Saurabh Mukherjee
A new comparative study has found that Indian sportspersons overwhelmingly echo government messaging and avoid dissent, unlike their American counterparts who often criticise leaders, support protests, and use their platforms to push for systemic change.
Titled ‘Sporting the Government: Sportspersons’ Engagement with Causes in India and the USA on Twitter,’ the study was published in Global Policy and authored by Dibyendu Mishra, Ronojoy Sen, and Joyojeet Pal. It analysed the social media activity of 200 of the most-followed sportspersons in India and the United States on X (formerly Twitter) during 2019–2020 — a period marked by the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests and the farmers’ agitation in India, and by the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and the presidential elections in the US.
The paper argues that these contrasting patterns arise from the differing political cultures and institutional contexts of the two countries. In India, where sports federations are heavily state-controlled, athletes tend to adopt a stance of compliance and deference. In contrast, the relative autonomy of American sports institutions allows athletes to act as independent and often vocal agents of dissent and democratic participation.
The authors come from diverse academic and professional backgrounds. Mishra is an independent researcher and data scientist focusing on political polarisation and misinformation; Sen is a senior research fellow at the National University of Singapore who studies Indian democracy and institutions; and Pal is an associate professor at the University of Michigan, researching the relationship between technology, democracy, and political communication.
Divergent Modes of Engagement
The report finds that while athletes in both countries use X to express solidarity, dissent, or loyalty, the tone and content of their engagement differ sharply. Indian sportspersons largely align with government narratives, amplifying official campaigns such as #IndiaFightsCorona and #BharatKiLaxmi, or retweeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s calls for voter participation. Their posts tend to be deferential, often using terms like “sir” and “honourable.” Only a few voices, the study notes, spoke against police violence during the CAA protests.
In contrast, American athletes were found to be far more outspoken and confrontational. Prominent NBA players such as LeBron James and coaches like Steve Kerr publicly criticised former president Donald Trump, spoke out against racism, and backed movements such as BLM and Stop Asian Hate. Their online posts frequently went beyond symbolic gestures, urging followers to vote, demand accountability, and challenge systemic injustice.
Patterns of Activism
The researchers identified four key themes shaping athlete engagement: protests, elections, gender and sexual orientation, and COVID-19.
In the US, George Floyd’s killing and the rise of #BlackLivesMatter spurred unprecedented athlete activism focused on racial injustice and police brutality. In India, however, responses to the CAA and farmers’ protests were largely subdued, with most sportspersons either remaining silent or amplifying the government’s narrative. The study cites the coordinated social media pushback against international celebrities like Rihanna and Greta Thunberg, who had expressed solidarity with India’s protesting farmers, as an example of this alignment.
During election cycles, American athletes actively mobilised around voter participation drives, with many NBA stars promoting the #MoreThanAVote campaign. Indian athletes, by contrast, limited their participation to echoing Modi’s appeals for citizens to vote, turning engagement into a largely symbolic exercise.
The gender and caste dimensions also revealed striking differences. American women athletes frequently raised issues of pay equity and gender discrimination. In India, engagement around caste was described as “fraught.” Some male athletes, such as Ravindra Jadeja, publicly displayed caste pride, while very few addressed systemic discrimination. Women athletes like Mithali Raj and Dipa Karmakar occasionally spoke about gender equality, though dissenting tones were rare.
On the pandemic, the divide persisted. While American athletes often urged masking and vaccination—even at the cost of fan backlash—Indian athletes largely repeated official slogans and campaigns without offering criticism or independent perspectives.
Institutional control and tone of discourse
The paper attributes these differences to structural and cultural factors. American athletes, backed by privately managed sports organisations, enjoy a degree of independence that allows them to critique political leaders. In India, where sports bodies are frequently headed by politicians, athletes’ careers often depend on state patronage and sponsorship, discouraging dissent and incentivising loyalty.
The tone of online engagement also underscores this divide. American athletes’ posts tend to express anger, urgency, and mobilisation. Indian athletes’ communication, by contrast, is marked by politeness, ritualised loyalty, and symbolic gestures — often confined to birthday greetings, festival wishes, or congratulatory messages for politicians.
Democratic Implications
The authors argue that the political silence of Indian sportspersons has implications beyond the playing field. While American athletes have become important voices for democratic accountability and social justice, Indian athletes, through their restraint and alignment with the state, risk reinforcing government narratives and narrowing public discourse.
“Athletes who echo government positions uncritically risk limiting public debate and weakening accountability,” the study notes.
“Conversely, athletes who use their platforms to dissent strengthen democratic engagement, though they risk trolling, loss of endorsements, or political backlash.”
The study concludes that Indian athletes are “cautious, compliant, and often co-opted,” whereas American athletes are “outspoken, confrontational, and politically active.”
This contrast, it argues, reflects how freedom, patronage, and political culture shape public expression in the two democracies.
Since the study period, the researchers note, even in the US, the space for athlete expression has started to shrink, especially amid what they call the “Trump-led clampdown.”
In India, meanwhile, the entanglement of sport and politics continues to deepen. Just days ago, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s framing of India’s Asia Cup victory over Pakistan as “Operation Sindoor on the games field” drew attention to how sports are increasingly woven into the language of nationalism and war — a reminder, the authors suggest, that even the arena of play is not immune from political power.
Titled ‘Sporting the Government: Sportspersons’ Engagement with Causes in India and the USA on Twitter,’ the study was published in Global Policy and authored by Dibyendu Mishra, Ronojoy Sen, and Joyojeet Pal. It analysed the social media activity of 200 of the most-followed sportspersons in India and the United States on X (formerly Twitter) during 2019–2020 — a period marked by the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests and the farmers’ agitation in India, and by the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and the presidential elections in the US.
The paper argues that these contrasting patterns arise from the differing political cultures and institutional contexts of the two countries. In India, where sports federations are heavily state-controlled, athletes tend to adopt a stance of compliance and deference. In contrast, the relative autonomy of American sports institutions allows athletes to act as independent and often vocal agents of dissent and democratic participation.
The authors come from diverse academic and professional backgrounds. Mishra is an independent researcher and data scientist focusing on political polarisation and misinformation; Sen is a senior research fellow at the National University of Singapore who studies Indian democracy and institutions; and Pal is an associate professor at the University of Michigan, researching the relationship between technology, democracy, and political communication.
Divergent Modes of Engagement
The report finds that while athletes in both countries use X to express solidarity, dissent, or loyalty, the tone and content of their engagement differ sharply. Indian sportspersons largely align with government narratives, amplifying official campaigns such as #IndiaFightsCorona and #BharatKiLaxmi, or retweeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s calls for voter participation. Their posts tend to be deferential, often using terms like “sir” and “honourable.” Only a few voices, the study notes, spoke against police violence during the CAA protests.
In contrast, American athletes were found to be far more outspoken and confrontational. Prominent NBA players such as LeBron James and coaches like Steve Kerr publicly criticised former president Donald Trump, spoke out against racism, and backed movements such as BLM and Stop Asian Hate. Their online posts frequently went beyond symbolic gestures, urging followers to vote, demand accountability, and challenge systemic injustice.
Patterns of Activism
The researchers identified four key themes shaping athlete engagement: protests, elections, gender and sexual orientation, and COVID-19.
In the US, George Floyd’s killing and the rise of #BlackLivesMatter spurred unprecedented athlete activism focused on racial injustice and police brutality. In India, however, responses to the CAA and farmers’ protests were largely subdued, with most sportspersons either remaining silent or amplifying the government’s narrative. The study cites the coordinated social media pushback against international celebrities like Rihanna and Greta Thunberg, who had expressed solidarity with India’s protesting farmers, as an example of this alignment.
During election cycles, American athletes actively mobilised around voter participation drives, with many NBA stars promoting the #MoreThanAVote campaign. Indian athletes, by contrast, limited their participation to echoing Modi’s appeals for citizens to vote, turning engagement into a largely symbolic exercise.
The gender and caste dimensions also revealed striking differences. American women athletes frequently raised issues of pay equity and gender discrimination. In India, engagement around caste was described as “fraught.” Some male athletes, such as Ravindra Jadeja, publicly displayed caste pride, while very few addressed systemic discrimination. Women athletes like Mithali Raj and Dipa Karmakar occasionally spoke about gender equality, though dissenting tones were rare.
On the pandemic, the divide persisted. While American athletes often urged masking and vaccination—even at the cost of fan backlash—Indian athletes largely repeated official slogans and campaigns without offering criticism or independent perspectives.
Institutional control and tone of discourse
The paper attributes these differences to structural and cultural factors. American athletes, backed by privately managed sports organisations, enjoy a degree of independence that allows them to critique political leaders. In India, where sports bodies are frequently headed by politicians, athletes’ careers often depend on state patronage and sponsorship, discouraging dissent and incentivising loyalty.
The tone of online engagement also underscores this divide. American athletes’ posts tend to express anger, urgency, and mobilisation. Indian athletes’ communication, by contrast, is marked by politeness, ritualised loyalty, and symbolic gestures — often confined to birthday greetings, festival wishes, or congratulatory messages for politicians.
Democratic Implications
The authors argue that the political silence of Indian sportspersons has implications beyond the playing field. While American athletes have become important voices for democratic accountability and social justice, Indian athletes, through their restraint and alignment with the state, risk reinforcing government narratives and narrowing public discourse.
“Athletes who echo government positions uncritically risk limiting public debate and weakening accountability,” the study notes.
“Conversely, athletes who use their platforms to dissent strengthen democratic engagement, though they risk trolling, loss of endorsements, or political backlash.”
The study concludes that Indian athletes are “cautious, compliant, and often co-opted,” whereas American athletes are “outspoken, confrontational, and politically active.”
This contrast, it argues, reflects how freedom, patronage, and political culture shape public expression in the two democracies.
Since the study period, the researchers note, even in the US, the space for athlete expression has started to shrink, especially amid what they call the “Trump-led clampdown.”
In India, meanwhile, the entanglement of sport and politics continues to deepen. Just days ago, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s framing of India’s Asia Cup victory over Pakistan as “Operation Sindoor on the games field” drew attention to how sports are increasingly woven into the language of nationalism and war — a reminder, the authors suggest, that even the arena of play is not immune from political power.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment