Comments
GUEST COMMENTARY - When the Los Angeles Dodgers hosted their annual Pride Night this month, they were accused by some, including Los Angeles Times columnist Dylan Hernández, of cowardice. The criticism? While celebrating LGBTQ+ inclusion, the team remained silent as federal immigration raids rocked Los Angeles, disproportionately affecting Latino families, including many of their fans.
Even after the Dodgers announced the donation of $1 million to help families impacted by ICE raids, criticism continued. It wasn’t a full-throated rejection of Donald Trump’s policies.
But the decision to remain silent and then engage with caution wasn’t cowardly. It was calculated and increasingly common for brands that have learned the hard way that corporate engagement in every political flashpoint can quickly alienate customers, erode trust, and damage a brand’s long-term value.
Since the George Floyd protests and riots in 2020, corporate America has faced enormous pressure to “take a stand” on social and political issues. Many companies did so, some authentically, while others did so opportunistically. But what followed was a sobering reality: the public’s desire for moral leadership from corporations is fickle, and backlash is often faster and louder than praise. Companies that waded into polarizing debates outside their core business functions frequently paid the price, not just in headlines, but in sales, stock performance, and reputational equity.
Anheuser-Busch learned this lesson the hard way.
Their 2023 partnership with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney wasn’t controversial because it supported LGBTQ+ inclusion. It was controversial because it didn’t align with the brand’s identity or customer base, and came across to many as sudden, inauthentic, and out of step with the Bud Light image that had been cultivated for decades. The result: an immediate and sustained backlash. Sales plummeted, boycotts erupted, and Bud Light lost its title as the best-selling beer in the U.S. Virtue signaling without credibility comes at a cost.
The Dodgers, in contrast, have earned their credibility.
They were among the first teams in Major League Baseball to host Pride Night and have since built long-standing partnerships with LGBTQ+ nonprofits. Internally, they provide meaningful resources to LGBTQ+ employees. Their actions match their messaging. They have been consistent, not performative.
But immigration policy? That’s a different arena—and the Dodgers know it.
Immigration is an emotional issue, especially in a city like Los Angeles, where many residents are directly affected. No one denies the pain and fear caused by ICE raids or dismisses the trauma experienced by families facing separation and uncertainty. However, there is a growing recognition among corporate leaders that not every social issue, no matter how urgent, requires a public statement from every major brand.
Sports franchises, especially, walk a delicate line. Their fan bases span the political spectrum. In the case of the Dodgers, more than 40% of their fans are Latino, yes—but those fans are not a monolith. Many are deeply affected by immigration enforcement. Others may support stricter enforcement. The Dodgers cannot be expected to speak on behalf of an entire community with diverse and often conflicting views.
The Dodgers’ silence is not a denial of empathy; it’s a demonstration of discipline.
Executives at major organizations today are asking difficult questions before jumping into the public discourse: Does this issue align with our brand identity? Do we have a credible track record on it? Will our statement make a difference, or will it simply provoke controversy and distract from our core mission?
That’s not evasion—it’s governance. That’s reputation management.
When Dodgers EVP and Chief Marketing Officer Lon Rosen declined to comment on the ICE raids, it wasn’t a rejection of the Latino community. It was an acknowledgment of the risks involved in speaking out on a matter where the team holds no unique expertise or prior experience. It also served as a message to stakeholders that the Dodgers are not eager to be pulled into every politically charged debate due to media provocation or social media outrage.
This restraint is part of a larger trend. Brands that once embraced a model of “speak on everything” are now recalibrating. Some have learned that even well-intentioned statements can lead to unintended consequences. Others have realized that loyalty from customers, employees, and the public is built not on how loudly a brand speaks, but on how consistently it acts.
That’s what made the Dodgers’ Pride Night powerful—it wasn’t just a one-time event. It was part of an ongoing effort. In that sense, it was exactly what it needed to be.
To criticize the team for not issuing a statement on immigration misses the broader point: organizations cannot—and should not—be all things to all people. That’s not principled leadership. That’s noise.
We live in an era where a single tweet can create a crisis, where a comment from an executive can trigger a stock drop or a viral boycott. Performative outrage dominates news cycles, and brands are expected to take a stand on every cultural controversy. However, choosing not to speak isn’t always a weakness. Sometimes, it’s the wisest course.
The Dodgers understand this. Their silence on immigration policy wasn’t a lack of courage—it was the product of lessons learned by Anheuser-Busch, Disney, Target, and dozens of other brands that have seen what happens when corporate speech exceeds the bounds of brand purpose.
The Dodgers’ job is to bring people together around baseball. At a moment of division, there’s real value in that.
(Matt Klink is the owner and president of Los Angeles-based Klink Campaigns. He is a crisis and reputation management expert. This story was first published in the California Business Journal.)
