The Olympic Games are a universal moment of celebration of sporting excellence. But, attention is also quickly drawn
to their dark side, such as environmental issues, human rights
breaches and poor living conditions of people living near the Olympic sites. In
comparison, however, little commentary space is devoted to the views of
athletes, the people making the Olympics. This article
tries to remediate this, by focussing on Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter which prevents
athletes from freely expressing their (political) thoughts.
Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter on
advertising, demonstrations and propaganda states in paragraph 3 that: ‘No kind
of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in
any Olympic sites, venues or other areas’. This rule is supplemented by Bye-law
to Rule 50 paragraph 1, which foresees that: ‘No form of publicity or propaganda,
commercial or otherwise, may appear on persons, on sportswear, accessories or,
more generally, on any article of clothing or equipment whatsoever worn or used
by the athletes or other participants in the Olympic Games, except for the identification (…) of the
manufacturer of the article or equipment concerned, provided that such
identification shall not be marked conspicuously for advertising purposes. Any violation of the provisions of the present
clause may result in disqualification or withdrawal of the accreditation of the
person concerned. The decisions of the IOC Executive Board regarding this
matter shall be final’.[1]
According to the International
Olympic Committee (IOC), which is responsible for the enforcement of
the Olympic Charter, this rule warrants the spirit of the Olympic Games –
i.e. promoting unity in diversity by bringing together a diverse range of
competitors and spectators from all over the world –, the protection of the athletes
and their ability to compete free from external distractions.[2]
Although the underlying
reasoning appears to be a very noble pursuit, questions might arise as to whether
these goals can be reached when it is not clear, at least for an outsider and
perhaps even for athletes, which situations and behaviours fall under the scope
of political statement or propaganda and which not. In what way does the statement
made by American sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos who, during the Olympic
Summer Games of 1968 in Mexico City, went on the medal stand without shoes and
with beads while hanging their heads and raising their fists when the national
anthem set in for instance differ from the rainbow glove worn by Dutch snowboarder Cheryl
Maas during the Games in Sochi? Both cases concern athletes
making a statement as part of a broader political debate: Smith and Carlos
wanted to express their sympathy for the struggle against racial segregation in
the US and abroad, whereas Cheryl Maas, one of the openly gay athletes, showed her disregard
for Russian’s anti-gay law, a controversial issue at the Sochi Olympic Games. Surprisingly, both incidents were dealt with
differently by the IOC: where Smith and Carlos were thrown
off the team and sent home, the IOC allowed Cheryl Maas to
make her point without being penalised, as was illustrated
by the fact that she was able to compete in another event later that week.
The IOC, in general, does not elaborate
further as to the reasoning used when ruling on such cases and confines itself
by stating that each case is dealt with individually depending on the specific facts.[3] Surely, several reasons can be found why both cases are, and perhaps even have to be,
treated differently – both incidents took place in different times; Tommie Smith and John Carlos were
staying on the medal stand when they made their statement, whereas Cheryl Maas
made hers in the qualifying rounds in front of a single camera; Tommie Smith
and John Carlos criticised their own country (USA) at the Olympic Games held in
another country (Mexico), whereas Cheryl Maas criticised the country organising
the Games (Russia); Tommie Smith and John Carlos didn’t
feel sorry for the statement made, whereas Cheryl Maas stated
afterwards that she didn’t have the intention to make a statement. However, one may question
whether such a policy based on a case-by-case approach ensures unity and legal certainty. In the current state of affairs, it is not possible to provide general legal guidance on how a case will be tackled by the IOC. The Olympic Games should be based on transparent and equal rules for everybody, a fundamental requirement of both sport and the law. Hence, it is high-time for the IOC to provide detailed rules and guidance on the policy applying to political statements made by athletes.
[1] Olympic Charter, in force as from 9 September 2013, accessible via http://www.olympic.org/documents/
olympic_charter_en.pdf
[2] http://isuprod.blob.core.windows.net/media/128853/ioc-guidellines-rule-503.pdf
[3] Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter: what you need to know as an athlete,
accessible via http://assets.olympic.org/
fortherecord/i8/info.html