Rule 50: Should the Olympic Podium Be Protest-Free?

Timeline

1. Aug 2019U.S. fencer Race Imboden kneels and hammer thrower Gwen Berry raises a fist on the podium at the Pan American Games in Lima.
2. Aug 20, 2019The USOPC reprimands both athletes and places them on 12 months' probation.
3. Jan 2020IOC Athletes' Commission Rule 50 Guidelines list kneeling and political hand gestures as prohibited at venues, the Village, podiums and ceremonies.
4. Jun 2020After an IOC Executive Board resolution condemning discrimination, the Athletes' Commission is tasked with exploring new forms of athlete expression.
5. Dec 10, 2020The USOPC says it will not sanction Team USA athletes for peaceful demonstrations for racial and social justice.
6. Apr 21, 2021The IOC Executive Board endorses Athletes' Commission recommendations keeping the podium, field of play and ceremonies protest-free.
7. Jul 2021New Rule 50.2 guidelines allow gestures on the field of play before competition, under conditions.
8. Jul 21, 2021Five women's football teams kneel before their opening Tokyo matches; IOC President Thomas Bach says it is allowed.
9. Aug 1–7, 2021The IOC examines Raven Saunders's podium gesture, then suspends the case after her mother's death; it warns two Chinese cyclists over Mao badges and closes their case.

The ethical issues

• Whether an organization may restrict athletes' expression in exchange for access to its event.
• Whether political neutrality is possible, and whose politics a neutrality rule favors.
• Whether a majority survey is a legitimate way to decide limits on a minority's expression.
• Consistency and proportionality in enforcing expression rules.
• The relationship between athlete protest and respect for fellow competitors' moments.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
Athletes who want to protest	Using a global platform to speak on injustice without losing eligibility or medals.
Athletes who want neutrality	Celebrating their performances without distraction and avoiding pressure to take political positions.
IOC and Athletes' Commission	Protecting the universality and neutrality of the Games while responding to athlete demands.
National Olympic Committees	Supporting their athletes and complying with IOC rules.
Host countries and governments	Avoiding criticism at events they host or attend.
Broadcasters and sponsors	A reliable product and avoiding controversy.

The case

The Olympic podium is one of the most watched stages in sport. For more than 50 years, the image of Tommie Smith and John Carlos raising gloved fists in Mexico City in 1968 has shown its power. The International Olympic Committee’s Rule 50 is meant to keep that stage, and the rest of the Games, free of protest. Between 2019 and 2021, a new wave of athlete activism pushed the IOC to explain and partly revise the rule. The case asks whether Olympic venues should be protest-free and who should get to decide.

Background

In August 2019, at the Pan American Games in Lima, U.S. fencer Race Imboden knelt and hammer thrower Gwen Berry raised a fist on the medal stand. Imboden said “racism, gun control, mistreatment of immigrants, and a president who spreads hate” were among the issues that needed attention; Berry said social injustice in America was “too important to not say something.”^[3] The U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC) sent each a letter of reprimand with 12 months’ probation. CEO Sarah Hirshland warned that “issuing a reprimand to other athletes in a similar instance is insufficient” and said, “we can’t ignore the rules or the reasons they exist.”^[3]

The rules and governance

Rule 50.2 of the Olympic Charter states: “No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.”^[1][6] The rule does not list specific penalties. According to the IOC Athletes’ Commission, breaches are covered by Rule 59.2, which allows a range of sanctions up to disqualification and return of medals, and cases are evaluated by the athlete’s National Olympic Committee, international federation and the IOC “on a case-by-case basis.”^[1]

In January 2020, the Athletes’ Commission issued Rule 50 Guidelines for Tokyo. They listed “gestures of a political nature, like a hand gesture or kneeling,” political signs and armbands as prohibited at venues, in the Olympic Village, on the podium and at ceremonies. Athletes could still speak through the media, at press conferences and in the mixed zone.^[2] The commission wrote that it was important “that we keep the venues, the Olympic Village and the podium neutral and free from any form of political, religious or ethnic demonstrations.”^[2] Berry called the guidelines “a form of control.”^[2]

Pressure and consultation

George Floyd’s death in police custody in May 2020, and the protests that followed, changed the context.^[7] In June 2020, after the IOC Executive Board passed a resolution condemning discrimination, the Athletes’ Commission was asked to explore how athletes could express support for Olympic principles, including during the Games.^[1]

In December 2020, the athlete-led Team USA Council on Racial and Social Justice, whose members included John Carlos, called for Rule 50 to be changed. It argued that “human rights are not political” and that silencing athletes contributes to “the dehumanization of athletes.” The USOPC said it would “not sanction Team USA athletes for peacefully and respectfully demonstrating in support of racial and social justice,” although IOC rules would still apply at the Games.^[4]

The Athletes’ Commission’s consultation involved 3,547 survey respondents from 185 National Olympic Committees and all 41 Olympic sports, plus input from 21 athletes’ commissions. China accounted for 14 percent of respondents and the United States for 7 percent.^[1] Seventy percent of respondents said it was not appropriate to demonstrate on the field of play or at the opening ceremony, and 67 percent said so for the podium. The media and press conferences were considered most appropriate.^[1] The commission acknowledged that “some athlete representatives took a different view, using freedom of expression,” but concluded, after consulting human rights and sports law experts, that free expression “is not absolute.”^[1]

On April 21, 2021, the IOC Executive Board endorsed the commission’s recommendations: more messaging about solidarity and inclusion at the Games, a revised Olympic oath, and a recommendation to “preserve the podium, FoP [field of play] and official ceremonies from any kind of protests and demonstrations, or any acts perceived as such.”^[1] The IOC explained that “the purpose of Rule 50 is not to make athletes politically neutral… rather it is to keep the Olympic Games politically neutral,” and that drawing a line between acceptable and unacceptable causes would be very difficult for an organization as diverse as the IOC.^[1]

Global Athlete, an athlete advocacy group, said experts it consulted found the survey methodology “both leading and flawed.” Athlete Caradh O’Donovan said: “One cannot survey how people feel about human rights and freedom of expression. These types of surveys only empower the majority when it is the minority that want and need to be heard.”^[5]

The Tokyo guidelines

In early July 2021, weeks before Tokyo, the Executive Board approved new Rule 50.2 guidelines. Athletes could now express views “on the field of play prior to the start of the competition,” such as during introductions, provided the expression was consistent with Olympic principles, “not targeted, directly or indirectly, against people, countries, organisations and/or their dignity,” not disruptive and not barred by NOC or federation rules.^[6] Competition itself, the podium, ceremonies and the Village remained off-limits. Athletes’ Commission chair Kirsty Coventry said the restrictions reflected “the wish of a big majority of athletes in our global consultation.”^[6]

At the Games

On July 21, 2021, five women’s football teams (Great Britain, Chile, the United States, Sweden and New Zealand) knelt before their opening matches. Asked about it, IOC President Thomas Bach said: “It is allowed, it is not a violation of the rules.”^[7] The Guardian reported that the IOC and Tokyo organizers had nonetheless told their social media teams not to post images of athletes kneeling.^[8]

On August 1, U.S. shot putter Raven Saunders, who won silver, raised and crossed her arms in an X on the podium. She said it represented “the intersection of where all people who are oppressed meet.” The IOC began examining it as a possible breach. Days later, after Saunders announced her mother’s death, the IOC said the process was “fully suspended for the time being.”^[9]

Two Chinese cyclists, Bao Shanju and Zhong Tianshi, wore Mao Zedong badges on the podium after winning cycling gold. On August 7, the IOC said they had been warned and that, having received assurances from the Chinese Olympic Committee “that it will not happen again,” it considered the case closed.^[10]

Aftermath

The 2021 guidelines kept the podium protest-free but marked the first formal opening for on-field expression at the Games. The Athletes’ Commission said any change to the Charter itself would follow an evaluation of Tokyo 2020 and Beijing 2022.^[1]

The core dilemma

The IOC says Rule 50 protects every athlete’s moment and the universality of the Games, and most surveyed athletes agreed. Critics say there is no such thing as a neutral podium, that a majority vote cannot settle a human right, and that the rule falls hardest on athletes from marginalized groups. The dilemma is how to balance one athlete’s right to speak against other athletes’ interests and the event’s neutrality, and who has the legitimacy to strike that balance.

Competing values

• Freedom of expression vs. respect for competitors: protest can amplify important causes, but it may overshadow another athlete’s achievement.
• Neutrality vs. justice: neutrality is meant to keep all nations and athletes welcome, but critics argue it favors the status quo.
• Majority preference vs. minority rights: the survey reflected most athletes’ views, but rights often protect those in the minority.
• Clarity vs. discretion: case-by-case enforcement allows proportionality but can look inconsistent.
• Athlete protection vs. athlete agency: neutrality may shield athletes from pressure by governments, but also limits those who want to speak.

Strongest arguments

For keeping the podium protest-free: Most surveyed athletes opposed protests on the podium, field of play and at ceremonies.^[1] An athlete who wins has a right to celebrate without being overshadowed.^[1] The IOC argues that judging which causes are acceptable would be impossible for a body with more than 200 national committees, and that political neutrality can protect athletes from being pressured by governments.^[1] Athletes remain free to speak in the media, at press conferences and on social media, and since 2021 before competition.^[6]

For allowing podium expression: Freedom of expression is a human right, and the podium is the moment when an athlete’s voice carries furthest.^[5] Majority surveys may silence minority athletes.^[5] The Team USA council argued that protests for human rights are not “divisive disruptions” and should not be treated like hate speech.^[4] Enforcement has appeared uneven: kneeling was allowed but not shown on official channels, and a political badge led only to a warning.^[8][10]

Applying the frameworks

Rights-based

A rights view starts with freedom of expression, which the IOC itself recognizes is a fundamental right.^[1] Rights can be limited, but only for good reasons and in proportion. The IOC’s case is that the limits are narrow in space and time and protect other athletes’ rights.^[1] Critics reply that the podium is precisely where expression matters most, so a narrow limit can still be a heavy one.^[5]

Utilitarian

A utilitarian weighs consequences. Allowing podium protests might raise awareness of injustice and inspire change, as 1968 arguably did. It might also reduce enjoyment for other athletes and audiences, and could, the IOC warns, deter some nations from taking part or hosting.^[1] The 2021 compromise, allowing pre-competition gestures but not podium protests, can be read as an attempt to capture benefits while limiting costs.

Justice & fairness (Rawls)

Behind a veil of ignorance, not knowing whether you would be a gold medalist celebrating, an athlete who has experienced discrimination, or an athlete from an authoritarian country, what rule would you choose? You might want a protected moment for every athlete and also a meaningful voice for those facing injustice. Rawls’s priority on basic liberties supports strong expression rights, while fairness also requires that rules be applied consistently to all causes and nations.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. Spot the issue: An athlete wants to protest on the podium; the IOC’s rules forbid it.
2. Gather facts: The text of Rule 50 and the guidelines, consultation results and methods, what forms of expression are allowed and where, past enforcement and sanctions.
3. Test options: Keep a total ban; allow pre-competition gestures only (the 2021 approach); allow podium expression with conditions against targeting and disruption; remove the ban.
4. Check codes and law: Olympic Charter Rules 50 and 59, the Athletes’ Rights and Responsibilities Declaration, NOC and federation rules, and international human rights standards.
5. Decide and document: Publish clear rules, reasons and possible sanctions in advance.
6. Communicate and follow up: Explain the rules to athletes before the Games, enforce them consistently and review after each Games.

What’s settled and what’s contested

• Settled: Rule 50.2 bans demonstrations and propaganda at Olympic venues; the 2020 guidelines barred kneeling and political gestures; the 2021 consultation surveyed more than 3,500 athletes and kept the podium protest-free; the July 2021 guidelines allowed pre-competition gestures; football teams knelt at Tokyo without sanction.^[1][2][6][7]
• Contested: whether the survey was sound; whether political neutrality is possible or desirable; whether enforcement has been consistent across causes and countries; whether the podium should ever be open to expression.^{[1][5][8][10]}

Why this case matters

Many sports bodies face the same question: when athletes want to speak, where and how can they do so? Rule 50 shows the appeal and the limits of a neutrality rule, the value and risks of consulting athletes, and the importance of consistent enforcement. It also shows that the line can move: the IOC that banned kneeling in early 2020 permitted it on the field of play 18 months later.

See also: Vladyslav Heraskevych’s Remembrance Helmet at Milan-Cortina 2026.

Key terms

Multiple points of view

Analyzing a dilemma from each stakeholder’s position in turn (athlete, parent, coach, administrator, official, bystander) before reaching your own reasoned view.

Stakeholders

Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.

Rules vs. spirit of the game

Rules are the written minimum; the spirit is the fairness and respect the rules exist to protect. Rules set the floor; spirit sets the ceiling.

Due process

Fair procedures before a sanction: notice, a chance to respond, an impartial decision-maker and a right of appeal.

Agency

An athlete’s ability to make decisions and act independently about their body, career and voice.

Institutional accountability

Structures that make a sport organization explain its decisions and face consequences: clear authority, transparency, appeals, independent oversight and enforcement.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. Is a protest-free podium a reasonable condition of Olympic participation, or an unjustified limit on a human right?
2. The Athletes' Commission relied heavily on a survey in which most athletes opposed podium protests. Is that a fair way to set limits on expression?
3. The IOC allowed kneeling before matches but not on the podium. Where would you draw the line, and why?
4. Can the IOC distinguish acceptable 'social' causes from unacceptable 'political' ones without taking sides?
5. Were the IOC's responses to Raven Saunders and to the Chinese cyclists consistent? What would consistency require?

Sources

1. The IOC AC's recommendations on Rule 50: Q&A document — IOC Athletes' Commission (via FEI)
2. International Olympic Committee tells athletes they cannot take a knee in protest but they can make comments on social media — CNN
3. Race Imboden, Gwen Berry get probation for Pan Am Games podium protests — NBC Sports (AP)
4. USOPC will not sanction athletes for social justice protests — NBC Sports
5. The International Olympic Committee's Rule 50 Continues to Suppress Athletes' Rights to Freedom of Expression — Global Athlete
6. IOC extends opportunities for athlete expression during the Olympic Games Tokyo 2020 — ANOC (IOC release)
7. Women's soccer teams take a knee ahead of opening Olympic Games matches — CNN
8. Tokyo 2020 social media teams banned from showing athletes taking the knee — The Guardian
9. International Olympic Committee suspends its action on Raven Saunders' podium protest after her mother's death — CNN
10. Olympic cyclists escape with warning after wearing Chairman Mao badges — The Guardian