During the armed conflict between the United States and the Zionist Regime against Iran (February–April 2026), a significant number of Iranian sports facilities — including the 12,000-seat Azadi Stadium in Tehran — were targeted in airstrikes. This study aims to examine the legal status of sports facilities under international humanitarian law (IHL) and to assess the lawfulness of attacking them in the event of military use.

This article employs a descriptive analytical method, drawing upon library resources, international instruments (the four Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I, the Rome Statute), official ICRC commentaries, and press reports on recent attacks.

Under Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the principle of distinction (recognized as a fundamental customary rule), sports facilities qualify as civilian objects and are presumptively immune from attack. Even if a stadium is transformed into a military objective, the principles of precaution, proportionality, and the burden of proof remain fully applicable. The case study of the attack on Azadi Stadium reveals that, even assuming the presence of special police or Basij forces, the attack lacks legal justification: First, absolute military necessity is not established, as those forces played no role in an aerial armed conflict. Second, the precautionary principle was violated because the attacker failed to conduct proper verification of the forces' actual military involvement. Third, the complete destruction of a 12,000-seat stadium for a negligible military advantage is manifestly disproportionate. And Fourth, the distinction between military targets and civilian property is lost in this attack.

Sports facilities enjoy relative immunity under IHL; attacking them in normal circumstances violates IHL norms and constitutes a war crime. Although the exception of transformation into a military objective is theoretically admissible, it is subject to stringent conditions. In the case of the attack on Azadi Stadium in Tehran, none of the requirements of military necessity, distinction, precaution, and proportionality were respected. The international community — particularly the IOC and UNESCO — is encouraged to adopt an optional protocol clarifying the protection of sports facilities in armed conflict.