The Tokyo Olympic Games will be an Olympic Games unlike any that has gone before.
Not only will the covid restrictions make life interesting for the athletes, the judges, umpires, official timekeepers and all of those involved in the media, and those bringing television pictures of the event to everyone around the globe, but they will no doubt be a test for life in the world in the very near future.
Yet Covid aside one senses that the IOC’s Rule 50 is going to be centerstage and well and truly under the spotlight in Tokyo.
For those who are not aware of the rule, the International Olympic Committee’s website describes rule 50 in this way:
Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter provides a framework to protect the neutrality of sport and the Olympic Games. In addition to prohibiting commercial installations and advertising signs, it states that: “No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.”
The World body goes on to explain that
The IOC and the IOC Athletes’ Commission are fully supportive of freedom of expression, and this is also a principle included in the Athletes’ Rights and Responsibilities Declaration. At the same time, the IOC wants to respect other athletes on the field of play and athletes celebrating their special moment on the podium.
Rule 50 is in place to keep the field of play, the Olympic Village and the podium neutral and free from any form of political, religious or ethnic demonstrations. We believe the focus at the Olympic Games must remain on athletes’ performances, sport and the international unity and harmony that the Olympic Movement seeks to advance.
This is an honourable position to take but one feels that in the 21st century it is out-dated.
The Olympic Games themselves have been hijacked by Politics several times over. The Berlin Olympic Games were used to promote the supposed superiority of the Aryan race. In 1956 the Soviet delegation created the medal table to try and prove that communist athletes and the communist way of life was superior to the West. In 1960 this Cold War battle continued as the Eisenhower administration tried to argue for Western values, they came under heavy criticism for their own poor race relations at home.
Despite being a supreme athlete and going on to win one of the closest Decathlon events in Olympic history Rafer Johnson was selected to carry the flag into the Rome stadium in 1960, thus becoming the first American black athlete to be afforded the honour. Sadly for Johnson this decision was seen as being politically motivated, an attempt to stop the criticism. He refused to feel manipulated. Instead he took the view that he could advance the cause of his people by accepting the honour, excelling in his event and conducting himself with dignity. Every account of Rafer Johnson’s leadership at the Rome Olympic Games would indicate that he rose above the politics and was a true leader and role model.
In more recent times the 1980 Olympic Games were completely highjacked by Politics, and some would say that so too were the 1984 Games by way of payback for the American boycott four years earlier. How many host cities in recent times have used the Olympic Games for political purposes? Even if their leaders have only done it purely and simply to win favour with the voters. Who can forget newly elected Prime Minister of Australia at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games popping up at almost every event like the cartoon figure “Where’s Wally?”
So it would appear that World Leaders, Nations and Sports Administrators can use the Olympic Games to promote propaganda but the athletes themselves must not.
Over the years there have been many famous occasions where athletes have ignored Rule 50. Some have paid a heavy price for standing up for what they believe.
The most famous of these protests is probably the one that took place on the podium in 1968. American runners John Carlos and Tommie Smith stood on the medal podium to receive their respective bronze and gold medals at the Mexico City Olympics and famously raised their fists in a Black Power salute when the American national anthem began. Australian co-medalist Peter Norman stood in solidarity with them, wearing an Olympic Project for Human Rights badge during the ceremony. Racial tensions in the USA were high at the time and Martin Luther King had been assassinated earlier in the year.
Remembering that the Olympics Games were to all intents and purposes an amateur event at this time the National Olympic Associations wielded a great deal of power in terms of an athlete’s career. Carlos and Smith were kicked out of the Olympic village, suspended from the U.S. team and sent home. Norman was also snubbed by the Australian Olympic team in 1972, despite qualifying and never received the acknowledgment his career deserved.
As recently as 2016 Tommie Smith talking to the New York Times said “I’m proud of what we did. They never let us forget that we were wrong,” Smith then added. “We were not wrong. We were only ahead of our time.”
At the same Games Věra Čáslavská, a Czechslovak gymnast, took her stance against the Soviet regime. During one of her medal ceremonies, Čáslavská turned her head away from the Soviet flag in protest. This was a subtle protest, but the repercussions were harsh. Čáslavská retired after the Games but she was prohibited from living a normal life for the next two decades. She was barred from coaching and had to take on menial jobs. She was only welcomed back into the gymnastic world after the fall of Communism. (Vale Vera Caslavska)
In 1972 there was another protest but it is often forgotten. Vince Matthews won the gold medal in the 400m, and Wayne Collett the silver. Both were Black Americans and like Smith and Carlos they used this moment to try and make the world aware as to how they felt. Matthews stood atop the podium with his hand on his hip playing with his facial hair, twirling his Gold medal. There was no hand on the heart, no tears, no singing the words of the national anthem and no staring at the flag. The reason being that Matthews felt that it was wrong that his nation was claiming credit for his personal hard work. He felt that the USA was getting all of the credit rather than him as an athlete. No doubt many in recent times would feel a great deal of empathy with that view.
Wayne Collett had a different perspective. He stood on the podium barefoot and chatted with Matthews during the playing of the USA national anthem. He gave a Black Power salute as they stepped off the podium. They were both sent home the next day even though they were a key part of the USA’s 4x400m relay team. They were barred from future Olympic Competition. Matthews asked the question as to why does a competition have to be a battle between countries? He wrote “we consider ourselves athletes, not politicians or marching bands.” He had a point. Are not many of the athletes being used as political pawns at the Olympic Games?
Of course these protests happened prior to 1992 when the Olympic Games finally accepted that it could not fight the nations that were funding their athletes in order for them to be successful and giving them sham jobs. The true amateur no longer existed.
Drug cheats existed as we know in the 1970’s and 1980’s, as again the drive was to use athlete success as a political tool. Drug testing has increased and has tried to keep pace with the developments in performance enhancing stimulants since that time. Many will argue that the increase in athletes being caught shows that the system is working. However the increase in athletes from a myriad of countries using performance enhancing drugs shows just how desperate the individuals are for success. Many hope that that this success will set them up for life.
What is remarkable is that the athletes who made a political stance received a lifetime ban, yet athletes who are caught cheating are not banned for life. Try figuring that one out.
The IOC are naive if they think that athletes are not going to ignore Rule 50 at the Tokyo Olympic Games. Yet they appear to have once again passed the buck at an event that they claim is theirs. An event where they are in charge and where they receive all the revenue and tax-breaks.
The IOC has said that any incidents of athletes violating the rule will be evaluated by their home country’s national Olympic committee, along with their sport’s international federation and the IOC. Discipline will then be meted out on a case-by-case basis, according to guidelines outlined by the IOC’s Athletes Commission.
In August 2019, the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee put two athletes on probation for protesting on the medal stand at the Pan American Games in Lima, Peru. Hammer thrower Gwen Berry and fencer Race Imboden were placed on a year-long probation. At the US Track and Field Trials where the U.S. committee said it would allow demonstrations, including kneeling during the national anthem, Gwen Berry has found herself again in hot water.
Having come third in the hammer and won her place in Tokyo as the national anthem played Berry turned away from the American flag and placed her t-shirt, which read “Activist Athlete”, over her head. She has caused a storm not only in the USA but also across the globe. She has defended her actions saying that she felt “set up,” because the athletes had previously been told that the anthem would be played either before or after their medal ceremony. Her argument does carry weight as the anthem did not play during many of the medal ceremonies. Yet her actions have divided a nation.
What is interesting is the public’s view towards national anthems. This has shifted a great deal in recent times. Maybe that shift is because the Anthem no longer stands for the values of old, that it has been hijacked? (Respecting A Nation’s Anthem) Many fans do not get to their feet when it is played. Whereas previously all who were able would stand and if you were wearing a hat you would remove your hat as a mark of respect, few do that today. So one wonders why when so many of the general public who no longer show their national anthem the same respect as they did in the past have become so incensed when an athlete opts not to.
Clearly the United States Olympic Committee is aware that many of its athletes are likely to use the Olympic Games to try and put the spotlight on issues at home, as it was announced in December that athletes who peacefully protest or demonstrate at the Tokyo Olympics will not be punished. So they have passed the onus back on the IOC as to how they enforce Rule 50.
There is no doubt that the Tokyo Olympic Games are going to be pivotal in the future of the Olympic movement. How that future pans out is going to be interesting to see. Many believe that if the IOC wishes to be taken seriously in the world of international sport, they should be giving the Gold medal winning athletes cash prizes as well as medals. That the money should go to the individual rather than the International Sporting Federations. However with 339 events in 33 sports at the Tokyo Olympics and 329 events in 32 sports scheduled for Paris in 2024, this is very unlikely. The IOC seem hellbent on expanding the Games, therefore to achieve what many are talking about the Games would have to reduce the number of medal events. This may not be such a bad thing is it would restore much of the prestige to the Games and also to the medals themselves.
The IOC has stated that there are multiple opportunities at the Games for athletes to openly express their views. These are at official press conferences, as well as through social and traditional media, and at mixed zones in competition venues. However they do say that the expression of views in these spaces should still be respectful and in line with the Olympic values and rules.
Rule 50 is intended to preserve the field of play and podium from any protest. The IOC state that it is there ‘to respect our fellow athletes and their special “moment” and allow them to focus on their performance. ‘What constitutes a protest ‘include displaying any political messaging, including signs or armbands; gestures of a political nature, like a hand gesture or kneeling; and refusal to follow the Ceremonies protocol.’
The big question is going to be how big are the protests going to be? How many will we witness, how many will be edited out of television coverage?
The athletes competing today are no longer men and women who have to tug their forelocks to the powers that be. Many are extremely wealthy individuals and have strong views on social and global issues, and are in modern parlance, influencers. Just like telling a child not to open a box, by telling them they must not share their views at such an event is only going to make them more determined to do the opposite. For many this is their moment, the world will be watching, it is their moment in the spotlight where they can stand up and be counted. (Follow The Rules or Follow Your Conscience?) As we saw with those mentioned they believed that it was worth sacrificing their careers for.
Captain of the USA Women’s Football team – soccer there – is Megan Rapinoe who apart from being crowned Winner of the Ballon d’Or Féminin and named The Best FIFA Women’s Player in 2019 is renowned for her philanthropy as well as her activism. This is a woman who stands up for what she believes. In 2020 she was quoted as saying that Olympic athletes “will not be silenced,” despite the IOC’s rule. So the gauntlet has been thrown down.
Yet it was a post on instagram from Rapinoe which is probably the most relevant. When one considers the reasons for the salute from Tommie Smith and John Carlos in 1968 and the fact that 53 years later the same issues are very much in the forefront of people’s minds, her words are a lesson for those with the ability to ensure change, “so much being done about the protests. So little being done about what we are protesting about. We will not be silenced.”
Despite Rule 50, the Tokyo Olympic Games potentially could be the most political in history. Are the powers that be ready?
.
