Should Sports Get Political?

Like any other brand, professional sports properties and athletes must consider how and when to engage with social and political issues beyond their immediate area of expertise. And in recent years, appetite for involvement in such matters has been quite high. 

Several leagues made monetary commitments to combatting police violence after George Floyd’s murder in 2020. Many also allowed social justice messages like “Stop Hate” to be prominently displayed on uniforms and playing surfaces. Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, teams transformed their facilities into vaccination hubs. It was once even somewhat commonplace for athletes to kneel during pre-game playings of the national anthem as a protest against systemic racism.

Since Donald Trump’s election victory in November, the sports world's political participation has looked less like activism and more like blatant fawning. NFL players adopted the “Trump dance” as a touchdown celebration. Athletes showed up in droves to support Trump at his inauguration, and a handful of team owners, including Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, donated to Trump's inaugural committee. Earlier this month, Trump became the first sitting president to attend the Super Bowl. 

This tone shift raises renewed questions about the extent to which Americans view relationships between professional sports entities and the political class as appropriate. Fortunately, Morning Consult’s latest research offers some answers.

Support for sports’ political participation varies widely 

Our survey of approximately 2,200 U.S, adults, including 1,052 general sports fans and 315 women’s sports fans, found that professional sports properties commenting on or getting involved with political issues is, at the highest level, unpopular. 

The share of U.S. adults who said they oppose these actions (42%) is notably higher than the share who said they support them (33%) — and a similar gap exists around sports’ involvement with political events, like elections or inaugurations. 

That said, Gen Z adults and women’s sports fans are more embracing of this behavior: Pluralities (and in some cases, clear majorities) of both groups said they support leagues and teams engaging in political activities.

These results track with previous Morning Consult research. Of all key demographics, young people consistently report the strongest interest in seeing the private sector speak out on cultural and political topics. 

For their part, women’s sports fans are uber-engaged relative to general sports fans — meaning they’re much more likely to participate in all sorts of activities, from attending games and buying merchandise to following league and team accounts on social media — so it’s not surprising not that they expect more out of the properties they support on an external engagement front. 

(General sports fans are also more supportive of political involvement by sports entities compared to the general public, albeit to a lesser extent than their women’s sports fan counterparts.)

Public opinion on athlete endorsements of political candidates is also mixed

When asked whether professional athletes should endorse specific political candidates, pluralities of most key consumer groups said no. But once again, a plurality and a majority of Gen Z adults and women’s sports fans, respectively, were in favor of this behavior.

Despite Americans generally opposing celebrity political endorsements too, both groups have a long history of declaring such allegiances with little reputational damage. For example, Lebron James and Taylor Swift each regularly make presidential endorsements, and each are still widely considered the nation’s most beloved athlete and musician. 

In contrast, organizations have been more frequent targets of public backlash when engaging in political activities of any kind. The NFL only just last month recovered the favorability it lost among Republicans due to anthem kneeling protests by its players, which haven’t happened with any consistency since 2018. Bud Light, a major sports sponsor, also saw a significant slump in sales in 2023 after coming under attack for featuring a transgender influencer in an advertisement tied to the NCAA’s March Madness tournament. (It should be noted that, historically, right-leaning consumers are more reactive than left-leaning ones when brands engage in public advocacy that opposes their views.)

And while Morning Consult data shows that these situations are more outliers than sure things — the share of consumers who report boycotting a brand for political reasons has remained low and stable for years — they still present a notable concern, especially as sports, both professional and recreational, are growing in popularity (and thus, visibility) among Americans of all ages and genders. 

Plus, a significant portion of professional sports’ appeal is tied to its perception as a non-partisan, unifying entity. Leaning too far into a political moment, one way or another, jeopardizes this standing and is bound to alienate some fans and casual consumers. 

Ultimately, sports’ recent ascent is a rare instance of a traditional institution becoming more relevant in the digital age. If sports properties — whether leagues, teams or individual athletes — want to future-proof this trajectory, their best bet will be to recalibrate their risk tolerance to match the boldness of any political activities they choose to partake in.