Athlete expression & Rule 50 — how the IOC applied its guidelines at Milano Cortina 2026

While the Milano Cortina Games delivered some incredible sporting moments, they also exposed a growing tension: athletes are speaking more openly about the political realities shaping their lives as the International Olympic Committee (IOC) works to clarify where expression is permitted and where the lines remain non‑negotiable. 

From concerns about LGBTQ+ rights to reactions to domestic unrest and war, this year’s Winter Olympics showed just how hard it is to separate sport from the world that it reflects.

Here, Maya Tajuddin explores how athlete expression, public scrutiny and the IOC’s rulebook collided on one of the world’s biggest sporting stages.

Team USA speaks out

Several American athletes used their media spotlight to comment on political instability in the US. Figure skater Amber Glenn told reporters that she wouldn’t “shut up about politics,” referencing what she described as a difficult period for the LGBTQ+ community. Within days, she said she’d received threats on social media and had to limit her use. 

When asked about recent ICE actions in Minneapolis and the protests that followed, Team USA freestyle skier Chris Lillis explained that while he was deeply proud to represent the US and wouldn’t want to compete for any other nation, he recognised that athletes can be reluctant to speak openly about political matters. He went on to say that he feels “heartbroken” by events unfolding at home and believed it was important to acknowledge that reality. 

Another freestyle skier, Hunter Hess, expressed similar feelings. He said that he felt “mixed emotions” representing America given domestic events and added, “just because I’m wearing the flag doesn’t mean I represent everything that’s going on in the US.”  His comments prompted criticism from high‑profile figures — including US President Donald Trump — before he clarified: “I love my country… there is so much that is great about America, but there are always things that could be better.”

A Ukrainian helmet that sparked debate

These instances weren’t limited to Team USA. Ukrainian skeleton racer Vladyslav Heraskevych arrived in Milan wearing a helmet featuring images of fellow Ukrainian athletes who were killed during the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy even posted about the helmet on X, saying, "I thank the flag bearer of our national team at the Winter Olympics, Vladyslav Heraskevych, for reminding the world of the price of our struggle.” 

The IOC informed Heraskevych that he couldn’t wear the helmet during Olympic competition, though he was permitted to wear a black armband instead. Heraskevych responded that he wouldn’t listen and would wear it during his competition anyway: "I used it yesterday. I used it today. I will use it tomorrow and I will use it on race day." 

Following this decision, Ukrainian luger Olena Smaha raised her hand after competing in the Women’s Singles Heat 3, revealing a handwritten message reading “Remembrance is not a violation” in a gesture of solidarity. 

The IOC’s rulebook 

At the heart of these incidents sits Rule 50 of the Olympic Charter. Rule 50.2 states: “No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.” The IOC frames the provision as protecting the Games’ neutrality so that the focus remains on athletic performance and all athletes can compete on equal terms. 

Over the last cycle, the IOC has issued Athlete Expression Guidelines that clarify where expression is permitted and where it isn’t, following a quantitative assessment of over 3,500 athletes on the topic. 

In short:

• What’s allowed: press conferences, mixed zones, interviews, team meetings and personal social media, plus some pre‑competition expressions that are consistent with Olympic principles and not targeted at people or nations.
• What’s prohibited: the field of play during competition, medal and official ceremonies, inside Olympic venues and the Athletes’ Village and during opening and closing ceremonies.

This is a significant shift from a more traditional, stricter stance against any form of protest or demonstration during the Olympic Games.

The IOC’s Mark Adams addressed the issue of Heraskevych’s helmet, reiterating the understanding of wanting to pay tribute to the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war but also the importance of keeping the focus on athletic performance. While athletes can compete under their national flag, the IOC has set clear limits on how far political representation can extend. In Heraskevych’s case, the IOC concluded that a personalised helmet featuring images of war victims constituted prohibited political messaging under Rule 50 and its related guidelines. 

By contrast, many of Team USA’s comments were made in media zones and were more general in nature, avoiding direct criticism of any individuals or organisations. The IOC’s Working Group maintains that athletes have a fundamental right to access sport and compete free from political interference or pressure from governmental organisations. 

Potential implications of breach & navigating athlete agreements

Breaches of Rule 50 are addressed under the Olympic Charter and the Games‑time Conditions of Participation. Potential consequences range from warnings to removal from the field of play or venue, disqualification, withdrawal of accreditation or — in more serious cases — forfeiture of Olympic medals. 

The sanctions are assessed on a case-by-case basis by the IOC and will likely depend on the nature, timing and location of the breach. Conduct on the podium or during competition is often treated very differently from remarks made in the mixed zone or on personal social media accounts. 

In Heraskeych’s case, many discussions were had with the IOC, including with President Kirsty Coventry who reiterated: “It’s not about the messaging; it’s literally about the rules and the regulations.” The IOC made a final decision to bar Heraskeych from competing in the Milano-Cortina Games following his continued refusal to take off his helmet, though he was allowed to remain at the Games.

National Olympic Committees and teams may also impose measures through their own athlete agreements and codes of conduct which typically require strict compliance with the Olympic Charter and all applicable Games policies. A Rule 50 infraction can therefore amount to a breach of an athlete’s team agreement, with consequences at delegation level in addition to any IOC process. 

Events in the Olympic ice hockey competition showed that national federations may act swiftly where an athlete’s behaviour is seen to undermine Olympic values. French defenceman Pierre Crinon was removed from the remainder of the hockey tournament by the French National Olympic and Sports Committee after a fight and subsequent crowd‑provoking gestures were found to fall short of the standards expected at the Games, with his actions deemed a “violation of the Olympic spirit”.

Implications for future Games

In an increasingly uncertain global landscape, we’ve seen a rising number of professional athletes using their position to raise awareness and push for reform on and off the field. 

While Rule 50 isn’t a particularly new provision, its practical application is being tested as competitors balance their personal conscience and freedom of speech with the Olympic Charter and IOC’s neutrality clause during the 2026 Games. The current framework draws a bright line around the field of play and ceremonies while keeping space for expression in media zones and online. 

It’s clear that what unfolded in Milano Cortina will shape the next chapter of athlete speech at future Olympics, just as it did in Tokyo in 2020.

Talk to us

With Rule 50 under renewed scrutiny, it’s increasingly important for international federations and national governing bodies (NGBs) to ensure that their regulatory frameworks and athlete agreements are clear, balanced and fit for purpose. 

Athlete agreements play a critical role in setting expectations around conduct, media engagement, sponsorship obligations and compliance with competition rules, while also addressing the growing importance of athlete voice and expression. Well-drafted agreements can help organisations to manage potential risks, minimise disputes and provide clarity for both athletes and NGBs.

Our award-winning sports law team can help you to understand where the boundaries lie. We advise on drafting and reviewing athlete agreements, managing regulatory compliance and addressing the legal risks associated with athlete expression and participation in major events.

Talk to our team by calling 0333 004 4488, emailing hello@brabners.com or completing our contact form below.