When Ukrainian skeleton athlete Vladyslav Heraskevych was pulled from competition at the Milan-Cortina Games for refusing to remove a helmet honoring more than 20 Ukrainian athletes and coaches killed in the war with Russia, the International Olympic Committee described its decision as one made “with regret.”
The IOC did not dispute the substance of his message. It disputed the timing and location.
Heraskevych was permitted to wear the helmet in training. He was offered the opportunity to display it off the ice. He was even offered the compromise of a black armband. What he was not permitted to do was wear it during official competition. According to the IOC and the International Bobsleigh and Skeleton Federation, that violated the Olympic Charter and athlete expression guidelines prohibiting political statements on the field of play.
Transform Legal Reasoning Into Business-Ready Results With General AI
Protégé™ General AI is fundamentally changing how legal professionals use AI in their everyday practice.
The distinction is narrow, but legally significant.
And it is one FIFA would be wise to examine closely as FIFA World Cup 26 approaches.
International sport relies on a regulatory premise that competition must remain “neutral.” The IOC’s Rule 50 framework and FIFA’s regulations prohibiting political, religious, or personal statements on equipment or apparel during matches reflect that principle.
Athletes and federations participate subject to contractual agreement with governing bodies. Those agreements incorporate expression restrictions. From a legal standpoint, sport federations generally retain authority to enforce those rules, and the Court of Arbitration for Sport has historically afforded substantial deference to governing bodies in matters of competition governance, provided the regulations are clear and applied consistently.
The Heraskevych decision illustrates how that authority operates in practice. The IOC drew a bright line between training and competition. Once the race began, symbolic expression became part of the official sporting spectacle, and therefore subject to restriction.
The legal risk for governing bodies does not arise from the existence of such rules. It arises from their application.
Selective Enforcement and Discrimination Claims
Heraskevych publicly suggested that other athletes had expressed views without facing similar consequences. Whether that claim has merit is less important than the structural vulnerability it highlights.
Expression regulations become legally fraught when enforcement appears uneven. A rule that is facially neutral but applied inconsistently can invite challenges grounded in procedural fairness, discrimination principles, or arbitrary enforcement. Even within the deferential framework of CAS jurisprudence, consistency is critical.
Now consider FIFA World Cup 26.
The tournament will be hosted across the United States, Canada, and Mexico, in a geopolitical environment marked by active armed conflicts, polarized domestic politics, and heightened athlete activism. It is not difficult to imagine scenarios involving wristbands worn in warmups, messaging on training shirts, symbolic armbands, or even visible tattoos revealed in celebration.
FIFA’s regulations prohibit political statements during official matches. But disputes rarely arise in the abstract. They arise in moments (sometimes minutes before kickoff) when enforcement decisions carry immediate competitive consequences.
The Timing Problem in Global Sport
One of the most underappreciated legal features of these disputes is remedial irreversibility.
Heraskevych indicated he would appeal to CAS. But the race proceeded. Medals were decided. Even if an appellate body were to find error, the competitive opportunity cannot realistically be restored.
The same would apply at a World Cup. If a player is suspended or removed from a match for refusing to comply with an expression directive, any subsequent appeal may offer declaratory relief or financial remedy. It will not replay the game.
That asymmetry increases the stakes of pre-competition enforcement decisions and places extraordinary pressure on governing bodies to ensure that policies are precise, transparent, and consistently applied.
Commercial and Security Overlay
FIFA World Cup 26 will be among the largest commercial sporting enterprises in history. FIFA must manage sponsor obligations, broadcast rights, host government relationships, and security considerations across three jurisdictions.
Sponsors demand brand control. Host governments demand stability. FIFA demands regulatory uniformity.
In that environment, governing bodies predictably err toward restriction when symbolic acts are perceived as endorsing or condemning geopolitical positions. Yet the more international sport markets itself as a platform for shared values, unity, and global solidarity, the more difficult it becomes to justify rigid enforcement distinctions that appear technical rather than principled.
The IOC’s position in Cortina rested on the premise that the helmet’s visibility during competition transformed remembrance into prohibited political expression. That line-drawing exercise may become increasingly difficult in sports where cameras capture every detail, from wristbands to tattoos.
The Olympic helmet controversy should not be viewed as an isolated dispute. It is a preview.
FIFA World Cup 26 will feature players from nations currently engaged in active conflicts. Some will have lost family members. Some will face domestic political pressures at home. Others may seek to distance themselves from the actions of their governments.
The legal question is not whether FIFA has authority to regulate expression. It does.
The question is whether it has constructed a framework that is sufficiently clear, consistently enforced, and capable of resolving disputes quickly enough to prevent irreparable competitive harm.
If a symbolic item worn during training is permitted but prohibited during match play, FIFA must be prepared to articulate not just the rule, but the rationale. And it must apply that rationale uniformly.
The IOC described its decision as one made with regret. That acknowledgment reflects the human dimension of these controversies.
But regret does not mitigate legal exposure if enforcement appears arbitrary.
As the world’s most watched tournament approaches, FIFA should treat the events in Cortina not as an Olympic issue, but as an early warning.
Because when the whistle blows in 2026, neutrality will not be a philosophical aspiration. It will be a regulatory decision with global consequences.
Michael J. Epstein, a Harvard Law School graduate, is a trial lawyer and managing partner of The Epstein Law Firm, P.A., a law firm based in New Jersey.