Though sport takes centre stage at the Olympic Games, the Games have always been influenced by politics. This year, considerable attention is expected to be on the (partial) exclusion of Russian and Belarusian athletes. In response to the Russian war of aggression in Ukraine, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) ruled that these athletes may only compete under a neutral flag, are prohibited from participating in team sports, and must have no military connections.
That political statements during major sports events can generate significant media and public attention was last demonstrated during the European Football Championship by the developments surrounding the actions of Turkish player Merih Demiral. During the round of 16 match against Austria, he displayed the wolf salute while celebrating his goal — a symbol associated with the “Grey Wolves,” a Turkish right-wing extremist and ultranationalist organisation. The incident became a political issue, leading UEFA to suspend the player for two matches.
Unlike professional footballers, who are in an employment relationship with their club, Olympic athletes typically do not have to face employment related consequences for undesirable expressions of opinion. Nevertheless, such expressions can have significant repercussions: Rule 50.2 of the Olympic Charter of the IOC stipulates that “no kind of demonstration or political, religious, or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues, or other areas.”
The IOC reiterated in its “Athlete Expression Guidelines” for this year’s Games that expressions during official ceremonies (including the award ceremonies, the opening and closing ceremonies), on the field of play, and in the Olympic Village, are prohibited. For political protests considered a violation of Rule 50.2, athletes may face consequences such as exclusion from the Games, disqualification from competitions, or the revocation of medals post event.
Rule 50 has been at the centre of attention lately. It was originally imposed shortly after the most famous protest in Olympics history, when the two black U.S. sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised their fists whilst standing on the podium at the Summer Olympics in Mexico 1968 to protest racial injustice in the United States. Both athletes were suspended by the U.S. Olympic Committee within hours and had to leave the Olympic Village.
In recent times, the rule has sparked debate about the balance between political neutrality and freedom of expression in international sports. Prior to the last Summer Olympics in Tokyo in 2021, in response to persistent calls from the global athlete organisation “Global Athlete” for the abolition of Rule 50 — intensified by the Black Lives Matter movement in 2020 — the IOC Athletics Commission made some minor adjustments to Rule 50.
Since then, expressions of opinion, as long as they are “consistent with the fundamental principles of the Olympic Movement, not directly or indirectly aimed at individuals, countries, organisations, and/or their dignity, and not disruptive,” are permitted during press conferences, in the mixed zone, at team meetings, on social media, or before the start of a competition.
A kneeling gesture before the game, as some football teams have done in the past to protest against racism, is now compatible with the IOC’s regulations. However, in the eyes of many athlete associations, these reforms fell short of expectations.
Considering the potential repercussions for athletes engaging in political expressions and the heated political climate across the globe, there is much anticipation about whether an incident will take place at the Olympic Games, leading to disciplinary action by the IOC.
For further information, please contact:
Matthew Devey, Partner, Linklaters
matthew.devey@linklaters.com
