Olympic athletes could end up in serious trouble if they break controversial ‘rule 40’
There are a number of rules and regulations that Olympic athletes at this year’s games have to abide by - some admittedly stranger than others.
From swimsuit designs to the food on offer in the Olympic village, there’s a lot for athletes to be mindful of both in and out of the arena.
Brazilian swimmer Ana Carolina Vieira even found herself sent home after a rule breach, having left the village complex without permission with her boyfriend and teammate Gabriel Santos.
The pair had left the village, where most athletes for the Paris Games are staying, without their team's knowledge and their violation was discovered following their posts on social media.
Advert
But there’s one rule you may not have seen in headlines, despite the fact it’s been in force for several years.
It’s something that could be easily broken by athletes if they’re not careful, too.
It all comes down to what’s known as ‘Rule 40’, which relates to how athletes and their sponsors can use their image or attributes in advertising.
What is Rule 40?
The bye-law, which was introduced by the International Olympic Committee in the Olympic Charter, essentially means athletes are prevented from allowing their name or image in advertising materials without permission.
That means personal sponsors can’t even congratulate an athlete they sponsor while they’re competing.
The aim is to ensure exclusivity for all official Olympic partners, which for 2024 include the likes of Airbnb, Coca Cola, Panasonic, Samsung and Visa.
When is Rule 40 in effect?
As it applies to the period when the Olympics is running, the bye-law is in force between 18 July and 13 August this year.
Athletes, agents, athlete sponsors and NGBs should all be aware of Rule 40, which governs the way in which athletes (and their sponsors) can use their image or attributes in advertising during the Games Period for Paris 2024
Why is Rule 40 controversial?
Well, just how easy is it to ensure your name or image isn’t used? And how much might that blackout period affect athletes who may miss out on global exposure or even income?
Back in 2012, athletes staged a protest for precisely these reasons, arguing that Rule 40 is not only too restrictive, it’s also outdated.
Retired Jamaican born American track and field athlete Sanya Richards-Ross, a gold medal winner in Beijing and Athens who had deals with then-official sponsor BMW and Nike said that she worried her colleagues were being priced out of athletics by such rules.
“I’ve been very fortunate to do very well around the Olympics, but so many of my peers struggle in this sport,” she said.
“And I just think it’s unjust.”
She added: “People see the Olympics, they see the two weeks when athletes are at their best. It’s the most glorious time in their lives but they don’t see the three or four years leading up to the Olympic games when a lot of my peers are struggling to stay in the sport. The majority of track and field athletes don’t have sponsors and don’t have support to stay in the sport. A lot of my peers have second and third jobs to do this.”
At the time, IOC spokesman Mark Jones said in a statement that the body had no intention of backing down.
“A huge number of 10,500 athletes who are here would understand why we are doing this,” Jones said.
“For one month, we ask them not to endorse products not related to the Olympics that don’t actually give money back to the movement.”
Jess Hardiman