Rule 50 and the “Olympic Spirit”
Tommie Smith and John Carlos had what many consider to be amongst the most powerful and peaceful political protests in Olympic history. They stood atop the medal podium while their own national anthem played, bowed their head and each put one black-gloved fist in the air. It was a profound and infamous moment from the 1968 Summer Olympics. Smith and Carlos were promptly expelled from the Games (although their medals were not taken away) for what the International Olympic Committee deemed “a deliberate and violent breach of the fundamental principles of the Olympic spirit.”
Fast-forward 53 years and we again find ourselves in the midst of a swirling Olympic controversy. The IOC is proactively trying to prevent the kinds of political demonstrations that overshadow Games, like Smith and Carlos did with their gold and bronze-medal performances. So while you’re watching the Olympics, you may hear a lot about Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter. It's the one that states that “no kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.”
I see a clash between a variety of interests within the IOC – including marketing, public relations and legal. Let me explain.
The IOC is one of the most powerful and profitable private clubs in the world. They control their image seemingly with an iron fist. Their brand materials can only be used how they permit, by whom they permit, and when they permit. They do this because the Olympics is big business. TV, digital streaming, advertising, endorsements, exclusive rights, etc. all add up to huge money for the IOC and those it permits into the club. As a result, they want their show – the three weeks of competition every four years – to go a certain way. They don’t want anyone going off script or stealing their thunder. They want to control how the Olympic story is told.
Hence, Rule 50. They don’t want any athlete using the Olympic stage to go off-script. They want them to win or lose in accordance with the IOC's athletic and marketing rules.
I suspect the marketing and legal folks at the IOC have long driven the IOC’s near-frantic obsession with controlling its brand, likeness and reputation. It’s no coincidence that Rule 50 appears in the Olympic Charter alongside a ban on any type of advertising or display, commercial or otherwise, that is not permitted by the IOC. They view political demonstration they same way they view unauthorized advertising.
So, the IOC is telling its Olympic participants that protests or demonstrations of any kind will not be permitted on the field of play, the podium or the ceremonies (opening or closing). Those who step outside these bounds will face punishment on a case-by-case basis, though the IOC reportedly tasked its Legal Affairs Commission with drafting those potential punishments.
The IOC defends itself from criticism on two fronts. First, they say the athletes actually want this. In fact, they say, nearly 70% voted in favour of keeping Rule 50 in a quantitative survey it commissioned from Publicis Sports & Entertainment. Second, it consulted its legal experts and, apparently, they were emphatic that while freedom of speech and expression are important rights, they are far from absolute.
Regarding the survey, it should be noted only 11% of athletes who completed the survey said the IOC had made everything clear with respect to Rule 50 so one wonders how informed participants actually were. Moreover, participants from two countries were consistently atop the list of athletes that said protests and demonstrations were inappropriate in nearly any context. Those two countries? China and Russia.
Regarding freedom of expression and speech, these are indeed not absolute rights. They have some limits. The most obvious are certain forms of hate or violence-inducing speech. But can freedom of speech and expression really be trumped by the IOC’s drive to control its message and likeness? That seems like a big stretch considering the IOC itself is going to work in certain types of political messages into its own material. It has permitted the words Peace, Respect, Solidarity, Inclusion and Equality to be used in IOC-approved athlete apparel and digital messages. These are all laudable attributes for those on a world stage to promote but they are political expressions nonetheless. So, it seems like political expression is acceptable to them as long as they can control and commercialize it.
Where is the public relations department in all of this? They ought to be striving for two-way, authentic, communications with their key stakeholders in such a way as to cultivate meaningful relationships that benefit both parties. They ought to have ensured the survey of athletes was randomized, informed and valid. They also ought to have done some basic stakeholder analysis to assess just how much the interests of corporate partners (e.g., TV networks and sponsors) have trumped the interest of others. In any event, the public relations folks should know that the IOC’s controlling nature has increasingly been a part of its reputation because the IOC does, in fact, behave in a controlling manner. Rule 50 is a great example.
So, is the IOC’s controlling nature actually becoming a problem? I would say so. The story now isn’t about the Olympics. It’s often about what the IOC won’t allow highly-celebrated athletes to do. Every time an athlete steps out of line (according to the IOC, at least), we’ll be wondering if the IOC will step in, what their reaction will be, and if the athlete will be punished. How will the legal folks in the IOC react? Will they want to punish highly-popular athletes for expressing a view point? Will they consider more than just the black-and-white of the rules on the page of the Olympic Charter when dishing out punishment?
To be fair, well-respected athletes like Marnie McBean, who serves as Canada’s Chef de Mission, have pointed out to CBC Radio that the Canadian Olympic Commission will support its athletes in whatever decision they make, as long as they make it with their eyes wide open. Translation? The IOC has told athletes what the rule is and few can control what they'll do if an athlete chooses not to follow the rules. McBean also quite rightly pointed out that athletes also have a huge stage to use without resorting to the podium, field of play and ceremonies. For example, they’ll have hundreds of microphones put in front of them at nearly every stage of the games, and especially if they win, as well as social media accounts whose followership will boom during the Olympics.
But, ultimately, it could be that the IOC is missing a chance to let their private club evolve as their stakeholders – athletes, viewers, etc. – do . This is where an organization needs a multi-disciplinary approach. An approach where legal, marketing and PR don’t stake out their turf and try to influence decision-makers about the virtue of their preferred approach, or simply tell the bosses what they want to hear; but rather, an approach where these folks work together and elevate the organization and their stakeholders. It might be that what’s best for the IOC in the short-term is to maximize its control but those days might be numbered. Decision-makers within the IOC need to work hand-in-hand with the public relations folks who should, in turn, be in constant contact with key stakeholders. This way, the IOC can proactively make changes to add value for their stakeholders and enhance their reputation, rather than risk being seen to be dragged into change. The Olympics can and should reflect the ideals of athletes and viewers, not just those with TV rights.
The IOC doesn’t want to miss the point in time when viewers decide they want to see the best athletes in the world compete as themselves, not as what the IOC tells them they are permitted to be.