Sports or another other platform that gains notice is a great place for social advocacy. Religious or political advocacy not do much. Teams participate in breast cancer awareness month, Black History month l, etcetera. The first shots of the Civil Rights movement were fired by the white teammates of Jackie Robinson and the O’Malley family that refused to have their guy (a sports icon even then) be treated as less than equal.
You are right about much of what you said but I adamantly disagree with sports not being a platform for trying to bring about change.
I appreciate what you are saying and agree that there is significant power in sports to challenge biases. Where we diverge is the limits of that power and how its best use. The short answer (without getting into a thesis on implicit bias, tribal wiring, religion, etc.) is that sport is an excellent vehicle to address internal overt discrimination, which helps break down external implicit bias barriers and a lousy vehicle to actively advocate for/against controversial subjects.
I'm glad you bring up Jackie Robinson, which is the perfect example of how sports should be used. When the O'Malley family approached Jackie Robinson to wear a Dodger uniform, O'Malley did so knowing that the subversive effect could only work if Robinson "played ball" so to speak by not fighting back. Just play the game and don't get baited into a fight on or off the field despite what teammates, opponents, fans, umpires, writers, broadcasters and hotel managers said or did. O'Malley understood that he could only use the Dodgers and baseball to make a subversive statement and force bigots to question core tenants of their beliefs.
Sports can only do so much (
which I think is what you are saying by differentiating "social" from "political and religious" reform). Real political and social change comes from the populace challenging the institutions. In the context of race discrimination, the real fight would be by the likes of Rosa Parks, the Greensboro Four, Linda Brown, Ruby Bridges, Dr. Martin Luther King, the millions of marchers and the attorneys that fought in the courts. Sports must set the example of inclusiveness, but shouldn't be the tip of the spear because it would lose its impact (as O'Malley and Robinson knew).
Over the years, our Nation and other Nations have attempted to use sports to drive political change and its failed. The US/International boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympic games because the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan did nothing (Soviet's did not leave until 1988/89). The 1984 "retaliatory" boycott of the 1984 Summer Olympic games by the Soviets ... just petty tit-for-tat.
In fact, prior to the 1936 Olympic games, there were calls to boycott the Berlin games. On the one side, Avery Brundage argued politics had no place in sport and on the other, Jeremiah Mahoney and Ernst Lee Jancke arguing for a boycott. Brundage won by a close vote and gave the world an opportunity to see the great Jessie Owens destroy the Olympic's racial hierarchy, humiliated Hitler and challenged stereotypes in one fell swoop. Arguably, it was Owens (not O'Malley and Robinson) that represented the first shot in destroying theories of racial superiority, even here in the U.S. and it almost didn't happen.
Religious fundamentalism presents a bigger and longer term problem. Whether its fundamentalist/political Christianity, Judaism or Islam, we have billions of folks in this world that hold beliefs that are antithetical to basic human rights. Entertainment (music, movies, sports, etc.) can and will play a subversive role by changing perspective of the members, but real change will only come when doctrinal adjustments to these various religions are made by the theocrats at the urging of the members or these religions are abandoned altogether.
History has taught us that when entertainment devices step over the line, those devices get shut off and loose their effectiveness. We see it today in various theocracies, such as, the Vatican, Iran (Shia) and Sunni political Islamic states. Ultimately, this is my concern and I don't want to see soccer or other sports engage in direct advocacy of polarizing subjects because it risks having its real power muted.
Sports is an opportunity to put everybody, regardless of race, religion, politics, creed, sexual preference, etc., on a field with everybody playing by the same rules. Its optimizes how society "should be" through the ultimate example of fair play and challenges bias, bigotry and prejudices. In sum, I don't believe we should risk muting the tremendous subversive power of sports on social issues by using it for direct advocacy.