No Protests Allowed

After nearly a full year of discussion and consultation with more than 3,500 athletes from 185 countries, the IOC Athletes' Commission has recommended that IOC Rule 50, which prohibits any sort of protest or political message on the field of play or medals podium, remain in effect.  It wasn't really that close, either.  More than 70 percent of the athletes surveyed said the field of play and official ceremonies weren't the appropriate place for it, while over two-thirds had the same feeling about the podium. 

That sends a pretty clear message.  It's not just the IOC acting as Big Brother and "limiting athletes' individual freedoms."  It's quite the opposite, actually.  This is Olympic athletes themselves saying that protests and demonstrations and political messages don't belong on the podium.  And that's why this ruling should be respected.

Of course, that didn't stop the critics from immediately speaking out against Rule 50 being upheld.  Athletes' rights organizations across the globe released strongly-worded statements expressing their disappointment, and a German group has promised to provide legal support for any athlete who's sent home.

I'm almost certain that there are a significant number of athletes who are unhappy about this and still think they're unfairly being silenced.  I'm also willing to guarantee that some of those athletes will defiantly decide they don't care and protest anyway.  Those are the selfish ones who don't get it.  And, if they receive a ban or suspension for their actions, they'll deserve it.  Especially since the IOC has made it clear that they'll be subject to sanctions.

The easiest thing for athletes to do, obviously, is to follow the rules.  Whether they agree with them or not is beside the point.  Especially since they know the potential consequences should they decide to break them. 

Really, the rationale here is pretty simple.  It's the same logic that they applied when Rule 50 was put into place to begin with.  The IOC's job is to remain neutral.  They're dealing with 10,500 athletes from 205 countries, who'll obviously have different opinions about things.  The IOC doesn't want to be in a position to say one athlete's protest or political statement is OK while another's isn't.  So instead, they're keeping out of it entirely and not allowing anyone to do it.  When you look at it from that perspective, it really does make sense.

Or, I actually think it's easier to look at it another way.  Imagine you're an Olympic athlete and you come out wearing a Biden shirt.  Then your competitor comes out wearing a Trump shirt.  You probably wouldn't like it, would you?  Meanwhile, everyone else is thinking, "This isn't the place."  That's not why they're there.  That's why Rule 50 exists!  To keep the politics out of sports!

These athletes' rights organizations don't get it.  They're making the wrong point.  Their main argument is that this is a freedom of speech issue and it's their belief that athletes should be able to express themselves freely.  But, again, it's worth noting that freedom of speech is a completely foreign concept in many parts of the world!  And that's who the Olympics represent.  The entire world!

And, frankly, a demonstration on the field of play or medals stand is selfish.  It's not about the cause or the type of gesture.  It's 100 percent about the athlete.  That athlete knows what they're doing and choosing to do it anyway.  They're taking that moment and making it about themselves.  It's the only thing anybody will talk about afterwards, which is their entire reason for doing it. 

You want to talk about "unfair?"  That's unfair!  Taking somebody's Olympic moment that they've worked their entire life for and making it about you and you alone.  (Even if you're the gold medalist, there are two other Olympic medalists on the podium with you.)  I'm sure that's why so many of the athletes surveyed voted the way they did.  They want those special moments to be preserved.  Can you blame them?

When you take the blinders off and look at it from a whole perspective, you realize that there was really no other decision the IOC could make.  The only way they could remain neutral would be to leave things as-is.  Otherwise, they're put in a very uncomfortable position of determining what's appropriate and what's not.  And, again, what's deemed appropriate in one country might be inappropriate in another.

There's also a big difference between making a political demonstration and making some sort of social justice statement.  That's why the Athletes' Commission asked the IOC for clarity about what type of demonstrations would/should be allowed.  Because I think we can all agree that no one should be punished for bringing attention to a human rights issue.  It's more about the how and the where than the what.

In fact, the Athletes' Commission's report included several recommendations to address the how and where while preserving the field of play and medals podium.  One of those recommendations was to have a "moment of solidarity against discrimination" at the Opening Ceremony, which nearly half of the respondents said was important.  They also suggested allowing athletes to express themselves through their apparel and during press conferences, as well as creating an area for demonstrations in the Olympic Village.

Many, if not all, of these recommendations will be adopted in Tokyo and Beijing.  But, of course, that's not enough for the groups who wanted Rule 50 scrapped entirely.  For them, that was the only acceptable outcome.  That was never gonna happen, though!  Not when you have to take the different views of more than 200 countries into consideration. 

If these critics actually understood that, they'd understand that Wednesday's announcement regarding Rule 50 actually is progress.  This isn't the IOC saying, "Deal with it!"  They took the time to listen to the athletes and consider their opinions before making a decision.  They were never gonna satisfy everybody.  They knew that.  But the decision they did make, even if it seemed inevitable, is the one that the most people found appropriate/acceptable.

No one's saying athletes shouldn't be able to express themselves.  They're just saying that there's a time and a place.  And the Olympic field of play and medals stand aren't them!