The world of competitive sports is no stranger to controversy, but few stories have ignited debate quite like the rise of the Enhanced Games. On August 27, 2025, the upstart organization—known for its Olympic-style festival that promises no drug testing—filed a staggering $800 million antitrust lawsuit in federal court in New York. The defendants? None other than World Aquatics, USA Swimming, and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). According to the Enhanced Games, these powerful bodies have orchestrated an illegal campaign to pressure athletes into boycotting the new event, threatening the very foundation of competition and athlete choice.
The Enhanced Games, set to debut in Las Vegas in May 2026, aims to turn the sporting world on its head. The event will feature track, swimming, and weightlifting, with eye-watering $500,000 first prizes and a total purse of $7.5 million—all for just a single day of competition. That’s a sharp contrast to the $71 million awarded to 319 swimmers across all World Aquatics-sanctioned events in 2024. The Enhanced Games’ bold promise? To let both "natural" and "enhanced" athletes compete side by side, pushing the limits of human performance without the threat of disqualification for using substances banned under the world anti-doping code.
But what sparked the legal fireworks? The answer lies in a new bylaw adopted by World Aquatics in June 2025. The rule, though not mentioning the Enhanced Games by name, bars any athlete, coach, or support staff involved in events that embrace prohibited substances or methods from participating in World Aquatics competitions. This sweeping policy doesn’t just affect athletes—it reaches coaches like Brett Hawke, trainers, doctors, and even media figures accredited to World Aquatics events. The bylaw, passed by the Bureau and already in effect, signals the sport’s governing body is taking no chances with its anti-doping stance. World Aquatics has stated that eligibility decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis, but the message to athletes is clear: cross this line, and your future in mainstream swimming could be at risk.
The Enhanced Games’ president, Aron D’Souza, is no stranger to high-profile legal battles. Known for his role in steering billionaire Peter Thiel’s financing of Hulk Hogan’s landmark lawsuit against Gawker, D’Souza insists this latest legal move is no mere publicity stunt. In an interview with The Associated Press, he declared, “The lawsuit is not a publicity stunt, but rather an attempt to remedy the real damage that’s being done to swimmers and other athletes who are being steered away from the Games.” D’Souza argues that the coordinated campaign by World Aquatics, USA Swimming, and WADA is causing “irreparable harm” to the Enhanced Games’ ability to sign athletes. “Athletes who are both ‘natural’ and ‘enhanced’ can compete at the games. That’s part of the narrative that makes this interesting. Can a ‘natural’ athlete beat an ‘enhanced’ athlete?” he asked, highlighting the event’s unique appeal.
WADA, for its part, has not sat idly by. In May 2025, the agency issued a stern warning: athletes and support personnel who participate in the Enhanced Games risk violating anti-doping rules under the World Anti-Doping Code. WADA went further, urging governments and law enforcement agencies to investigate whether athletes admitting to performance-enhancing drug use—or the doctors providing them—might be breaking criminal or professional laws in their home countries or wherever the event is held. In a public statement, WADA cautioned, “WADA warns athletes and support personnel who wish to participate in sport regulated by the World Anti-Doping Code (Code), that if they were to take part in the Enhanced Games, they would risk committing anti-doping rule violations under the Code. They would also put their reputations on the line, as they would risk forever being associated with doping.” The agency also committed to encouraging anti-doping organizations to test involved athletes before, during, and after the Enhanced Games to “protect the integrity of legitimate sport.”
USA Swimming, while not issuing outright bans, has echoed similar concerns. In a May 2025 letter to athletes, the organization underscored the risks: “Even if you are not personally engaged in doping, affiliation with the Enhanced Games could significantly affect your ability to participate in future competitions due to U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (‘USADA’) and World Anti-Doping Agency (‘WADA’) rules and regulations. Therefore, we feel it is important to remind you of the relevant rules and risks surrounding doping activities within the Olympic Movement.” USA Swimming clarified that participation in the Enhanced Games is not, in itself, a rule violation, but warned that involvement could lead to anti-doping rule violations due to association with individuals already serving bans. “If you are considering participating in the Enhanced Games in any capacity, whether as a coach, athlete, official, or support personnel, or even in a governance or business capacity, we urge you to carefully consider the serious impact an anti-doping violation could have on your livelihood, future career, and reputation within the sport and the Olympic Movement.”
Despite the mounting pressure, the Enhanced Games continues to attract high-profile talent. So far, four notable swimmers have committed to the Las Vegas event: three-time Olympic medalist and three-time world champion James Magnussen, world record holder and five-time European champion Andrii Govorov, Olympic finalist and European champion Kristian Gkolomeev, and 2013 world champion Megan Romano. D’Souza has even pledged to cover legal fees for any clean athletes who participate in the Games and are subsequently banned from mainstream competition. This open-door policy is part of the Enhanced Games’ broader strategy to challenge the status quo and attract athletes from across the sporting spectrum, regardless of their stance on performance-enhancing substances.
The legal battle, however, is far from straightforward. National governing bodies like USA Swimming are federally authorized monopolies, often shielded from typical antitrust challenges. Their special legal status makes it tougher for organizations like the Enhanced Games to argue that policies restricting athlete participation are illegal. The World Aquatics bylaw, meanwhile, can only be challenged at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, though even that clause might face its own legal scrutiny. Past attempts to extend sanctions beyond the scope of the World Anti-Doping Code have sometimes been struck down by the CAS, adding yet another layer of complexity to the dispute.
As the May 2026 Las Vegas event draws nearer, the sports world is watching closely. Will the Enhanced Games succeed in carving out a new niche for athletes seeking fewer restrictions and bigger rewards? Or will the combined might of traditional governing bodies and anti-doping agencies stifle this bold experiment before it gets off the ground? One thing’s for sure: the debate over the future of fair play, athlete autonomy, and the limits of human achievement is only just heating up.
For now, the Enhanced Games’ lawsuit remains pending, and the question of whether “natural” and “enhanced” athletes can truly compete on a level playing field is still up for grabs. The next chapter in this high-stakes saga will unfold in the courts—and, perhaps, on the track and in the pool in Las Vegas next spring.
