Bobsled

Cite as: 576 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. 14-003

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

UNITED STATES BOBSLED AND SKELETON FEDERATION v.

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

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

[January 20, 2014]

CHIEF JUSTICE HOLT delivered the opinion of the Court.

I

In an attempt to consolidate operations, the U.S. Bobsled and Skeleton Federation (USBSF) closed a secondary office in Colorado Spring, CO and moved all operations to its main office in Lake Placid, NY. The Internal Revenue Service in accordance with the Taxation Post-Sport Exportation Act (2013) declared Bobsled and Skeleton, the events which are governed by the USBSF, to be sports.

Following the decision in City of Park City the IRS deemed that it would be in the spirit of the law to require the USBSF  to pay taxes to the city of Colorado Springs. The USBSF sued the Internal Revenue Service, arguing that Bobsled and Skeleton should not be classified as sports under the standards set forth in National Hockey League. The appellant argued that the events of bobsled and skeleton do not meet the second criterion of specialized athleticism due to the fact that the majority of the work is done by a non-human element - the sled is the primary object by which the athlete is propelled, therefore the events fail the criteria.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York ruled in favor of the appellee, holding that the events represented by the USBSF are indeed sports.  The United States Court of the Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed this decision.

II

Both bobsled and skeleton satisfy the first criterion set forth in National Hockey League of having rules and regulations which guide the sport. Extensive rules govern everything from the minimum and maximum weight limit for the sled to the size of spikes on the shoes of the racers.  Each item is precisely and clearly delineated in the International Rules of Bobsleigh.  They are competitive in nature as the track times of participants are compared against one another to determine a winner. Finally, given that competitors times are the deciding factor in the events, they have a quantitative and definite outcome, fulfilling the fourth criterion.  

Appellant argues that the main issue in this case is what effect the inclusion of a non-human element in an event has on its standing as a sport. Certainly almost every sport has some non-human element: a bat in baseball or a stick in hockey. The question then before this Court is at what, if any, point does the use of a non-human object negate the second criterion set forth in National Hockey League. In defining this standard the Court walks a fine line - we cannot say that any non-human element used in an event places it in the non-sport category, for this ruling would eliminate virtually all events. However, this is not to say that in some instances such elements would become the primary mode by which the event’s goal is attained which, in the Court’s opinion, would mean that an event can no longer be considered a sport.

In making this determination the Court is proposing an addendum to the second criteria: The Standard of Initial Propulsion, which states that if the initial propulsion of a ball, sled, or other non-human entity is directly the result of specialized athleticism, then the event will be considered to satisfy the second criterion. Some may contend that this standard is too broad and will inevitably lead to the dilution of what it means to be a sport. Let us therefore consider several examples from events previously discussed.

In hockey, a player uses his stick to control and maneuver the puck on the ice. Does the fact that the most common way the puck’s movement is affected is with a non-human object mean that the ruling in National Hockey League should be overturned? In fact, the puck’s propulsion is due to the contact it makes with the stick; the stick’s movement is based on the strength and energy put into moving the stick by the athlete.  The assertion that use of an instrument should disqualify an event as a sport seems almost absurd given the obvious athletic skill needed to compete at the highest levels in hockey. It seems logical then to conclude that the stick used in hockey is merely an accessory for a player whose own specialized athleticism is responsible for puck-handling. While the stick may be the object which makes contact with the puck, it is the player who is directly responsible for controlling initial propulsion of the stick.  Similarly, in skiing or snowboarding, especially the downhill events, gravity is the main element driving the forward motion of the skier.

Furthermore, a form of specialized athleticism is required of the participants following entrance into the vehicle.  Athletes are required to maintain aerodynamic posture, maneuver their bodies properly to maximum effectual weight balance, and to steer the sled.  

Appellant also argued that the thought, plans, schematics, and regulations regarding the construction of the sled are so vast and in depth that it becomes more of a technological competition than an athletic competition.  However, similar effort is placed in designing aerodynamic swimsuits for swimmers.  In both cases, the technological advancements alone cannot achieve victory, but are dependent on the athleticism of those using the equipment.

In examining the events of bobsled and skeleton the Court has found the main method of initial propulsion in both events is specialized athleticism.  A vehicle whose propulsion is dependent upon the athleticism of the participants, the vehicle is merely an instrument of the participant, and does not affect whether the event should be considered a sport.  The ruling of the District Court is reaffirmed.

It is so ordered.