Athlete Activism at the Olympics: Challenging the Legality of Rule 50 as a Restriction on Freedom of Expression

Abstract

AbstractSince Colin Kaepernick began taking the knee during the American national anthem to protest social injustice and inequality in the USA in 2016, athletes across a range of sports and from diverse national backgrounds have used their high media profiles to draw attention to the causes that they support. The International Olympic Committee, however, has maintained its stance that politics and sport should not mix, and that human rights should not be used as a tool to undermine the political autonomy of sport. Rule 50(2) of the Olympic Charter states that, “No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas”. Anyone in breach of this provision may be disqualified from their event and have their Olympic accreditation removed, a position that was reinforced by the guidance issued to athletes prior to the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games.Using examples of athlete activism at Tokyo 2020 as case studies, this chapter will analyze whether any of these exercises of the right to freedom of expression were in breach of Rule 50(2). It will then examine whether the application of Rule 50(2) at Tokyo 2020 is compatible with Article 10 European Convention of Human Rights and the likely outcome of any challenge before the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the Swiss Federal Tribunal, and the European Court of Human Rights. It concludes by arguing for a complete overhaul of Rule 50(2) so that it promotes, rather than prohibits, freedom of expression.