Rules 40 and 50 – which deal with athletes’ commercial rights and political demonstrations, respectively, at the Olympic Games – have been high on the news agenda and have been the source of many a headache for the International Olympic Committee (IOC).

A rise in Government interference in National Olympic Committees (NOCs), strictly prohibited in the Charter, is posing another problem for the IOC.

At the time of writing, several countries are at varying stages of introducing laws which curtail the power and jurisdiction of their NOCs, a dangerous move which could lead to a suspension from the IOC.

Among them are the likes of India, Greece, South Africa and Italy, which is due to host the 2026 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games. 

South Korea, which staged the 2018 Winter Games and was last month awarded the 2024 youth version, found itself in the IOC crosshairs for similar reasons in 2019.

This constitutes the very interference the Charter tries, some might say in vain, to prevent. 

After all, the document states that the IOC Executive Board can take action, including suspension, "if the constitution, law or other regulations in force in the country concerned, or any act by any Governmental or other body, causes the activity of the NOC or the making or expression of its will to be hampered."

The laws being drafted and considered in the above nations represent the very definition of hampering the NOCs. In some cases, these regulations even threaten the raison d'être of the organisations.

While the IOC can only intervene when these laws are passed, the organisation appears to adopt a selective refusal policy and seems to apply its own rules only when it suits.

Iran has committed numerous, flagrant breaches of the Olympic Charter - through its discrimination against Israeli athletes and its treatment of women to name two - but has avoided any suspension or action from the IOC.

IOC President Thomas Bach - a man who never resists an opportunity to cosy up to world leaders - claims this is because the body has received a letter, signed by the Iranian Sports Ministry, promising to adhere to the Charter in future. The trouble is previous letters have made the same vows and assurances, and the country has persisted with its own agenda.

It was far easier for the IOC to suspend Kuwait, for example, than Iran, considered among the most volatile countries in the world.

Consistency in applying the regulations which govern the Olympic Movement is severely lacking. 

Imagine the United States introduced legislation which interfered with the country’s all-powerful NOC. Would the IOC suspend one of the planet’s biggest sporting contributors? I highly doubt it.

The lack of consistency from the IOC when applying the rules which govern the Olympic Movement also goes against Bach’s repeated claim that the organisation he leads is politically neutral.

In some ways, the IOC is powerless as it does not have the ability to sanction Governments and can only punish the NOCs.

It is perhaps for this reason the Charter leaves the responsibility to adhere to the document to the NOCs, even if the decision or law which contravenes the rules is beyond their control and enacted by the Government.

"In order to fulfil their mission, the NOCs may cooperate with governmental bodies, with which they shall achieve harmonious relations," the document reads.

"However, they shall not associate themselves with any activity which would be in contradiction with the Olympic Charter.

"NOCs must preserve their autonomy and resist all pressures of any kind, including but not limited to political, legal, religious or economic pressures which may prevent them from complying with the Olympic Charter."

Given the power Governments have over their NOCs, the rule appears unfair and it might be time for it to be reworded, or certainly rethought, to reflect the NOC's lack of influence in the whole process.

Some might argue NOCs should not be sanctioned as a direct result of actions taken by their respective Government as the main people affected are sport’s most important protagonists, the athletes.

It hardly seems appropriate that an athlete should be denied the chance to compete under their own flag at the Olympic Games, for example, because of the Government breaching the Charter. On the other hand, there has to be some form of deterrent, while suspending a NOC also has direct consequence for the Government, including from an economic standpoint.

The IOC finds itself in a tough spot when dealing with Governments, and the relationship between the two is very much a balancing act.

After all, the IOC partly relies on Governments to help fund hosting the Olympic Games, but protecting the autonomy of sport should not be exchanged for financial support.

There are also some positives to Government interference and certain NOCs could certainly do with the oversight they provide, particularly seeing as public authorities are often their main source of funding.

When asked about this subject at a press conference last month, Bach gave a thoughtful, yet reserved, answer.

"International sport can only work if the international rules of sport are respected by everybody,” he said.

"If tomorrow, a Government thinks the penalty kick in football is not any more 11 metres but 12, then it is impossible to organise international events and the same applies to the basic rules of the governance of sport.

"This is why we are looking and studying very carefully the statutes of the respective NOCs and relations with the Governments.

"If a Government is funding something like an NOC, it does not mean that the Government cannot respect the autonomy of the organisation which receives the funds.

"These Governments do in many other respects and with many other organisations. 

"We are also looking in sport for a partnership with Governments and with politics in the mutual respect of each other’s rights and obligations."