Photo Via Billboard
***
Looking back at the United States’ most-watched annual event, the Super Bowl, many people may not recall the final score between the Seahawks and Patriots, but they will likely remember Bad Bunny’s halftime performance and the political backlash it sparked. The show was a blend of celebration and homage to his home, Puerto Rico, with broader messaging of unity and love, and it concluded with him holding a football with the English phrase “Together, We Are America.” Although politics were not directly displayed in the performance itself, they quickly took center stage in public discourse.
President Donald Trump, who was not in attendance at this year’s Super Bowl, posted on his social media platform, Truth Social, that Bad Bunny’s set was “absolutely terrible, one of the worst, EVER!” He added that it was “an affront to the Greatness of America” despite the show garnering 128.2 million views and Super Bowl LX becoming the second most-watched in U.S. history. Whether one loved it, hated it, or felt indifferent, the controversy surrounding the halftime show revealed a deeper truth the sports world often tries to deny: politics have always been a part of sports, and sports have always existed within political arenas.
Sports have a unique, almost universal superpower to cultivate unity, often transcending and cutting across social, economic, gender, ethnic, and language barriers. For the most part, sports are easily accessible and are an integral part of our daily lives and identities, with Sundays being devoted to football and team loyalties being passed down from generation to generation. It is easy to bond and resonate with others over a shared passion for teams or sporting events, with some even comparing fan devotion to specific teams with religion. Governments around the world understand the power of sports to “bind” nations together, shaping national narratives and identities.
It is exactly this unifying nature that makes sports inherently political. Major sporting events, such as FIFA, the Olympics, the NFL, the NBA, and the WNBA, combine competition with nationalism through overt political symbolism, such as national anthems before matches or after victories, flags displayed, and military flyovers. These rituals frame sporting events as more than friendly competitions but as active contributions to the creation of national identity and patriotism.
Beyond overt symbolism, sports are also shaped by embedded branding and sponsored partnerships that quietly influence messaging and reflect greater political relations. These corporate alignments may seem commercial, yet they signal values, priorities, and affiliations. Leagues and teams constantly make political decisions about which brand partnerships to pursue, which advertisers or performers are given the biggest stage, and which narratives to amplify. Similarly, leagues and teams determine the extent to which they embrace or distance themselves from social movements or recognition initiatives, such as military appreciation, Black History Month celebrations, or Pride Month. For example, the NHL decided that, starting in the 2023/24 season, themed night Jerseys would be eliminated after several incidents during the 2022/23 season in which players refused to wear jerseys or sat out altogether during Pride nights. NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman stated that debates surrounding the warm-up jerseys had become more of a “distraction,” detracting from the games themselves and the intended focus of specialty nights. What may appear to be a minor logistical decision reveals the political nature of these organizations and the choices they make. Decisions framed as neutrality reflected deliberate value judgements and the image the NHL aims to project.
Therefore, large-scale sports events like the Super Bowl and its halftime show are not just entertainment, but are politically and strategically coordinated to both reflect and shape national identity, whether explicitly acknowledged or not.
Whitney Houston’s performance in 1991 for Super Bowl XXV of “Star-Spangled Banner,” which occurred just two weeks into the Persian Gulf War, illustrates this clearly. Her performance was not merely musical or entertainment but was a significant symbol of national healing and hope. Similarly, Eminem’s decision to take a knee during the 2022 halftime performance carried significant political messaging. It was a gesture of protest, in tribute to Colin Kaepernick, whose NFL career ended shortly after taking the knee during the national anthem in protest of racial discrimination and police brutality. This demonstrates how even a brief act or a single song choice on such a stage can send a clear message or sentiment.
On a platform this large, even gestures simply intended to express culture, joy, and unity are understood or interpreted through the lens of ongoing political conversation. Bad Bunny’s halftime show stirred debate far beyond his 13 minutes on stage. Although the performance itself did not contain any direct political messaging, critics quickly framed it as political. The reactions themselves reveal that major sporting events are already infused with political meaning, making it exceedingly difficult to keep politics outside the arena.
On the global stage, the politics of sports become even more explicit. Hosting rights for events such as the Olympics or the World Cup are not awarded randomly; they operate within broader diplomatic relations and international influence, and are driven by strategic state incentives. Countries often use these events to showcase their national identity, attract tourism, receive international recognition, diversify states’ investment portfolios, and expand soft power.
Recent patterns have demonstrated an increasing willingness among authoritarian regimes to host large-scale sporting events. Qatar invested 220 billion into the 2022 World Cup. China hosted both the 2008 and 2022 Olympics. Russia hosted the 2018 Olympics. Saudi Arabia has also been eagerly investing in global sporting events, including its bid for the 2034 World Cup, drawing accusations of “sportswashing” as an attempt to clear up its global image amid scrutiny over human rights abuses. These cases reveal the political incentives for states to host large-scale sporting events: gaining international recognition, asserting dominance, garnering soft power, projecting a favorable image, and influencing global perceptions and narratives.
The athletes attending these games and events who carry and represent their country’s flags inevitably become symbols or role models of national values. However, it cannot be assumed that athletes are mere extensions of the governments they represent. They are independent individuals who not only represent their countries but also retain their personal morals and values.
These dynamics are visible at the current Winter Olympics in Milan. U.S. skier Hunter Hess expressed he had “mixed emotions” representing the U.S., saying “it’s a little hard, there’s obviously a lot going on that I’m not the biggest fan of, and I think a lot of people aren’t.” His remarks received harsh criticism from President Donald Trump, who called him a “real loser” on his social media platform Truth Social. Figure skater Amber Glenn similarly used her platform at the Olympics to speak out and advocate for inclusivity, stating during a press conference, “A lot of people will say you’re just an athlete, stick to your job, shut up about politics, but politics affect us all. It is something that I will not just be quiet about.”
These instances illustrate a rising tension in sports, in which athletes are simultaneously representing their countries but are placed in situations where they are expected to respond to the political climate while maintaining their independent voices capable of critiquing it. In many cases, they are not injecting politics into the sports or games but responding to direct questions from journalists who understand the symbolic weight of their responses. On such a global stage, it is impossible to keep politics out or to remain apolitical.
Critics who argue for keeping politics out of sports are displacing blame onto athletes who operate within these inherently political institutions. If athletes are symbolic representations of the ideals a country proclaims, such as freedom of speech, liberty, and justice, they should have the right to exercise them. Critique should not be understood as an unwillingness to represent their country on a global scale or as a rejection of national identity, but rather as participation in it and the exercise of their civic duties. Athletes, who represent their countries on global screens, have the right to question, criticize, and speak out if they feel their country is not reflecting the ideals it represents.
It is therefore important to recognize and acknowledge the interplay between sports and politics, rather than shield it with the illusion that politics has no place in sports. Sports are political and always have been. Attempting to strip politics away from that space, or arguing that politics should be kept out of sports, does not preserve neutrality but narrows the dialogue and conversations surrounding it, while promoting a dominant narrative.
As Nelson Mandela famously said, “Sport has the power to change the world,” and that is exactly why we must embrace its transformative power, not deny it.
***
This article was edited by Colin Mitchell and Whitney Woodrow.
Samantha Kornsey 
Anika Bobeck 
Daniela Cadena Hernandez