Participation in sports is absolutely a right. Otherwise the entire rationale for women’s athletics collapses. It’s not as exciting as the men, even if strides have been made interest is still not the same, it’s not as lucrative as the men’s….it is “lesser”. Otherwise throw them all with the men, much less any entitlement to equivalent scholarships. These arguments were all made at the time title ix was put in place to great opposition. That’s been legally asked and answered for a generation now.Participation in sports is not a right. Also one person's right is sometimes an infringement of someone else's right. At the end of the day we just have a "philosophical" disagreement. I don't believe in artificial interference in sport and you do. But you're right that sports are always being artificially tinkered with, but rarely does it result in an improvement in sport. Bringing this full circle, what is the last change in the soccer rules that improved the game? I'd argue it was the change to the back pass to the keeper rule which was over 30 years ago. The continual change to the handling rules since has been a complete cluster F which has now resulted in defenders playing with there arms behind their back. The new kickoff rules in football, WTF?
The question of conflicting rights is entirely a different one, and a fair question. Conflicting rights though are ubiquitous in society. Your right to build a building on your land blocks my right to light and air. Philosophy is the question of how we resolve these conflicts. But it starts with an acknowledgement that each party does have their rights.