Perhaps no time in the history of mankind have sports and politics been so entwined.
Ever since I was old enough to know the difference between a home run and touchdown, corporate sponsors of sporting events attempted to avoid being drawn into what I call “political sports.” But the early days of 2026 prove that brands that sponsor mega sporting events, like the Super Bowl, Olympics and the FIFA World Cup, can no longer disassociate themselves from this. And sponsors of those events can no longer pretend that sports are free of politics.
For the time being, emerging sports, many of which will be part of the 2028 L.A. Olympics, have escaped the protests that are associated with mega sporting events. The downside to a brand sponsoring these sports (pickleball, squash, flag football, cricket, etc.) is that they have minimal visibility. The upside is that they are relatively inexpensive to sponsor, and by adding a savvy public relations/publicity program, the brand can gain positive national earned media attention throughout the year. Those “newer” sports certainly should be considered by sports marketing brands.
As someone who started out as a sports reporter for New York City dailies before becoming the sports marketing guru at two major PR agencies over a 35-year period, I noticed that sports marketers and their public relations agencies are slow to change their tactics: Super Bowl and Olympics programs all look alike, because they are all alike.
Times have changed. And so has my advice to sports marketing public relations clients, which once was to stay clear of politics and avoid athletes who spoke out about politics and social matters. I now believe that brands that take political stands and permit their athletes the freedom to speak have much more to gain than lose.
Here’s why I believe that a brand taking a political and/or social position, and that stands by their athletes who speak out, will benefit from doing so.
- Despite President Donald Trump trashing the NFL and Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl halftime show, neither was harmed. In fact, Bad Bunny received more positive publicity during the lead-up to the game than did the game itself.
- Athletes who spoke out about political and social issues at the Winter Olympics broke through the clutter of trite athlete statements and received prominent positive recognition from the mainstream media. (Example: When Ukrainian athlete Vladyslav Heraskevych was disqualified from the Olympics because of plans to wear a helmet honoring countrymen killed in the war with Russia, the decision by the IOC received worldwide negative media coverage and the athlete’s stand received worldwide attention. He is one of many Olympians who have used the Winter Games as a platform for disseminating their political viewpoints.)
- A February 2025 Morning Consult poll revealed that while the public prefers brands and athletes not to get involved in political issues, sports fans differ. The survey said, “Of all key demographics, young people consistently report the strongest interest in seeing the private sector speak out on cultural and political topics.”
- A survey by Statista in October 2025 showed that, “interestingly, young Americans expect more from brands in terms of political engagement than their older compatriots. According to Statista Consumer Insights, 51% of Gen Z and millennials agree that brands should take a public stand on political and social issues, while just 32% and 35% of young respondents disagree. Meanwhile, the opposite is true for older Americans.” Young Americans are significantly more likely to say that they’re loyal to brands that take a public stand on issues they care about, said the survey.
- The growing trend of support for brands and athletes who speak out on political matters is nothing new. A 2019 survey by Pew Research Center was headlined, “Most Americans say it’s OK for professional athletes to speak out publicly about politics.”
Sports-related brands that have received positive publicity for taking a stand include Puma, with campaigns highlighting sustainability and gun violence awareness; Patagonia for its environmental activism; the Seattle Storm for its “Force4Change” initiative in 2020, focusing on social justice and voting rights, and the NBA/WNBA, which launched a $300 million NBA Foundation to support economic growth in the Black community; Intel, which acknowledged human rights concerns in Xinjiang before the 2022 Winter Olympics in China; and Nike’s 30th anniversary “Just Do It” campaign, featuring Colin Kaepernick.
Let’s face it: Brands spend millions of dollars supporting sports events not because they love sports, but because they use sports as a vehicle hoping to increase sales.
In many ways, some brands remind me of the Luddites. Despite surveys showing that younger consumers, and especially women, would support a brand that takes a political stand, most brands still avoid doing so.
Past Olympics show that brands that want to stay out of the political fray can’t prevent being caught up in political matters. More and more consumers expect brands to take a stand.
That’s why I’ve changed my mind and believe that brands should not be afraid to take a political stand.
PR people should point out to clients that having a brand take a political stand can make it stand out from others, as well as gain the loyalty of younger consumers.
Arthur Solomon (arthursolomon4pr@juno.com) is a former journalist and Burson-Marsteller senior vice president. He is a frequent contributor to public relations publications, consults on public relations projects and was on the Seoul Peace Prize nominating committee.
