This weekend was a big moment for sports, both in the United States and around the world.
The Seattle Seahawks beat the New England Patriots in Super Bowl LX at Levi’s Stadium, and the Winter Olympics in Milan are in full swing. But both of these events have also become centers for displays of dissent, activism and political speech.
The Super Bowl halftime show by Puerto Rican superstar Bad Bunny drew backlash from President Donald Trump and other conservatives, and sparked a counter-show headlined by Kid Rock and put on by Turning Point USA.
Internationally, the reported deployment of ICE agents to Italy for security purposes drew criticism and protests, and some U.S. athletes have also spoken up.
Figure skater Amber Glenn, who identifies as pansexual, spoke about the LGBTQ+ community and other groups fighting for their rights during the Trump Administration. At a press conference, Glenn said she hoped to use her platform and voice to “encourage people to stay strong in these hard times.”
“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,” she said.
Freestyle skier Chris Lillis said he felt “heartbroken,” referring to ICE raids and ongoing protests. “I think that as a country we need to focus on respecting everybody’s rights and making sure that we’re treating our citizens as well as anybody, with love and respect,” he said.
Lillis’ teammate Hunter Hess said he felt “mixed emotions to represent the U.S. right now,” adding that “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.”
“If it aligns with my moral values I feel like I’m representing it… just because I wear the flag doesn’t mean I represent everything that’s going on in the U.S.,” Hess said. His comments drew criticism from Trump, who called Hess a “loser.”
Historically, the 1968 Mexico City Games saw two Black U.S. track athletes — Tommie Smith and John Carlos — each raise a black-gloved fist during a medal ceremony. The United States and Soviet Union also boycotted each other’s games in 1980 and 1984, respectively.
Lou Matz is a Professor of Philosophy at University of the Pacific who has written about the intersection of sports, ethics and politics. He joined Insight Host Vicki Gonzalez to discuss this long historical connection.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Interview highlights
Why are sports a popular place for activism?
I think one of the things is [that] our history is different here in the United States, because of slavery and segregation. And because of the popularity of sport… I think sports have appealed historically to the working class — baseball, football, basketball, boxing — I think that gives sports a kind of visibility it doesn’t quite have in other countries.
Some people talk about keeping politics out of sports. How are things more complicated than that simple statement?
I call that a platitude that “sports and politics don't mix.” It's both been untrue as a matter of historical fact, and even as a normative claim that politics ought to be kept out of sport, that just is not feasible as well. For example in 1912 Congress passed the Sims Act that prevented the interstate transportation of fight films. Why was that? Because Jack Johnson, the first great Black heavyweight champion, had beat Jim Jeffries in what was called the “Fight of the Century.” Congress didn't want white America seeing a Black man beat a white man.
You also had Major League Baseball and the NFL [which] had a period where Blacks were not allowed to play. The NFL was from 1933 to 1945, and then in 1946 Kenny Washington broke that barrier. In Major League Baseball most would know that it was Jackie Robinson in 1947. There you have politics preventing certain groups from playing the professional sport.
And it's also the case that particularly after World War World War II and the development of technology, you had the national anthem played regularly at sporting events, flying the American flag and the military display. Those are all political symbols because they represent no institution in civil society, not private life, but they represent a sovereign state, a nation, so that’s politics.
[People] might not appreciate the fact that the sporting associations — the NFL, the NBA, WNBA, Major League Baseball — have the powers to regulate, to adjudicate and to enforce their rules and codes of conduct. That is political by its very nature.
You mentioned these institutions, they have a lot of power and their choices send a message. What does this say about the moment and political times we’re in?
One of the things to point out about the Olympics that changed in 2021 in Tokyo is, in 1975 the IOC [International Olympic Committee] established then-Rule 55, they changed it to Rule 50, to make it a total neutral zone anywhere in the Olympic venue. Athletes and anybody else associated with the Olympics were prohibited from any demonstrations or any religious, political and racial propaganda.
After the George Floyd murder and a bunch of global events in sport, the athletes pretty much agitated for a change and so the IOC loosened that up. Now during media events, interviews — anywhere but the podiums, during the opening and closing, and actually during the competition — it allows athletes to express their points of view. That’s a big change.
I think that's why you've seen artists and athletes at the venue exercising their right to express their dissent. It can't be towards any particular person or any particular country, and I think the athletes have framed it that way. It's been more general.
Is there a difference between an individual athlete taking a stand and sending a message, compared to a team or even a league?
My understanding with professional sports [is] that each of the sports associations has their own player code of conduct. And usually that has been negotiated with the player unions, so there is variation in Major League Baseball, NFL, NBA and WNBA about what players are allowed to say while on the job.
Bad Bunny performs during the halftime show of the NFL Super Bowl 60 football game between the Seattle Seahawks and the New England Patriots, Sunday, Feb. 8, 2026, in Santa Clara, Calif.Vera Nieuwenhuis/AP Photo
Then, teams also have autonomy within their bylaws to make statements as well so you’re going to have some variation depending on the sport and depending on the owners.
Leading up to the opening ceremony of the Olympics, the U.S. hospitality space was renamed from the Ice House to the Winter House because of the negative connotations associated with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). What stands out to you about that?
The critics who say keep politics out of sport, I think it’s been used as a way to shield legitimate criticism of denial of basic human rights which of course exists in our Constitution as well as in the UN Charter and the UN Declaration of Human Rights. I think the athletes are really just calling attention to that.
I find that the blame is being displaced. The athletes are the ones that are holding up the American ideals of liberty, equality and due process, and the current administration has been the one to undermine those, trash those and not represent them. I think the athletes are representing them [by] renaming that venue or in their statements about their discontent with some of the things going on in the country.
When you take a look back at history, what displays of protest, activism and politics really stand out to you?
IOC Rule 50 was precipitated by what happened in Mexico City — specifically with Tommie Smith and John Carlos on the podium. That was understandably one of the most iconic athlete dissent moments in U.S. [and] probably international history. But going all the way back to Jim Thorpe where he won the pentathlon and the decathlon at the 1912 [Olympic] Games in Stockholm, it was a political statement about the equality of Native Americans because Jim Thorpe was part Sac and Fox [Nation] and another Native American tribe.
You had Paul Robeson, Rutgers football player [who] became a singer, he was one of the first outspoken African-Americans. He ended up having his visa revoked in Europe, but he was very outspoken. Jesse Owens in the 1936 Berlin Games became, just by his presence and by his victory, it was a statement against white supremacy both in Germany against the Third Reich, but also in the United States.
You had Althea Gibson win Wimbledon in the 1950s, the first African-American to win an international tennis event. There's just been a long history of athletes, either intentionally or just by their competitive success, having made political statements.
The conservative activist group Turning Point USA held a counter-halftime show this weekend. In recent years some NHL players refused to participate in Pride Night, and star 49ers defensive end Nick Bosa was fined by the NFL for wearing a pro-Trump hat during a postgame interview. So activism goes in multiple directions, right?
It does and I think it's often selective. The claim that athletes should just shut up and play, shut up and ski, stay in their lane, critics often don't point out other kinds of displays that are objectionable. Like when athletes express their religious beliefs, or when the sporting associations have overt political displays of militarism or nationalism. You don't often hear the critics complaining about those displays. They focus on the beliefs that they really don't like.
What keeps you so fascinated with this topic of politics and sports?
I think the topic's never going to go away because sport is an institution of civil society within the political realm. It has so much visibility. There's so many powerful narratives of athletes based on race, gender or sexual orientation.
I do believe [in] our country, despite its ebbs and flows, there is this progress towards full inclusion, full equality and the moral recognition of a common humanity. I see sports as being a primary venue in which that battle is fought and contested.
