The American sports world is inextricably intertwined with the political arena. Championship teams in the US’s four major sports leagues—Major League Baseball (MLB), the National Basketball Association (NBA), the National Football League (NFL), and the National Hockey League (NHL)—typically visit the White House after their victories to receive recognition from Democratic and Republican presidents. Many presidents attend games during their presidency; President Donald Trump, for example, has made a habit of it. Governors, state legislators, and mayors frequently honor teams with proclamations, celebratory parades, and community partnerships. Athletes also deal with political issues that affect millions of others, such as gender inequality, labor disputes, and health and safety concerns.
Despite this intersection between the two worlds, many fans do not appreciate when athletes involve themselves in politics. When Colin Kaepernick knelt during the United States national anthem, outrage poured in from far and wide. One commentator penned a piece titled “Keep Politics out of Sports,” in which he argued that sports should not be used to draw attention to political issues. Another writer noted that despite various athletes joining Kaepernick’s protest, there were “sports fans online and in person” insisting that “athletes and sports journalists need to stick to sports.” These reactions are mirrored on the opposite side of the political aisle. When former MLB utility player Aubrey Huff and current NFL placekicker Harrison Butker voiced strongly conservative views, numerous comments on social media platforms instructed them to “stick to sports.” Recently, former MLB first baseman Mark Teixeira announced his campaign for a Texas congressional seat with hopes of “defend[ing] President Trump’s America First agenda;” some met his announcement with the same “stick to sports” demand.
Though these responses to athletes’ political expression may be rooted in a desire for bipartisanship and unity—sports tend to draw viewers from across the political spectrum—they are ultimately short-sighted. Athletes in the US should not only feel welcome but be encouraged to express their political beliefs, so long as they are informed and do not cause harm, for three reasons. First, athletes have a wide-reaching platform that most others—from everyday citizens to societal leaders—lack, which they can use to enrich the marketplace of ideas that helps society progress. Second, athletes in the US enjoy a freedom that many of their peers around the world lack; their relative safety makes their voices uniquely powerful, and the choice to use that platform must be recognized as a distinct privilege that deserves support, not suppression. Finally—embedded in the first two reasons—attempts to stifle political expression run counter to core American principles.
To stifle athletes’ right to speak up, then, is to weaken public discourse, suppress diverse perspectives, and undermine the very pluralism that allows democracy to thrive.
It is no secret that athletes have a broad audience. According to one study, children admire famous athletes at a rate that is on par with their teachers and is only second to their parents. Another study showed that two-thirds of Americans believe that professional athletes have greater influence on society than religious leaders. Athletes’ public profile and influence certainly allow them to introduce ideas and spark national conversations: Kaepernick drew national attention to racial injustice, and Simone Biles helped drive greater understanding of mental health issues. In a country in which views different than one’s own are increasingly met with contempt and dismissal, athletes have the opportunity to serve as bridge-builders by reaching into communities to encourage dialogue and foster understanding. Various thinkers have advocated that disseminating diverse political speech and expression is foundational to a strong democracy. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote in 1927 that “the remedy to be applied to [falsehoods and fallacies] is more speech, not enforced silence,” and philosopher John Stuart Mill argued in 1859 that if a belief is not “fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth.” Society—and American democracy—benefits when ideas are challenged and conversations are started, and athletes are in a prime position to make this happen. Further, suppressing athletes’ voices—as Fox News host Laura Ingraham did when she infamously told NBA star LeBron James to “shut up and dribble”—risks undermining their experiences as human beings living in the same society as everyone else. To stifle athletes’ right to speak up, then, is to weaken public discourse, suppress diverse perspectives, and undermine the very pluralism that allows democracy to thrive.
When contrasted with some of their peers from around the world, the case for athletes in the US to voice their political views grows even stronger. In Iran, rock climbers and soccer players have had passports and phones confiscated for violating hijab laws and have been jailed for voicing their opposition to the government. In Turkey, soccer and basketball players have faced up to four years in prison for insulting President Tayyip Erdogan; both now live in exile. Ahead of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics, the Chinese government threatened athletes—both Chinese and visiting—that they would face punishment for “any behavior or speech that is against the Olympic spirit, especially against the Chinese laws and regulations.” And before the 2014 Winter Olympics held in Russia, the Russian government warned its athletes that they would face fines or arrest if they violated anti-gay laws. Conversely, free speech is a fundamental element of American life. The US has strong legal protections for speech and expression (at least for now) that are not consistently found worldwide. This is not to say that US athletes do not face consequences for voicing their opinions: Kaepernick can attest to this, and recent attacks on free speech from the current federal administration have led to significant risks for those who speak out. These professional consequences, however, pale in comparison to the severe legal and physical repercussions faced by athletes under authoritarian regimes. This stark contrast underscores the great power that athletes in the US have, and with that power comes great responsibility. Athletes in the US must take advantage of their uniquely privileged position, as the protections extended to them underscore the moral and civic necessity for US athletes to participate in political discourse.
This is not necessarily to say that athletes in the US must voice their political beliefs. There are many legitimate factors that an athlete may consider before speaking up, from professional and endorsement-related ramifications, to personal safety and mental health impacts, to the potential repercussions on their teammates and families. Nor is this to say that everything an athlete says is valuable or constructive: speech that is harmful, uninformed, or offensive can and should be questioned, but such criticism does not negate the legitimacy of athletes using their platforms to engage in social or political issues.
Ultimately, the responsibility for creating an environment in which athletes feel empowered to spark dialogue and share ideas begins with the fans. Fans pay athletes’ salaries; without millions of people cheering them on, athletes would just be adults playing childhood games rather than employees in complex markets (who, still, make a lucrative living by playing childhood games). Whether an athlete chooses to voice their political views or not, the public must welcome their contributions. By doing so, fans foster the environment in which athletes can spark meaningful dialogue, exercise a right unavailable to many of their peers worldwide, and strengthen the American ideals that rely on open, informed, and fearless expression.