What I’ve noticed after two(ish)decades of following American soccer and its SGs is this:

MOST American soccer SGs (even if they claim to be apolitical) are left leaning. That is not to say they don’t have conservative members, but it is something I think we can all attest to.

MOST American PROFESSIONAL soccer owners are conservative. There aren’t a ton of Mark Cubans in MLS, USL, NASL (when it existed), or probably NISA (that last one may be untrue because I don’t know them).

By supporting a team in (particularly MLS and USL) you need to be able to come to grips that a portion of what you pay to support your team on game day or buying merch is inevitable going to go to causes your SG claims to be against.

There are soccer fans that make super anti-45 scarves and shirts to sell and donate to left leaning causes, but then drop hundreds of dollars on a game supporting a team that has an owner who is a big 45 supporter. This is not any one team, but I’d argue it is the majority.

If you are supporting your team, you are supporting the owner’s bottom line.

So you need to be able to differentiate the owner’s ownership of the team from their political opinions.

This becomes even tougher when both the SG and owner and SG members are all on Twitter. Twitter has become a place where people are more known for their partisan political profile than anything else.

If you can’t separate the owner’s opinions from their ownership, you either need to stop supporting the team or come to grips with the fact that a small percentage of your money is probably going to a cause you don’t like.

Calling out an owner on twitter for being a 45 fan or anti-LGBTQ or anti-BLM is the right thing to do (imo), but following that up with a tweet supporting your team or calling for their “independence” (no pun intended) from that owner feels duplicitous.

I don’t know the answer. There is no big revelation at the end of this thread. It’s just a thing that was going through my head this morning.