European broadcasters restrict women's athletics images: protection or censorship?

European broadcasters restrict women's athletics images: protection or censorship?

Women's athletics has become the only category with specific filming guidelines. The European Broadcasting Union (EBU) recommends avoiding shots deemed "objectifying," while men's sports face no such restrictions. The controversy has erupted, with comparisons ranging from "Western burka" to accusations of puritanism.

The guide, accessible to sports press, dedicates a page to women's competitions. It advises broadcasters to avoid frames emphasizing athletes' bodies or inviting the male gaze. The explicit use of "WOMEN'S" has fueled claims of gender bias. EBU officials defend this as protection against historical objectification.

From the burka to "neo-puritanism": reactions are swift

Comparisons to the burka are immediate. "In the East they wear burkas; in the West, they use lasers to melt your retina," summarizes a widely shared comment. The paradox is stark: athletes dress as they wish, but the male audience must avert its gaze. Critics argue this mirrors misogynistic regimes that restrict women under the guise of protection.

Others see it as a necessary step. If women's sports have long been used as sensual bait, limiting how bodies are shown is logical. Critics counter that the solution ignores the root: athletes' clothing, advertising, sponsorships, and, above all, gaze education.

The unexplained asymmetry

A fact remains unaddressed: pole vaulters wear full-body suits, while women wear briefs and sports bras. In beach volleyball, the difference is clearer: women in bikinis, men in shirts and shorts. Why does protection apply only to framing, not attire?

The uncomfortable answer: the women's sports industry has marketed athletes' bodies as advertising hooks. The guide is a patch trying to correct supply without changing demand. Meanwhile, criticism is labeled "machismo," and defense is called "neonunism."

A 1996 precedent: the Journalists' College Style Manual

The debate has revived a document considered the seed of this trend. The Col·legi de Periodistes de Catalunya published a style manual on ethnic minorities in media in January 1996. It recommended omitting ethnicity, skin tonalidad, origin, or religion unless essential for understanding. Three decades later, the same principle now applies to gender and the female body.

The parallels are striking, yet so are the differences: the Catalan manual aimed to avoid stigmatizing vulnerable groups, while the EBU guide addresses a sports landscape where women's athletics fights for audience, often reduced to male spectacle. The protective intent may be legitimate; the methods have peine a cultural war unlikely to resolve soon.

One question lingers: if the goal is protecting athletes, why not apply the same rules to men? And what happens to the visibility of a sport already occupying fewer minutes on news? Censorship, protection, and puritanism sit at the same table, and no one knows who will pay the bill.