Editor’s
note: Thomas Terraz is a L.LM. candidate in
the European Law programme at Utrecht University and a former intern of the Asser International Sports Law Centre
1. Sport Nationalism is Politics
Despite all efforts, the
Olympic Games has been and will be immersed in politics. Attempts to shield the
Games from social and political realities are almost sure to miss their mark
and potentially risk being disproportionate. Moreover, history has laid bare
the shortcomings of the attempts to create a sanitized and impenetrable bubble
around the Games. The first
blog of this series examined the idea of the Games as a sanitized space and
dived into the history of political neutrality within the Olympic Movement to
unravel the irony that while the IOC aims to keep the Olympic Games ‘clean’ of
any politics within its ‘sacred enclosure’, the IOC and the Games itself are largely
enveloped in politics. Politics seep into the cracks of this ‘sanitized’ space through:
(1) public protests (and their suppression by authoritarian regimes hosting the
Games), (2) athletes who use their public image to take a political stand, (3) the
IOC who takes decisions on recognizing national Olympic Committees (NOCs) and awarding
the Games to countries,[1]
and (4) states that use the Games for geo-political posturing.[2] With
this background in mind, the aim now is to illustrate the disparity between the
IOC’s stance on political neutrality when it concerns athlete protest versus
sport nationalism, which also is a form of politics.
As was mentioned in part
one of this series, the very first explicit mention of politics in the Olympic
Charter was in its 1946 version and aimed to combat ‘the nationalization of
sports for political aims’ by preventing ‘a national exultation of success
achieved rather than the realization of the common and harmonious objective
which is the essential Olympic law’ (emphasis added). This sentiment was
further echoed some years later by Avery Brundage (IOC President (1952-1972))
when he declared: ‘The Games are not, and must not become, a contest between
nations, which would be entirely contrary to the spirit of the Olympic Movement
and would surely lead to disaster’.[3] Regardless
of this vision to prevent sport nationalism engulfing the Games and its
codification in the Olympic Charter, the current reality paints quite a
different picture. One simply has to look at the mass obsession with medal
tables during the Olympic Games and its amplification not only by the media but
even by members of the Olympic Movement.[4]
This is further exacerbated when the achievements of athletes are used for domestic
political gain[5] or when they are used to
glorify a nation’s prowess on the global stage or to stir nationalism within a
populace[6]. Sport
nationalism is politics. Arguably, even the worship of national imagery during
the Games from the opening ceremony to the medal ceremonies cannot be
depoliticized.[7] In many ways, the IOC has turned
a blind eye to the politics rooted in these expressions of sport nationalism
and instead has focused its energy to sterilize its Olympic spaces and stifle political
expression from athletes. One of the ways the IOC has ignored sport nationalism
is through its tacit acceptance of medal tables although they are expressly
banned by the Olympic Charter.
At this point, the rules restricting
athletes’ political protest and those concerning sport nationalism,
particularly in terms of medal tables, will be scrutinized in order to highlight
the enforcement gap between the two.
2. The Legal Framework
a. Athlete Led Political Protest
The groundwork for political neutrality is set out in the Fundamental
Principles of Olympism (point 5) and Rule 2 (5) of the Olympic Charter. As was illuminated in the first
blog, this is presented by the Olympic Charter to ensure the autonomy of sport.
One of the specific ways in which the Olympic Charter tries to secure this
ideal is through Rule 50 which bans political protest at Olympic sites.[8] Last
year, the IOC Athletes’ Commission released
its Guidelines on Rule 50 which underscored the far-reaching prohibitions Rule 50 entails. Athletes
are not allowed to display any sort of ‘political messaging’ or make any
‘gestures of a political nature’. This includes no ‘signs or armbands’, no
‘hand gestures or kneeling’. Even ‘refusal to follow the Ceremonies protocol’
is considered a violation of Rule 50. Rubbing salt in the wound is the fact
that the geographic scope of this ban extends to ‘all Olympic venues’, thus even
covering the Olympic Village. Athletes may only disperse their political speech
during ‘press conferences and interviews’, ‘team meetings’ and through ‘digital
or traditional media, or on other platforms’. The Guidelines, however, underline
that this exception only applies to ‘expressing views’, making a distinction
from ‘protests and demonstrations’, which includes the actions described above.
Arguably, drawing such a line may be blurry in practice. In other words, at
what point does an athlete’s expression of a view become political protest?
This question is particularly relevant given the broad interpretation the
Guidelines have taken on what constitutes political protest. In the end, while
the Guidelines claim that this is only to ensure that everyone ‘can enjoy the
experience of the Olympic Games without any divisive disruption’, such a broad interpretation
of Rule 50 arguably goes beyond the attempt to prevent any ‘disruption’ to
athletes’ achievements.
The consequences for athletes who do not follow these rules can be very
serious. Bye-Law 1 to Rule 50 states that if such ‘propaganda’ appears on an athlete’s
clothing or equipment (e.g. an armband or hidden t-shirt), they may be
disqualified. The Guidelines, on the other hand, remain rather vague. Instead, each
case is to be decided by the athlete’s ‘National Olympic Committee,
International Federation and the IOC’ and ‘disciplinary action’ will be decided
on an individual basis. Nevertheless, given simply the looming threat of a
disqualification, it is likely that the vast majority of athletes will simply
fall into line.[9]
b. Sport Nationalism and Medal Tables
The clearest example of the wilful disregard of the Olympic Movement to
combat sport nationalism is its tacit acceptance of Olympic medal tables despite
an explicit ban in the Olympic Charter. The foundations of this ban can be
found in Rule 6 of the Olympic Charter which stipulates that the ‘Olympic Games
are competitions between athletes in individual or team events and not
between countries’ (emphasis added). Rule 57 then specifically addresses
medal tables, stating that the ‘IOC and the OCOG shall not draw up any global
ranking per country’. Finally, Rule 27 (6) highlights how NOCs bear a special
responsibility to ‘preserve their autonomy and resist
all pressures of any kind, including but not limited to political, legal,
religious or economic pressures which may prevent them from complying with the
Olympic Charter’. With
this framing, while the IOC and OCOG are not allowed to create a medal table,
the NOCs have essentially been left off the hook. In practice, NOCs have not
hesitated to boast of their performances on medal tables. For instance, the United States Olympic Committee jumped
at the opportunity to celebrate how it had topped the medal chart for the ‘6th
straight games’ at Rio 2016.[10] In
the meantime, political leaders and the media continue to gush over the achievements
of their countries through their standing in the medal table.[11] While
hosting Olympic athletes at the White House, Obama emphasized how Team USA had
‘won the most medals by far’ at the Rio Games.[12] Additionally,
national governments are aware of their standings in medal tables and have used
them to shape their sport policies, including funding for elite sport.[13] NOCs
play a role here as well. For example, the Dutch NOC*NSF, in its overview of
its elite sport strategy and finance, has set its goal to be a top 10 nation in elite sport, which involves ‘striving for more
medals’.[14] Indeed, the determination
of whether a nation is in the top 10 presupposes the creation of some sort of
‘global ranking per country’. Lastly, concerning the media, the IOC’s editorial guidelines for
Olympic properties at Rio 2016 even clearly states that it has ‘no objection’
to medal tables in published material.[15]
The Olympic Charter requires the IOC ‘to oppose any political ... abuse
of sport and athletes’.[16] All
the above examples are illustrations of using sport and athletes’ achievements
for political purposes.[17] Given
this picture, it could be argued that the IOC has increasingly taken a rather laid
back approach to medal tables and does not seem to mind how other actors – both
within and outside the Olympic Movement – use them to stimulate a country
versus country narrative around the Olympic Games.[18] In
essence, medal tables paint those countries at the top
as the winners and those at the bottom as the losers, further elevating nationalist
politics: the myth of the nations of the innately strong and those of the weak.
The IOC, as the ‘supreme authority’ of the Olympic Movement, could adopt a
stronger tone to push back against the omnipresent nature of medal tables
within the Games as it stands in complete opposition to its fundamental
principles.[19] Indeed, part of the IOC’s
mission is to ‘to take action to strengthen the unity of the Olympic
Movement, to protect its independence, to maintain and promote its political
neutrality and to preserve the autonomy of sport’ (emphasis added).[20] But
there is no unity in the Olympic Movement concerning medal tables, only disarray,
ranging from tacit acceptance to zealous celebrations of a nation’s ranking.
3. Unveiling the Hypocrisy
In view of this, there seems to be a disparity in the Olympic Movement’s
approach to politics when it comes from athletes, where there is the potential
for severe sanctions, compared to sport nationalism arising from medal tables, where
it seems to have all but accepted their existence. Looking beyond simply medal
tables, so much of the Olympic Games emphasizes a competition between countries,
further stimulating sport nationalism: (1) an opening ceremony where athletes
march into an arena behind their nation’s flag and where the host puts on ‘cultural
performances’ that ‘dramatize national myths, experiences, and values’[21];
(2) national anthems that are religiously played during each medal ceremony
while national flags are hoisted up; (3) the way in which many team sports are
played between countries. More credence is given to this view when one also
observes how the media – and sometimes even NOCs - help push a country versus country narrative,
which can potentially overshadow athletes’ individual accomplishments.[22] The constant flood of
national imagery during the Games casts doubt on the idea that the Olympic
Games is not a competition between countries, creating greater friction between
the ideas of ‘universalism and nationalism’.[23] It
should also be recalled, as was pointed out in the first blog, that states use
sport nationalism to help push foreign and internal political agendas. Some have argued that in this way sport can
be ‘regarded as compensation, a sense of nostalgia or as a cure against the
erosion of national identity’, even becoming ‘an alternative to war’.[24] Others
have taken another view that instead of acting as a sort of pressure release, the
Games ‘may provide opportunities for extending and exacerbating
nationalist-inspired conflicts’, further entrenching nationalism.[25]
However, this blog is not arguing that the IOC should take heavy
handed action to discourage the media from tallying up medals or to reel in a
NOC’s pride in the performance of its athletes or to rid the Olympic Games of
all signs of national imagery. On the contrary, it seems that the idea to
minimize sport nationalism through the inclusion of Rule 6 and 57 of the
Olympic Charter should be characterized as an expression of a lofty ideal that personifies
international unity – i.e. something to be aspired to but not some concrete
goal to be realized through rigorous enforcement. Again, it is completely
legitimate for the Olympic Movement to strive for this ideal and to also defend
its political neutrality. Yet, given how the IOC has all but accepted this form
of politics (sport nationalism), it is puzzling why it has not taken a more
tolerant approach to political expression from athletes, including
protests/demonstrations, especially when considering how medal tables arguably
pose a far greater threat to the fundamental principles of the Olympic
Movement.[26] Perhaps given how sports
can help stir national pride within a populace, it is possible that this
phenomenon may encourage more viewership hours. Consequently, presenting the
Games as a country versus country competition may be more lucrative. On the
other hand, potentially unpredictable athlete protests may risk dividing audiences
and may also put Olympic sponsors on edge. But assuming this is the case, is
this reason enough to ban such expression altogether?
Regardless, in the same way sport nationalism will likely never be
completely erased, athletes’ political expression will continue to be part of
the Olympic fabric. Fundamentally, it all boils down to whether it is truly
possible to disentangle politics and sport? If so, is it realistic or even
desirable? One could maybe argue that this unbundling is necessary to promote
international unity and to ensure the universality, neutrality and autonomy of
sport. However, how far should the Olympic Movement go to achieve this result
and is such a consequentialist approach appropriate considering the pressures
it places on athletes – i.e. do the ends justify the means? I would argue that
this process of sanitization is burdened with too many moral concerns and is an
enforcement minefield in practice. While outside the scope of this blog, it
should be noted that it is not difficult to imagine an athlete challenging the
concerned provisions on the basis of human rights and/or EU law.
All things considered, the IOC chooses the kind of politics it is
willing to tolerate within its sphere of influence. The national structures
within the Olympic Movement, the influence of national governments, and the seducing
narratives of nationalism create significant headwinds in favor of the politics
of sport nationalism. Therefore, the IOC, an entity that embodies the
transnational, has a responsibility to be a counterbalance in this system.[27] In
doing so, the IOC - the leader of the Olympic Movement – should defend, or at
least tolerate, the free expression of its ‘people’, the athletes. This is not
a radical proposition. It is worth remembering that athletes form an integral
part of the Olympic Movement.[28] Simply respecting the free
expression of athletes does not automatically sacrifice the political
neutrality of the Olympic Movement.
4. Conclusion
Over the past year, the IOC has faced increasing
public pressure, particularly from athlete stakeholders (see here, here
and here)
to reverse its course concerning Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter. As a result, it
announced
that the IOC Athletes Commission would conduct a consultation process
concerning Rule 50. The IOC Athletes Commission just recently finished its
consultation and its ‘recommendations will be presented to the IOC Executive
Board by the end of April 2021’. Meanwhile, NOCs have also individually taken
certain steps to allow more athlete activism, such
as the US Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC) which has committed to not sanction
athletes who ‘peacefully and respectfully’ protest ‘in support of racial
and social justice for all human beings’. In this regard, the USOPC declared
that ‘human rights
are not political, calls for equity and equality must not be confused with
divisive demonstrations’. While perhaps attractive at first glance, the
USOPC is only moving the goalposts by playing semantics with ‘politics’ by
narrowing its definition to eliminate ‘human rights’[29]
from its ambit. In doing so, the USOPC does not explain why human rights are
not political issues. The reality is that the scope and implications of human
rights remain hotly contested issues everywhere in the world, they can hardly
be depoliticized. Nevertheless, the softening of the USOPC’s position and its acknowledgement
of some its past mistakes is a good start.[30]
In view of today’s strong
social currents, the IOC may be forced to abandon its dream of a pure and apolitical
Olympic Games. Politics has and will continue to ooze into the sanitized spaces
of the Olympic Games. Allowing athletes to raise their voice during the Games
would allow them to share their political views with the world, instead of confining
them to remaining passive laborers in the Olympic economy subject to the power
politics of states.