Sport: Forever at the Heart of the Political Scrimmage

We might not want sport to be political. We often pretend it isn’t. But in the increasingly polarised battle between left and right-wing domestic politics, sport frequently finds itself at the heart of the political scrimmage.

This is because sport is one of the few areas of modern entertainment that still captures our collective attention. Algorithms mean we now listen to different music and stream different shows but live sport still gets us all tuning in to the same thing at the same time. The Super Bowl is the pinnacle of this. It is the most attention-grabbing event in the world, so much so that advertisers will spend a quarter of a million dollars for a second of America’s time.

It therefore makes total sense, in this election year of all years, that both left and right are going to try and use that platform to their advantage. Forbes called Super Bowl LIV the “most political in history” but after the Taylor Swift conspiracy, LVIII might just have it beat.

All around the western world we’re seeing similar patterns as domestic politics play out on and off the field. To create a good ol’ sporting analogy, we can organise these factions into two teams: let’s call them the Progressive Liberals versus the Conservative Patriots. 

The conservatives have home advantage. Sport is often traditional and resistant to change. We like to compare the present to the past, so rules evolve glacially and traditions are preserved. As such, the way sporting fixtures are presented reflect conservative and nationalistic values. Anthems (for the most part) are sacred and sung with respect. Shows of military might like fly-bys and bands are often part of those build-ups. 

The conservatives boast sporting legislators and owners in their roster too. Those who run the franchises, rules and global competitions are often heavily resistant to liberal ideas. Often they will use the purity of sport as an excuse to keep progressive politics at bay. 

You will find plenty of fans on the conservative side too, of course. A 2019 study showed that 2024 Super Bowl winners, the Kansas City Chiefs, are the 10th most Republican team in the NFL whilst, in contrast, their opponents, the San Francisco 49ers, top the Democratic charts. When surveyed, right-wing fans are much more likely to say politics shouldn’t interfere with sport than those on the left. Again this reinforces that the status quo tends to benefit the conservative cause.

Undoubtedly the MVP for the conservative team however is the right-wing media that holds huge power on both sides of the Atlantic. Last year, journalist Mike Freeman wrote, 'Super Bowl 57 is the Blackest, most woke Super Bowl ever'. This year - enter Mike Crispi, a pro-Trump podcast host on the right-wing Salem Media Group, who has claimed Super Bowl LVIII is rigged as part of a Democratic super plot that involved Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce endorsing Joe Biden on the biggest stage. 

Combine these resources and the conservatives are a tough team to beat but the Progressive Liberals have some star power of their own. 

Whilst legislators and owners might lean to the right, there are plenty of coaches who use their platform to make a stand. Golden State Warriors head coach Steve Kerr made an impassioned plea to introduce more gun-control legislation following a tragic mass shooting in 2022. In Europe, German soccer manager Christian Streich recently took a stand against the prevalence of far-right groups in the country.

It’s athletes however that have the biggest voice on the left. In the last decade we’ve seen the athlete activist become more powerful than ever. The superstars of the 1990s like Michael Jordan, Pete Sampras and Tiger Woods were commercially incentivised to be apolitical. Post Colin Kapaernick however we’ve seen stars take on more progressive values and do so publicly. Examples include Lebron James, Naomi Osaka, Serena Williams, alongside Lewis Hamilton and Marcus Rashford in the UK. Conservatives fear these more confident and vocal athletes. The tactic to nullify them is to undermine their credibility - to claim sport and politics don’t mix and what do athletes know about politics anyway? It’s why we see Laura Ingraham telling Lebron to ‘shut up and dribble’ and why conservative UK politicians told Marcus Rashford to ‘stick to football’.  

The MVP for the Progressive Liberals are not athletes however, but other supporting celebrities - particularly musicians. Combined with sports stars, popular musicians make a formidable force. No player has taken the knee during a Super Bowl, but Eminem has. It is for this reason that the right are so quick to discredit and nullify Swift. The combination of her and Kelce isn’t just bringing new fans into the sport, they represent a dangerous liberal alliance. 

The question for marketers is which side are brands on?

The obvious answer would be they’re the cheerleaders for the Progressive Liberals of course. We’re living in a marketing age of purpose, where brands are far more likely to take on progressive causes. In 2017 84 Lumber’s ad The Journey Begins, overtly targeted Trump’s anti-immigration platform. Nike, in backing Colin Kapaernick, benefited hugely by taking a clear political stand over the BLM movement. 

Of course this strategy is not risk-free. Bud Light reportedly lost 15% of sales and 28% of profits after it used Dylan Mulvaney, a TikTok star and transgender advocate, in one of its campaigns. 

Perhaps this is why in an election year and a politically charged Super Bowl we’re seeing brands staying surprisingly neutral. Budweiser for example have returned to their Clydesdale horses for this year’s spot. I mean cute animals can’t be political can they?

It is of course the right of any brand to try and stay clear of politics. Brand managers should however be aware that it’s harder to do that than you might think. As I’ve stressed, the status quo is often supporting the conservative cause. Budweiser’s horses may not be provocative, but they are reinforcing strong American values. Not acting can also unfortunately be a political act. 

It’s probably here that the analogy runs out of road. In this piece we’re not advocating one side over another, but it’s important to highlight two key things. Firstly sport is never as simple as the game on the field. There is nearly always a bigger socio-political battle going on. Secondly brands don’t have to consciously be political, but they should be aware that staying neutral can mean they are inadvertently taking a side.