Israeli teen athlete Daniel Boaron wins gold, but is forced to receive his medal in secret, authorities cite "security concerns"
Daniel Boaron denied public ceremony in Rome due to security fears. Italian police cite tensions over Israel-Iran conflict.

On June 14th 16-year-old Israeli jiu-jitsu athlete Daniel Boaron won the gold medal in the under-48 kg category at the Jiu-Jitsu Grand Prix in Rome, Italy. However, he was not permitted to participate in the public medal ceremony or stand on the podium. Italian police cited "security concerns", stating that Boaron’s Jewish identity and Israeli nationality could “provoke” potential incidents amid heightened tensions due to the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict. Instead, he received his gold medal in a private ceremony behind the scenes.
The decision sparked significant controversy and criticism, particularly on platforms like X, where users expressed outrage, viewing it as discriminatory and a capitulation to antisemitism. Boaron, speaking to media outlets, expressed pride in representing Israel despite the incident, stating, “We showed the world what we’re worth, even if they try to silence us.” His father and coach, Amir Boaron, noted that the police intervened during the competition, emphasizing the “sensitive situation” as the reason for avoiding a public ceremony.
This incident is not Boaron’s first encounter with hostility in international competitions. In November 2024, at the Jiu-Jitsu World Championship in Crete, Greece, the then-13-year-old Boaron was awarded gold in the under-14, under-48 kg category after his Emirati opponent, Ahmed Alketbi, was disqualified for making a throat-cutting gesture toward the Israeli delegation.
That event highlighted ongoing challenges faced by Israeli athletes, with Amir Boaron reporting hostile behavior from competitors and audiences from countries like Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, including boos and “Free Palestine” chants.
Critics argue the decision undermines sportsmanship and normalizes prejudice, while supporters of the police’s action claim it was a pragmatic response to potential violence.