If you’ve been following track and field athletes on social media lately, you’ve probably seen some of them tweeting or instagramming some bright yellow images for an organization called rule40. Some athletes are sticking post-it notes on their heads or hands, and some are wearing t-shirts emblazdoned with a yellow square that say “running shirt” on them.

This movement was born of the efforts of people like Nick Symmonds, the 800m specialist who just two months ago auctioned off advertising space on his shoulder and recently announced on twitter that he would have to scratch the Olympic trials this month. Essentially, it boils down to the fact that running professionally is difficult for all but the most top-tier runners in the more popular events because there is so little money to be made in track and field. Marathoners tend to do better and have access to larger prize pots, but the getting’s not so good for athletes that tend to compete primarily on the oval.

People on Symmonds’ side of the argument allege that the sweeping uniform deals that USATF has struck with Nike and that the IOC and individual nations’ Olympic committees may have with their sponsors hinder athletes’ abilities to provide for themselves and their families by supplementing their race winnings with sponsorship deals. After all, how can you expect to ask for as much money from a sponsor as you think you’re worth when you know that you can’t hold up your end of the bargain while competing on the biggest stage this sport ever gets: the Olympics. And even if you did ask for as much as you think you’re worth, why would any company want to pay you when their return on investment is so low for so much of the time that people’s eyes are on you?

#reality #fairplay #roadtorio #rio2016 #olympics #athletesrights #yellow #rule40

A photo posted by @rule40 on Jun 13, 2016 at 9:03am PDT

Others would argue that those lucrative league-wide sponsorship deals help grow the sport and allow organizations like USATF to help out struggling athletes with travel and competition costs. Supporters of the rule40 mission have spoken out against arguments of this nature by pointing out that athletes would be better able to provide for themselves if some of that revenue from Nike were distributed directly to each competitor in the organization.

The IOC takes matters a step further with its Rule 40. Not only are athletes required to wear their team’s kit before, during, and after competition, they are also forbidden from promoting any sponsor of theirs that is not also a sponsor of the Olympics for the duration of the games, plus five days before opening ceremonies and three days after closing ceremonies. The IOC claims this helps it protect its revenue stream to continue orchestrating one of the world’s greatest sporting events quadrennially and prevents “over-commercialization” of the games, but this rule seriously hampers athletes’ abilities to fulfill sponsorship agreements to the best of their capabilities. If you thought that part of the rule was bad, think about this: not only are athletes not able to mention their sponsors, but sponsors that have not paid the IOC to advertise are not able to mention their athletes competing at the games during that same blackout time period. New Balance can’t tweet “Congratulations to Boris Berian on bringing home the gold for Team USA!” until four days after closing ceremonies.

It’s official!!! Team NB! pic.twitter.com/BcmloN1U9l

— Boris Berian (@borisgump800) June 30, 2016

Now, the more notable athletes in Olympic sports like Michael Phelps and Kevin Durant aren’t hurt as much by these rules, although Phelps’ big apparel sponsor, Under Armour, certainly wishes this rule weren’t so restrictive. These athletes are making plenty of money through high profile sponsorship deals during the other 47 months of the Olympic period. But when you fall past household names and get to incredible athletes who don’t have that same advertising clout, the Olympics are their one shot at an international stage where people ordinarily not interested in the sport are cheering them on.

There are a number of high-profile athletes that have spoken up about what they feel is the injustice of Rule 40 and other restrictive sponsorship deals that they see no revenue from, despite being the ones forced to sacrifice for the deals. Kara Goucher, 2008 and 2012 Olympian, has made one of the most engaging posts on instagram about Rule 40, with over 2,000 likes. She has sponsorship deals with Oiselle, an apparel company, Skechers, nuun, Strava, Zensah, and Soleus, none of which are Olympic sponsors. Many of these companies command only a small share of their respective markets, and being able to show off the success of the Olympic-caliber athletes that use their products would be a huge boost to their credibility.

#athletesrights #rule40

A photo posted by Kara Goucher (@karagoucher) on Jun 11, 2016 at 9:23am PDT

Oiselle and the athletes that run for the apparel brand have been at the forefront of the rule40 outreach movement. Oiselle is a newer apparel brand that has made noise in the run-up to the Olympics this year by taking a stand on Rule 40 and punching up at Nike. In my opinion and experience alone, Oiselle seems to have been the most outspoken brand for athletes’ rights, and tends to sponsor athletes that do the same. Oiselle’s founder, Sally Bergesen, was recently interviewed by Outside Magazine on why she started her brand, and the values it has at its foundation, and the article is certainly worth a read.

When Boris Berian was fighting Nike over its interpretation of “matching terms,” Oiselle and their athletes came out to state that their contracts did not contain the performance reductions that Nike’s contracts did, and that the courts should not consider them to be industry standard. I follow a number of Oiselle athletes on various social media platforms, and throughout this summer, they have been impressively candid about the state of the sport and what being a professional athlete today truly entails. This is the future of the sport: openness and honesty. Unity in the face of gigantic organizations who are willing to sacrifice the athletes for their own gain, and hurt the sport for short-term gain. That’s what Rule 40 does, and that is what the IOC is doing to athletes all over the world.

Until we find some compromise that allows the IOC to offer a substantial enough incentive to get companies to sponsor the games, but still allow smaller companies to reap the benefits of their athletes’ performances on the international stage, most of the world’s best athletes will continue to train to represent their nations in poverty.