Rethinking Sport: The Enhanced Games - Between Innovation and Regulation
By Dr Estelle Ivanova, Attorney at Law and Member of the Paris Bar
The forthcoming Enhanced Games, scheduled to take place in Las Vegas in May 2026, represent an unusual and thought-provoking development in the global sporting landscape. The initiative departs from established sporting norms by permitting the supervised use of performance-enhancing substances, otherwise anathema in traditional sporting events.
According to the organisers’ stated approach, such use is not envisaged as unregulated or indiscriminate. Rather, emphasis is placed on a framework grounded in medical supervision, with the stated objective of ensuring that any such practices are conducted in a controlled and responsible manner.
In this context, an independent Medical Commission is entrusted with a central role. Its functions include the development of medical safety protocols; the oversight of athlete health assessments; and the provision of guidance on eligibility and participation conditions, with the stated aim of ensuring that athlete welfare remains a central consideration.
From a competition law perspective, the Enhanced Games have already given rise to preliminary litigation, reflecting the structural tensions between emerging private sporting events initiatives and the established governance of international sport.
In Enhanced US LLC v. World Aquatics et al., Enhanced US LLC (the claimant) brought proceedings against World Aquatics, USA Swimming and the World Anti-Doping Agency, alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, as well as interference with prospective business relations.
The claim has centred on the argument that certain measures - including the adoption of eligibility rules, notably By-Law 10, and public statements concerning participation in the Enhanced Games - have the effect of excluding the claimant from the market for elite swimming competitions and related athlete services.
On 17 November 2025, the Southern District of New York granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, while finding that it could exercise personal jurisdiction over the World Anti-Doping Agency. The court also granted leave to amend the complaint.
In its reasoning, the court found that the elements required to establish a concerted practice under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act were not plausibly demonstrated. In particular, the conduct relied upon - including public statements by the defendants - was considered capable of being explained by independent objectives, rather than indicative of coordinated action.
The claims relating to monopolisation under Section 2 were likewise not upheld. The court observed that the measures at issue, notably By-Law 10, did not extend beyond the scope of the defendants’ own competitions and did not bind the wider market. In those circumstances, they were not sufficient to establish the existence of market power or exclusionary effects of the kind required under US antitrust law.
Taken together, the decision provides a measured illustration of the application of competition law in the sporting context. It suggests that, in certain circumstances, regulatory measures adopted by sports governing bodies may fall outside the scope of antitrust liability where they remain limited in scope and consistent with legitimate organisational objectives.
The dismissal of the claim, therefore, suggests that, at least at this stage, attempts to challenge the regulatory autonomy of sports governing bodies through competition law may face significant hurdles. It also illustrates the broader difficulty of positioning alternative sporting formats within a legal framework historically structured around unified governance.
Beyond its regulatory dimension, the initiative may also be viewed in light of broader economic developments. Publicly available information suggests that the project has been associated with a significant valuation in connection with a proposed business combination involving A Paradise Acquisition Corp., indicating that its underlying rationale extends beyond the organisation of a sporting event alone.
In this respect, the Enhanced Games appear to be positioned within a wider ecosystem, which links competitive sport, performance-related products, and emerging markets associated with health, longevity, and human enhancement. The sporting event itself may thus be understood as forming part of a broader commercial and technological proposition.
In this evolving context, the initiative may also invite reflection on the extent to which athletes’ autonomy and freedom of choice can be accommodated within existing regulatory frameworks, whilst continuing to safeguard the values traditionally associated with organised sport.
Ultimately, the Enhanced Games may be understood as part of a broader reconfiguration of the sporting landscape, inviting continued reflection on how law and regulation might adapt to emerging conceptions of performance, whilst preserving the foundational principles upon which sport has long been built.
In any case, it will be interesting to see whether an amended complaint is filed and, if so, its outcome!
Dr Estelle Ivanova may be contacted by e-mail at ‘
