- within Technology topic(s)
- with readers working within the Pharmaceuticals & BioTech industries
Every two years, viewers across the globe tune in to watch their country represented on the world stage. The Winter and Summer Olympics offer athletes the opportunity to compete in the international spotlight – many for the first time. The competition is unmatched, as is the platform athletes are given to voice social and political positions. This year's 2026 Winter Olympics in Milan-Cortina has tested the line drawn between expression and political speech. In post-performance interviews, several athletes have ventured beyond discussion of their Olympic events. For instance, a Norwegian biathlete medalist candidly admitting to cheating on his girlfriend during a post-race interview, while an American skier criticized her gold medal after it broke mid-celebration. These moments, though not political, reflect athletes' willingness to use their Olympic visibility to speak openly on personal and social matters.
The International Olympic Committee ("IOC"), the Olympics governing body, has attempted to rein in athlete speech by issuing all athletes "Expression Guidelines" intended to maintain the Games' overarching mission: fostering global peace through sport.1 Specifically, Rule 50.2 of the Olympic Charter states, "[n]o kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas." Nevertheless, some Winter Olympians are challenging these guidelines, particularly when social unrest is prevalent in their home countries. One U.S. Freestyle skier, Hunter Hess, admitted he was conflicted about representing the U.S. given that he is "not the biggest fan of" what's going on in the U.S. To date, U.S. President Trump responded to Hess's commentary, calling the Olympic, World Cup and X Games competitor a "real loser."
In a more divisive exhibit of expression, Ukrainian skeleton racer Vladyslav Heraskevych displayed photographs of fallen Ukrainian athletes on his racing helmet.2 The "helmet of remembrance" featured portraits of more than 20 Ukrainian athletes and coaches killed during Russia's invasion of Ukraine. (Russia is banned from competing as a nation in the 2026 Winter Olympics, but individual Russian athletes can compete as "Individual Neutral Athletes.")3 While Heraskevych described the helmet as a tribute, the IOC deemed it a political protest. After initial negotiations, the IOC permitted Heraskevych to wear his helmet in training runs, but ultimately barred him from competing with it. On the morning of Heraskevych's competition, once he made clear his intention to wear his helmet at the race, he received the official news that the IOC disqualified him from the Olympics, citing a violation of Rule 50.2 as a basis of disqualification.
Heraskevych's disqualification sparked an international reaction. After the disqualification, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy awarded Heraskevych the nation's highest civilian honor, the Order of Freedom, for his recognition of the victims of Russia's four-year war. President Zelenskyy condemned the IOC's decision, stating, "Sport shouldn't mean amnesia, and the Olympic movement should help stop wars, not play into the hands of aggressors."4 Many social media responses echoed President Zelenskyy's sentiment. Heraskevych asserted the decision was especially painful considering other athletes expressed themselves publicly without similar consequences, leading him to view the ruling as discriminatory. In its defense, the IOC pointed to athletes' ability to voice their views on social media without censorship, even if such expression is restricted during competition.
The challenges surrounding athlete expression at the 2026 Winter Olympics reflects a broader and increasingly familiar tension within the U.S. workplace. The Heraskevych incident illustrates how difficult it can be to distinguish between political expression and personal expression – a distinction that U.S. employers likewise struggle to define when regulating employee speech. Under U.S. law, private employers generally have broad authority to restrict political speech at work, much as the IOC regulates political propaganda during Olympic events. However, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), along with various state laws, protect "concerted activity" related to workplace conditions, which can complicate that authority. In both contexts, the central question persists: when does personal conviction become political advocacy? Just as the IOC seeks to preserve the Olympic Games as a neutral arena, many U.S. employers aim to maintain workplaces free from political division and reputational risk. Yet, like Olympic athletes, employees do not leave their identities, beliefs, or personal convictions at the door. As social and political issues become more intertwined with professional environments, institutions must navigate the difficult balance between organizational neutrality and individual expression.
Footnotes
1 https://img.olympics.com/images/image/private/w_auto/primary/hlhnqokktckbxgc3vbd7
3 https://www.olympics.com/ioc/milano-cortina-2026-individual-neutral-athletes
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
