
* su funcionamiento est\u00e1 sujeto a la legislaci\u00f3n vigente,<\/div>\n
* y su existencia no puede ser independiente del marco constitucional del pa\u00eds.<\/div>\n
La autonom\u00eda deportiva, en este sentido, no equivale a extraterritorialidad normativa ni a inmunidad frente al derecho interno.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u00a0L\u00edmites de la autonom\u00eda deportiva internacional<\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
La autonom\u00eda de las organizaciones deportivas privadas encuentra l\u00edmites claros en el principio de legalidad estatal.<\/div>\n
En consecuencia, ni el COI ni cualquier entidad deportiva internacional pueden:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
* exigir el incumplimiento de normas nacionales,<\/div>\n
* desconocer decisiones administrativas o judiciales internas,<\/div>\n
* sustituir la autoridad normativa del Estado,<\/div>\n
* ni condicionar la participaci\u00f3n deportiva como mecanismo de presi\u00f3n pol\u00edtica.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
El uso de sanciones deportivas como forma de coerci\u00f3n indirecta sobre decisiones estatales plantea serios interrogantes desde la perspectiva del derecho p\u00fablico, la proporcionalidad y la buena gobernanza internacional.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Discusi\u00f3n: deporte, poder y soberan\u00eda<\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
La tensi\u00f3n entre gobernanza deportiva privada y soberan\u00eda estatal refleja un fen\u00f3meno contempor\u00e1neo de creciente relevancia: la expansi\u00f3n de normas privadas transnacionales en \u00e1mbitos tradicionalmente regulados por el Estado.<\/div>\n
No obstante, esta expansi\u00f3n no implica subordinaci\u00f3n jur\u00eddica de los Estados, ni la creaci\u00f3n de un orden normativo supranacional aut\u00f3nomo. El deporte internacional debe operar dentro de un marco de cooperaci\u00f3n, no de sustituci\u00f3n del derecho p\u00fablico interno.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Conclusiones.<\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
1. La Carta Ol\u00edmpica es un estatuto privado, no una Constituci\u00f3n ni una norma de derecho internacional p\u00fablico.<\/div>\n
2. El COI es una asociaci\u00f3n privada internacional sin potestad estatal ni soberana.<\/div>\n
3. Los Comit\u00e9s Ol\u00edmpicos Nacionales est\u00e1n sujetos al principio de legalidad del Estado donde se constituyen.<\/div>\n
4. La autonom\u00eda deportiva no puede prevalecer sobre el ordenamiento jur\u00eddico interno.<\/div>\n
5. La relaci\u00f3n entre deporte internacional y Estados debe basarse en cooperaci\u00f3n, no en subordinaci\u00f3n normativa.<\/div>\n
En consecuencia, la controversia analizada evidencia la necesidad de reafirmar la primac\u00eda del derecho estatal frente a estructuras privadas de gobernanza deportiva, garantizando al mismo tiempo la cooperaci\u00f3n internacional en el \u00e1mbito deportivo sin menoscabo del Estado de derecho.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Panama\u2019 25 de junio de 2026.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Licdo. Miquel R. Vanegas<\/div>\n
8-164-786<\/div>\n

vanegasmiquel@hotmail.com<\/a>
\n______________________________________________________________________
\nThe Controversy Between the Sports Institutions of the Republic of Ecuador and the Positions of the IOC
\n<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Sports Autonomy, State Legality, and the Limits of International Private Governance<\/strong><\/p>\n

This article analyzes the controversy that has arisen between the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the sports institutions of the Republic of Ecuador following state intervention in the Olympic Committee based in that country.<\/p>\n

The study examines the legal nature of the IOC, the Olympic Charter, and the National Olympic Committees (NOCs) from the perspective of sports law and public law, highlighting the limits of sports autonomy in relation to the principle of state legality.<\/p>\n

It argues that Olympic governance, being private in nature, cannot supersede national legal systems or condition their validity.<\/p>\n

The relationship between the international sports system and contemporary states has generated recurring tensions, especially when private sports governance structures attempt to extend the scope of their rules beyond the strictly associative sphere.<\/p>\n

In this context, the controversy between the International Olympic Committee and Ecuadorian sports institutions raises a central question: the legal limits of sports autonomy in the face of the State’s normative sovereignty.<\/p>\n

This conflict demands a rigorous delimitation between private association law and state public law, preventing the improper assimilation of private statutory instruments into constitutional norms.<\/p>\n

Legal Nature of the Olympic Charter<\/strong>
\nThe so-called Olympic Charter constitutes the internal statute of the IOC and the Olympic Movement. However, its legal nature is unequivocal: it is a private normative instrument of an associative nature, without constitutional status or the nature of an international treaty.<\/p>\n

In comparative terms, a State’s Constitution:
\n* derives from constituent power,
\n* organizes public power,
\n* possesses domestic normative supremacy,
\n* and is binding on all individuals within the national territory.<\/p>\n

In contrast, the Olympic Charter:
\n* regulates a private international organization,
\n* lacks public authority,
\n* does not emanate from States,
\n* and cannot prevail over domestic law. The use of the term \u00abconstitution of sport\u00bb should therefore be understood as a metaphorical category without binding normative value in state public law.<\/p>\n

Legal nature of the IOC.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The IOC is not an international organization of States, but rather a private international association without governmental character.<\/p>\n

Its structure is composed of individuals acting in their personal capacity, without state representation. Consequently:
\n* it does not exercise sovereignty,
\n* it does not possess international legislative power,
\n* it is not part of the United Nations system or intergovernmental organizations,
\n* and it cannot impose legal obligations on States.<\/p>\n

Its authority derives exclusively from the voluntary acceptance of its statutes by private sports entities.<\/p>\n

The Olympic Movement and the Absence of State Hierarchy.<\/p>\n

The so-called Olympic Movement comprises international federations, national federations, and National Olympic Committees (NOCs). However, from a legal standpoint:<\/p>\n

* NOCs are not organs of the IOC,
\n* federations are not entities subordinate to the IOC,
\n* there is no state or supranational hierarchical relationship,
\n* and there is no state membership in the IOC.<\/p>\n

It is a system of sports coordination based on voluntary adherence, not on public legal subordination.<\/p>\n

National Olympic Committees and the Principle of Legality.<\/p>\n

National Olympic Committees can only validly exist within a State if they comply with its domestic legal system.<\/p>\n

Consequently:
\n* their constitution depends on national law,
\n* their recognition derives from the competent state authority,
\n* their operation is subject to current legislation,
\n* and their existence cannot be independent of the country’s constitutional framework.<\/p>\n

Sports autonomy, in this sense, does not equate to extraterritoriality or immunity from domestic law.<\/p>\n

Limits of International Sports Autonomy<\/strong><\/p>\n

The autonomy of private sports organizations is clearly limited by the principle of state legality.<\/p>\n

Consequently, neither the IOC nor any other international sports entity can:<\/p>\n

* demanding non-compliance with national regulations,
\n* disregarding domestic administrative or judicial decisions,
\n* replacing the State’s regulatory authority,
\n* nor conditioning sports participation as a mechanism of political pressure.<\/p>\n

The use of sports sanctions as a form of indirect coercion on state decisions raises serious questions from the perspective of public law, proportionality, and good international governance.<\/p>\n

Discussion: Sport, Power, and Sovereignty<\/strong><\/p>\n

The tension between private sports governance and state sovereignty reflects a contemporary phenomenon of increasing relevance: the expansion of transnational private regulations in areas traditionally governed by the State.<\/p>\n

However, this expansion does not imply the legal subordination of States, nor the creation of an autonomous supranational regulatory order. International sport must operate within a framework of cooperation, not as a replacement for domestic public law.<\/p>\n

Conclusions.<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. The Olympic Charter is a private statute, not a Constitution or a norm of public international law.<\/p>\n

2. The IOC is a private international association without state or sovereign power.<\/p>\n

3. National Olympic Committees are subject to the rule of law of the State in which they are established.<\/p>\n

4. Sports autonomy cannot prevail over domestic law.<\/p>\n

5. The relationship between international sport and States must be based on cooperation, not on normative subordination.<\/p>\n

Consequently, the controversy analyzed demonstrates the need to reaffirm the primacy of state law over private structures of sports governance, while simultaneously guaranteeing international cooperation in the sports field without undermining the rule of law.<\/p>\n

Panama, June 25, 2026.<\/p>\n

Miquel R. Vanegas, Esq.
\n8-164-786
\nvanegasmiquel@hotmail.com<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

  La controversia entre la institucionalidad deportiva de la Rep\u00fablica del Ecuador y los planteamientos del COI.\u00a0 (Por\u00a0 una noticia aparecida en el Diario La Hora del Ecuador, me he informado de esta controversia jur\u00eddico\/ deportiva, que me obliga a aportar algunas consideraciones legales con la \u00fanica intenci\u00f3n de precisar algunos conceptos legales para que […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":4583,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[2],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pju-upj.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4578"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pju-upj.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pju-upj.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pju-upj.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pju-upj.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4578"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/pju-upj.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4578\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4584,"href":"https:\/\/pju-upj.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4578\/revisions\/4584"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pju-upj.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/4583"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pju-upj.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4578"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pju-upj.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4578"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pju-upj.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4578"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}