When Representing Your Country Becomes Political
When it comes to sporting events, there is perhaps nothing more stirring than the sight of victorious athletes standing on the Olympic podium as their national anthem is played. Similarly, the World Cup is a global phenomenon in which the waving of national colors reaches fever pitch. Certainly, the organizers of the Olympics and the World Cup—the IOC and FIFA—have created events built on national pride. But what happens when the balance tips and the actions of a country’s athletes are deemed too political?
Here is a look at a number of times when FIFA or the IOC determined that athletes—or their national teams—had crossed the line.
Haiti’s 2026 World Cup kit
FIFA’s Rule 4 says the following are not permitted:
- any person(s), living or dead (unless part of the official competition name)
- any local, regional, national or international political party/organisation/group, etc.
- any local, regional or national government or any of its departments, offices or functions
- any organisation which is discriminatory
- any organisation whose aims/actions are likely to offend a notable number of people
- any specific political act/event
The Caribbean country of Haiti made headlines early in the 2026 World Cup—not for making its first World Cup appearance in half a century but for a scene that appeared in the lower portion of its team jersey. The original uniform (or kit) featured a mural depicting the Battle of Vertières, which secured Haiti’s independence from France in 1803. The design showed freedom fighters raising the Haitian flag in victory.
" height="20" alt="HEW Logo">
Once FIFA notified the Haitian team that the uniforms would not be allowed, the team had the scene removed from the jerseys. But Saeta, the company that made the uniforms, said that design was meant “as a tribute to the men and women who contribute every day to Haiti’s future and was not intended as a political statement.”
Haiti’s 2026 Olympic uniforms
The World Cup controversy wasn’t even the first of the year for the nation of 12 million. The country sent just two athletes to the Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Olympic Games. But the uniforms created by Stella Jean were a stunning rendition of a 2006 painting of Haitian revolutionary Toussaint Louverture astride a red stallion against a lush green and blue background depicting the island’s natural landscape.
Just a day before the small Haitian team was to march in the opening ceremonies, it received hastily modified uniforms that retained the red stallion and the azure sky. Gone, however, was Louverture, leaving the horse riderless. Designer Jean ultimately thought the uniforms were even more effective, saying, “His absence spoke louder than his presence.”
2026 “helmet of remembrance”
Ukrainian skeleton racer Vladyslav Heraskevych came to Milan with a very real chance of winning his country’s first Olympic medal in the sport. But he would never compete. Heraskevych had said he would only race in a helmet that bore the likenesses of 24 Ukrainian athletes and children who had died as a result of the Russia-Ukraine War. The IOC tried to compromise, allowing him to wear the helmet during training runs, but ultimately, when it became clear that Heraskevych would not back down from his insistence that he wear it during competition, his accreditation was revoked, meaning he could not compete. The decision followed a last-minute meeting between IOC president Kirsty Coventry and Heraskevych. Coventry spoke after the meeting, with tears running down her cheeks, saying of the controversial helmet, “It’s a message of memory. But this is literally about the rules and the regulations. And sadly, that just means no messaging is allowed.”
The trusted destination for professionals, college students, and lifelong learners.
SUBSCRIBE
For his part, Heraskevych said that to have competed wearing a different helmet would have been a “betrayal” of those who fought and died for his country.
Athletes without a country
The IOC could be seen as being at odds with its own mandate against political messaging, particularly when it comes to Russia and Ukraine. In 2023, to mark the first anniversary of the war, the IOC issued a statement that said in part:
The IOC condemned the senseless war in the strongest terms on the day of the invasion. With no end in sight to the fighting after one year of bloodshed, the IOC reiterates its condemnation of the war in Ukraine, which is a blatant violation of the Olympic Truce that was in effect at the time, and the Olympic Charter. For this reason, the IOC sanctioned the Russian and Belarusian states and governments, who are solely responsible for this war, in an unprecedented way: no international sports events organised in Russia and Belarus; no flag, anthems or other national symbols whatsoever displayed; and no government or state officials accredited for any international sports events.
In the 2024 and 2026 Olympic Games, teams from Russia and Belarus were not allowed to compete because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, although some select athletes who could demonstrate that they had not supported the war were allowed to compete as Individual Neutral Athletes (referred to as AIN, from the French athlètes individuels neutres). When they stood on the podium, an AIN flag was raised and a special IOC anthem was played.
1968: Black gloves and stocking feet
One of the most memorable—and divisive—protests at the Olympics featured U.S. athletes at the 1968 Games in Mexico City. When Tommie Smith and John Carlos took the podium after winning gold and bronze in the 200-meter sprint, they were in stocking feet and each wore a black glove; Smith wore a black scarf, Carlos a string of beads. When “The Star-Spangled Banner” began to play, they bowed their heads and raised their fists.
Afterward they would say it wasn’t a Black Power salute but a human rights salute. (Smith, Carlos, and silver medalist Australian Peter Norman wore human rights badges on their uniforms.) Smith and Carlos would explain that taking off their shoes represented Black poverty, the beads recalled a history of lynchings, and the scarf celebrated Black pride. For their silent protest, the IOC ordered the U.S. Olympic Committee to throw them out of the Games, saying the rest of the U.S. team would be ejected if Smith and Carlos stayed. IOC president Avery Brundage was outraged at the display, saying, “Good manners and sportsmanship are more important than athletic ability. We do not intend to permit the Olympic Games to be used for demonstrations of any kind.”
Carlos and Smith were ostracized for their actions for decades. Smith, who was the first person to run the 200-meter event in less than 20 seconds, would never again race. In 2016 in an interview with Smithsonian magazine, Smith reflected on the role of politics and the Olympics:
I was told by some of my friends that what happened shouldn’t have happened there, it should have happened on the track and no politics should be involved in the Olympic Games. But the Olympics are basically politics. It is politicized now because of the uniform, the money one gets and the need to be patriotic in anything you do.