Originally published 2021-04-23.
In April 2021, three months before the delayed Tokyo Games opened, the International Olympic Committee confirmed that Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter would stay in force. That meant gestures such as taking a knee or raising a fist would remain banned on the podium, on the field of play and during official ceremonies, and athletes who broke the rule could face disciplinary action. The decision came after a year-long consultation run by the IOC Athletes' Commission, and it set off a debate that changed the guidance again before the Games began.
What the IOC decided in April 2021
On 21 April 2021 the IOC Executive Board fully endorsed a set of recommendations from its Athletes' Commission. The headline point was simple: the podium, the competition areas and the opening and closing ceremonies should be kept free of protests and demonstrations. The core text of Rule 50.2 reads: "No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas."
The package was not only about restrictions. It also promised more room for expression elsewhere, including:
- a revised Olympic Oath with a stronger message of inclusion and non-discrimination;
- messages of peace, respect, solidarity, inclusion and equality on athlete clothing, Village branding and venue screens;
- more space for athletes to speak about causes in the media, at press conferences and in the mixed zones;
- a clearer explanation of what Rule 50 covers, with possible sanctions to be judged case by case.
The IOC also said Rule 50 would be split into two separate rules and that its effect would be reviewed after Tokyo 2020 and Beijing 2022.
The athlete survey behind the rule
The IOC leaned heavily on a consultation that began in June 2020. More than 3,500 athletes from 185 national Olympic committees and all 41 Olympic sports took part. According to the IOC, about 70% said it was not appropriate to express personal views on the field of play or at official ceremonies, and 67% said the same about the podium.
Zimbabwean swimmer Kirsty Coventry, a seven-time Olympic medallist who chaired the Athletes' Commission at the time, spoke about her own experience as a competitor. "I would not want something to distract from my competition and take away from that," she said, as quoted in press coverage of the announcement. Coventry later went much further in Olympic leadership: she was elected IOC President in March 2025 and took office that June.
The IOC's reasoning was that a global body with more than 200 member nations would struggle to decide which causes are acceptable and which are not. In its view, a single rule of neutrality was fairer and less likely to drag the Games into political disputes than a case-by-case list of approved messages.
Why critics pushed back
The timing made the decision controversial. After the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May 2020, kneeling before games had become common in many sports. Premier League footballers in England were still taking the knee before kick-off in spring 2021, and many US leagues had embraced player protests against racism.
Critics argued that a gesture against discrimination is not "propaganda" but an expression of the same values the Olympic Charter already promotes. Others questioned the survey itself: a majority of respondents opposing podium protests does not settle whether a minority should be punished for peaceful, silent gestures. Athlete groups in several countries, including the US, called for the rule to be relaxed rather than reaffirmed.
The July 2021 change and what happened in Tokyo
The April position did not last unchanged. On 2 July 2021, three weeks before the opening ceremony, the IOC issued new guidelines for Tokyo. Athletes were now allowed to make a gesture on the field of play before competition started, for example after leaving the call room, during their individual or team introduction, or at the starting line. Several restrictions remained:
- no gestures on the podium during medal ceremonies;
- no gestures aimed, directly or indirectly, at people, countries or organisations;
- no disruptive acts, such as unfurling a banner, distracting rivals or protesting during a national anthem;
- clothing slogans such as "Black Lives Matter" were still not accepted.
Several women's football teams knelt before their matches in Tokyo under these rules. The podium remained the flashpoint. On 1 August 2021, American shot putter Raven Saunders crossed their arms in an "X" after receiving the silver medal, describing it as a sign for the place where all oppressed people meet. The IOC opened an inquiry, then suspended it a few days later after Saunders's mother died, and no sanction followed.
Mexico City 1968: the protest every debate returns to
Any discussion of Olympic protest leads back to 16 October 1968. At the Mexico City Games, Tommie Smith won the 200 metres in a world-record 19.83 seconds and John Carlos took bronze. During the US anthem both men bowed their heads and raised a black-gloved fist. They wore black socks without shoes to represent Black poverty, and Carlos wore beads in memory of lynching victims.
The silver medallist, Australia's Peter Norman, wore an Olympic Project for Human Rights badge in solidarity. It was Norman who suggested the two Americans share one pair of gloves after Carlos forgot his, which is why Carlos raised his left hand.
The protest came only months after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in April 1968. IOC president Avery Brundage demanded that the US team suspend Smith and Carlos, and when the US Olympic Committee hesitated, he threatened to ban the whole American track team. The two sprinters were sent home. Contrary to a common myth, they were never forced to give back their medals.
All three men paid a price. Smith and Carlos received abuse and death threats, and Norman was sidelined in Australia and left off the 1972 team despite meeting the qualifying standard, though historians still debate the reason. Smith and Carlos carried Norman's coffin at his funeral in 2006, and the Australian Parliament formally apologised to him in 2012. Today the moment is widely seen as one of the most powerful images in sporting history.
What the Rule 50 debate tells us
The arguments of 2021 show a real tension inside the Olympic movement. The IOC wants the Games to be a neutral meeting place where athletes from rival countries compete side by side. Many athletes see their platform as a rare chance to speak about injustice, and point out that history has judged the 1968 protesters far more kindly than the officials who expelled them.
For readers trying to make sense of the rules, a few points help:
- Location matters. The rules treat the podium, the field of play and press areas differently, so a gesture allowed at the start line may still be banned at a medal ceremony.
- Guidance can change quickly. The IOC's position moved between April and July 2021, and it is reviewed after each Games.
- Sanctions are case by case. There is no automatic punishment; each alleged breach is assessed by the IOC and the relevant sports bodies.
Whether neutrality or freedom of expression should win remains an open question, and it is likely to come back at every Olympics to come.
Sources: Olympic Federation of Ireland: IOC Athletes' Commission recommendations on Rule 50 (April 2021); TheGrio/AP: IOC updates protest guidelines (July 2021); Wikipedia: 1968 Olympics Black Power salute; Wikipedia: Raven Saunders; Wikipedia: Kirsty Coventry; original report via Daily Wire.
COMMENTS