Mitchell Johnson: Commonwealth Games Australia should not be banning athletes from thanking Gina Rinehart

Maybe I’m missing something here.

Commonwealth Games Australia says the restriction preventing Australian swimmers from publicly thanking Gina Rinehart is not political. It says it is commercial and designed to protect the companies that have paid to become official Australian team sponsors.

I understand that part of the argument.

Rinehart and Hancock Prospecting are not official partners of Australia’s Commonwealth Games team. Sponsors pay significant money for that position and naturally expect their commercial rights to be protected.

Athletes shouldn’t be using official interviews to promote another company, display its logo or deliver some rehearsed advertising message.

But is simply thanking another human being really the same thing? That is where this starts to lose me.

Athletes regularly thank the people who have helped them reach the highest level. They thank their parents, partners, coaches, friends, former teammates, local clubs and support staff. They might also thank a local business owner, private backer or family friend who helped pay for equipment, travel, accommodation or training during the years when nobody else was interested.

Those people aren’t official Commonwealth Games sponsors either.

Why, then, should an athlete be prevented from personally thanking Rinehart for financially supporting them and their sport?

She has offered Australian swimmers $20,000 for an individual gold medal, $15,000 for silver and $10,000 for bronze. There are also bonuses for relay medals and world records. These aren’t insignificant amounts for athletes who have spent years training, competing and making enormous personal and financial sacrifices.

Commonwealth Games Australia has provided each team member with a $5,000 grant, which should be acknowledged. However, Rinehart’s medal incentives go much further for successful swimmers and are being provided because she has chosen to support them. She doesn’t have to do it.

Whatever people think of Gina Rinehart, her wealth or her politics is beside the point. The issue here should be whether athletes have the right to genuinely thank someone who has supported them throughout their careers.

If a swimmer finishes a race, wins a medal and says, “I would like to thank Gina for everything she has done for Australian swimming,” where is the commercial damage?

They aren’t necessarily promoting Hancock Prospecting. They aren’t holding up a company logo or encouraging people to buy a product. They are recognising a person who has put substantial money into their sport and directly supported athletes. That seems like normal human decency to me.

Kyle Chalmers has already spoken about how important the financial support can be. He also acknowledged that swimmers are fortunate compared with athletes in many other sports, where competitors can train like full-time professionals while earning very little.

That is the uncomfortable part of this story. Sporting organisations and governments want athletes to win medals, inspire the country and represent Australia with pride. They benefit from the success, publicity and emotion those athletes create.

Yet many competitors still struggle financially and must balance elite training with work or study. Then, when somebody offers meaningful financial rewards, the conversation somehow becomes about protecting commercial arrangements.

Of course, sponsorship agreements matter. Without sponsors, major sporting teams and events would struggle to operate. There must be rules around branding and athletes deliberately promoting rival companies during official appearances.

But common sense must also matter. There is a clear difference between advertising a business and thanking a person. If administrators cannot tell the difference, perhaps the rules need to be reconsidered.

The fact this has reportedly reached the point where athletes have been warned that thanking Rinehart could breach their team agreement makes the situation feel more political or personal than commercial, whether Commonwealth Games Australia intends it that way or not.

It also creates an unnecessary distraction. Instead of the focus being on the athletes and the competition, we are now debating who they are permitted to thank after winning or doing an official interview.

We shouldn’t be putting any focus into this whatsoever.

What matters are the athletes competing for our country and the way they represent all of us through every event, interview, celebration and disappointment along the way.

I always look forward to watching them compete and showing other countries what Australians are made of. Along the way, we will usually get a gem of an interview or a memorable quote that reminds us these hardworking athletes are still human. They are doing something they love and are fortunate enough to do, but they have also made enormous sacrifices and often travelled a lonely road to reach this level.

When they get their moment, they should be free to acknowledge the people who supported them through that journey.

It will be interesting to see what happens now the medals have started flooding in. An emotional athlete standing poolside may decide to thank the people they genuinely believe helped them get there.

If they do, what comes next? A warning? A fine? A breach notice for showing gratitude? A public slaying?

Surely Australian sport hasn’t reached that point.

Protect the official sponsors, absolutely. Stop ambush marketing and unauthorised commercial promotion.

But don’t tell athletes they cannot sincerely thank the people who supported them.

That isn’t good commercial management. It is administrators forgetting what sport, and basic human decency, should be about.