'Sportspersons in India Use Twitter to Appease Power, Not Voice Dissent,' Finds Study

New Delhi: Indian sportspersons overwhelmingly echo and amplify government messaging, often avoiding dissent, whereas their American counterparts often openly criticise leaders, mobilise around protests, and use their platforms to push for systemic change, a comparative study of 200 top athletes on X finds.

This report, 'Sporting the Government: Sportspersons' Engagement with Causes in India and the USA on Twitter,' published on Global Policy is written by Dibyendu Mishra, Ronojoy Sen, and Joyojeet Pal.

It examines how 200 of the most-followed sportspersons in India and the US engaged with politics on X. Covering tweets from 2019–2020; a period shaped by the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests and farmers’ agitation in India, and the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and the presidential elections in the USA, the study explores how sports, politics, and social media intersect.

The paper argues that these differences stem from contrasting political cultures and institutional contexts. In India, where sports bodies are state-controlled, athletes lean toward compliance and deference; in the US, relative autonomy allows athletes to act as vocal agents of dissent and democratic participation.

The authors come from different fields of expertise. Mishra is an independent researcher and data scientist, and works on political polarisation and misinformation. Sen is senior research fellow at the National University of Singapore and focuses on Indian democracy and institutions. Pal is an associate professor at the University of Michigan and studies technology’s role in democracy and politicians’ use of social media.

Also read: The Indian Cricket Team Now Functions as the BJP’s Sporting Arm

Shifting boundaries between sport and politics

In both India and the US, athletes increasingly use X to express solidarity, dissent, or loyalty; yet their approaches differ sharply. In India, athletes tend to align with the ruling party, amplifying government campaigns such as #IndiaFightsCorona and #BharatKiLaxmi, or retweeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s calls for voter mobilisation, the report finds. Their posts are typically deferential, framed with words like "sir" and "honourable". Dissent is rare, with only a handful speaking against police violence during the CAA protests.

By contrast, American athletes are far more vocal and confrontational. NBA players such as LeBron James and coaches like Steve Kerr openly criticised Donald Trump, campaigned against racism, and supported movements like BLM and Stop Asian Hate. Their tweets went beyond symbolism, often urging citizens to vote, demand accountability, and challenge systemic racism. Unlike their Indian counterparts, American athletes displayed little hesitation in opposing government leaders.

Events and patterns of engagement

The researchers identified four broad clusters shaping athlete engagement – protests, elections, gender/sexual orientation, and COVID-19.

• Protests and movements: In the US, George Floyd’s killing and the rise of #BlackLivesMatter triggered an unprecedented wave of athlete activism, targeting systemic racism and police brutality. In India, however, protests around the CAA and farmers’ agitation drew muted responses. Most athletes stayed silent or echoed government lines. A striking example was the coordinated pushback against international celebrities like Rihanna and Greta Thunberg when they expressed support for protesting farmers. 
• Elections and voting: In the US, athletes campaigned vigorously to boost voter turnout, with NBA stars rallying under hashtags such as #MoreThanAVote. Indian athletes, in contrast, restricted their involvement to amplifying Modi’s appeals, reducing participation to symbolic endorsements. 
• Gender and caste: American women athletes highlighted pay disparities and gender equity. In India, engagement on caste was fraught; while some athletes like Ravindra Jadeja publicly flaunted caste pride, few addressed systemic discrimination. Women athletes such as Mithali Raj and Dipa Karmakar spoke on gender equality, but dissent was measured and rare. 
• COVID-19: US athletes encouraged masking and vaccination, often facing backlash from fans. Indian athletes, meanwhile, largely reinforced government messaging, amplifying slogans, rituals, and symbolic campaigns rather than offering critique.

The politics of silence and subservience

The study highlights how political and institutional contexts shape athlete behaviour. In the US, where sports organisations are privately managed and relatively autonomous from the state, athletes have greater freedom to criticise political leaders. In India, by contrast, sports federations are deeply entangled with the state, with politicians often heading key institutions. This structural dependency; through patronage, sponsorship, and career opportunities, discourages dissent and incentivises alignment with ruling powers.

Tone further reveals the divide. American athletes’ tweets often convey confrontation, anger, and mobilisation. Indian athletes’ posts lean toward politeness, ritualised loyalty, and tokenism. Their engagement with politicians is frequently limited to birthday wishes, festival greetings, or congratulations, rather than substantive interventions.

Broader implications

The findings underline that sportspersons are not merely entertainers but political actors whose online voices carry real weight. In the US, athletes emerge as watchdogs and agents of dissent, expanding democratic space and mobilising public action. In India, they often act as amplifiers of government messaging, reinforcing state narratives and narrowing the scope of debate.

This divergence has significant implications for democracy. Athletes who echo government positions uncritically risk limiting public discourse and weakening accountability. Conversely, athletes who use their platforms to dissent strengthen democratic engagement, though they risk trolling, loss of endorsements, or political backlash.

Sportspersons’ political engagement is no longer peripheral; it is central to the democratic fabric of nations. The study concludes that Indian athletes are cautious, compliant, and often co-opted, while American athletes are outspoken, confrontational, and politically active. This contrast reflects how patronage, freedom, and political culture shape expression in the two democracies. 

In the time since the study took place, the space for expression in the US too has narrowed and it will be worthwhile to watch how sportspersons react to the Trump-led clampdown.

Just a few days ago, the framing of India’s Asia Cup victory over Pakistan as “Operation Sindoor on the games field” by Prime Minister Narendra Modi further underscored how sport is increasingly drawn into the rhetoric of war and nationalism. What should remain a contest of skill and spirit is instead recast as a proxy battlefield; underscoring how political power can redefine even the language of play.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.