Freedom of Expression in Sports

Should Athletes be allowed a Political Voice in Sports?

As the Paris Olympics dazzles the world, we ask the question, should athletes be allowed a political voice in Sports? Should they be allowed to have “freedom of expression”? This article aims to delve into the varied approaches adopted by the sport governing bodies of the Olympics and football. Navigating the delicate balance between politics with a lowercase "p" and Politics with an uppercase "P," this exploration will delve into the nuanced terrain of athletes aligning themselves with political messages, shedding light on the crucial role of freedom of expression in fostering societal progress and human development within the realm of sports. Yasin Patel and Caitlin Haberlin-Chambers consider the subject and the topics of freedom of speech, democracy and their role(s) if any, within sports.

Article Content:

• Introduction
• Context
• Silencing Freedom of Expression in the Olympics
• A Chokehold in Football
• What We Expect From Paris: Israel-Gaza War
• Conclusion

Introduction

'Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of … a democratic society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of man. Freedom of expression is an enabling right which provides space for other rights to be realised.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. The UDHR stands as a seminal document that not only inspired but served as a catalyst for the creation of over seventy human rights treaties. The UDHR unequivocally champions the right to freedom of opinion and expression in Article 19.

One such treaty born out of the inspiration of the UDHR is the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). Enacted on 3 September 1953, the ECHR was the first instrument to translate specific rights from the UDHR into legally binding obligations. Article 10 of the ECHR centres on the right to freedom of expression.

Article 10(1) underscores that:

• “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.”

However, Article 10 is a qualified right allowing for restrictions by the state under certain conditions outlined in Article 10(2).

In essence, the provisions of Article 10 of the ECHR intricately balance the right to freedom of expression with the necessary limitations essential for the greater good in a democratic society, thereby reflecting the nuanced and thoughtful approach required in upholding this fundamental human right.

The ongoing debate surrounding athletes' freedom of expression has generated diverse perspectives. The Seton Hall Sports Poll (November 2020), conducted on 1,506 Americans adults geographically spread across the country, found that 61 percent of Americans say that athletes have a right to free speech, and it is their decision to speak out for social justice. In contrast, 35 percent view sports as their “escape” and prefer for commentary to solely be about sports with 36 percent asserting that athletes speaking out hinders their desire to watch games.

Context

Olympics

Historically, sport has served both as a political weapon and a political shield. The 1936 and 1968 Olympic Games proves to be the most notable in displaying how the Games have been politicised and the reaction of the governing body, the International Olympic Committee (“IOC”), to such acts.

A glaring instance of the Olympics being used as a political weapon unfolded during the 1936 Berlin Olympics, famously dubbed the “Hitler Olympics”, where Adolf Hitler saw the 1936 Games as an opportunity to showcase the Nazi regime's ideals of racial supremacy and antisemitism. However, the unintended consequence of this political manoeuvre became apparent through the remarkable achievements of Jesse Owens. Owens, an African American athlete, shattered Hitler's narrative by securing four gold medals in track and field, making him the first American of any race to achieve such a feat. Owens' exceptional performance not only disrupted Hitler's carefully crafted image of Aryan superiority but also served as a powerful counter-narrative, challenging the racial prejudices and political ideologies of the time. In this context, Owens' success exemplifies the potential of sports to defy and transcend political manipulation, offering a poignant illustration of how individual athletic achievements can wield significant political impact by challenging oppressive narratives and promoting inclusivity and equality.

The 1936 Berlin Olympics thus stands as a critical historical moment where the intersection of politics and sport became a battleground for ideological supremacy and, ultimately, a testament to the resilience of human dignity in the face of oppressive political agendas.

The response of the sporting community to the politicization of sporting events is perhaps most evident in the reaction of the International Olympic Committee (“IOC”) to the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico. This particular instance serves as a revealing snapshot of how the intersection of politics and sports can generate significant repercussions within the global athletic landscape. The 1968 Olympics marked a pivotal moment in the annals of sports history. It was during this event that two African American athletes, Tommie Smith and John Carlos, elevated their actions beyond the realm of mere athleticism. Following their respective triumphs in the 200-metre running event, where Smith secured gold and Carlos claimed the bronze, the duo seized the spotlight by raising black-gloved fists during the rendition of the US national anthem. This powerful gesture, captured in a timeless moment, transcended the conventional narrative. Smith, in his autobiography ‘Silent Gesture’, published nearly three decades later, revised the interpretation of their action and clarified that the raised fists were not solely a "Black Power" salute but rather a poignant "human rights" salute. Regarded as one of the most overtly political statements in the history of modern politics, this act faced stern opposition from the president of the IOC, Avery Brundage.

This episode highlights the IOC's commitment, at that time, to maintaining the Olympics as a politically neutral and international forum. The decision to penalize Smith and Carlos, while deemed by some as an effort to preserve the apolitical nature of the Games, also stirred debates about the limits of freedom of expression for athletes and the role of sports in addressing broader societal issues. The reaction of the IOC to the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico underscores the ongoing tension between political expression and the ostensibly neutral space of international sporting events, demonstrating the complex dynamics at play when politics and sports intersect on a global stage. However, there is irony in that the IOC may be promoting many subliminal messages of sponsors, states, nations and supporters through its event endorsement and promotion but uses the iron glove to quieten the individuals cries against wrongdoing and immoral acts.

Football

The realm of sports, particularly football, has not been immune to a history of protests, and one significant episode unfolded internationally during the 1966 FIFA World Cup. This event demonstrated the deep entrenchment of social and political issues within the world of football on both the global and national scales. In 1966, the entire continent of Africa decided to boycott the FIFA World Cup in protest of what they perceived as an unfair representation in the tournament. FIFA's decision to allocate 10 spots to European teams, four to Latin American teams, and only one to the Central American and Caribbean region left Africa without adequate representation. The Confederation of African Football (“CAF”), feeling aggrieved by this unequal distribution, chose to decline participation in the World Cup until assurances were made regarding a guaranteed spot for at least one African team. This protest marked a pivotal moment in football's history, as it underscored the sport's role as a platform for addressing broader issues of fairness and representation. The pressure exerted by the CAF through the boycott led to a significant change in FIFA's approach. Two years after the 1966 finals, the CAF's unanimous decision granted Africa a World Cup spot exclusively for its teams. This move demonstrated the effectiveness of collective action in influencing international football policy.

The episode also showcased the interconnectedness of sports and socio-political dynamics, emphasizing that football is not merely a game, but a reflection of the broader issues and inequalities present in the world. The successful boycott by the African continent became a catalyst for change, highlighting the power of sports as a means of advocating for fairness, inclusivity, and representation on the global stage.

The influence and transformative power of sports are vividly exemplified on a regional scale, particularly in the case of the lifting of the ban on women's football in the United Kingdom (“UK”). England's football governing body, the Football Association (“FA”), instituted a ban that prohibited women from playing football at FA-affiliated grounds from 1921 to 1971, asserting that“…the game of football is quite unsuitable for females and should not be encouraged”. The turning point came in the 1960s, a decade marked by the women's rights movement that significantly reshaped the role of women in the UK. Forming part of this movement, representatives from 44 women’s clubs joined together in 1969 for the first meeting of the Women’s Football Association. Amid sustained pressure on the FA, the historic moment arrived in 1971 when the ban on women's football was officially lifted. This landmark decision signified a significant shift in attitudes towards women's participation in sports; women's teams were granted the opportunity to play on the same grounds as their male counterparts, and official league matches for women were reinstated.

In the contemporary landscape, the act of the taking the knee has taken centre stage in football, particularly in the UK, but across all sports. Initiated by Colin Kaepernick in the National Football League (“NFL”) in 2016, this symbolic gesture against racism has transcended borders, with Premier League captains in the UK committing to continue taking the knee during the 2023/24 season to signal their unwavering dedication to combat racism and all forms of discrimination. Nevertheless, the 2022 Euro Final laid bare the enduring issue of racism in football, as Marcus Rashford, Jadon Sancho, and Bukayo Saka encountered reprehensible racist abuse following their penalty misses in the shootout against Italy. In spite of the ongoing issue of racism in football, the act of taking the knee has unmistakably catalysed discussions on racial injustice, police brutality, and systemic racism, resonating not only within the realm of football but also reverberating across broader society (Sky News, 2021).

The two governing bodies, IOC and FIFA, show differences in the treatment of freedom of expression when exerted by athletes.

Silencing Freedom of Expression in the Olympics

Rule 50.2 of the Olympic Charter unequivocally states: “No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.” This prohibition extends to expressions during official ceremonies, including Olympic medal ceremonies, opening and closing ceremonies, as well as within the Olympic Village.

The foundational principle underlying this rule is the imperative one that sport at the Olympic Games remains neutral and free from any form of political, religious, or any other type of interference. This guiding principle is explicitly articulated in Article 1.2 of the International Olympic Committee (“IOC”) Code of Ethics (2016) emphasising the importance of respecting the “principle of universality and political neutrality of the Olympic Movement”. Rule 50.2 provides for the protection of neutrality of sport at the Olympic Games and the neutrality of the Olympic Games themselves. By prohibiting demonstrations and expressions in specified contexts, the rule aims to ensure that the spotlight remains firmly on athletes' performances, the essence of the sports themselves, and the international unity and harmony that the Olympic Games aspire to promote. In essence, the rule underscores the commitment to maintaining the focus on the core values and spirit of the Olympic Games.

The debate as to whether Olympic athletes should be able to exercise their freedom of expression beyond the restrictions imposed by the IOC remains divided. The IOC’s Athletes’ Commission Chief, Kirsty Coventry, who led a review of the rule, said 70 percent of the athletes consulted were against any protests within the fields of play or the podiums. However, the findings of the survey the Australian Olympic Committee (“AOC”) Athlete’s Commission (August 2020) conducted on the views of Australian athletes about self-expression at the Olympic Games proved contrary. The survey of Olympians and Tokyo 2020 aspirants found that “39.91 percent believe in self-expression depending on the circumstances, only 19.16 percent believe in self-expression in any circumstances while 40.93 percent felt the Games was not a place for athletes to publicly express views.” The majority of athletes believed that they should be able to express themselves but that “most of those supporting freedom of expression were also concerned that any expression should not impact on other athletes’ performances or overall experience at the Games.”

In the current socio-political climate, there is a higher proportion of present-day athletes that believe that the Games are a platform for self-expression when compared with Olympians from earlier eras.

Amendments to the Olympic Charter

On 15 October 2023, the 141st International Olympic Committee (“IOC”) Session convened in Mumbai and approved the following changes:

• Fundamental Principles of Olympism 1: “Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example, social responsibility and respect for internationally recognised human rights and universal fundamental ethical principles within the remit of the Olympic Movement.”
• Rule 40.2: “All competitions, team officials or other team personnel in the Olympic Games shall enjoy freedom of expression in keeping with the Olympic values and the Fundamental Principles of Olympism, and in accordance with the Guidelines determined by the IOC Executive Board.”

Thomas Bach, the IOC President, hailed the significance of the changes, referring to them as a “major step in our commitment to the respect for human rights in the Olympic Movement…it makes an important milestone in the IOC’s human rights work”.

Upon closer analysis, the statutory provisions within the Olympic Games framework ostensibly fortify human rights; however, athletes are compelled to align their actions with not only these legal frameworks but also with the overarching Olympic values, Fundamental Principles of Olympism, and the Guidelines prescribed by the IOC Executive Board.

The trio of Olympic values — excellence, friendship, and respect — underscores the essence of the Olympics as a demonstration of respect towards oneself, the rules, opponents, the public, and, notably, "universal fundamental ethical principles." This allegiance to universal ethical principles is foundational to Olympism and is a fundamental principle of Olympism.

Yet, a palpable tension arises when juxtaposing the IOC's restrictions on freedom of expression with its professed values of respect. This tension becomes evident when athletes expressing political opinions congruent with universal ethical principles face sanctions. A poignant example is the prohibition of athletes taking the knee in support of the Black Lives Matter (“BLM”) movement during the 2022 Tokyo Olympic Games. Notably, Article 1.4 of the IOC Code of Ethics, emphasizing the respect for human dignity, clashes with this prohibition. The BLM movement, rooted in addressing violence against Black communities and building on “local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes”, advocates for treating Black people with the dignity they deserve. Consequently, the ban on taking the knee, a form of freedom of expression, appears contradictory to both Article 1.4 of the IOC Code of Ethics and Rule 50.2 of the Olympic Charter.

The treatment disparity between athletes exercising their freedom of expression and countries doing the same adds another layer of complexity. For instance, the IOC swiftly banned Russia and Belarus from international sporting events in response to Moscow's invasion of Ukraine, expressing unequivocal condemnation of the war and standing in solidarity with Ukrainian athletes and the Olympic community. Despite the ban, athletes from Russia and Belarus were permitted to compete under a neutral flag, seemingly aligning with the broader Olympic Movement's values of uniting the world in peaceful competition. While this arrangement achieved a semblance of middle ground, the IOC's imposition of sanctions against Russia and Belarus underscored a clear political stance against their actions in the war.

The IOC's disparate response to the BLM movement, which emerged in response to the acquittal of Trayvon Martin's murderer, introduces a complex dynamic. It highlights the nuanced challenges arising from the IOC aligning itself with certain political stances while abstaining from others. Both the BLM movement and reactions to the war in Ukraine share a common grounding in the principle of respect for human dignity. Yet, athletes advocating for BLM through symbolic gestures like taking the knee face sanctions akin to those imposed on countries involved in geopolitical conflicts. This incongruity accentuates the intricate terrain the IOC navigates in balancing its purported values with real-world political complexities.

A Chokehold in Football

FIFA

The Fédération internationale de football association (“FIFA”) is the international governing body of association football, beach soccer and futsal. The FIFA Statutes, and the accompanying regulations governing their implementation, form the Constitution of football's international governing body. They provide the basic laws for world football, on which countless rules are set for competitions, transfers, doping issues and a host of other concerns. FIFA’s positioning on footballers exercising their right to freedom of expression is outlined in the following articles in the FIFA Statutes, FIFA’s Code of Ethics and FIFA Equipment Regulations as found in the FIFA Legal Handbook (2023).

FIFA’s approach to freedom of expression seems to exhibit a more lenient stance compared to that of the Olympic Games: a distinction particularly conspicuous in the context of the 2022 FIFA World Cup held in Qatar. The tournament generated controversy surrounding Qatar's human rights stance, prompting footballers to boldly exercise their freedom of expression. Norway's national team, for instance, made a powerful statement by wearing t-shirts declaring "Human rights – on and off the pitch" before their World Cup qualifier against Gibraltar. This gesture aimed to draw attention to the plight of the migrant workers in Qatar who lost their lives since the World Cup was awarded to the country. In a departure from the norm, FIFA publicly declared that “no disciplinary proceedings in relation to this matter will be opened by FIFA.”

However, this leniency was not universal, as demonstrated by FIFA's response to the OneLove campaign led by the Netherlands Football Association (“KNVB”). OneLove, an anti-discrimination, anti-racism, LGBT+ rights, and human rights campaign initiated in 2020, encouraged football players to wear armbands adorned with the rainbow-colored OneLove logo. It was designed to "use the power of football to promote inclusion and send a message against discrimination of any kind as the eyes of the world fall on the global game". Notably, captains Gareth Bale of Wales and Harry Kane of England intended to wear the One Love armband to advocate for diversity and inclusion, particularly in light of the criminalization of same-sex relationships in Qatar. Anticipating fines for this gesture, players were instead threatened with sporting sanctions by FIFA, including receiving yellow cards. “FIFA has been very clear that it will impose sporting sanctions if our captains wear the armbands on the field of play”. This led Wales, England, and five other European countries to forgo wearing the One Love armband, stating that "We were prepared to pay fines that would normally apply to breaches of kit regulations and had a strong commitment to wearing the armband. However, we cannot put our players in the situation where they might be booked or even forced to leave the field of play.”

In a last-minute initiative on the eve of the 2022 tournament, FIFA announced its own armband slogans including the promotion of social messages such as “Football unites the world”. Despite there being no change to the ban of the One Love armband for the Women’s World Cup in Australia and New Zealand 2023, FIFA confirmed that players will instead be able to choose from eight alternative options each highlighting various social causes. The themes of the armband were picked after consultation with the 32 participating teams, players and United Nations agencies. A notable armband, the Unite for Inclusion, pays homage to the One Love armband with its logo featuring the same vibrant colours. The incorporation of red, black, and green (representing the Pan-African flag) signifies race and heritage, while pink, yellow, and blue (representing the pansexual flag) symbolize inclusivity across all gender identities and sexual orientations.

FIFA's restrictions on athletes’ freedom of expression are more expansive than those imposed by IOC. The FIFA Human Rights Policy, adopted in 2017, outlines the organization's responsibility to identify and address adverse human rights impacts, including measures to prevent and mitigate human rights abuses. Unlike the IOC, FIFA does not adhere to a complete neutral stance, showcasing a nuanced approach to issues related to freedom of expression, human rights, and social messages in the world of football.

Football Association

The Football Association (“FA”) is the governing body of association football in England and the Crown Dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey, and the Isle of Man. The FA applies FIFA’s rules on player equipment and is outlined in the FIFA Handbook, in particular, Law 5 and 12.A.4.

In 2021, the FA published its new three-year equality, diversity and discrimination strategy. A Game for All outlines three key strategic commitments: (1) Lead the Change; (2) Be the Change; and (3) Inspire the Change. FIFA wants to use their influence “to make sure football is a game for all” which includes “making sure people are included and treated in the same fair way”. As part of Commitment (2) (Be the Change), FIFA will “encourage everyone in football to support a code which helps to include everybody in football” and “carry on teaching people about how to be fair to everyone.”

Footballers themselves have become enmeshed in causes: the most prominent example being Marcus Rashford’s campaign against child food poverty. Rashford utilised his platform which resulted in a government announcement that free school meals (“FSM”) would be provided to disadvantage children over the school holidays. Hallmarked by being awarded an MBE, Rashford’s campaign has received vehement praise and “has arguably become one of the UK’s most important political figures.” However, he has not gone without criticism with the media arguing that politics should be kept out of football. Contrary to this belief, Rashford has gone without punishment from the FA and FIFA because the cause is inclusive and is not fundamentally about politics - it is about human rights and children having food to eat. Rashford wrote on Twitter, now known as ‘X”, that “This is not politics, this is humanity…I don’t have the education of a politician, many on Twitter have made that clear today, but I have a social education having lived through this and having spent time with families and children most affected”.

In football, the most contentious issue regarding the freedom of expression relates to footballers taking the knee. Introduced to the English game in June 2020, both women and men teams took the knee. However, recently, players have begun to question the impact of this gesture with more than a third of Football League Clubs outside of England’s top division have stopped kneeling before kick-off. In the Premier League, Chelsea’s defender, Marcos Alonso, stopped taking the knee, stating that he believes it is “losing a bit of strength” and opting instead to point to an anti-racism badge on his sleeve. This followed the footsteps of Crystal Palace forward, Willfried Zaha who said the gesture was “degrading”. Notably, ahead of the 2022/23 Premier League season, Premier League captains agreed to their teams no longer taking the nee routinely before matches but instead restricting the gesture to “significant moments” of the season. According to a YouGov poll (2021), 54 percent of English fans support the gesture but 39% of English fans oppose it. Despite this majority, barely a third thinks it is important in tackling racism.

This gesture has raised two critical issues regarding freedom of expression and the prohibition of political slogans, statements, or images. The first is the reaction of football fans to footballers taking the knee. Tony Burnett, the boss of Kick It Out (football’s anti-racism organisation) is correct in saying that “I think there’s a certain section of our population that would have a problem whatever gesture the players chose”. A vehement critique of footballers being allowed to exercise Article 10 ECHR is the Free Speech Union (“FSU”). The FSU came to the defence of a fan who booed footballers who were taking the knee and was subsequently banned from the stadium until he met with club officials, proving that he was not racist. The FSU contended that “it cannot be right to permit players to express their views about their political movement on the pitch, but prohibit fans from expressing theirs in the stands”. Subsequently, on 19 February 2021, Toby Young, the General Secretary of the FSU, wrote a letter to the Interim Chairman of the FA, Peter McCormick, asking the FA issue some guidance on this issue. Young stated that the “simplest solution would be to ban players taking the knee” in accordance with Rule 4 of the Laws of the Game; either the FA should ban taking the knee, just as it bans players or managers wearing badges or patches expressing their allegiance to any other political cause. Or it should permit it, in which case fans must be allowed to express their feelings about this political movement, too. In response, Tommy Guthrie, Supporter Liaison Manager, stated that the “Premier League does not endorse any political organisation or movement, but we continue to support players and officials who choose to take a knee at matches as an expression of their view…We are unequivocal in our belief that there is no room for racism in our competition, our sport, or our wider communities.”

Indeed, the FSU raises an important point that, the FA allows players to exercise their freedom of expression but prohibit fans from expressing theirs. However, the FA “will continue to support all players and clubs that wish to take a stand against any form of discrimination, and will always condemn the behaviours of anyone that chooses to actively oppose these values.” The FA’s stance on this is in accordance with Article 10(2) of the ECHR as the suppression of English fans booing footballers taking the knee is for the “protection of health and morals” and “reputation or rights of other”.

The second issue relates to whether taking the knee is in fact a political statement and is therefore prohibited by the FA regulations, and FIFA for that matter. Taking the knee forms part of a long history of athletes using sports as a platform to draw attention to the racial inequalities that communities of colour experience. For example, in 1968 African American sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised gloved fists when they received their gold and bronze medals at that year’s Olympic Games. Multiple conservative MPs criticise the act, viewing it as a political statement linked to the BLM. The failure of Number 10 to condemn fans who boo players taking the knee draws attention to a contentious issue in the country. It demonstrated that Boris Johnson, then Prime Minister, might accept racism is a bad thing but he will not admit that anti-racist gestures are a good thing. Alongside this, Priti Patel, Home Secretary, described the act as “gesture politics”; political actions of positions taken chiefly to gain publicity or influence public opinion, typically requiring little effort or having no significant impact. After Patel condemned the abuse of England players Marcus Rashford, Bukayo Saka and Jadon Sancho, their teammate Tyrone Mings said: “You don’t get to stoke the fire at the beginning of the tournament by labelling our anti-racism message as ‘Gesture Politics’ and then pretend to be disgusted when the very thing we’re campaigning against, happens.” Gareth Southgate, England’s manager, made clear that the team decided to take the knee "for each other" rather than expressing support for any political organisation or ideology.

Indeed, the discussion around whether taking the knee is a political statement has in fact sparked a political debate. However, like Rashford’s child food poverty campaign, the taking of the knee is not a political statement but a powerful, globalised symbolic gesture against racism which dates to the Civil Rights Movement in the United States when Martin Luther King Jr took the knee in Alabama in 1965 to stand with the African American protestors in the famous agitation.

The FA’s approach to footballers making gestures and doing acts in support of socio-economic issues such as child food poverty and racism, this somewhat lenient approach is not adopted when footballers making political statements which align themselves to a political party or course. Currently, the FA has failed to publish sufficient guidance for players on making political statements. Hamza Choudhury is currently facing strong backlash following his post of a pro-Palestinian message on social media. The Leicester Football Club (“FC”) midfielder wrote on the online platform X (formally known as Twitter), a message stating “From river to sea…” which is a saying synonymous with Palestinian nationalism. Choudhury has since apologised and deleted the post. Whilst Choudhury has managed to escape FA action, the lack of any public statement from the FA demonstrates the failure of this governing body to publish guidance. Since then, the FA has banned footballers from using pro-Palestinian phrase “from the river to the sea” and, in a further development, the FA will involve police should any participate use the saying in the future.

What We Expect From Paris: Israel-Gaza War

This article has demonstrated that the geopolitical context has continued to impinge on the IOC’s ability to stay neutral and pursue its intention of uniting people through sport. The ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict, with its severe implications and recent rulings from international legal bodies, is proving to be a talking subject at the Paris Olympics but it seems that athletes are too frightened to highlight their support for the human rights movement and the importance of equality, fairness and the need to stop the various abuses continuing with the loss of life whilst the Olympics are being celebrated and enjoyed in Paris. What of those young children and athletes who have not been able to train or participate in activities due to displacement, the taking away of their rights and the various abuses suffered?

Banning Israel

The call to ban Israel from the Paris Olympics has been far and wide. Protests have taken place outside the Paris Olympic Headquarters demanding that Israel be banned, and athletes forced to participate as neutrals. The issue of whether to permit Israeli athletes to compete under Israel’s flag in the Paris Olympics is deeply complex and involves weighing the IOC's principles against the geopolitical realities and ethical considerations arising from the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The IOC’s mission is to unite people through sport, promote peace, and demonstrate that sports can transcend political and social divides. The Olympic Charter emphasizes the importance of non-discrimination and inclusivity. The IOC has faced similar dilemmas in the past. For example, countries have been banned or faced restrictions for apartheid, war crimes, and other significant human rights violations.

The recent escalation of violence, beginning with the attacks on October 7 and followed by Israel’s military actions in Gaza, has intensified global scrutiny and condemnation. The decision of the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) carry weight, and if the court has indeed ruled Israel’s actions as genocide, it adds a significant legal and moral dimension to the debate.

Allowing athletes from a country accused of genocide to compete under their national flag could be seen as endorsing or ignoring the severity of the accusations. On the other hand, athletes are individuals who often have no control over their government's actions. Preventing them from competing could be viewed as unjust punishment for the actions of their state.

One possible compromise was allowing Israeli athletes to compete as neutral or independent athletes, similar to how athletes from Russia and Belarus have been treated in response to the situation in Ukraine. This approach acknowledges the athletes' rights while distancing the IOC from the actions of the Israeli state. Establishing a committee to monitor the situation and provide ongoing evaluations could have ensured that decisions are responsive to evolving circumstances and grounded in thorough analysis.

Balancing the IOC’s core values with the complex realities of international conflicts requires careful consideration and a nuanced approach. Allowing Israeli athletes to compete under a neutral flag may have offered a middle ground, upholding the principles of inclusivity and non-discrimination while responding to the severe allegations against the Israeli government. The IOC's decisions should reflect both a commitment to the spirit of the Olympics and a respect for international law and human rights. Is the IOC’s decision to allow Israeli athletes to continue to compete under their national flag, correct? What does it say of the International courts and the International bodies various decisions and orders in relation to Israel’s continuing breaches of international law and the treatment of the Palestinian people? What of the hunger, famine, suffering and pain that the international community is strongly accusing Israel of inflicting upon the Palestinian people? What of all of the evidence of genocide? Not only has the IOC been silent on all of this but it has ensured that no athlete has the freedom of speech. Tommie Smith and John Carlos were treated as criminals in 1968 by the IOC but history has taught us that in being brave by speaking up for fairness and equality, those two individuals’ acts were more wise and brave then any IOC decision or order. Will the IOC not learn from history? The truth is, many are concerned about the reactions to such protest.

Reactions from the International Community

As we saw with the 1936 and 1968 Olympics, it is still possible that athletes will use the Paris Games to protest the ongoing genocide of Gaza. Athletes and national teams may use the global platform to make political statements. This could include wearing symbols or engaging in gestures that signal solidarity with Palestine or condemnation of Israel’s actions.

Athletes who choose to protest against Israel at the Paris Olympics will likely receive a mixed reception, reflecting the complexity and divisiveness of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Many individuals and groups around the world, including human rights advocates, might applaud athletes for taking a stand against perceived injustices. These supporters might view the protests as a courageous act of solidarity with the Palestinian people and a call for justice. Media coverage could amplify the voices of protesting athletes, framing their actions as part of a broader movement for human rights and ethical accountability. This amplification can lead to increased public support and applause for the protesters.

Given the highly sensitive nature of the Israel-Palestine conflict, protests could also provoke significant backlash. Supporters of Israel, as well as those who believe sports should remain apolitical, might criticize the athletes for politicizing the event. The IOC and national Olympic committees typically have rules against political demonstrations during the games. Athletes who protest may face disciplinary actions, which could include warnings, fines, or even disqualification. This official stance might diminish public support in some quarters.

Comparison with the Past

In its 26 January 2024 decision, the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”), ordered Israel to take steps to prevent any acts of genocide. Genocide is defined as the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation of ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.

On 20 May 2024, the ICC Prosecutor, Karim Khan, filed applications for arrest warrants in the Situation in the State of Palestine. On the basis of evidence collected and examined, Khan had reasonable grounds that the following bear criminal responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on the territory of Israel and the State of Palestine:

• Yahya Sinwar, Head of Hamas.
• Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri, Commander-in-Chief of the military wing of Hamas.
• Ismail Haniyeh, Head of Hamas Political Bureau.

On the basis of evidence collected and examined, Khan had reasonable grounds that the following bear criminal responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on the territory of the State of Palestine:

• Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel
• Yoav Gallant, the Minister of Defence of Israel

Despite the ICJ and ICC ruling, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has vowed to continue the war against Hamas amid international condemnation of an air strike that killed scores of Palestinians in Rafah on 26 May 2024. Athletes and advocacy groups might still use the platform of the Paris Olympics to protest against the actions of the Israeli government. Such protests could highlight the parallels to the 1936 Berlin Olympics and emphasize the importance of standing against genocide and war crimes.

Protesting against actions perceived as genocide should indeed be seen as a moral stance, and historical parallels, such as the genocide of Jewish people under Nazi rule, underscore the importance of speaking out against such atrocities. Drawing parallels to historical events like the Holocaust can lend moral weight to protests against contemporary genocides like the one in Gaza. The 1936 Berlin Olympics, held under Nazi rule, are often cited as a moment when the international community failed to adequately protest against rising atrocities. Leading up to the Olympics, there were significant calls for a boycott of the Berlin Games. Various groups in the United States and other countries, including Jewish organizations and labour unions, argued that participating in the games would lend legitimacy to Hitler's regime. In response to the Berlin Olympics, an alternative event called the People's Olympiad was planned to be held in Barcelona in 1936. This event was intended to protest against the Nazi regime and promote international solidarity against fascism. However, the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War led to its cancellation.

While the 1936 Berlin Olympics did see protests and acts of defiance, they were often fragmented and faced significant challenges. Notable figures like Jesse Owens used their athletic success to undermine Nazi propaganda, while various groups and individuals called for boycotts and sought to highlight the dangers of legitimizing Hitler's regime through international sporting events.

Protests against genocide, drawing parallels to historical events like the Holocaust, carry significant moral weight. The failure to adequately protest the Nazi regime in 1936 is often cited as a historical lesson, emphasizing the need for action against contemporary atrocities. The legacy of these protests remains a powerful reminder of the intersection between sports and politics, and the moral responsibilities of athletes and nations. Alegi, the history professor, emphasized that sports and politics are inextricably linked. Alegi stated: “The way in which sporting organizations, and particularly Western nations, have responded has been dramatically different ... I think that double standards … hypocrisy, or at the very least a contradiction, needs to be highlighted.”

The comparison between the 1936 Berlin Olympics and the contemporary situation underscores the critical role of sports as a platform for political and ethical expressions. Protests against actions perceived as genocide are morally justified and necessary to prevent history from repeating itself. The legacy of past protests and the current geopolitical context highlight the importance of addressing severe human rights violations, even within the traditionally apolitical realm of international sports. The Paris Olympics will serve as a significant stage for this ongoing dialogue between sports, politics, and human rights.

Conclusion

The prohibition on athletes expressing political views can evoke images of George Orwell's Thought Police from 1984. Yet, many fans contend that the sanctity of sport lies in its detachment from politics. Sporting excellence, they argue, should remain "pure" – a manifestation of unparalleled skill and awe-inspiring endurance that is intrinsic to the sport, capturing the genius of human athleticism.

Whether it is witnessing Lionel Messi effortlessly navigating a group of defenders, Virat Kohli executing a flawless cover drive, or Simone Biles executing a lightning-fast triple-twisting double tuck in her floor routine, these moments transfix us by challenging our assumptions of human capability. Most of us yearn for the purity of sporting achievement to transcend the immediate influence of political and social currents. We desire a space where the essence of humanness in sports overshadows divisive political affiliations.

However, there is a collective recognition that sport cannot exist in complete isolation from its social context, nor should it. The very foundation of sport is intertwined with its social grounding, infusing it with profound meaning. While desiring the preservation of sport as a unifying force, it's important to acknowledge and appreciate the symbiotic relationship between sports and society. In doing so, we preserve the rich tapestry of meaning that sports derive from their social foundations.