Athletes’ rights
Rule 50 Explained: What the Olympic Charter Allows and Bans in Athlete Expression
Rule 50 explained in one sentence: it is the Olympic Charter provision that bars advertising, demonstrations and political, religious or racial propaganda at Olympic sites, and it is applied together with Rule 40.2, which gives participants freedom of expression within limits set by IOC guidelines. The rule is short, but most of its practical meaning sits in guidelines issued by the IOC Executive Board and in the way they are enforced.
What does Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter say?
In the edition of the Charter in force from 15 October 2023, Rule 50 is titled 'Advertising, demonstrations, propaganda'. Paragraph 1 prohibits advertising or other publicity in and above stadia, venues and other competition areas, unless the IOC Executive Board authorises it on an exceptional basis.
Paragraph 2 is the provision most often discussed in connection with athlete protests. It states that no kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.
A Bye-law to Rule 50 extends the logic to clothing and equipment. It bars publicity or propaganda, commercial or otherwise, on persons, sportswear and accessories worn or used by participants, apart from the manufacturer's identification. Breaches may lead to disqualification or withdrawal of accreditation.
How does Rule 40.2 fit alongside Rule 50?
Rule 40.2 provides that competitors, team officials and other team personnel shall enjoy freedom of expression in keeping with the Olympic values and the Fundamental Principles of Olympism. The same sentence adds that this applies in accordance with Guidelines determined by the IOC Executive Board.
Researchers at Manchester Law School and Westminster Law School describe this paragraph as new following Charter amendments approved in October 2023. The same amendments, they write, changed the Fundamental Principles of Olympism to require respect for internationally recognised human rights.
They note that the Charter does not explain the difference between a permitted expression and a prohibited demonstration, and that it is not clear when the promotion of Olympism becomes politically, racially or religiously motivated. In practice the boundary is left to the guidelines.
Where can athletes express views at the Games?
The Paris 2024 guidelines on athlete expression, as reported by the Jamaica Olympic Association in January 2024, list places where participants may express views and five moments where they may not. Expression must uphold the basic principles of Olympism and must not attack individuals, organisations or countries.
Participants are also expected to follow instructions from their National Olympic Committee or federation and to avoid disruptive behaviour, such as commenting or displaying a flag or banner during another athlete's presentation or anthem. Non-compliance may lead to disciplinary action proportionate to the offence.
| Setting | Expression |
|---|---|
| Mixed zones, press centres, press conferences, interviews | Allowed |
| Team meetings, traditional and digital media, social networks | Allowed |
| Pre-competition moments such as the call room and athlete presentations | Allowed, under the conditions above |
| Opening ceremony and closing ceremony | Not allowed |
| Medal ceremonies | Not allowed |
| Competition | Not allowed |
| Time in the Olympic Village | Not allowed |
Source: Jamaica Olympic Association, report of the IOC guidelines (29 January 2024)
Why is Rule 50 disputed?
The legal commentary by James and Osborn traces the rule to gestures at the 1968 and 1972 Games, including raised gloved fists on the medal podium at Mexico 1968, after which the IOC ordered the athletes' suspension from the US Olympic Team and expulsion from the Olympic Village. They say the IOC's justification is that the Olympics is a politically neutral event. Before Tokyo 2020, the IOC Athletes' Commission issued the first guidance on applying Rule 50.2. At Tokyo 2020, no athlete who made a gesture or wore an accessory was punished by the IOC, though a warning was issued to the Chinese Olympic Committee after two gold medallists wore badges depicting Mao Zedong.
For Paris 2024, the authors judge that expression supporting a social justice or anti-discrimination cause is unlikely to breach Rule 50.2, and that general anti-war statements are likely to be seen as promoting the Olympic Truce. A demonstration against a specific country or its leaders, they say, remains likely to be a breach. They also point out that outside the Games, restrictions on free expression are rarely lawful.
Global Athlete, an athlete-led movement, called in June 2020 for the IOC and IPC to end Rule 50. It argued that the rule conflicts with Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which protects freedom of opinion and expression,. It also said that telling athletes to stay out of politics is hypocritical, because the IOC and IPC use politics to their own advantage.
An athlete sanctioned under the rule would first need to challenge the decision before the Ad Hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, according to the same commentary.
