More Than a Game: The Political Privilege of Sports Icons

Sports have always been at the epicenter of society. Iconic rivalries, mind boggling moments of athleticism, and the raw emotion of competition - sports is a language that transcends all borders. At the center of the colosseum stands the athletes, the revered heroes of the game. We idolize the ground that they walk on and worship the clothes they wear. From Michael Jordan using his reputation to create the iconic Jordan brand to Cristaino Ronaldo levying his brand to start a global cologne line that I personally purchased in 5th grade, the sway that these athletes have on the minds of millions is obvious. Historically, this influence has been used to sell sneakers, fragrances, and fantasy. But in recent years, athletes have begun wielding this power in a different, far more consequential arena: politics.

This interplay between sports and politics was propelled to national news when many key players from the super bowl winning Philadelphia eagles declined their invites to Donald Trump's White House. These players, heroes to millions, used their absence as a form of subtle yet symbolic political expression. This action echoed the broader question of what responsibility do athletes have to stand and make statements beyond the scope of their sport. It is undeniable that these athletes have a privilege, the privilege of a platform that can affect the results of political elections, however it is unfair to place the burden of our salvation on them. While critics argue that the privilege these athletes have must be exercised, it is ultimately unfair and unrealistic to place the burden of politics on athletes.

The complexity of this intersection is perhaps best exemplified by recent controversies surrounding figures like Alexander Ovechkin. When Ovechkin, a celebrated Russian hockey star, broke the NHL goal record, it was a moment of immense sporting achievement. Yet, the celebration was quickly overshadowed by his long-standing, public support for Russian President Vladimir Putin. Ovechkin has not only appeared in promotional campaigns for Putin but also founded "PutinTeam" to support his presidential campaign. In the wake of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, his continued silence or muted responses on the conflict, despite his global platform, drew significant criticism. For many, his athletic triumph became intertwined with a political stance that some found deeply problematic. The Kremlin, for its part, quickly seized on Ovechkin's record as a national victory, a piece of "soft power" propaganda to project Russian strength on the international stage. This situation highlights the inherent difficulty for athletes who are deeply tied to their national identities or political figures, as their personal achievements can be co-opted and politicized by external forces, often without their direct intention to make a political statement in that moment.

Contrast this with the deliberate actions of the Philadelphia Eagles players. When the team won the Super Bowl, the traditional White House visit, a symbol of national athletic achievement, became a stage for political expression. A significant number of players, including prominent figures, chose not to attend. While some cited "scheduling conflicts," the widespread interpretation was a silent but clear protest against the policies and rhetoric of the then-President Donald Trump. This was not about an athlete's personal background being used by a government for propaganda, but a conscious decision by individuals to leverage their collective visibility to express dissent. Their refusal to attend sent a powerful message, demonstrating that their hero status came with a platform they felt compelled to use, even if it meant diverging from a long-standing tradition. This act of subtle defiance sparked national debate on the extent of athletes' civic duties and the implications of using their platforms for political messaging.

Ultimately, while the influence of athletes on public consciousness is undeniable, and their capacity to inspire action is immense, it is a precarious balance to strike between leveraging that influence and becoming an unwilling political pawn or bearing the weight of societal change. The case of Alexander Ovechkin illustrates how an athlete's accomplishments can be politicized by external powers, regardless of their immediate intent. The Philadelphia Eagles' actions, conversely, demonstrate a conscious choice to use their platform for political statement, born from a sense of responsibility. Yet, to demand that all athletes become political activists, to place the burden of our political salvation on their shoulders, is both unfair and unrealistic. Their primary role is in the realm of sport, and while their personal convictions may lead them to speak out, it should be a choice, not an obligation imposed by public expectation. The power they wield is immense, but the responsibility for navigating the complex landscape of politics belongs to society as a whole, not just its athletic heroes.