Read on Twitter
The IOC Athletes’ Commission just published its recommendations on the Rule 50, concluding that it should be “restructured” but ultimately maintained. 
How was the decision reached and what does it mean? Let’s dig into this
https://www.olympic.org/athlete365/voice/ioc-athletes-commissions-recommendations-on-rule-50-and-athlete-expression/
As a reminder, the Olympic Chart’s Rule 50 states that political,religious or racial demonstrations are prohibited in all Olympic sites and serves as a framework to “protect the neutrality of the Games”.This, for example, would be forbidden by the IOC: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/11/sports/race-imboden-fencer-kneels.html?fbclid=IwAR0M27ouVuB1DCmGbrl_xZJlQ9vtqo7ZsDoriFJUf1509FiEURqOtLr3qOI
Based on the AC’s recommendations, it still should be prohibited. While athletes are to be given more “opportunities” to express their views, protesting during “podium, field of play and official ceremonies” won’t be allowed during the upcoming Games in Tokyo and Beijing.
The IOC contracted Publicis Sport & Entertainment for a quantitative study, which found that 67% of the 3,547 surveyed athletes supported a ban on podium protests. To see the full report: https://www.olympic.org/athlete365/app/uploads/2021/04/21042021-Athlete-Expression-Consultation-PSE.pdf
3,547 is a relatively small number. For comparison, 11,091 athletes are expected at the Tokyo Olympic Games.The most represented NOC is China
with 14% of respondents, compared to only 7% Americans 
. The most represented disciplines are “Aquatics” and “Athletics”.
Reports by NOCs show clear national trends. Chinese and Russian athletes tend to oppose athlete activism while American, British and Canadian athletes largely support it.Such disparities were to be expected, as protest cultures and regulations widely vary across countries.
It should be noted that half (49%) NEVER expressed their views PUBLICLY, while almost 1/4 (22%) NEVER even expressed their views PRIVATELY. Such low level of political engagement then easily leads to the striking 67% of athletes which opposed podium protests.
Ultimately, there is nothing surprising about the quantitative results of the survey. 
What is more surprising is that it seems to have largely weighed in the AC’s drafting of the final recommendations. Why?
Protest, often aimed at changing society’s power structures, does make people uncomfortable. For example, Smith and Carlos’ podium protest in 1968, now widely praised, was largely decried by the majority of Americans at first.
Protest as a public expression is often used by people whose voices cannot be heard otherwise. It is therefore expected that such voices won’t be heard in transnational quantitative surveys such as the one commissioned by the IOC.
The AC, however, does make some concessions on athletes’ expression, notably during the Opening and Closing Ceremonies, through athlete apparel or at the Olympic Village.
It also asks for more clarity on sanctions.
The AC recommendations and the maintained ban on protest during ceremonies and competitions ultimately confirms the attachment of the IOC to (the myth of) the “neutrality of the “Olympic Games”. 
To see the recommendations: https://www.olympic.org/athlete365/app/uploads/2021/04/IOC_AC_Consultation_Report-Athlete_Expression_21.04.2021.pdf
