Summary: The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is facing criticism after a T-shirt featuring design elements linked to the 1936 Berlin Olympics appeared in official Olympic online stores and quickly sold out. Holocaust organisations and German politicians argue the item echoes Nazi-era propaganda aesthetics and should not be commercialised without clear context. The IOC says the limited-run product is primarily about protecting trademarks from misuse, insisting that safeguarding Olympic heritage does not mean celebrating the regime that hosted the Games.

A “heritage” product that sparked a modern controversy

Coverage on 15 February 2026 drew attention to the shirt—marketed as part of an Olympic “heritage” line—using imagery associated with Berlin 1936, an Olympics widely recognised as a major propaganda showcase for Adolf Hitler’s Germany. The merchandise triggered political and civic backlash in Germany, where critics warned that packaging such visuals as lifestyle apparel risks softening public memory of how sport was instrumentalised during one of Europe’s darkest chapters.

Among the most vocal critics was Berlin Greens politician Klara Schedlich, who argued that the 1936 Games were a “central propaganda tool” of the Nazi regime and that selling a product echoing that period’s iconography is inappropriate—particularly if consumers encounter it without explicit educational framing. International coverage, including Euronews, reported that Holocaust-linked organisations also raised concerns.

The IOC’s response: trademark protection, not nostalgia

Speaking in Milan, IOC spokesperson Mark Adams defended the decision, saying the IOC is obligated to protect its trademarks and prevent uncontrolled use of Olympic-related designs. In the account reported by Reuters, the IOC framed the run as limited and rooted in legal stewardship rather than sentiment. Parallel coverage by RTÉ also highlighted the IOC’s view that history cannot be “rewritten” and noted references to museum-style contextualisation, including at the Olympic Museum in Lausanne.

Adams additionally pointed to sporting history from the period, including the achievements of athletes such as Jesse Owens. The IOC position, in essence, is that acknowledging the Games’ existence—and protecting the marks connected to them—does not equate to endorsing the politics of the host regime.

Why critics say the legal argument is not enough

Opponents counter that the debate is not about whether the IOC owns trademarks, but whether consumer merchandising is the right vehicle for contested historical material—especially when the visuals originate from an event intertwined with state propaganda and systematic persecution. Reuters noted that forced labour was used in building works linked to the Olympic stadium, while Nazi authorities were already incarcerating groups they targeted, including Jews, Roma, homosexuals, political opponents and others.

The controversy also exposes a broader institutional challenge: even if an item is produced for trademark reasons, its reception is shaped by local memory cultures—particularly in Germany, where public sensitivity to Nazi symbolism and its normalisation remains acute. German outlet Welt reported on the domestic political reaction and the intensity of public criticism.

What could change: context at the point of sale

Several observers argue that if institutions insist on selling historically sensitive designs, they should do so with clear, unavoidable context: prominent notes explaining why the item exists, what the imagery represents, and how the organisation addresses the harms associated with the period. Without that, critics say, “heritage” marketing can flatten meaning into aesthetics—especially on fast-moving e-commerce platforms where products circulate far from museums and curated exhibitions.

A wider European debate on remembrance and responsibility

The dispute lands amid wider European conversations about how institutions, brands and platforms treat contested history. In earlier reporting on remembrance and the ongoing duty to confront antisemitism, The European Times has noted that commemoration is not only about ceremonies, but about choices that shape public culture—especially in moments when symbolism and commerce intersect.

Whether the IOC’s trademark rationale satisfies critics may depend on the next steps: clearer criteria for what belongs in a “heritage” collection, stronger educational framing at the point of sale, and transparency about how the IOC assesses reputational and ethical risk when monetising designs from politically charged Games. For now, the shirt’s sell-out status has only intensified the question at the heart of the controversy: when history is painful, can it ever be “just a design”?