Olympic Neutrality vs. Freedom of Expression: The Legal Analysis.
This MatchPoint Talk addresses the complex regulatory conflict triggered by the recent events at the Milano-Cortina 2026 Games. We move beyond the headlines to examine the case from a strictly technical perspective, analyzing the grounds for the CAS decision and the tension between the IOC’s neutrality regulations and international human rights standards.
On 12 February 2026, Ukrainian skeleton racer Vladyslav Heraskevych had his Olympic accreditation withdrawn, effectively disqualifying him from the Milano-Cortina Winter Games. The reason: Wearing a “Helmet of Remembrance” depicting the images of 20 Ukrainian athletes killed in the war with Russia.
The IOC and IBSF ruled that this act of mourning constituted “political propaganda,” violating the strict neutrality imposed by Rule 50.2 of the Olympic Charter.
This decision triggered an urgent appeal to the CAS Ad Hoc Division — which was ultimately dismissed — raising a critical legal question that outlasts the Games: Can a silent act of remembrance be classified as prohibited political speech?
To navigate the complex intersection of the Olympic Charter and International Human Rights Law, we are joined by two of the most respected voices in the field.
Antoine Duval (Senior Researcher, TMC Asser Instituut). An authority on the intersection of sports law and human rights. He will dissect the CAS Ad Hoc Division’s obligation to ensure IOC decisions comply with international human rights standards, specifically under the ECHR.
Mark James (Professor, Manchester Metropolitan University). A world-renowned expert on Rule 50 and athlete activism. He will address the inconsistencies in the IOC’s “Guidelines on Athlete Expression” and analyze why the “Helmet of Remembrance” was treated differently than the protests at Paris 2024.
Join the debate that is redefining the constitutional boundaries of the Olympic Movement.
