Abstract
The legal, ethical, and societal ramifications of political activism interfering with professional sports are examined, focusing on the controversy surrounding world-class, Turkish soccer player Cengiz Ünder and the hate politics and direct racist propaganda by Armenian supporters of Los Angeles Football Club (LAFC) to cancel his transfer from Fenerbahçe. We argue that such actions constitute a blatant example of hate-driven political interference, violating fundamental principles of non-discrimination, freedom of contract, and equal opportunity in sports. Legal precedents and international human rights frameworks provide the guidance that targeted campaigns against an athlete based solely on ethnic, racial, or national identity can amount to defamation, libel, and hate crimes under U.S. and international law. Furthermore, the broader implications of allowing ethnically motivated political campaigns can dictate professional sports policies, and risk fostering divisive and exclusionary environments. These acts can lead to increase in violence and disrupt the very fabric of community.
Introduction
The transfer of athletes between clubs is typically a contractual and financial decision based on a player’s skill, team needs, and strategic considerations [1]. However, recent events involving Cengiz Ünder, a super-star Turkish footballer whose transfer to LAFC was met with protests from Armenian supporters, illustrate a troubling precedent where political grievances and historical animosities are leveraged to interfere with an athlete’s professional career [2]. The insistence on blocking Ünder’s transfer due to his Turkish heritage represents a clear case of targeted discrimination, which, under U.S. and international legal frameworks, can be classified as an act of libel, harassment, and racial discrimination [3].
Here we will discuss the ethical and legal dimensions of this case, demonstrating that such
political actions violate sports integrity [4], U.S. civil rights laws [5], and international human rights protections [6]. By allowing a player’s professional opportunities to be dictated by external political conflicts, we risk transforming sports into a battleground for historical grievances, undermining inclusivity, meritocracy, and legal protections against discrimination.
Legal Framework: Hate Speech, Libel, and Discrimination
The targeted calls for LAFC to block the Turkish-descent soccer player’s transfer because of his Turkish nationality and ethnicity fall under several legal violations in U.S. law, particularly within the frameworks of libel, hate speech, and employment discrimination.
First Amendment vs. Hate Speech
While the First Amendment protects free speech, it does not shield speech that constitutes hate speech or incitement to discrimination. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that speech inciting lawless action is not protected under the First Amendment [7]. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that speech is only not protected under the First Amendment if it is directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action; meaning that mere advocacy of violence without a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action is protected speech.
Key points about the Brandenburg decision can be summarized by the Brandenburg Test, which states that for speech to be restricted, it must be directed at inciting imminent lawless action and likely to produce such action. In this case, a Ku Klux Klan leader, Brandenburg, was convicted under an Ohio law that prohibited advocating for violence as a means of political reform. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, determining that the Ohio law was excessively broad and infringed upon the First Amendment.
When Armenian groups demand the exclusion of a Turkish player based on his ethnicity and the Court upheld laws against group libel, affirming that spreading falsehoods to harm a racial or ethnic group’s reputation can be punished which falls outside the scope of protected speech.
Additionally, in Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952), the Court upheld laws against group libel, affirming that spreading falsehoods to harm a racial or ethnic group’s reputation can be punished [8]. Given that the campaign against the Turkish-descent soccer player is based on his identity rather than any professional misconduct, the claims by Armenian groups may qualify as libelous hate speech.
U.S. Anti-Discrimination Laws
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin [9]. While Ünder is not a U.S. employee in the traditional sense, sports contracts and international employment agreements must comply with anti-discrimination protections under U.S. law. A targeted effort to bar an athlete from employment due to ethnicity would be an unlawful employment action under federal law.
Similarly, California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code § 51) prohibits
discrimination by businesses, including sports organizations, on the basis of nationality and ethnicity [10]. If LAFC were to bow to the demands of Armenian activists and cancel Ünder’s transfer solely based on his Turkish identity, it would risk violating these provisions.
Libel and Defamation in the Context of Political Hate Campaigns
Libel law in the U.S. protects individuals from false and damaging claims that harm their
reputation or professional standing. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme
Court established that defamation claims require proof of malice or reckless disregard for the truth [11]. If accusations against Ünder falsely paint him as unfit or controversial due to his nationality, they could constitute actionable libel.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has similarly ruled against ethnic discrimination and political defamation. In Perinçek v. Switzerland (2015), the ECHR ruled that labeling entire ethnic groups as guilty or politically charged was an infringement on rights to free expression and due process [12]. The same legal rationale can be applied here: attacking an athlete for his ethnicity under the guise of political activism constitutes defamation and ethnic persecution.
The Harmful Consequences of Political Hate in Sports
Undermining Meritocracy in Professional Athletics Sports are one of the few remaining arenas where talent, rather than politics, should dictate success. Ethnically motivated interference in transfers undermines this principle, as players could be excluded for reasons unrelated to their abilities. If clubs yield to such pressure, it could lead to a dangerous precedent where players of certain nationalities are blacklisted, violating international standards of fairness in professional sports.
Escalation of Ethnic Tensions in U.S. Society
Los Angeles has one of the largest Armenian and Turkish diaspora communities outside of their respective homelands. Targeting Ünder purely for being Turkish could exacerbate tensions between these communities, setting a precedent for ethnic-based exclusion in employment and public life. Allowing ethnic activism to dictate employment decisions normalizes discrimination, deepening divisions rather than fostering coexistence.
Impact on International Relations and Foreign Athletes in the U.S.
The U.S. prides itself on being an inclusive and diverse society where individuals from all
national backgrounds can pursue their careers without fear of discrimination. However, if
political activism dictates who can participate in professional sports, it could discourage
international talent from playing in the U.S., damaging its reputation as a fair and welcoming sporting environment.
The Need for Legal and Institutional Protection
Cengiz Ünder’s case is a clear example of politically motivated discrimination masquerading as activism. Denying an athlete the right to play based on his ethnic and national identity constitutes racial discrimination, libel, and an unlawful employment restriction. Sports organizations, legal institutions, and human rights advocates must take a firm stance against such hate-driven campaigns to ensure that no athlete is punished for their heritage. If left unchecked, these actions will set a dangerous precedent that erodes the integrity of professional sports, fosters ethnic tensions, and normalizes discrimination in employment. Therefore, LAFC should proceed with the transfer of Cengiz Ünder based solely on sporting considerations, resisting political interference. Legal action should be taken against individuals and groups seeking to defame or exclude Turkish athletes based on nationality, ensuring that the principles of fairness, non-discrimination, and professionalism remain the cornerstone of sports in the U.S. and beyond.
REFERENCES
1. Garcia-del-Barrio, P. and F. Pujol, Recruiting talent in a global sports market: Appraisals
of soccer players' transfer fees. Managerial Finance, 2021. 47(6): p. 789-811.
2. Karina Ponce, C.R. Los Angeles Soccer Club’s signing of Turkish Player Upsets
Armenian Fans. 2025 [cited 2025 2/18/2025]; Available from:
https://www.thecaliforniacourier.com/los-angeles-soccer-clubs-signing-of-turkish-player-
upsets-armenian-fans/.
3. Gardiner, S. and R. Welch, Sport, racism and the limits of ‘colour blind’law, in Race',
Sport and British Society. 2002, Routledge. p. 155-172.
4. Grix, J. and M. James, The politicisation of sport and the principle of political neutrality: a
contradiction in terms? The International Sports Law Journal, 2024. 24(1): p. 68-77.
5. Schlerf, J.M. The Intersection of Sports, Social Justice and the Law. Business Law
Today 2022 25 March 2022 [cited 2025 18 February]; Available from:
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/business-law-today/2022-
april/the-intersection-of-sports-social-justice-and-the-law/?login.
6. Bayle, E., Governance, Regulation and Management of Global Sport Organisations.
2025: Taylor & Francis.
7. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). [cited 2025 18 February]; Available from:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/.
8. Barbas, S., The Story of Beauharnais v. Illinois. Journal of Free Speech Law, 2023. 2(2).
9. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [cited 2025 18 February]; Available from:
https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964.
10. Unruh Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code Section 51). [cited 2025 18 February];
Available from: California Civil Code Section 51.
11. New York Times Company v. Sullivan. [cited 2025 18 February]; Available from:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39.
12. CASE OF PERİNÇEK v. SWITZERLAND. [cited 2025 18 February]; Available from:
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-139724%22]}.