In this week’s Sports People Weighting In On Social and Political Issues Countdown, the table is as follows:
1st quarterback of the Pittsburgh Steelers Aaron Rodgers illuminates dr. Anthony Fauci after the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment during a Senate hearing last week.
2. Indiana Fever guard Sophie Cunningham speaks clearly she is against transgender athletes competing in women’s sports. “I’ve gotten a lot of negative feedback about hating trans,” Cunningham said during an interview with ESPN. “And I’m like, ‘I never said that.’ I’m here to prolong the love. But I also think that love is the truth, to be honest. And I want to protect young girls in the locker room, or young girls in sports who shouldn’t be going up against biological men.”
3. Caitlin Clark, a teammate of Cunningham’s, was asked Sunday — this one after the Fever’s 108-100 loss to the Minnesota Lynx — to comment on Cunningham’s stance on trans athletes. “For us, it’s not really a discussion that we really have in our locker room,” Clark said. “It’s up to the leagues and the governing bodies to work with their athletes to find solutions, but our focus is on basketball. That’s what we talk about and how we can get wins, and obviously we didn’t do that tonight.”
Now you’re probably thinking to yourself, hey, wait a minute, how can Clark get down to a countdown of sports people weighing in on social and political issues when she basically didn’t speak? She offered a deluded “no comment”, that’s what she did. It’s no use what she said.
But we live in times when every sentence – every word, every comma – is instantly dissected, instantly analyzed, instantly judged. So it was when Rodgers went off on Fauci, and when Cunningham voiced her concern about “young women in sports who shouldn’t be up against biological males,” and when Clark had no comment on Cunningham’s comments. All this is thrown into the daily stew of comments on social networks.
The Portland Fire crowd react to Sophie Cunningham’s introduction to the game
Sabreena Merchant
But excuse me for not bothering too much about the unspoken words. Forgive me for not being able to join the crowd that is terribly, terribly upset with Clark for not being who she is or what she wants to be. Sorry I didn’t expect Clark to play a role assigned to her by people she doesn’t even know.
This is probably a good place to give an after-dinner speech about how the United States has a long, illustrious history of athletes taking a stand on social and political issues, the gold standard being Tommie Smith and John Carlos raising their fists in the Black Power salute at the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico City. Or when Boston Red Sox legend Ted Williams devoted part of his Hall of Fame induction speech in 1966 to expressing his hope that the time would come when “the names of Satchel Paige and Josh Gibson can be added in some way as symbols of the great Negro (league) players who are not here simply because they were not given a chance.”
These are a few very public examples of athlete advocacy that have been passed down through the ages. Dig a little deeper and we learn that in the 1960s, NFL coaching legend Vince Lombardi banned homophobic language from the locker room; this in an era when such talk was a basic ingredient of culture. Lombardi had a younger brother who was gay.
Many of us never knew this about Lombardi when he was alive. I certainly didn’t. Just like I don’t know much about what’s on Clark’s mind these days. In the absence of her thoughts, therefore, there is little point in sifting through her every utterance, every pause, in search of hidden meanings and insinuations. And then get hysterical about it on the internet.
Sports people (and that includes sports media people) who deal with political and social issues can count on being inundated with anonymous directives that they should “stick to sports.” The mystery is who these people are who feel empowered to tell others to stick to sports. The statement itself suggests someone with a doctorate in government affairs, or who may have served in Congress or the diplomatic corps.
The hypocrisy is both comical and frightening at the same time. We love when our athletes express their opinion on this or that issue, except when we disagree with those opinions. (Stick to sports!) And athletes who choose not to play this silly parlor game are dismissed as cowards.
Cowards. https://t.co/4ietxcRCj5
— Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) August 3, 2026
Athletes visiting the White House face similar pitfalls. Take part in a visit to the White House in 2026 and for some you are a hero, for others a villain. Refuse the visit and you are a hero for the disenfranchised or someone who does not respect the function of the Presidency.
At the risk of boring you with seventh-grade civics, but to use a kitschy sports term to make a point, this would be a good time to hold a “Turn Back the Clock” event that teaches and celebrates the protections of the First Amendment. And if you happen to be a member of a championship team that has been invited to the White House, go ahead. Or don’t go. Do the First Amendment thing and tell everyone else to screw up.
For athletes who want to take a stand on this or that and who are ready to deal with the avalanche of positive and negative comments that arise, go ahead. For athletes who choose not to say anything, allow them that right.
Why does everything have to be so complicated?
