Written by Agrim Sinha
A. Introduction:
Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter has been a topic of discussion and debate, especially in the context of athletes expressing their views on social and political issues. There is a widespread belief that this rule is violative of the freedom of speech and expression. The Rule prohibits the participation of athletes and other individuals in any kind of demonstration or political, religious, or racial propaganda at the Olympic venue. This includes any gestures, clothing or actions that could be interpreted as a political statement. It intends to maintain the neutrality of the Olympic Games. Sportsmen from around the globe look forward to the much-cherished sports event with a sense of inspiration and honour. Millions of people all over the world watch the mite and grit of the athletes in person and on their screens. The excitement around the event is exciting and infectious.
In recent years, there have been calls to reconsider this rule on many counts. The legality of the Rule itself has been questioned. The practicality of having Rule 50 seems to be out of place in the era of all-pervasive social media. The argument of enforcing political neutrality through the Rule 50 by prohibiting sportsmen from speaking out falls flat as the Olympic Games themselves have been mired in political controversy at times. Many of them have even been subject to boycotts by some aggrieved countries on certain issues.
As societal attitudes towards political expression evolve, there is a strong case for revisiting this rule. An appropriate balance between free expression and the Olympic ideals of unity and neutrality needs to be maintained.
B. Rule 50: Historical Perspective and Freedom of Speech
The modern Olympic games started in the year 1896 in Athens with a nostalgic zeal to revive the sporting event organized by the Greeks in ancient times. In more than 125 years of its history, it has witnessed many vicissitudes. There has been a complete metamorphosis in terms of the scale of participation, the expenditure incurred, and the infrastructure required for organising the modern-day Olympics.
Since its inception, there have been well-meaning individuals and groups who have sincerely wanted the Olympic Games to be focused only on sports. They sincerely wanted to keep the Olympics away from politics. One such person was Avery Brundage, the IOC President in the 1950s who fervently advocated "amateurism and non-politicization of sport". According to him, invitations to the Olympic Games "must state that no political demonstrations will be held in the stadium or other sports grounds or in the Olympic Village, during the Game. " This view was first incorporated in the 1956 Olympic Charter. Over a period, this took the form of Rule 50. It states: “No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.” In 1975, the Olympic charter was amended to include the fundamental framework of Rule 50 (Chanda et al., 2021).
Scholars argue that freedom of speech is integral for any country, organization etc. by backing it on instrumental and intrinsic value theories. While the instrumental theory backs freedom of speech to secure other things such as democracy, the intrinsic value theory believes in the value of speech itself. Scholars around the world believe that freedom of speech enhances the overall working of an organization as it brings forth new ideas, new thought processes etc.
In countries like India, speech laws were enacted during colonial times to crack down on the colonised, rather than to enable greater freedom of speech. These laws continue to govern Indians even today (Liang, 2016) The governing bodies of the Modern Olympic Games have overrepresented colonial or Western powers. Several political protests that initially occurred during the were against dispensations of these Western countries. The Olympic Charter Rule 50 by the International Olympic Committee is a classic example of “colonial continuity” in the international sphere.
C. Fictitious political neutrality of sports
C.1. Breach of Rule 50: Sportsmen’s Protest at the Olympics
There have been several instances when the sportsmen from various countries have voiced their strong opinions through different kinds of gestures or acts during the Olympic Games. One such notable episode was during the 1968 Mexico City Olympics when Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised their black gloves fists during the podium ceremony. This was a symbolic gesture and salute of Black power to express their outrage over the state of civil rights in their home country. Smith and Carlos are now in the Olympic Museum and Olympic Hall of Fame by the United States of America (USA). Ironically, raised fists were expressly forbidden by the new rules for the Tokyo Olympics. Thus, what was cheered at the Olympic Museum has not even been permitted under the new Rule (BBC, 2021). Australian boxer Damien Hooper had donned a jersey featuring the Australian Aboriginal flag in the 2012 Olympics. Chinese cyclists Zhong Tianshi and Bao Shanju wore pins, commonly called Mao Zedong badges, in red and gold, to symbolize the Cultural Revolution in China (Chanda et al., 2021).
All the above-mentioned cases and many more come in the category of violation of Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter. In most of the cases, action of one or the other kind was indeed initiated against the sportspersons concerned.
C.3. Host States and Opening Ceremonies: A Politicized Affair?
Politics and the Olympics have not been strangers to each other. Almost all the Olympic Games have been in the news for various political reasons. Often, the host countries have used the platform of the Olympic Games to advance their own political agenda. The Russian Government used the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics in Sochi to create a narrative that elevated the Soviet era in the eyes of the country. Similarly, in the year 2008 Olympics, children from 56 different ethnic groups in China carried the national flag into the stadium. However, each of them was a member of the Han Chinese ethnic group, which constituted the majority of the Chinese population. The London 2012 Olympics was no different. The UK Government deliberately showcased its positive aspects such as its health care system, women's emancipation, and civil rights, presenting them in a manner that these values and systems are exclusive to Britain (Chanda et al., 2021). Another example of the politicisation of the Olympic Games by member States is evidenced by boycotts of the Olympic Games that have occurred throughout history. The Cold War period was rife with such instances, including the US boycott of the 1980 Moscow Games, and the consequential boycott of the 1984 Los Angeles Games by the Soviet Union.
These various examples of national pride and international policy illustrate how politics is inextricable from the Olympics. The commencement of the Games in the form of Opening Ceremonies, highlights a nationalistic fervour which may be overtly political like Beijing, or have political undertones like London. Boycotts of the Olympic Games are a display of international relations. These events show how States make political expressions during the Games. However, they are not subject to Rule 50, the way individual athletes are.
C.4 Political acts of the International Olympic Committee
While the rules of the IOC attempt to keep the arena free from political expression, the nature of the organisation and its actions itself are far from apolitical. As a body whose constituents are representatives of various States, the political positions of governments are constantly expressed. These expressions are further deliberated, and even acted upon by the IOC. A case in point is the IOC curtailing the participation of Russia in the 2024 Paris Olympics by banning the Russian Olympic Committee. Further, Russian and Belarusian athletes were banned from taking part in the Opening Ceremonies at Paris 2024. Here, the invasion of Ukraine by Russia warrants such action under the Olympic Charter (Modi, 2023). This raises concerns about how the institution itself is permitted by the Charter to act on a political basis, however, the rules of the very same Charter would penalise an individual athlete for expressing a political view along the same lines.
The above discussion clearly illustrates the double standards and hypocrisy regarding the “politicization” of sports. While institutions such as the States can freely express the stances of their government on various political issues, the individuals who represent these states are silenced by Rule 50. The Charter in certain situations allows the IOC to make political decisions, such as during the invasion of another sovereign state, yet in the garb of “neutrality” athletes are severely restricted from expressing their opinions on human rights violations.
D. Freedom of Expression and Rule 50
It can be inferred from the aforesaid events that different countries have been using the Olympics as convenient tools for different political purposes. The International Olympic Committee has been either a mute spectator or silent partner in all the subtle or overt misdemeanours of the culprit nations. It is indeed tragic irony and hypocrisy that the same IOC has targeted individual sportspersons under the misconceived and misconstrued Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter.
The spirit of liberty forms the core of sportsmanship. The free will to express one’s views is inherent in the concept of liberty. This has found a place in the Constitution of the nations in the form of the Right to freedom of speech and expression. The sportsmen are also entitled to enjoy this right. Unfortunately, this is what is inhibited and obstructed by Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter.
D.1. Freedom of expression under international laws and the Olympic charter
Freedom of speech and expression is the cardinal pillar of a modern civilised society. Many consider this freedom to be no less than any of the human rights.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) itself has been set up and is being governed under the aegis of the Swiss Association Law whose seminal component is freedom of speech and expression. Freedom of speech and expression is protected by international bodies like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Right to freedom of speech and expression is an enabling right which facilitates in enjoyment of other human rights. Human rights provisions are included in the Olympic Charter 2020's Fundamental Principles of Olympism. Paragraph 4 states that engaging in sports is a human right. Therefore, having a rule like Rule 50 in its Charter goes against the basic premise of the well-pronounced intent of international declarations and statutes. It is the IOC's primary duty not only to uphold them but also to advance them vigorously (Chanda et al., 2021).
D.2. Legality of the Rule 50
The proponents of Rule 50 do not find anything wrong with it as it is claimed to be legally correct. But any legitimate legislation "may not provide the authorities with unrestricted discretion in its implementation," according to the UNHRC (Modi, 2023).
The IOC's application of Rule 50 and its lack of definitional clarity have allowed for unrestricted discretion. It is very ambiguous in its main component as to what is meant by "political, religious or racial" propaganda. The nature of the propaganda that is authorized is also not clear. The only information which is given is regarding the locations and spaces where free speech is permitted. Furthermore, restrictions on free speech and expression may vary from one country to another. Greater restrictions in certain countries could result in substantive injustice. For instance, in China, free speech laws are significantly more onerous, while in France free speech is greatly protected. The nature of Rule 50 is ambiguous as to which standard of free speech is being adopted.
Moreover, for Rule 50 to be a legally legitimate restriction, it must have some statutory basis. In normal course, it should have been a product of an agreement or treaty signed by the sovereign Governments as it impinges upon a very important component of the basic human right. The legitimacy and legality of Rule 50 become questionable as it has not arisen out of any statute or treaty which has legal or statutory robustness. It is just a product of the so-called wisdom of some of the administrative officials of a sporting body called the International Olympic Committee. Therefore, the argument for the technical legality of Rule 50 does not hold ground in a real sense.
D.3. Violation of the principle of Proportionality
Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter violates the principle of proportionality with impunity. This principle is extensively used to determine if the extent and scale of restriction imposed by certain rules or legislation are necessary and justified. In the case of Rule 50, the restriction on sportspersons is complete and limitless. Had athletes been endangering the public interest or damaging the IOC's reputation by their gestures or pronouncements, then its creation or existence would have been justified. For Rule 50 to be more sensible, it should have provided for action against the sportspersons whose act encouraged racism, conflict, war, xenophobia, etc. The modes of expression such as lifting one's wrist, forming X etc., neither damage the IOC's standing nor pose any danger or qualify as a restriction calling for the imposition of blanket restriction (Modi, 2023).
In contemporary democratic society, defending dissidence or unpopular speech is at the core of the right to freedom of speech and expression. People living in non-democratic countries also have the right to free speech. It is imperative that we show them the same consideration in international events like the Olympic Games.
The concept that all people are moral agents is the foundation for the unique character of freedom of expression. The proportionality approach investigates whether something is adequate in terms of degree and intensity. It is necessary to consider whether it is appropriate to restrict an athlete's right to free speech because doing so would go against the fundamental principles of our belief in that right. The idea that imposing a blanket restriction will balance freedom of expression and commercial interest on an equal footing is predicated on the idea that rights and other interests are legally indistinguishable.
As such, each case should be evaluated based on the evidence rather than imposing a general ban on all demonstrations of race, religion, or politics because doing so would violate people's fundamental rights. A moral assessment of rights suggests that sportspersons' rights should take precedence over other interests of sports organizations.
D.4. Sports as a vehicle of change
Considering the nature of the Olympic Games as well as the inviolable right of freedom of expression, athletes should be free to express themselves politically. Beyond mere self-expression, athletes have the platform and publicity to initiate actual social change. For instance, 25 African countries boycotted the 1976 Montreal Games, to protest New Zealand’s tour of South Africa, a country where racial apartheid was the norm (BBC,2021). Interestingly, almost two decades later, in 1995 a post-apartheid South Africa hosted the Rugby World Cup, with Nelson Mandela believing the sport had the capacity to unite people of different races.
Since then, in 2020 the IOC Athletes Commission has made recommendations regarding Rule 50 which have been endorsed by the IOC Executive Board. However, these recommendations fail to address the crux of the issue with Rule 50 which has been identified in this paper. While striving to improve messaging on inclusion and non-discrimination, the recommendations seem to be performative of a show of unity, rather than enabling athletes to speak out against injustices (International Olympic Committee). The reality is, while the messaging of peace and solidarity is important, there are many places in the world where these are lacking. It is on this public stage that athletes have an opportunity to highlight these injustices in their parts of the world. While it is also understandable that they wish to preserve the podium for the award ceremony alone, the restrictions on athletes’ freedom of expression remain tight.
E. Conclusion:
The Olympic Games is an extraordinary international sporting event being cherished and cheered by millions of people across the globe. Rule 50 of its Charter is said to act as dampener in otherwise its scintillating saga. It is violative of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression of the players participating in the Games. This is obnoxious in the modern era of globally networked societies clamouring for more and more freedom.
The intent behind the incorporation of Rule 50 might have been to maintain the political neutrality and purity of the event from a sporting point of view. But, in essence and in practice, it has become a tool for silencing only the sportspersons participating in the Games. The nations hosting the Games or the officials managing the Games have had a free run-in playing politics with the entire sequence of organising the Games right from the selection of venue to the usage of the event for advancing own political agenda. The unfettered power bestowed upon by Rule 50 makes sportspersons very vulnerable to the whims and fancies of the International Olympic Committee. It is violative of the different provisions of the international treaties, conventions and statutes. Application of this Rule also amounts to breach of democratic norms.
It is suggested that a precise framework in sanctioning an athlete under Rule 50 be outlined. It can use the concept of proportionality to weigh the conflicting rights according to the particulars of each instance. The IOC's objectives may be achieved by using the proportionality principle in a sporting setting. But a complete ban is not warranted.
Paying heed to the clamour for revision, the IOC has recently adopted certain modifications. It was stated that demonstrations would be permitted, but only "prior to the start of competitions" and not on the medal podium. Additionally, the IOC has granted the international organizations in charge of each individual sport freedom over whether and how to impose bans. It is expected that the well-wishers of the wonderful event would continue to keep up the pressure on the IOC to continue with the reforms in the larger interest of the sanctity of the Games.
*The Author is a legal Scholar from Jindal Global Law School, India
(The Image used here is for representative purposes only)
References:
Chanda, S., Sahoo, S., & Sahni, S. (2021). Olympic rule 50: Bane toward human rights implications for the athletes. Linguistics and Culture Review, 5(S3), 1489-1509. https://doi.org/10.21744/lingcure.v5nS3.1843.
IOC Athletes’ Commission’s recommendations on Rule 50 and Athlete Expression at the Olympic Games fully endorsed by the IOC Executive Board. (2021, April 21). International Olympic Committee. https://olympics.com/ioc/news/ioc-athletes-commission-s-recommendations-on-rule-50-and-athlete-expression-at-the-olympic-games
Liang L, (2016). Free Speech and Expression. In Choudhary, S & Mehta P.B & Khosla, M (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution. OUP.
Modi, T. (2023). To what extent is rule 50 of the Olympic charter valid? Balancing athletes’ freedom of expression and the mythical political neutrality of sport. Int Sports Law J, 23, 368-389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-023-00249-2
Rule 50: A history of protests at the Olympic games. (2021, June 5). BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/57357068
Comments