Gymnastics

Cite as: 574 U.S. _____(2014)

Opinion of the Court

             NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

      preliminary print of the United States Reports.  Readers are requested to

            notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-

     ington, D.C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order

      that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

         SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

----------------

No. 14-001

----------------

USA GYMNASTICS v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

[January 2, 2014]

CHIEF JUSTICE HOLT delivered the opinion of the Court.

I

USA Gymnastics relocated from Indianapolis, Indiana to New York, New York following its classification as a non-sport by the Internal Revenue Service and exempt from the Sport Taxation Post-Exportation Act.  In a motion similar to that in U.S. Figure Skating, USA Gymnastics brought suit against the Internal Revenue Service after it was classified as a “non-sport” by the agency.  The Internal Revenue Service contends that gymnastics fails to meet the fourth criterion established in National Hockey League due to the heavy reliance on judges.  

Appellant argues that, while judges are included in gymnastics, officials oversee the achievement of outlined technical components and not necessarily on the artistic interpretation of the participant.  Appellant further contends that it would prefer to voluntarily submit to the taxation scheme outlined in the aforementioned Act for the benefit of society.  An amicus brief from U.S. Figure Skating was filed in support of the appellant.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana ruled in favor of the appellee.  The United State Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed this decision.  We granted certiorari to clarify our ruling in U.S. Figure Skating.

II

As discussed in U.S. Figure Skating, the Olympic Charter is not a compelling, definitive document when it comes to the definition of a sport, as appellant contests.  Much like figure skating, the International Gymnastics Federation considers men’s and women’s gymnastics as separate disciplines, while the Olympic Charter recognizes them as separate events within a discipline.  Furthermore, event inclusion does not automatically confer the status of sporthood, just as exclusion from the Olympics does not negate one’s sporthood.  When baseball and softball were eliminated from the 2012 London Olympics, this did not relegate these athletic events to the status of a “non-sport”.  Just the same, the inclusion of various events in the Olympic Games, such as gymnastics, does not bestow sporthood upon them.

Perhaps we should pause a moment and reflect; the Olympic Games are termed appropriately for a reason and word choice is important.  A “game” is defined by Merriam-Webster as “a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other”.  The word “game” is derived from the Old English word “gamen”, meaning “joy, fun, or amusement” and was first applied to a “contest played according to rules” in the fourteenth century.  It can easily be seen how this definition may be applied to each event within the Olympic Games.  However, in National Hockey League, we outlined that the more stringent definition of “sport” does not apply to each included game.  We find the same here today.

III

Scores in gymnastics are based on two features: the Difficulty Score and the Execution Score.  We shall examine each in turn here.

Simply, the Difficulty Score includes “difficulty value for skills, connection value and element/compositional requirements” in evaluating the athlete.  A two person panel, known as the D Panel, is responsible for correctly calculating this portion of the score for each gymnast.  The panel evaluates each skill and assigns it the predetermined pointage based on the Code of Points for difficulty; if the participant fails to meet the technical requirements for that skill, the points are not awarded.  The connection value portion of the Difficulty Score is “awarded when specific skills or skill types are executed successfully in succession”; no points are awarded if the athlete falls in between skill types.  The final portion of the Difficulty Score, the element or compositional requirements, are five skills that must take place in the routine; maximum points are awarded if all five skills are incorporated.  Following the agreed upon score by the two judges, the coach is allowed to appeal using video replay prior to the start of the next routine.  

The Court has no grievance with the Difficulty Score, as awarding more points in gymnastics for more difficult routines does not significantly differ from rules in other sports.  In basketball, players are awarded points based somewhat on the difficulty of the shot; a three point shot is from farther away and thus is worth more points, whereas a free throw is worth one since there is no possibility for defense.  Gymnastics has merely codified similar rules into the Difficulty Score.  The difference herein lies in the ability of athletes to create new elements; however these must first be approved by the judges to receive a difficulty rating unlike in events such as slopestyle.  The connection value is similarly quantitative, in that deductions exist for objective faults, such as loss of balance and stopping between elements.  These faults bear no great distinction from similar penalties across recognized sports, such as offsides in football, hockey, and soccer.

The Execution Score begins at ten points and deductions are made from this score for “errors and faults in technique, execution and artistry”.  Neutral deductions are also made during this period for happenings outside the athlete’s performance, such as time violations and mismatched uniforms.  Disputes are not allowed for this portion of the score.  The Execution Score and Difficulty Score are then added together for a Final Score.

While the Execution Score’s deductions for “artistry” in some events should be clear enough to classify certain gymnastics events as an athletic art rather than as a sport, we shall further examine the Code of Points and deductions to support this assertion.  We shall also explore the variety within gymnastics, so as not to ignore the differences between rhythmic and artistic gymnastics.

III

Appellee cited the Neutral Deduction list as a condition for denying the usage of the term “sport” to the appellant.  Neutral deductions may consists of a variety of infractions, from “dress of the gymnast not conforming to regulations” to warming up in an incorrect location and from excessive delays to verbal communication between gymnasts during the routine.  Appellee alleges that the inclusion of these deductions could cost a gymnast or team the competition and, being in themselves unrelated to an athletic competition, should invalidate the stance of gymnastics as a sport.  However, this view fails to reflect upon the breadth and variety of penalties in sports.  In football, a penalty may be awarded for excessive celebration or unsportsmanlike conduct.  Such a penalty could place a team in an extremely disadvantageous situation and thus cost the team the game.  The existence of such penalties, to ensure adherence to the spirit of the game and to encourage fairness, do not automatically eliminate the standing of an athletic event as a sport.

IV

Rhythmic gymnastics--the most artistic-oriented of the gymnastics disciplines--is a team routine that is either performed Free (with no additional elements) or includes the use of clubs, hoop, ball, ribbon, and rope to produce a visually pleasing presentation. The Execution Score is calculated based on the unity of composition, music coordinated to movements, body expression, variety in the use of space, and technical faults.  It should be evident to even the most cursory observer that this scoring system fails to satisfy the fourth criterion outlined in National Hockey League.  In fact, “the choice of music” is specifically evaluated by the officials; a concerning criterion for assessment if we are to follow the strict standards outlined in previous cases.  The variation in spatial displays and expressive movements, along with musically coordinated athleticism, are subjective qualities that, while physically challenging, are unable to be classified and categorized impartially.

V

Artistic gymnastics consists of a variety of elements, which differ based on the sex of the participant.  Both sexes compete in Vault and Floor Exercise, men compete in Pommel Horse, Still Rings, Parallel Bars, and High Bar, and women compete in Uneven Bars and Balance Beam.  Each event conforms to the first three criteria outlined in National Hockey League: the International Federation of Gymnastics specifies the Rules and Regulations for the various events, winners and losers are decided upon, thus the events are competitive, and specialized athleticism is required of each participant in order to perform his or her prescribed task.  The fourth criterion--that of a quantitative outcome--is what is under dispute in this case.  

Vault is an event in which the athlete proceeds down a runway at speed, mount a springboard, and spring onto the vault using their hands; the gymnast then performs a series of aerial twists and spins and completes the event by landing on his feet.  For the Execution Panel, the scoring for the gymnast is strictly controlled.  Deductions are based on definite items, such as poor hip angle and bent knees or failure to attain specified turn degrees.  The International Federation of Gymnastics goes to great length to outline each specified, scored element and does not allow for subjectivity beyond slight, exactly specified form judgments (much like a baseball umpire is given discretion for an agreed upon strike zone).  Given this information and the strict rules that vaulters must follow, the Court holds that Vault as a solo event satisfies the requirements for sporthood outlined in National Hockey League.

The Women’s Floor Exercise represents a more terrestrial dispute than that which was addressed in U.S. Figure Skating.  Similar to the rules governing figure skating, the Floor Exercise is judged not on the difficulty and form of various items, but on the composition, choreography, musicality, music, and expression throughout the event.  During the routine, the athlete is judged on variations present in the performance, the “attitude and range of emotion” of the athlete, the “contribution to unity” of the chosen music, and the expressiveness, style, confidence, personality, and uniqueness present in the artistry of the performer.  In fact, scoring sheets fault an individual for an “inability to play a role or a character throughout the performance”.  The rules for the Floor Exercise are summed up by the International Federation of Gymnastics: “It is not only ‘what’ the gymnast performs, but also ‘how’ she performs her routine.”  It is clear that the Floor Exercise is better termed an athletic art for its reliance on interpretation and beauty, rather than termed a sport, as it fails to use quantitative measures to determine a victor.

Similarly, in Balance Beam, athletes are judged on the artistry of their performance, including confidence level, personal style, and uniqueness.  Again, the significant focus placed on the performer’s interpretation and style cause this event to be better classified as an athletic art rather than a sport.

The Uneven Bars in women’s artistic gymnastics caused this Court the greatest deliberation.  The scoring is certainly technical based and in the Execution Score the rules evaluate quantitative elements, such as foot placement on the beam, insufficient height, and grip position adjustment.  The sole deduction that gave this Court pause was the one described as “poor rhythm in elements”.  While one may initially be persuaded to see “rhythm” and think of the artistic implications, it should be noted that Merriam-Webster defines “rhythm” as a “regular, repeated pattern of...movements”.  Repetition is an observable, objective quality, thus we hold that the Uneven Bars do fulfill the fourth criterion outlined in National Hockey League.   

It should be noted that for team events that contain all of these various events, a part truly does override the whole.  Because a portion of the team competition is not classifiable as sport, the overriding event has an artistic, interpretative quality and thus may not properly be categorized as a sport.

VI

It must be admitted that prior to perusing the extensive Rules and Regulations governing the scoring and deductions of gymnastics, this Court believed gymnastics would closely follow the parameters established in U.S. Figure Skating.  However, the focus on artistry and interpretation within the International Federation of Gymnastics--and its affiliate, USA Gymnastics--is much less than present in the International Skating Union and its affiliate.  

In Men’s Floor Exercise, appellee brought concern about the required use of the entire floor, as this was seen as a rule established for artistic betterment.  However, the International Federation of Gymnastics, in outlining floor usage, clearly uses such a rule to establish boundaries and additional considerations for the athlete.  If there is an issue with establishing boundaries, where would tennis be without its service line and baseline? Or football and soccer without their sidelines? How would baseball operate if a runner was allowed to stray from his baseline when the defense began to close in?  Such establishments are essential to complicating the sport and maintaining the interest of its spectators.  

Appellee also contests that the description of Floor Exercise as an event consisting of strength, flexibility, balance, and “choreographic combinations all forming a harmonious rhythmic exercise” may disqualify the event’s classification as a sport.  Further, Floor Exercise, along with Pommel Horse, Still Rings, Parallel Bars, and High Bar, require the athlete to “include only elements that he can perform with complete safety and with a high degree of aesthetic and technical mastery.”  The use of the term “aesthetic” brought most concern to the Internal Revenue Service when reviewing the exportation of USA Gymnastics.  However, to  focus on these two sentences from a document that is hundreds of pages long ignores the rest of the rules governing this athletic event.  While appellee is correct that “aesthetic” is used to refer to something related to art of beauty, the term is not used anywhere in the deduction list or in the description of individual elements.  If aesthetics were to factor into the score of the individual, the event would be better classified as an athletic art; however, there is no evidence that this is done for the events outlined.  In the rules provided by the International Federation of Gymnastics, each element that an athlete may perform for the aforementioned men’s events are painstakingly and thoroughly outlined and drawn.  Complete with each description is the amount of points the judges are to award for the described element.  Deductions for the Difficulty Score are similar to those described above for women.  But the components of the Element Score to not address aesthetics whatsoever and instead are objectively framed point values for various elements.  Judges may not stray or add their own subjective opinions regarding the athlete’s interpretation or artistic quality.  Instead judges are constrained within the bounds set by the rules referenced above.  Thus, the Court holds that Men’s Floor Exercise, Pommel Horse, Still Rings, Parallel Bars, and High Bar all meet the fourth criterion outlined in National Hockey League and are classified as sports under the Sport Taxation Post-Exportation Act.

VII

The decisions of the District Court and the Court of Appeals have been modified to reflect the diversity of gymnastics and the challenges of dealing with the discipline as a monolithic entity.  USA Gymnastics is composed of a number of sports under United States law: Vault, Uneven Bars, Men’s Floor Exercise, Still Rings, Pommel Horse, Parallel Bars, and High Bars; however, Women’s Floor Exercise, Rhythmic Gymnastics, and Balance Beam failed to meet the standards to be classified as a sport outlined in National Hockey League.  It should be reiterated that this is not a failure in the colloquial use of the term.  Being classified as an athletic art rather than a sport allows the event to be appreciated for what it is and allows it to truly reveal its best, expressive instincts.  Nor does such a classification distract from its competitiveness.  It merely establishes that there are differences in our world and that such differences do not weaken the integrity of either differing party.  The case is remanded to the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana to determine the percentage of tax monies owed by USA Gymnastics pursuant to this decision.

It is so ordered.

JUSTICE WOLF, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.

I hardly thought “progress” would be a term that I would be capable of using to describe this current Court, yet the decision today can be described as such, begrudging as it may be.  The Court today allowed for a slight, yet significant exception: a sport may mention the aesthetically pleasing nature of its performers, as long as such aesthetics are not included in judging said competition.  While I would prefer to extend this development to allow for aesthetics within judging and as a component of sports, incremental change is preferred to stagnation.  I shall not reiterate my extensive arguments from U.S. Figure Skating, but shall refer the reader to them for full analysis of constitutional interpretation methods.  It is worth noting that one cannot help but detect the subtle sexism that the majority exudes, however, in readily casting male-dominated events as sports, while dismissively classifying traditionally female-dominated events as art.  The twenty-first century has arrived; someone apparently has forgotten to notify my contemporaries on the bench.

JUSTICE SMITH, concurring in the judgement and dissenting in part.

The Court here is right to hold that events such as rhythmic gymnastics should not be defined as a sport. The mere idea that one would be able to quantitatively judge “contribution to unity” seems laughable to this justice and the Court is right to rule such events as athletic arts. However, I believe with today’s ruling the Court strays too far from the original intent of the standards set forth in National Hockey League. It is noble to attempt to broaden the definition of sport just so competitors may feel more included, but this does not mean it is what is best for sport or even the athletic arts for that matter. The only thing a referee in hockey would have to review is whether the puck crosses the goal line. He is never asked to evaluate the placement of a player’s hips. Here I think we find what is most problematic about the Court’s ruling in this case. It views judges in the same way it views referees and umpires. The latter are merely officiants there to ensure the progression of the game. Judges though are different in kind - they are the sole arbiters of points and deductions and their views compose the entirety of who wins and who loses. While the majority may argue that referees award penalties, this seems a far cry from the power given to judges in theses such events. It appears some on this Court are ruling not based on the standards we have before us, but on what they enjoying watching the most.