Why Olympic athletes should not be gagged in exchange for their Olympic dream - Rule 50

Women with hand raised
Published: Saturday, 15 August 2020. Written by Nikki Dryden No Comments

From Wyomia Tyus and Smith and Carlos in 1968 to Muhammad Ali, Katherine Switzer, Alwyn Morris, Cathy Freeman, and more recently Venus Williams, Megan Rapinoe, Ada Hegerberg, and Mack Horton, athletes can play a powerful role in bringing awareness to  social issues both inside and outside of sport, often demonstrated out most vividly in the Olympic Games.

The Olympics are built on certain human rights principles[1]  which are used to market the Games as an idealistic and, magical gathering of the world's people represented through each nation's best athletes. But to execute that vision, the International Olympic Committee (the “IOC”) goes to extensive lengths to protect its financial interests and preserve its exalted image. In some cases that means violating the human rights of the very athletes at the center of the Olympic Movement. [2]

One of the most egregious examples of the harm caused by Rule 50 came in 2012, when indigenous boxer, Australian Damien Hooper wore an Aboriginal flag t-shirt in the ring prior to one of his matches (a flag that is Federally recognized). Australia’s National Olympic Committee (“NOC”) spokesman said that they were “counselling” him and that he had “apologized.”[3] Journalist John Pilger described it best, that demanding Hooper make a public apology is “a profanity in keeping with the enduring humiliation of Aboriginal people.”[4]

The instruments that enabled the targeting of Damien Hooper in such a manner was the IOC’s Olympic Charter, a legal framework for how the Olympic Games will run and the Olympic Movement should be governed. It contains seven fundamental principles and then a set of 61 rules.  One of these rules, ‘Rule 50.2 of the Olympic Charter - Advertising, demonstrations, propaganda’, and it’s By-Laws prevent athletes right to free speech and freedom of expression, and permit the IOC and its NOCs to sanction athletes who exercise their rights.

This article examines the difficulty in reconciling the objectives of the IOC and Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter, with athletes right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression at the Olympic Games. The author makes a number of recommendations that offer a possible solution to resolve the issues this presents.

Continue reading this article...

Register with your email and password
Already a member? Sign in

Get access to all of the expert analysis and commentary at LawInSport including articles, webinars, conference videos and podcast transcripts.  Find out more here.

Related Articles

About the Author

Nikki Dryden

Nikki Dryden

Nikki is a two-time Olympic swimmer from Canada and a human-rights and immigration attorney in New York. She competed at the 1992 and 1996 Olympic Games, with a top finish of 6th place, and covered the 2004 and 2008 Olympics for SwimNews Magazine. She has a BA in International Relations from Brown University and a J.D. from Brooklyn Law School.

Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.

Copyright © LawInSport Limited 2010 - 2020. These pages contain general information only. Nothing in these pages constitutes legal advice. You should consult a suitably qualified lawyer on any specific legal problem or matter. The information provided here was accurate as of the day it was posted; however, the law may have changed since that date. This information is not intended to be, and should not be used as, a substitute for taking legal advice in any specific situation. LawInSport is not responsible for any actions taken or not taken on the basis of this information. Please refer to the full terms and conditions on our website.

->