Protests, Politics, and the Olympic Podium

The Olympic Games have always prided themselves on their independence from political and social movements, presenting the games as a space where different nations, races, and backgrounds can come together to compete. Even in the ancient Olympic games, a clear distinction was made between athletic competition and politics through a truce between Greek city-states declared before the start of each Olympics. This truce temporarily ended all regional wars, allowing athletes and spectators to travel safely. The modern Olympics have also embodied this policy. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) in its Olympic Charter has stated that one of its core goals is to “protect [sports’] independence, to maintain and promote its political neutrality and to preserve the autonomy of sport.”

Yet this is often far from the truth. The Olympic Games have had a long history of political interference and advocacy. Nations, and even the IOC itself, have shown that politics and sports have been and will continue to be inextricably intertwined. 

Most statements come from the athletes themselves. Such actions came as early as 1906, when Irish long jumper Peter O’Connor climbed a flagpole to replace the British flag with an Irish one in front of 50,000 spectators. By scaling the flagpole, O’Connor protested the lack of Irish independence and made a bold statement for Irish nationalism. Since then, countless competitors have utilized the platform to make their own statements. Perhaps the most well-known example was the 1968 Black Power protest. In light of the Civil Rights Movement and to protest the racial discrimination and segregation still prevalent in the U.S., two American runners, Tommie Smith and John Carlos, raised a fist during “The Star Spangled Banner”. On the podium, they both wore a single black glove as a symbol of solidarity, stood shoeless with black socks to represent black poverty, and Smith wore a black scarf to represent black pride. Despite receiving immediate backlash from the onlooking crowd and expulsion from the Olympics by the IOC, the statement became the defining intersection between Olympic sports and politics. While on the surface, these individual protests bring few immediate effects, these protests “succeed” because their biggest impact is an intangible one: drawing attention to key issues when the whole world is watching. The headlines generated and the public responses induced can influence public opinion, provoke dialogue, and even influence policy decisions and create long-term change.

Furthermore, the Olympic Games offer a large platform for host nations to curate an image and promote their goals by improving their international standing. The 1936 Berlin Olympics, hosted by Nazi Germany, is one of the most infamous examples of utilizing the Games as political propaganda. The Nazi regime aimed to showcase Germany as a powerful and advanced nation, and to ultimately promote the image of Aryan racial superiority and gain international legitimacy. However, despite the government investing heavily in the event, through new facilities and an extensive media campaign, this narrative was challenged by the overwhelming success of numerous African-American athletes, such as Jesse Owens and Ralph Metcalfe. A more recent example is the 2008 Beijing Olympics, which posed a significant opportunity for China to present itself as a modern and rising global power. The opening ceremony, intended to impress international audiences, was a four-hour-long memorable display of China’s cultural heritage, history, and technological advancements. The 2008 Olympics was thus able to boost China’s international profile, despite infamous attempts to control the narrative surrounding the Olympics through tight security measures and the censorship of activists.

But by far the most well-known examples of political messages surrounding the Olympics actually come before the Games in a nation’s decision to boycott the competition altogether. During the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union were infamous for boycotting the Olympics hosted by each other. In 1979, in response to the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan, President Jimmy Carter announced that the United States would boycott the 1980 Summer Olympic Games in Moscow unless the Soviet Union withdrew, which they did not. As a result, over 60 American-aligned countries joined in the boycott, instead participating in the Liberty Bell Classic hosted in Philadelphia. The absence of these nations signified a breakdown in relations between the world powers that left no area—even seemingly apolitical ones—untouched. In retaliation, the Soviet Union and its allies boycotted the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, citing security concerns and claiming that anti-communist sentiment in the US made the Games an unsafe atmosphere for their athletes. They then created a counter-competition called the 1984 Friendship Games, which was hosted throughout the Eastern Bloc. In examples like these, the Olympics showed that it could be utilized, and often weaponized, by countries and turned into a battleground for political ideologies.

Despite the threat many of these events have posed to international relations, a lot of good has also come out of the Olympics. Accompanying the inciting statements have been movements for peace and reconciliation. In the wake of the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympics in South Korea, South Korea and North Korea announced that they would march together in both the opening and closing ceremonies under the Korean Unification Flag, and that the South Korean women’s national hockey team would incorporate North Korean players. The ceremonies presented a message of unity and demonstrated the best of sports: its ability to transcend barriers and political differences for the sole goal of cooperation. The IOC itself used the Olympics’ unique power and prevalence to promote awareness for good causes. Starting in the 2016 Rio Summer Olympics, the Refugee Olympic Team has since participated. Composed of athletes who are refugees, the team, as the IOC President Thomas Bach said, “will be a symbol of hope for all refugees in the world, and will make the world better aware of the magnitude of this crisis.” This team, which plans to continue competing in future Olympics, showcases the Olympics’ potential to inspire positive global change, awareness, and solidarity. 

As we look to the upcoming 2024 Paris Summer Olympics, the biggest controversy is surrounding the participation of the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC) and the Belarus Olympic Committee (BOC). In 2023, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the IOC indefinitely suspended the membership of the ROC and BOC. As a result, Russian and Belarusian athletes will compete as Individual Neutral Athletes, without their nation’s anthem, flag, or other identifications, and any medals Russian and Belarusian athletes earn will not be accounted for in Russia and Belarus’s respective official medal counts. 

At the individual level, political statements made by athletes are an expression of their personal beliefs and experiences. These opinions are a part of who they are, and given that they don’t harm or impair others, should be celebrated alongside their athletic achievements. When we honor their victories, we acknowledge their voices and the causes they value. However, at the national level, political actions can be detrimental to both the athletes and the Olympics as a whole. In many cases, even though athletes have no say over the actions of their government, they bear the majority of the consequences. Boycotts are the most harmful. An Olympic boycott means a nation will not compete for eight years, all for a statement with little impact. Eight years is a significant time frame, especially for a world-class athlete. In eight years, an athlete can transition from their prime to retirement. And so despite these athletes training their entire lives for the opportunity to compete at the highest level, having that opportunity marred by political circumstances beyond their control is unjust. Sports should never be seen as a political tool for nations to wield or as a place to push a certain agenda. In terms of the IOC, involvement with nations should generally be minimal. In increasingly complex international relations, the IOC should not be able to act with complete authority or feel the need to have the final say on right and wrong. That being said, punitive action should not be off the table and should be taken against nations that are clearly detrimental to the world of sports. A serious violation of the Olympic Charter warrants serious consequences. For honest competitors, no matter the situation, the only basis that should determine Olympic competitors is skill. Let the athletes compete, and let sports do what it does best: bring people together and celebrate their abilities and achievements.