How might U.S. Olympic athletes’ public expression of national identity influence the politicization of sport and reshape future Olympic governance policies?
The intersection of U.S. Olympic athletes' expressions of national identity with sport politicization represents one of the most consequential governance challenges facing the Olympic movement. Current events at the 2026 Milano Cortina Winter Olympics illustrate how athlete speech—even when framed around national identity rather than explicit protest—triggers intense political polarization that pressures both the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and national Olympic bodies to reconsider their regulatory frameworks2026 Olympics: US athletes find refuge from politics in Olympic ideals - CSMonitor.comcsmonitor +1.
The Olympic Charter establishes a dual regulatory structure governing athlete expression. Rule 50 prohibits "any kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda" in Olympic sites, venues, or other areasHuman rights and the Olympic Charter | The International Sports Law Journal | Springer Nature Linkspringer . Meanwhile, Rule 40(2), amended in 2023, affirms that "all competitors, 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"Olympic Charter amendments approved by 141st IOC ...olympics .
The 2023 amendments to the Fundamental Principles of Olympism introduced explicit human rights language, requiring respect for "internationally recognised human rights and universal fundamental ethical principles within the remit of the Olympic Movement"Human rights and the Olympic Charter | The International Sports Law Journal | Springer Nature Linkspringer +1. However, legal scholars note significant tensions between these provisions. The relationship between Rule 50's absolute prohibition on demonstrations and Rule 40(2)'s protection of expression remains unclear—whether the prohibition takes precedence but is relaxed by the Guidelines, or whether freedom of expression takes precedence unless categorized as propagandaHuman rights and the Olympic Charter | The International Sports Law Journal | Springer Nature Linkspringer .
Athletes remain prohibited from expression during official ceremonies (including medal ceremonies and opening/closing ceremonies), during competition on the field of play, and in the Olympic VillageIOC Will Maintain Looser Athlete Expression Guidelines for Paris 2024 Olympic Gamesswimswam +1. Permitted venues include mixed zones, press conferences, team meetings, social media, and on the field of play prior to competition start—provided expression is consistent with Olympic principles, not targeted against people or countries, and not disruptiveIOC Will Maintain Looser Athlete Expression Guidelines for Paris 2024 Olympic Gamesswimswam .
The 2026 Winter Olympics have produced a defining case study in how national identity expression triggers political intervention. U.S. freestyle skier Hunter Hess told reporters: "It brings up mixed emotions to represent the U.S. right now. There's obviously a lot going on that I'm not the biggest fan of, and I think a lot of people aren't. Just because I'm wearing the flag doesn't mean I represent everything that's going on in the U.S."2026 Olympics: US athletes find refuge from politics in Olympic ideals - CSMonitor.comcsmonitor +1. Two-time Olympian Chris Lillis similarly expressed that he felt "heartbroken" over administration actions while affirming he "would never want to represent a different country"Team USA skiers face backlash over having 'mixed emotions' representing US | Fox Newsfoxnews .
Alpine skier Mikaela Shiffrin articulated a more affirmative framing, stating she is "very focused on representing the version of America that's respectful, loving, sharing, open, and looks out for one another"2026 Olympics: US athletes find refuge from politics in Olympic ideals - CSMonitor.comcsmonitor . These statements—notably not protests against specific policies but rather nuanced expressions about what national representation means—nevertheless generated intense political backlash.
President Trump responded on Truth Social: "U.S. Olympic Skier, Hunter Hess, a real Loser, says he doesn't represent his Country in the current Winter Olympics. If that's the case, he shouldn't have tried out for the Team, and it's too bad he's on it. Very hard to root for someone like this"Trump lashes out at American Olympian who expressed negative view of US politics - POLITICOpolitico . Representative Byron Donalds posted: "YOU chose to wear our flag. YOU chose to represent our country. If that's too hard for you, then GO HOME"As US Olympians call for tolerance and LGBTQ rights ...stlpr . Representative Tim Burchett called on Hess to "shut up and go play in the snow"Trump lashes out at American Olympian who expressed negative view of US politics - POLITICOpolitico .
The United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC) responded by condemning threats against athletes and affirming support: "The USOPC stands firmly behind Team USA athletes and remains committed to their well-being and safety, both on and off the field of play"Olympics-U.S. athletes say they have right to speak up after Trump ...wkzo . The organization noted an "uptick in abusive and harmful messages directed at the athletes during competition" and stated that mental health and security resources remain available 24/7As US Olympians call for tolerance and LGBTQ rights, some face Trump attacks and online hate | WYPRwypr .
The USOPC has adopted a notably more permissive stance than the IOC's baseline requirements. The organization's official position states that it "values the expression of Team USA athletes and believes their right to advocate for racial and social justice, and to be a positive force for change, absolutely aligns with the fundamental values of equality that define Team USA and the Olympic and Paralympic movements"Racial and Social Justice Demonstrations - USOPCusopc .
The USOPC's delegation rules explicitly supplement rather than replace IOC Rules 50 and IPC Handbook provisions, while "better defining the USOPC's own requirements and commitments" and providing clarity around support offered to athletes who engage in demonstrationsRacial and Social Justice Demonstrations - USOPCusopc . This approach emerged after the USOPC's Team USA Council on Racial and Social Justice argued that Rule 50 targets "historically marginalized and minoritized populations within the Olympic and Paralympic community, most notably Black athletes and athletes of color"Despite Protest Rules, the Olympics Have Never Been Neutraltime .
The Council articulated a fundamental challenge to the neutrality principle: "the ability to stay neutral in times of oppression is an expression of privilege that is granted only to those in whose image the Games were created"Despite Protest Rules, the Olympics Have Never Been Neutraltime . This framing positions neutrality itself as a political stance rather than an apolitical default.
Academic research provides conceptual tools for understanding why expressions of national identity generate such intense political responses. Social identity theory posits that individuals classify themselves into groups sharing similar characteristics, enhancing self-esteem through group membership while labeling out-groups negatively[PDF] Athlete Activism, Nationalistic Attitudes, and Emotional Responseijoc . When acts threaten an individual's feelings of nationalism—such as kneeling during the national anthem or expressing ambivalence about national representation—members of the in-group respond to mitigate the threat and reinforce their collective identity[PDF] Athlete Activism, Nationalistic Attitudes, and Emotional Responseijoc .
Research has found that individuals displaying higher levels of nationalism respond with more negative emotions to athlete activism, supporting the predictions of social identity threat management[PDF] Athlete Activism, Nationalistic Attitudes, and Emotional Responseijoc . The distinction between patriotism (love of country based on what it does) and nationalism (pride regardless of conduct) maps onto divergent interpretations of athlete expressionPatriotism and Nationalism Racing for the USA - CTStrainright +1.
The polarization observed in sport mirrors broader societal political divisions. As one scholar noted: "The polarization we see in sport maps quite neatly and directly onto the polarization we see in society on political attitudes more generally. Indeed...it is exceedingly difficult to disentangle and distinguish the correlates and determinants of public attitudes toward athletic activism from other political issues and controversies"Retheorizing the Cultural Politics of Sport After a Decade of Activism, Populism, and Polarization - Douglas Hartmann, 2024 sagepub .
The national anthem itself functions as what Victor Turner termed a "multi-vocal symbol"—"capable of more than one interpretation, hence becoming a possible cause of conflict as different groups attempt to have their particular definition adopted as the standard" The Performance and Reception of Race-Based Athletic Activism: Toward a Critical, Dramaturgical Theory of Sport - PMC nih . Athletes are expected to convey deference to nationalistic ritual, yet these same symbols provide "prime pre-game space and performative opportunity for athletes to challenge established understandings of equality, racial injustice, and nation" The Performance and Reception of Race-Based Athletic Activism: Toward a Critical, Dramaturgical Theory of Sport - PMC nih .
The 1968 Mexico City Olympics established the template for how Olympic governance responds to athlete expression. Tommie Smith and John Carlos's raised fists on the medal stand prompted IOC President Avery Brundage to insist the U.S. Olympic Committee suspend the athletes and dismiss them from the Olympic Village(PDF) Athlete activism and the Olympic Games - ResearchGateresearchgate . The USOC labeled their dissent "untypical exhibitionism" violating "basic standards of sportsmanship and good manners," pivoting toward intimidation: "A repetition of such incidents by other members of the U.S. team can only be considered a willful disregard of Olympic principles that would warrant the severest penalties"(PDF) Athlete activism and the Olympic Games - ResearchGateresearchgate .
Yet institutional evaluation evolves. In 2016, President Obama honored Carlos and Smith at the White House, noting "Their powerful silent protest in the 1968 Games was controversial, but it woke folks up and created greater opportunity for those that followed"(PDF) Athlete activism and the Olympic Games - ResearchGateresearchgate . Sport governing bodies have in some cases "later acknowledged and congratulated these athletes for their advocacy" after initially sanctioning themOlympics: Overturn Athlete's Disqualification for Speaking Outsportandrightsalliance .
The 2019 Pan American Games demonstrated continued tension. U.S. hammer thrower Gwen Berry raised her fist and fencer Race Imboden knelt during medal ceremonies, prompting the USOPC to place both on probation for a year(PDF) Athlete activism and the Olympic Games - ResearchGateresearchgate . The IOC subsequently issued guidelines explicitly prohibiting "gestures of a political nature, like a hand gesture or kneeling"(PDF) Athlete activism and the Olympic Games - ResearchGateresearchgate .
The IOC Athletes' Commission conducted a consultation with over 3,500 athletes in April 2021, resulting in recommendations that informed current GuidelinesIOC EB approves one change of nationality and Guidelines on Athlete Expression for Paris 2024olympics . However, the outcome disappointed activist athletes. The USOPC Athletes' Advisory Council stated: "We are disappointed that the work of the IOC Athletes' Commission did not result in a meaningful or impactful change to IOC Rule 50. Until the IOC changes its approach of feeding the myth of the neutrality of sport or protecting the status quo, the voices of marginalized athletes will continue to be silenced"Statement on the IOC Athletes’ Commission Rule 50 Recommendations | USOPCusopc .
The consultation revealed divergent national perspectives. Some National Olympic Committees, including Russia and China, along with the IOC's own Athletes' Commission, endorsed maintaining Rule 50Despite Protest Rules, the Olympics Have Never Been Neutraltime . This creates governance challenges when a U.S.-based framing of expression rights confronts different cultural and political traditions represented within the Olympic movement's 206 NOCsThe Inherent Dilemma of Olympic Protest Rulesoutsideonline .
Legal scholars have identified paradoxes within the Olympic Charter's current structure. While Rule 40.2 recognizes participants' right to freedom of expression, Rule 50.2 continues to prohibit demonstration. Researchers note these "continue to significantly constrain athletes' personal marketing activities" and "infringe upon their right to privacy as well as freedom of speech in the context of their social media sharing"Full article: Merely plastering a deep cut? A critical policy analysis of the International Olympic Committee's (IOC) human rights commitmenttandfonline .
Historical analysis reveals how athlete pressure has driven incremental IOC reform. The evolution of Rule 40 demonstrates this dynamic: the 2012 #wedemandchange athlete campaign, the 2016 sponsors campaign, and legal actions in the United States and Germany culminated in relaxation of commercial restrictions in 2019Full article: Merely plastering a deep cut? A critical policy analysis of the International Olympic Committee's (IOC) human rights commitmenttandfonline . In Germany specifically, a complaint by the German Athlete Commission and the Federal Association of the German Sports Goods Industry with the German Competition Authority resulted in initial relaxation of Rule 40 for German athletes, prompting the IOC to amend regulations more broadly to preempt further legal challengesFull article: Merely plastering a deep cut? A critical policy analysis of the International Olympic Committee's (IOC) human rights commitmenttandfonline .
The European Court of Human Rights has established important precedents. In Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland, the ECtHR recognized the lack of genuine choice faced by athletes compelled to accept arbitration by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. In Semenya v. Switzerland, the court clarified that "sports federations cannot escape scrutiny simply because they act under private law or international sporting rules" and that states remain responsible under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights Olympic Dilemma: Discrimination Against Athletes at the Olympic Games Based on Their Nationality | Entertainment and Sports Law Journal entsportslawjournal .
Legal scholars argue that restriction of expression "that generally appeals for the observance of human rights, the necessity of peace, mutual respect, and understanding is not in harmony with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" Olympic Dilemma: Discrimination Against Athletes at the Olympic Games Based on Their Nationality | Entertainment and Sports Law Journal entsportslawjournal . Rule 50's vague wording and inconsistent enforcement render it "unpredictable and legally questionable," unlikely to meet strict Convention standards for legitimate and proportionate interference with fundamental rights Olympic Dilemma: Discrimination Against Athletes at the Olympic Games Based on Their Nationality | Entertainment and Sports Law Journal entsportslawjournal .
Critics have identified a fundamental asymmetry in Olympic governance: Rule 50 appears to apply to athletes but not to host nations. As one analyst noted, host nations can "use the opening ceremony for their cultural propaganda while athletes who raised their fist or kneel at the medal ceremony will get expelled from the olympics as we saw in 1968. The paradox is that if you have a set of rules they have to apply to all"The Human Rights of Athletesyoutube .
The IOC itself has long struggled with nationalism despite official neutrality principles. Olympic historian David Wachinski observed that "for years the international Olympic Committee tried to limit the focus on nationalism by refusing to release National medal totals...finally they say okay we're going to put a billboard up to show you the National medal total but we're not going to talk about it"National Pride a Strong Motivating Force For Athletesyoutube . The Charter states that "The Olympic Games are competitions between athletes in individual or team events and not between countries"Olympic Charter - Wikipediawikipedia , yet the entire structure of NOCs, national uniforms, flags, and anthems institutionalizes national competition.
Polling data reveals complex public attitudes. About 70% of U.S. adults root for American athletes always (48%) or most of the time (24%) during international sporting events, with older adults more likely to do soThe Public's Interest in the 2024 Summer Olympics - SSRSssrs . Americans are among the least likely globally to believe there is "too much" nationalism on display during the OlympicsAmericans support a diplomatic boycott of the Winter Olympics | Ipsosipsos . This suggests Americans embrace Olympic nationalism while potentially opposing individual athlete expressions that complicate the national narrative.
Several trajectories emerge from this analysis. First, the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics will test whether hosting on U.S. soil amplifies or constrains athlete expression controversies. The IOC's requirement that host governments guarantee compliance with the Olympic CharterHuman rights and the Olympic Charter | The International Sports Law Journal | Springer Nature Linkspringer intersects with First Amendment protections that may limit enforcement options against American athletes speaking in their home country.
Second, the distinction between national identity expression and political protest is collapsing in practice. Hess's statement about "mixed emotions" was not a protest against a policy but a reflection on what representation means—yet it triggered political intervention indistinguishable from responses to explicit activism. This suggests governance frameworks attempting to permit some expression while prohibiting other expression will face increasing difficulty in application.
Third, divergent approaches among NOCs create pressure toward either harmonization or fragmentation. The USOPC's permissive stance contrasts with NOCs that endorsed strict Rule 50 enforcementDespite Protest Rules, the Olympics Have Never Been Neutraltime . Athletes competing for different nations face different consequences for similar expression, undermining the principle of equal treatment.
Fourth, legal challenges may force governance changes independent of IOC deliberation. The ECtHR's recognition of state responsibility for private sporting bodies and its requirements for proportionate interference with expression rights Olympic Dilemma: Discrimination Against Athletes at the Olympic Games Based on Their Nationality | Entertainment and Sports Law Journal entsportslawjournal suggest that European athletes may successfully challenge Rule 50 enforcement through human rights litigation.
Fifth, the economic dimension intersects with expression rights. While the IOC generates approximately $370,000 in revenue per athlete, athletes receive no direct share of this profitFull article: Merely plastering a deep cut? A critical policy analysis of the International Olympic Committee's (IOC) human rights commitmenttandfonline . Rule 40 continues to constrain athletes' commercial opportunitiesFull article: Merely plastering a deep cut? A critical policy analysis of the International Olympic Committee's (IOC) human rights commitmenttandfonline . This economic imbalance undermines IOC legitimacy in demanding expression restrictions from athletes who bear the labor without proportionate compensation.
The fundamental tension remains unresolved: the Olympics depend on nationalism for their emotional and commercial appeal while officially maintaining that sport should be apolitical. As one coach reflected: "National pride has the ability to elevate performance, to bring out the best in people and in competitors. Nationalism, on the other hand, has much darker undertones"Patriotism and Nationalism Racing for the USA - CTStrainright . U.S. athletes navigating this terrain—whether through patriotic celebration or nuanced reflection on national representation—reveal that the line between pride and politics cannot be clearly drawn, and governance frameworks that assume such clarity will continue to generate controversy and ultimately, reform pressure.