New sports broadcasting rules ban sexualizing camera shots

Europe bans shots that sensual athletes: pogre or censorship?

The new recommendations from the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) and European Athletics for women's athletics broadcasts ban provocative camera angles and slow-motion replays that sensual athletes. It is not a law, but an editorial guideline, yet its live application has already sparked controversy: according to witnesses, in the women's 4x400 final broadcast by Spain's TVE, the shots were limited to frontal framing from the sternum up, avoiding showing legs or hips. The changes are drastic: even the runners' bib numbers were not visible.

What exactly does the guideline say?

The EBU and European Athletics published a document with editorial recommendations for women's athletics broadcasts. The text is not a list of restrictions, but guidance to avoid shots that objectify athletes. It proposes choosing angles that show the technique, effort and emotion of the event, instead of focusing on body parts with no sporting relevance. The guideline is not binding, but directors are applying it to the letter, at least in Spain.

Real-world application: when a recommendation becomes censorship

A viewer who watched the women's 4x400 final on Teledeporte described the shots: frontal from the sternum up, side views from far away, and when the athletes took the bend and their backsides could be seen, it switched to an overhead drone shot. Even the bib numbers were not visible. At the finish line, if a runner turned around, the camera switched to a waist-up shot. The result: viewers could not trinc the competition. "YOU SIMPLY CAN'T SEE ANYTHING AT ALL," another user summed up.

Economic impact and sponsorships

These restrictions have direct economic implications. Female athletes often gain visibility and sponsorships through their on-screen presence; if they are barely seen, sponsors could withdraw their support. Some point out that several athletes promote themselves on platforms like OnlyFans, and these rules cut off that source of income. On the other hand, broadcasters risk losing audiences if the sports product becomes invisible. The guideline, voluntary in theory, is already being imposed in practice, sparking a debate over who decides what can be shown.

Some have interpreted the measure as a step against the objectification of women, while others see it as a puritanical drift reminiscent of old-fashioned censorship. Meanwhile, women's sport continues to search for its place in an audiovisual market that swings between exploitation and invisibility. Will it end up hurting the athletes themselves more than helping them?