Unlike Other Stars at the World Cup, Messi Never Talks Politics – New Lines Magazine
Spotlight
Sports,Argentina
6 min read
Unlike Other Stars at the World Cup, Messi Never Talks Politics
The Argentine soccer phenomenon about to lead his country into the semifinals does not de
Pablo AlabarcesPablo Alabarces is a distinguished professor of popular culture in the faculty of social sciences at the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina, and a senior researcher at CONICET
July 14, 2026
Share
Lionel Messi doesn’t speak. He (apparently) doesn’t read, he doesn’t write, he doesn’t watch movies (just TV series), he doesn’t visit art museums, he has no known musical tastes, and he has never once quoted a book or an author. In his rare interviews — incredibly rare, considering he is one of the most famous figures in global culture — he says nothing but platitudes. According to those few profiles, his life consists of playing soccer with his kids, playing video games, and drinking “wine with Sprite.” Even when talking about soccer, he can only produce cliches: “It was a very difficult match,” “The boys played very well,” “We need to play better.” Messi is mute. And boring, to boot.
More importantly, Messi holds no political opinions. In a career spanning over two decades (having been famous even before his 2004 Barcelona debut), he has made exactly two political statements — both in 2020, six years ago now. In an interview with Catalan journalist Jordi Évole, he claimed: “I don’t like talking about politics. I watch, I listen, I like to learn, especially from my friends. Politics has become strange to people. Rather than political parties, they look like soccer teams. People fight over them and no longer look at what good they can get from the other side. But I want the best for my country, for those who have the least to be able to have things. But I don’t have any specific political definition. I just want them to push the country forward, without stealing or doing weird things.”
Shortly before that, he did a feature with Garganta Poderosa — a magazine published by a social movement championing slum residents — in which he ventured his riskiest statement yet: “Inequality is one of the great problems of our society, and we must fight to correct it as soon as possible.” He said this, I must emphasize, to a magazine edited by social activists. That was it.
For Messi, it seems there are no ethnicities or races, no social classes or gender, no powerful or weak, no dominant or dominated, no bosses or workers. Messi lives in a perfect world, where the only conflict is a harsh foul or a missed penalty. Messi was raised on a script written by the entertainment industry: The perfect star is the one who makes no enemies. And to achieve that, you must keep quiet.
Messi, at the same time, does not experience inequality. He has never been discriminated against, exploited or oppressed: His life before he joined Barcelona’s academy at the age of 14 was that of a white, urban, middle-class child. To expect a political demand from him, even one showing solidarity with his fellow athletes, is impossible: The script does not allow for it. Messi is an individual coached to stay out of trouble.
Quite possibly, this absolute neutrality is precisely what has allowed him to become a global idol, revered by fans in every corner of the planet except one: Madrid, where they will never forgive him for playing for 21 years for their mortal enemy, Barcelona. That is the greatest conflict he has ever been dragged into, and it wasn’t even by his own choice: It was just the hand he was dealt — without it ever meaning taking a side on Catalan autonomy, a matter toward which he seemed entirely indifferent.
I couldn’t say for sure whether sports stars have overwhelmingly adopted this brand of careful neutrality; it is highly likely they have, protective of their privileges as they tend to be. The exceptions are glaring, precisely because they are exceptional. And because, one way or another, those who refuse neutrality do so because they have experienced some form of inequality or discrimination.
For example, consider Black European players, or Black players playing in Europe. As often happens with those playing in Argentina as well, they experience the massive, shameless racism of the crowds. Many of them rebel and speak out, denounce, protest, walk off the pitch, and demand change: Cameroonian star Samuel Eto’o, Athletic Bilbao’s captain Iñaki Williams, and striker Mario Balotelli in Italy are some of them. But there are also examples of white players who have shown strong solidarity with their Black teammates. One of the most notable was the German Joshua Kimmich, who, among other gestures, convinced his Bayern Munich teammates to wear T-shirts bearing the words “Black Lives Matter” during warmups.
(There is a telling fact along these lines: the invisibility of gay soccer players, who certainly exist and no one doubts it, but who cannot assert their nonconforming sexuality for fear of condemnation from the fanatics — who must reaffirm their masculinity at every turn if they want to be deemed “good fans.”)
It seems, then, that it is mostly those who experience inequality and oppression who raise their voices against injustice. This can expand into broader politics, as seen with Kylian Mbappé’s recent condemnations of both the French far right and advertisements for sports betting and junk food. Mbappé’s reasoning confirms my hypothesis: Betting and cheap food wreak havoc in neighborhoods like the one where he grew up, and the far right is profoundly racist toward the children of immigrants. In other words, once again, it is an experience lived in the flesh, rooted in poverty and race.
The same goes for the Black Brazilian player Vinícius Jr., who plays for Real Madrid and reacts emphatically and publicly to every racist attack. He even forced FIFA to introduce a new rule, known as the “Vini rule,” which penalizes any player who covers their mouth while speaking to another. In February 2026, an opponent covered his mouth, clearly to insult him. Vinícius complained to the referee that the opponent had called him a “monkey,” though no action was taken on the pitch because the insult could not be heard. Later on, the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) handed the player a six-match ban, taking the racist abuse as a given. The opponent was an Argentine playing for Portuguese side Benfica, who argued in his defense that he had used a homophobic slur rather than saying “monkey.” Homophobia, according to Gianluca Prestianni — the aggressor in question — was apparently less problematic than racism.
At this point in my argument and examples, it might seem as though political indifference or racism are inherently Argentine traits. It is worth remembering, then, that Diego Maradona is still remembered as a player and a public figure who was deeply committed politically, as I argued in a New Linespiece last May. Similarly, Lisandro Martínez, a current player on the Argentine national team, has continuously championed his working-class roots, as well as his commitment to condemning the crimes of the Argentine dictatorship and his solidarity with human rights organizations. Messi’s “neutrality” is therefore not an ironclad law; players can escape it if their class experience or political consciousness allows them to do so.
This is certainly not Messi’s case. It is not a matter of greater or lesser awareness of social inequalities or a greater or lesser commitment. It is, basically, the absence of the experience of difference and inequality. In that context, you can’t expect blood from a stone.
“Spotlight” is a newsletter about underreported cultural trends and news from around the world, emailed to subscribers twice a week. Sign up here.
