Will the 2024 Olympics become a platform for protests for social justice?

Yannick Krucchi, a professor of recreation, sport and tourism at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, studies sport as a platform for promoting social justice. Krucchi has worked for the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, USA Diving and the National Collegiate Athletic Association.

He spoke with Research Editor Sharita Forrest about the history of Olympic athletes' protests for social justice and the efforts of governing bodies to thwart them using Article 50 of the Olympic Charter.

The findings have been published in the journal Sports Management Review.

What are the origins of Rule 50?

The first version of Rule 50 was added to the Olympic Charter in 1955. During the Cold War, the International Olympic Committee was considering how to keep politics out of sport. In my work, that's one of the key questions. Spoiler alert: it's not possible. Sport and politics have always intermingled.

The IOC sees the Olympics as a neutral place where everyone can come together regardless of their differences, but the Olympics have always been entangled with politics.

Rule 50 first came to public attention at the 1968 Mexico City Olympics when American athletes John Carlos and Tommie Smith raised their fists in protest on the podium, creating one of the most iconic scenes in sporting history. It sparked a massive backlash, after which the IOC added the phrase “racial propaganda” to the rules.

Who is the biggest supporter of this rule?

In a recent survey I conducted, I explored that question and found that its biggest supporters are Olympic committees representing authoritarian countries like China and Russia, who support the idea that politics shouldn't be discussed in sport, while more democratic countries like the United States, Germany and Canada believe the rule infringes on athletes' freedom of expression.

The IOC has been adamant about keeping this rule, but there have been some developments, particularly in the run-up to the 2020-21 Tokyo Olympics. Most recently, the IOC added an amendment to Rule 40 that emphasizes athletes' right to freedom of expression. This change has important implications for any policies that seek to silence athlete protests, such as Rule 50.

What penalties will be imposed on athletes who violate Rule 50?

There is a lot of inconsistency and lack of communication about the results.

Tommie Smith and John Carlos were kicked off the U.S. team in 1968. In 2019, the USOPC put Gwen Berry on probation after she pumped her fist at the Pan American Games.

However, the USOPC has since reversed that decision as part of a broader policy change and now allows U.S. team athletes to protest at USOPC-sanctioned events.

At Tokyo 2021, the IOC initially called for sanctions when athlete Raven Sanders raised his arms in protest on the podium, but chose not to impose sanctions after Raven's mother died a few days later.

Other protests at the Tokyo Olympics have revealed inconsistencies in stances, such as the IOC's decision to allow German athletes to wear rainbow armbands while competing in support of LGBTQ+ people, a clear violation of normal rules.

Are there signs that the IOC is becoming more tolerant of athlete protests?

The IOC's response to the protests at the 2020-21 Games has been very different from that in 1968, suggesting that things may be changing somewhat.

In general, the IOC portrays itself as more lenient, but there is little evidence that its policies have changed. In 2019, the IOC issued a Request for Consultation to athletes, experts and national committees seeking their input on Rule 50, but it remains in place.

But there was a historic shift on the U.S. side. The U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee created Team USA's first ever Racial and Social Justice Council, bringing together more than 40 U.S. Team athletes, alumni, national governing body representatives and outside experts. I was one of four experts.

The council issued a recommendation stating that Rule 50 is incompatible with leading human rights frameworks in sport and international relations and therefore violates athletes' freedom of expression.

About two days later, the USOPC Executive Board announced that it would no longer punish athletes for peaceful protests, a complete about-face. Just two years earlier, it had sanctioned athletes Gwen Berry and Race Imboden, but those sanctions were lifted at the Council's recommendation.

Do you expect to see similar protests from U.S. athletes at the 2024 Summer Olympics?

Four years ago, I would have said yes, because there were so many conversations going on around the world about race and social justice, and support for athletes using their platform to do good was greater than ever.

“I'm a bit worried that the momentum of the protests may have died down in the run-up to the Paris Olympics and the next decade of sporting mega-events. Four years ago, we got a lot of enquiries from national governing bodies about how to handle the protests, but now it's quieted down so I don't expect as many.”

Still, there are plenty of issues worth speaking out about right now, including the systemic racism that affects athletes around the world and the treatment of LGBTQ+ people. We have incredible athlete leaders in the Olympic and Paralympic Games who are promoting social justice, and I hope they will spark discussions around these issues.