The Enhanced Games aim to redefine elite sport by permitting performance enhancing drugs, offering athletes unprecedented financial rewards for breaking world records, all while igniting a debate over ethics, safety, and the future of competition.
In this article, our Sports and Entertainment Group examines some of the key legal considerations associated with the proposed competition.
‘Olympics of the future’
Reported as the ‘Olympics of the future,’ the Enhanced Games (TEG) stand in stark contrast to the Olympics of the present, and other regulated sporting events, by presenting athletes with a novel choice: to participate as ‘enhanced’ or ‘natural.’
The premise of the Enhanced Games, which is scheduled to take place in Las Vegas in May 2026, is that participating athletes will not be subject to:
- Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) testing; or
- sanctions from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).
WADA has no jurisdiction to prevent athletes from participating. TEG is privately funded and is not a signatory to the World Anti-Doping Code. The winner of each event will reportedly receive $250,000 in prize money, with an additional $1,000,000 available for any athlete who breaks the world record in either the 100m sprint in Track & Field or 50m freestyle in Swimming. According to its website, by using medical and scientific oversight, TEG’s aim is ‘to deliver the safest sporting event in history’.
Legal Battles
Chief among the critics of TEG are WADA and World Aquatics. In June this year, World Aquatics acted quickly in response to the launch of TEG by implementing a new by-law. It bans any individual (including athletes, coaches, trainers or similar) from competing in a World Aquatics event or joining a World Aquatics committee or body if they actively supported, participated in, or endorsed competitions or events which allowed the use of PEDS. TEG, in reply, launched an $800 million lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against World Aquatics, USA Swimming and WADA. TEG alleged that the ban amounted to a breach of U.S. anti-trust law by preventing TEG from signing new athletes, hosting a successful event in 2026 and emerging as a competitive threat to World Aquatics. TEG’s claim however was ultimately dismissed by the New York courts in November 2025.
Following the dismissal of TEG’s clam, WADA released a statement. It called on all governments and law enforcement agencies to assess whether athletes who take PEDs for the Enhanced Games, or the physicians who supply and administer such PEDs, may be in breach of criminal laws or professional rules, either in their own countries or in the U.S.
Medical Concerns
Many other critics have raised ethical concerns in respect of TEG. They point to the medical risks associated with many PEDs and the potential long term health impact of normalising the consumption of such substances. WADA has further condemned TEG as ‘a dangerous and irresponsible concept’, noting the long-term side effects suffered by athletes who have used prohibited substances in the past.
TEG has framed its philosophy around bodily autonomy and argues that athletes should decide what they put into their bodies. This claim taps into long-standing controversies surrounding the regulation of athletes’ bodies. For instance, in 2019 the International Amateur Athletic Federation, now known as World Athletics, implemented rules directed at athletes with disorders of sex development (DSD).
Under DSD rules, female athletes with testosterone levels above a certain threshold are required to medically lower their testosterone to compete in certain events. South African runner Caster Semenya challenged the rules before several courts including the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). She cited violations of her rights to a fair hearing, privacy and non-discrimination. The ECHR ruled in her favour in respect of her right to a fair hearing, but the other claims were considered inadmissible.
Semenya’s experience is particularly striking in the context of TEG because it highlights a paradox. In sport, medical intervention can be mandated to enforce eligibility standards yet the same practice is condemned when pursued voluntarily for performance enhancement.
From an Irish perspective, while the right to bodily integrity has been well established as being protected at a constitutional level, there are several laws in place which control the supply and distribution of drugs, including several PEDs. Similarly, anti-doping rules in Ireland are placed on a statutory footing under the Sports Ireland Act 2015. It provides that an athlete who fails to comply with the Irish Anti-Doping Rules shall not be eligible to receive funding from Sport Ireland or to represent Ireland in sport.
Irish Athletes and Duty of Care
Bodily autonomy is not the driving force for all TEG participants. Former Irish Olympian Shane Ryan has openly stated that the financial incentive is his primary motivation. Ryan, who represented Ireland at the Olympic Games in Rio, Tokyo and Paris revealed in an interview with RTÉ that in preparation for the Olympics he earned just €18,000 annually. By contrast, if he can win both his events in Las Vegas, he will receive over $500,000 in prize money and appearance fees. In December 2025, fellow Irish Olympic swimmer Max McCusker followed suit, announcing via Instagram that he was also joining TEG. McCusker cited the potential financial benefits as a motivating factor in making his decision. In an interview with the BBC he stated that ‘as a professional swimmer for four-ish years, I probably made less than £10,000’ and described his decision as a ‘no-brainer’.
Ryan and McCusker’s decisions highlight the broader issue of financial uncertainty faced by athletes, particularly those who fall short of podium-level success. However, it also exposes criticisms that TEG may exploit financially vulnerable athletes. Sport Ireland described Ryan’s decision as ‘deeply disappointing,’ and has reiterated its commitment to exercising the highest duty of care towards athletes.
Critics argue that TEG could:
- be in breach of a duty of care it owes to its athletes on this basis; and
- potentially face both civil and criminal liability depending on how its permissive drug policies intersect with national and international law.
An examination of long developed negligence principles would be required to determine whether TEG could face negligence claims from athletes in Ireland. Considerations include the extent to which any duty of care exists, the damage suffered and elements of causation between injuries suffered and a defendant’s conduct.
Commercial Sponsorship and Funding
As with many large sporting events in the modern era, sponsorship may play a substantial role in TEG’s success. However, participation or promotion of TEG could trigger contractual issues for athletes and sponsors alike. Many athlete sponsorship and funding agreements will contain morality, exclusivity and compliance obligations that could be triggered by participation in TEG. As set out above, Irish athletes would be ineligible to receive funding from Sport Ireland should they breach the Irish Anti-Doping Rules. The controversial nature of TEG is a key reputational risk for consideration in any commercial contracts a sponsor may enter with TEG.
Where Sport Meets Law
TEG is not only a sporting experiment but also a legal one, testing the boundaries of criminal law, civil liability, and regulatory oversight. These tensions place TEG in a precarious position. It must balance its philosophy against the statutory and ethical obligations it may face to protect athletes.
As alternative sporting formats such as TEG emerge, legal considerations will be central to stakeholders’ navigation of evolving regulatory frameworks, public policy priorities, and commercial safeguards.
If you wish to discuss any aspect of our Sports and Entertainment Offering, please contact Leo Moore, Mary Cooney, Kevin White, Daragh Holmes or your usual Sports & Entertainment Group contact.
Read more about our Sports & Entertainment Group here.
Contributed by Kevin White, Daragh Holmes, Molly Ryan and Hugo O’Higgins.
