Despite the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) decades-long assertion that like oil and water, politics and sports do not mix, anyone who pays attention to happenings on the sports scene know that politics and sports have always been joined at the hip.

It’s been widely reported about the differing of opinions regarding allowing athletes from Russia and Belarus to compete in the 2024 Paris Summer Olympic Games, with the IOC in favor and a host of countries threatening to boycott the games if the athletes are permitted to participate. 

(Personally, I’m against permitting athletes from war-mongering or totalitarian countries from participating in the Olympics because it is impossible to separate the individuals from their countries, and if the athletes medal their countries use it for propaganda purposes.  But being a realest, I suspect that the athletes will be permitted to participate and the boycotts will be minimal.)

In Europe, the controversies regarding the Paris Olympics are reported almost daily as major news. Not so in the U.S., which is still predominantly a baseball, football, basketball country, with hockey and soccer lagging behind. Covering the Olympics in the U.S. as a major story is still months away. The coverage in the U.S. will increase the closer we get to the Paris opening ceremonies on July 26, 2024, then receive minimal coverage for a few weeks after the conclusion of the games on August 11, before going into hibernation until the controversies about the 2026 Olympics becomes news. 

So it is not surprising that when a sports controversy receives major coverage in the U.S. it usually concerns happenings in the three dominant sports mentioned above, as a very recently revealed political contribution by a basketball team to a presidential candidate has.

Of course, there are exceptions. In 2016, criminally-indicted former President Donald Trump criticized football player Colin Kaepernick for kneeling when the national anthem was played, and on August 7, 2023, said after the U.S. team lost to Sweden in the Women’s World Cup that “the loss was "fully emblematic of what is happening to the our once great Nation under Crooked Joe Biden."

"Many of our players were openly hostile to America - No other country behaved in such a manner, or even close. Woke equals failure," he wrote on his website.

Compared to movie and stage performers, who have long involved themselves in politics by endorsing and campaigning for political candidates, team owners and athletes are relatively rookies when publicly speaking out about political issues.

But a new wrinkle has been added to the political-sports stage. In its August 4 edition the New York Times reported, “The N.B.A. players’ union criticized the Orlando Magic on Thursday for its $50,000 donation to a super PAC supportive of Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, a Republican who is vying for the party’s presidential nomination for the 2024 election.

“A political contribution from the Orlando Magic is alarming given recent comments and policies of its beneficiary,” the union, the National Basketball Players Association, said in a statement.

The problem was that the contribution wasn’t directly from the conservative owners of the team. The check came from the Orlando Magic, implying that the entire team supported DeSantis, which certainly is not the case.

The Times story also reported the following from the player’s union: “N.B.A. governors, players and personnel have the right to express their personal political views, including through donations and statements.” However, if contributions are made on behalf of an entire team, using money earned through the labor of its employees, it is incumbent upon the team governors to consider the diverse values and perspectives of staff and players.”

The controversy brings up an important point that many PR practitioners in major agencies may have been subjected to by management– show support for your agency by contributing money to the agency’s political and social causes, not because an employee agrees with them, but because the employees are afraid to say “no.”  

Two examples, based on my experience.

Political Action Committees: While I was at Burson-Marsteller, the agency asked employees to donate to a Political Action Committee. Many employees told me that they were having difficulty making ends meet, but still felt that they had to contribute to show that they were loyal employees. In addition, a few said, “I might not support the goals of the PAC but I’m afraid not to contribute.”  The PAC was instituted during my final two years at the agency. One year I contributed, one year I did not.

Charitable contributions: Each year B-M would have a campaign on behalf of a national charitable organization.  Staffers were pressured to contribute so the agency could have a 100% record of participating, even though the contributions might go to some entities that the employees disapproved of, as I did. As far as I know, because I was told so by one of the owners of the agency each year, I was the only employee in the New York office who year-after-year refused to contribute because I believed that any charitable contributions I made should go to causes I believed in and not be subjected to others decisions. 

At this point in my essays, I usually provide my opinions on how to respond to a PR problem. Not so here, because there are no right or wrong solutions.

The best advice I can give is that if an employee is doing good work and making money for the agency, no harm will come if the staffer refuses to contribute. But they should be prepared to give reasons for their decision if they are asked.

And if an account handler is doing poor work, contributing to an agency’s PAC and charitable requests will not save the person from being fired.

So the only advice on the matter that I can confidently give is to let your conscience be your guide and if you’re a marginal employee don’t contribute – you may need that money when you’re terminated.