Dutch beach volleyball player Steven van de Velde, convicted of raping a 12-year-old in 2016, has been controversially selected to represent the Netherlands at the 2024 Paris Olympics.

Van de Velde's selection has sparked a public outcry given his criminal history, despite being deemed at low risk of reoffending by experts. Having served a four-year prison sentence and undergoing a monitored rehabilitation process, his return to professional sport has been backed by both the Dutch Volleyball Federation and the Dutch National Olympic Committee. While the decision aligns with guidelines for integrating athletes back into top-level competition, it raises questions about the ethical considerations of allowing convicted sex offenders to represent their country on the global stage.

Steven van de Velde was sentenced to four years in prison for raping a 12-year-old child. He was released in 2017, a year after being convicted in a trial held at Aylesbury crown court in the United Kingdom. During the trial, it was established that Van de Velde was aware of the victim's age before committing the crime. In addition to his prison sentence, he was placed on the UK's sex offender registry for life.

In 2018, a year after his release, van de Velde returned to professional beach volleyball following an intensive, professionally supervised rehabilitation period. This rehabilitation effort was part of a structured reintegration plan designed to help convicted individuals re-enter society. Van de Velde's return was supported by the Dutch Volleyball Federation (Nevobo) and the Dutch National Olympic Committee (NOC). Michel Everaert, general director at Nevobo, stated that extensive consultations were carried out with various organizations, including the International Volleyball Federation (FIVB), to evaluate the situation thoroughly before allowing his return. Experts involved in the consultation assessed his risk of reoffending as 'nil'.

The decision to allow van de Velde to compete at the 2024 Paris Olympics was made after ensuring that he met all the qualification requirements set for the Olympic Games. According to the Dutch NOC, this decision is in line with the established guidelines for athletes returning to high-level competition after a criminal conviction. The NOC emphasized that the selection process adhered to the regulations governing athlete eligibility by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), which delegates the responsibility of nominating team members to the respective national committees.

Van de Velde expressed his gratitude for the opportunity to rebuild his career and life. He acknowledged the support from his network of friends, family, and the Dutch volleyball federation, which he credits for the second chance he received. He conveyed his commitment to making positive contributions to his sport and society. Despite his gratitude, the fact remains that his selection for the Olympics has ignited significant controversy, with many questioning the moral implications.

Critics of Van de Velde's selection argue that his criminal past makes him an inappropriate representative of the Netherlands on an international stage. They highlight the severe emotional harm caused to his victim, and the fact that he was an adult when he committed the crime against a child. This perspective emphasizes the broader societal responsibility to protect survivors of sexual violence and to consider the potential impact of such decisions on the victim and others.

Nevobo's general director Michel Everaert acknowledged the concerns raised by the public but reiterated that the decision was made after extensive and considered discussions with all the relevant bodies. The federation took into account expert opinions regarding Van de Velde's rehabilitation and the low risk of recidivism. Nevertheless, the outcry underscores the sensitivity and complexities involved in reintegrating individuals with criminal backgrounds into professional sports.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has remained relatively hands-off concerning the issue, reiterating that the responsibility of nominating team members falls under the jurisdiction of each National Olympic Committee. This stance has placed the ethical and public relations burden squarely on the Dutch NOC and Nevobo.

Van de Velde's case raises broader questions about redemption, justice, and the criteria used to evaluate athletes' eligibility after serving their sentences. While some view his return as a testament to successful rehabilitation and the ability to re-enter society as a reformed individual, others see it as a failure to adequately represent the values of integrity and accountability at the highest levels of sport.